Packer16

IMO the issue with most homebuilders is they are in two businesses. One, homebuilding, which can be a good business & land banking, a poor business. NVR is the US is the only homebuilder that has optioned the land so they have primarily a good business. Shinoken in Japan has a good business also as it sell the homes to a REIT after development & get recurring management revenues also. The only other firm in the US similar to NVR is Dreamfinders but it has lower inv turns & less local economies of scale (margins are about 50% less) than NVR. One way to compare the mix of businesses is to look at inventory turns. For most US builders, the turns are less than 1, for NVR they are 3.9, DFH 2.3 and Shinokin 2.4. Margins measure local economies of scale. Another way to see long-term returns is by looking at LT charts. Look at homebuilders & the only one with high RoEs & the stock price moving up cycle over cycle is NVR. Some of the others have gone up 4x since 2011 but NVR has gone us more than 7x. Packer

It does have alot of data on each name which is nice screen for more deep dives.

IMO there are 2 factors most forget when talking about debt. First, the debt is the first claim (via taxes) on the economy of the country. As long as the country is viable, the debt never has to be repaid but just serviced. Also, in the case of large domestic debt countries (incl US), the debt of a country is the lowest risk asset available to investors. These are the reasons why Japan will not explode until either there savings disappear and/or there economy (GDP) declines sharply & permanently. I am not saying changes in financial conditions will not effect the currency on the edges but in the currency game you are compared to the next best alternative & at this point all large alternative are worse. Packer

I think it reflects the reality today. To expect the system to blow up is the pessimistic IMO. The government debt is different than credit card debt because someday the CC holder will die but not the US. If the US dies, then there will be bigger problems than all of our portfolios. The fear of the pessimistic case clearly is driving bitcoin & gold but there is a large opportunity cost to holding gold/bitcoin versus CF generating asset like stocks & real estate. Packer

The exit is to pay down the debt over time. This will reduce growth over time. We have seen the government debt go up but personal debt go down. Worse come to worse there will be high taxes on either high income individuals or large companies as the first lien is called. However, since most US debt is owned by US citizens most if not all the debt can be rolled indefinitely. This is what is happening to Japan. Watch Japan for clues to how a large internally owned debt is dealt with. Given the advances in technology & supply, we can monetize the debt with low/modest inflation. We have not reached the point where debt has crowded out investment as real rates are very low. As outlined in the Fisher paper, as long as the debt is being serviced, any new money printed will decrease velocity thus no inflation & more deflation as aggregate demand is reduced to service/payback the debt. Packer

When you look at the US debt, the collateral for the US debt is the US economy not just the US government as the Federal gov't can tax to get revenue (so it has a first lien against all cash flows the US economy generates) We have less debt than either Japan or Europe. So they will be the test for high debt servicing. IMO we will not have any problems unless govt's decide to not pay debts which would imply that their first lien is impaired in some way. Debt reduces growth due to the cost of servicing the debt/repayment versus consumption. Given the low cost of debt (& the continued expectations of this as long as people repay the debt), the servicing cost is low. We will continue to have deflation as long a debt repayment occurs. Lacy Hunt/Irving Fisher have a good framework to examine debt crises historically. The podcast below outlines this framework along with Fisher's paper: https://ttmygh.podbean.com/e/teg_0006/ https://fraser.stlouisfed.org/files/docs/meltzer/fisdeb33.pdf As to innovation, innovation is the result of R&D & investment in intangible vs. tangible assets. This investment is a cost according to accounting versus an investment. The US investment in tangible & intangibles asset has increased from the low 20% of GDP in the late 70s to the mid 20% now. The mix has changed from 14% tangible/8% intangible to 10% tangible/16% intangible. So US investment is still robust. A big use of tangible assets going forward will be the rollout of a renewable energy infrastructure so tangible asset investment should go up going forward. Packer

Thus the discount that will only close if BIP can be converted to BIPC. Packer

I think BIPC can be included in indices vs. exclusion of BIP. Given the greater importance of indices this should cause BIPC to trade higher. If there was some type of exchangability should reduce the discount. Packer

I am not sure the next FAANG will be from technology. If you look 10 years from 2000 many of the invincible tech names in the top 10 firms were gone. Why? Due to intense competition reducing share/profits. IMO there are rare profit pools that can last more than 10 years & to continue to grow into valuations requires entering new markets where incumbents know your game. IMO the international opportunities will disappoint also as online media & commerce will tilt towards local champions more easily taxed & can provide jobs for local governments. Packer

Another trend I have seen is although NYC is still the largest metro/city you have many other Southern Cities (Atlanta, Houston, Miami & Dallas for instance) growing to the point where they are maybe 30 - 40% of the size of NYC & NYC is declining in population. These cities may be closer to providing alternatives than maybe even 10 years ago if NYC safety declines. Packer

Lt Lu has a pretty good historical view of China/US per Bill's comments above, here: https://uploads-ssl.webflow.com/5ef3c7300432b40ed865991a/5ef3c7300432b4f82e659975_Discussions%20About%20Modernization%20-%20A%20Look%20at%20the%20Future%20of%20Sino-US%20Relations.pdf His basic conclusion is China needs to determine if they want to be a part of the American Order (democratic order established & grown after WWII) or tread their own path with a smaller group of countries that will always be at a disadvantage to the much larger US/Europe/Japan democratic world. Packer

They redeemed out the founder/major shareholder so this name may be up for sale or other types of restructuring moves.

I am referring to the 60m A units sold for cash of $88m per the May 7th press release. That leaves 12% in the remaining A units plus 16% owned by insiders so 28% owned by insiders at this point versus 83% before the deal (80% A units) plus 3.2% of remaining 20%. Packer

I think a big block of the insider ownership was purchased so now the public co owns like 80%+ of the underlying asset manager. My question is why did the insider sell at such a low price if this is worth so much? Packer

One potential issue IMO is globally each country is going to want its local champion in media & the internet is going to fragment into country specific markets. This is happening in India & China and it is a matter of time that it spreads to the rest of the world. Relying on global growth & scale can be more complicated & less profitable than in the US. The other question about Netflix is they have a monetization disadvantage versus others like Disney & the other firms who can monetize content outside of streaming & for Netflix to build that would be very expensive. IMO I think the idea of them somehow decreasing spend & keeping the train going (growth) is a little pie in the sky & you can see that in the credit ratings for its debt BB- implying a large probability of default (10% @ 5yrs & 17% @ 10 yrs). Packer