Edward

55.8% in 2020, net of fees. Some of it because I loaded up on some non growing but solid companies on the cheap, such as ABR, AER. Most of the return was mainly good positioning in some great small growing businesses that benefited from the disruption. These were long term holdings before 2020.

The trust I propose has 3 main entities involved in the trust. A trustee, a protector, and a money manager. The trustee can replace the money manager and the protector can replace the trustee. So in case someone messes up too much he can be replaced. If you have some specific offers for a mechanism to prevent abuse beyond that, I will be happy to take notes. I don't actually care that much if I am the money manager or not, I care more about getting this thing running properly as a viable financial product.

Hello Fellow Investors, I want to have a discussion regarding an idea I've had that I think that can be a big benefit to men (and some women) in today's society. One big problem men have is that their wealth is exposed the moment they have any kind of contact with women due to the bias of most first world legal systems. This makes some men avoid any contact altogether (Turd Flinging Monkey for example). I think I might have a solution that would allow men to have their cake and it it too to a large extent, i.e. date women, even marry them (god forbid ;)) and still keep their assets mostly intact. The way this is done is by setting up a Trust Fund on a mutual basis. One fund, many beneficiaries - essentially a mutual fund, but with certain protections from creditors/divorce/whatever. The trust will be irrevocable, and located offshore. This has a few important benefits: 1. Set up and maintenance expenses are spread over many members. This is especially important if you have only 50-100K $ in assets. It opens the door early and protects you while you are building your wealth, without breaking the bank. 2. The assets will be professionally invested, and the expenses paid from the profits. This is something I have personal expertise in, with moderate success over the past decade. 3. Being offshore and in an irrevocable trust, your money will be protected in 99% of bad cases. I leave 1% in case you are Tony Montana or Bin Laden - can't really help you then. 4. It allows you to have certain tax benefits, such as capital gains tax deferral and lower effective tax rate in case of drawing an annuity. 5. Your girlfriends and relatives will not nag for money anymore, and won't be able to get to it. Same for your local legal system. 6. You can date anyone you like, for as long as you like, and choose your financial exposure to the fallout. Think of it as a financial condom. 7. No need to get permission from any third parties, unlike with prenups. This has the effect of keeping your wealth both secure and secret. Prenups often reveal too much and also don't always hold up in court. 8. If you decide to live/retire abroad, you don't have to move your money. 9. You can feel the smug satisfaction of being secure and also contributing to the security of others. So that is the summary of the offer. I would be happy to answer questions and get specific feedback that can improve the product before launch. I also thought of a name - the Molon labe Trust. I think it's fitting. Discuss.

Personally I view tea as a commodity product. Sure there are blends but you eventually figure out that it's green tea with some flavor an just get some green tea in bulk. I have doubts.

Help me to understand something. These guys were never really profitable, however the company is still worth 50M$ on 200M$ sales. And this is attractive why?

Some background and my 2 cents based on personal experience. I have been managing money for others starting in 2008-9 when a few acquaintances asked me to in a similar manner. By then I have been managing my own money for several years. In 2011 I transitioned all clients into a fund and not accepting separate portfolios to manage. It is much easier and simpler. I would only manage money for people if it was as part of building a record for yourself as an investment professional. If it is just casual, don't do it. If someone wants me to manage his money and he is not a good fit for being a long term investor in the fund, I tell him to put all excess money into Berkshire (I do not trust indexing). I also tell him that after he does that he will become curious as to what exactly Berkshire is, so I also send him the link to the annual letters. Works wonders really with some people, but most just leave me alone and buy real estate or something. Regarding managing money for friends and family, it can be a very good or a very bad idea. You have to spend some thought on how to manage the relationship. Personally I recognise that with family it's different, so I do it on the condition they don't ask any questions other maybe once a year asking how much they have, and I also have their funds (my brother's and my grandmother's) on my own name in trust. With friends I treat them as normal clients - Annual report once a year, etc. Anyone that asks too many non-constructive questions or behaves erratically, I fire. Meaning they get their money back. I do not deal with clients that get jumpy if the market drops 30%. In April, I had one withdrawal that was not related to the downturn (a previously planned real estate transaction), and two clients added more. Almost nobody called to ask how the portfolio is doing. It's a long term game for most and they just don't care as they see performance as my problem to worry about and not theirs. As a result I have a relaxed experience and can get some results (we are up 50% YTD). So it can be a pleasure or a nightmare depending primarily on you. If you do not manage client relationships properly it will end badly.

Bad assumption on my part - https://www.business.com/articles/10-of-the-largest-ecommerce-markets-in-the-world-b/ The UK has higher online retail share than the US. A bigger market though.

The way I see it, the moment you have even a 1-2% of drag, a discount is warranted on the Equity. In this case, the expenses are 800K CAD, which even in a 10M equity scenario is an 8% drag. So it wouldn't be the normal 10-20% discount to book value but something crazy probably, like 50% or less. I manage a small fund and if I had fixed costs like that, I wouldn't feel comfortable with anything less than a 100M$ assets under management, much less 10M$. It's not like someone can promise me consistent 20% returns, so an 8% drag might be reasonable under the circumstances. If I can invest in Berkshire and get me 8-10% semi-consistently, it's some tough competition. Only way to compete with the Berkshire alternative in my opinion is to get the fixed costs to under 0.5% first, then do performance fees only. That's assuming the return is there to begin with.

In the US there are laws in many states that prohibit direct selling. You have to have 3 tiers - manufacturer, wholesaler, retailer. Naked goes around a few of those by designating itself as a manufacturer (winery) in some cases, in others they have a deal with a passive partner that gives them access as a flow through. The US market has high pricing for many wines so margins are better for Naked. Also growth is higher as Americans are more used to buying online compared with the UK.

I'm talking about Equity, not Market cap. Can't pay people in Market cap. Premier Diversified Holdings had just under 400K canadian dollars in Equity in June 30 2020. Total assets just under 3M. Edit: The corporate expense annual run rate seems like 700-800K canadian dollars. It is obviously too much for the size.

The big auto companies have to stay somewhat in all technologies that get even a little bit of media attention because for them, it's an advertising technique and an insurance policy. They are not serious about it financially.

I think craft beer and small wine producers are a nice niche in the market and has always been around. Some people like something new that's not another Heineken.

The reason is that they invest too much resources into dealing with costumers and the hosts. I run an Airbnb and in my experience, Nooking.com are assholes but they nailed the formula - take minimum responsibility, don't spend too much time on the user experience, just keep churning them deals. In contrast, Airbnb are very friendly, try to solve a lot of problems and even compensate guests if they are not happy. I am no longer dealing with Booking.com buy I can appreciate their focus on actually making some money.

Bottom line here seems to be that for a small listed company, the minimum expenses are just too much. I believe Steven Kiel mentioned that for his company, it is 400K$ just minimum corporate expenses per year to keep up the corporate structure. For a company that has say 10M$ in Equity, that is a 4% headwind right there, and this is before management gets paid. So I don't know how you can expect out sized returns in this scenario.

I would appreciate it if someone can explain to me how is this company going to grow if they are selling less and less iphone units for 3 years in a row. So far raising unit prices and monetizing apps worked to stem the bleeding, but selling apps is also dependent on user base and you can grow said base by selling less phones.