Spekulatius

It's worth much less than people think. I believe that CBI can easily become a Donut, even when they win the lawsuit against Westinghouse. https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4143&mn=389429&pt=msg&mid=17232628

KHC is not inherently slow growth. It is no growth because it has under invested in growth for a long time. Unilever and Nestlé have better growth and that is one reason why 3G wants to buy Unilever.

I'd like the military to be robotized. Dangerous job, expensive healthcare, PSTD. Money shouldn't be much of an issue and it is clearly something where robots do the job safer. 8)

Costco certainly does not carry closely to expiration date from groceries. The quality of Costco's groceries is high and we like their meats and veggies in particular.

The recent example of UNH of firing ESRX, entirely, despite being sole supplier/service is a clear sign, that ESRX services are not that proprietary and their platform value is not that high. I think most of their values lies in their size and economies of scale. You think it is things like above (I an can fire my largest/ sole supplier) that are tell tale signs and many that just focus on metrics miss them. I work in another industry, but I can tell you that firing a sole supplier of that scale is typically impossible. The fact that it is possible in UNH case, is a tell tale sign for ESRX. I think ESRX scaling advantage is countered by the insurers consolidating as well. I also think that the industry will wake up and to the fact that from a customers perspective, integrating the pharmacy is more convenient and probably also enables better outcome. From my personal experience, Kaisers totally integrated systems beats all those patchwork systems that have seen so far. I am not sure, I see totally integrated systems dominating, but for me, interesting the pharmacy in the insurer is a no brainer.

The answer is 42:http://hitchhikers.wikia.com/wiki/42

Amazing how HCG can falter that quickly, even though there is no downturn in Canadian real estate yet. Imagine the fun when real estate prices take a nosedive.

+1 for putting the math on SRG value added developments here in writing.

I had a standing sales order at $17.1 and the shares went out the door. Now, I am looking at the less enviable task replace my holding in WPT? Candidates are EEQ (MLP from ENB), ENB (i own already some ENB and EEQ, would just buy more, BPL (yielding 7.6% ) and somewhat solid and perhaps EPD if goes a bit lower. I had a decent chunk of WPT, simple as low risk parking investment, yielding 8%. From the above, some come close in yield (EEQ exceed it), but they are all levered, while WPT had no debt whatsoever. I hate this takeout.

I think most will agree on one thing - the future will look different than anyone envisions it.

Nuclear power <> fusion. Nuclear power is solved from a technical POV since the 1950's. I agree on autonomous driving and I think we will see that before the majority of the cars will be electric. I am not sure, if the ownership model will change. Some things change much slower than I think they would. When online banking came out in the late 90's, I really thought that this would make bank branches obsolete, but here we are 20 years later and we still have more branches l than back then ( I think). And that is just with a fungible asset ( money) that can easily be virtualized and moved around online.

I bet the presentations about nuclear power in the 50's looked the same. Some changes occur faster than anyone expects, and some slower. Sheba has cherry picked examples. I also think that his cost estimates for electric vehicles (repair costs etc) as well as for current vehicles are way off, just to pick some details.

CFO 's leaving are a huge red flag, much more so than CEO'S leaving. They tend to be the best informed rats, that leave a sinking ship first. Numbers, numbers...

Mentioned in an earlier post that she's trying to pay for tuition. Can't see how this ends poorly ::) . Either college is all paid for or no college. Assume I have $7.50 in one preferred share. I sell and buy 3 common shares instead. In few weeks, the pfds jumps to $14.00 and common jumps to only $7.50. I sell my common shares for $22.50. Is $22.50 better or $14.00? Even today if I had any preferred left, I would convert to commons at these prices. I thought you all were smarter than me. ok., assume common only goes up to 4.00 and pfds to $9.00. I still have $12.00 rather than $9.00. Let’s poke holes in my analysis and if I made a stupid decision. I want the money now to pay for education and not wait 10 years. why are you not ready to convert to commons ? The folks here are probabły smarter than you. You made a scenario with made up numbers where common made up better than preferred, but that does not tell us anything. Preferred are senior in the capital structure to common, so there is a possibility that preferred get made up whole and common could get nothing. FWIW, I have not met many people in my life that won money gambling just when they needed it.

Yes, that's correct for the dialysis business at least. They make their profits from private insured patients (%10 of total), the government paid patient actually lose a bit of money, but also ensure coverage of fixed costs.

Exactly... You can keep $20 billion in cash sitting in a bank account, which is a sensible thing to do, but why does that $20 billion need to be equity? You can borrow money at probably 5% and use it to retire stock yielding 20%. As long as it's long term, it still gives you the liquidity you need to survive a downturn. It is not equity that is funding the cash. Accounts Payable is $17 billion more than Accounts Receivable. So $17 billion is essentially a loan from its suppliers. A form of debt. Vinod Suppliers will see the debt too and probably demand quicker payment or keep Gm on a shorter leash in terms of payment terms. GM financial will find it tougher to finance itself. The gains from issuing debt will not be as large as they seem. Money is fungible. You can say it is working capital funding the cash balance, but there is also $46 billion in shareholders equity. Bottom line is, when your stock is trading at 5x earnings and you can borrow at MSD% fixed for long periods of time, it doesn't make any sense to have so much net liquidity when you can achieve the same goal (a cash cushion) with less equity. They have $23B in cash and $12B in long term debt. GM Corp debt maturing 2035 is yielding 5%! Raising another $10B would obviously raise that, but surely you don't need 20 years of term for what is basically a really expensive line of credit to provide short-term liquidity for a couple years in the event of a crisis. Let's say GM earns $9 billion in 2017 (consensus). There are 1.532B shares outstanding. A $10B debt-financed buyback would reduce shares outstanding to 1,226MM, and increase after-tax interest expense by $390MM (assuming 6% interest). $8,610MM / 1,226MM = $7.02/share. We've just increased EPS by ~20% and had very limited impact on the resiliency of the business in a crisis.

Anyone noticed the following footnote in CBI's last quarterly report? $500M in approved change order (up from $120M) is enough to go be me shivers and certainly one reason why the stock is down. So, basically they try to recognize revenue for changes in the scope of their projects, that they deem necessary, but that the customer has not approved. Some are in arbitration -hmmm. They recognized the work done related to those as revenue, but of course the customer had not paid yet and in my opinion, the fact that these snowball is very very bad news. I think we will some big charges soon, as it becomes clear that some of these claims will not be paid. Management is playing pretend and extend here, imo. Unapproved Change Orders, Claims and Incentives[/size]—At [/size]March 31, 2017[/size] and [/size]December 31, 2016[/size], we had unapproved change orders and claims included in project price totaling approximately [/size]$505,800[/size] and [/size]$121,100[/size], respectively, for projects within our Engineering & Construction and Fabrication Services operating groups. Our unapproved change orders and claims at March 31, 2017 are primarily related to a proportionately consolidated joint venture project and a consolidated joint venture project. The change orders and claims are primarily related to schedule related delays, fabrication activities and disputes regarding certain reimbursable billings. Approximately [/size]$166,000[/size] of the unapproved change orders and claims are subject to arbitration proceedings that are in the early stages and the remainder are subject to early commercial discussions. At [/size]March 31, 2017[/size] and [/size]December 31, 2016[/size], we also had incentives included in project price of approximately [/size]$38,200[/size] and [/size]$43,000[/size], respectively, for projects within our Engineering & Construction and Fabrication Services operating groups. Of the aforementioned unapproved change orders, claims and incentives, approximately [/size]$454,300[/size] had been recognized as revenue on a cumulative POC basis through [/size]March 31, 2017[/size]. [/size]

Aren't these cryptocurrencies inflationary? As I understand that it, mining these cryptocurrencies does not create any real value, so basically, a fan cryptocurrency has a value, this means that the value of the currency we currently own is devalued. Right now, the total value of the crypto currency creates an s probably still too small to matter, but if it becomes significant, there should be an inflationary impact on the economies. I also think that the government eventually will crack down on this for above reason and the ease to use it for money laundry. Sure, the government mayn't be able to control who owns it or who uses it, but if they make the use of he cryptocurrency unlawful, then the cryptocurrency would become a Mafia currency of some sort and be worth far less for most of us. I think it is just a matter of time when this get regulated to some extend. This is now like the "Wild West", but eventually, the Wild West was ruled by law as well.

I think it is clear from the latest news article SHLD (Eddies not needing more customers, the supplier woes) that the pressure ion SHLD is mounting tremendously. It is a very bad sign, if you suppliers want to fire you to for greener pastures. Usually it is the other way around - think about this for a while.... The clock is ticking - I don't think they will make it more than 12 month from here - my best guess is that they file before or after Xmas season.

I feel in some cases, people put too much into a simple quip like this 50%/year, which I doubt is doable consistently. I think the point is that a nimble manager can make much higher returns with small sums of money than with large sums. I think this is all to it. There is no reason to hang onto each word from the masters like it is a hidden wisdom.

I feel that folks start to underestimate the impact of a downturn in the Automobile cycle for the companies involved. It is not just the volume that will be reduced, ithe pricing/margins will be hit as well. Same for the auto manufacture res as well,especially mass market like GM, F, where incentives will go up. I have heard stories about low breakeven points and not making losses in a down cycle since the early 80's and we all know what happened several times over. AXL after the last acquisition carries quite a bit of debt - 3.5x EBITDA. I would also worry that they are overearning a bit because the Mexican Peso is so low. My preference to AXL is just bc I've had success with it in the past but doesn't mean it will be included in the basket when the time comes. The fear of bankruptcy can do wonders to a stock price. Best time to buy these companies tend to be when everyone else thinks you're crazy and you agree with them bc just the thought of buying it makes your stomach roll. Comparing numbers and ratios into one of the longest bull markets does not provide any insight for what will happen when the automotive cycle turns. Once people start pulling back on car purchases the losses at these companies compound very quickly.

Yes, it created wealth *at the top end* but it also meant a big chunk of the population were disincentivised and unproductive. If it was such a good system for creating wealth, there's a decent chance the south would have been wealthy enough to beat the north. In fact, the north's economy dramatically outperformed the south's and was a major factor in winning the war. Similarly if slavery was an effective economic system great wealth would have been created in feudal Europe; in fact, wealth creation exploded as we moved away from the feudal system. Slavery is a great system for moving wealth from the poor to the rich; it is not a great system for creating wealth, not compared to free trade. Ha! Fair. Although everything is relative: what I meant was that America didn't start with a feudal system and have to waste centuries persuading the lords to give up their serfs. +1 The problem with slavery is that so much human capital get's underutilized. Since sales have no prospects, their productivity is low and you lose the human capital of smart and ingenious people's with a lot of skill just working the cotton fields. The main reason the south lost was because the North had the numbers and the industrial capacity that the south could never build, partly because of slavery

I would drop FB first without hesitation, AMZN would be next. Ironically, the hardest one for me to drop would be MSFT, mostly because I use Excel a lot for work.

Nice... “I was there the other day and this very nice portfolio manager—very smart, polished, generous, nice man. Assistant—very nice, polished, intelligent woman. And he said, ‘Well, you know, since we outperform in my fund, which has $100 billion dollars, by 2 percentage points a year…’ I raised my eyebrow. I just looked at him for a while. He said, ‘Well, I mean that we outperform our competitors by 2 percentage points a year.’ And I said, ‘Yes, and that overperformance—a lot of it was a long time ago when you had way less money.’ And there was another horrified pause and finally the woman says, ‘He’s on to us.'” -Charlie Munger I would be more telling for investors how much net money in excess of benchmark they made for their investors , net of fees. It does not really help their investors in aggregate, when they made 100% returns with one million (most of that being their own) and then vastly underperform when they grow their AUM to one billion, just to spit out some arbitrary numbers. The aggregate return for investors (net of fees) minibus the returns of the SP500 benchmark for like timeframes would probably show that on aggregate, the contribution of many money managers, even of those with good looking track records, is quite the negative.

Scotty is probably getting stoned as I write this.