Gregmal

Dimon is a champ. Hands down one of the best CEOs/leaders in the world. He is 100% right.

North NJ and South FL

I would imagine the same is largely true of nurses. Some people just like to complain. It's also kind of cool now a days to be self righteous and a PC police officer. The other day I actually had someone argue with me that woman typically having smaller feet than men isnt an evolutionary byproduct of their environment; an advantage allowing them to get closer to the sink and as such, why they are better at washing dishes... (kidding, of course)

How liquid are these shares? I would imagine not at all. Is it OTC? It sounds interesting and heck a 10% position is less than $1m so if the shares are liquid it wouldnt be hard to get a good 10%+. I would caution that these smaller cap companies that look real cheap and simply need changes to management are a lot more common than everyone thinks. And they are almost always cheap for the reason that management has their claws in deep and has the golden goose well protected.

I know the most common answer is BRK, but otherwise, what if anything do you buy to achieve the best "lazy" return? Most folks I would imagine would be suited to take Buffett's advice and just buy the SPY. Within the SPY however are a lot of different companies and at this stage of the game, and given what I view as a kind of inflection point in terms of "old economy" companies and "new economy" companies (this transition is clearly accelerating and the whole Amazon effect on retail is really just the tip of the iceberg) wouldn't it be more efficient to avoid the glut of companies that are within the index that could be labelled as either obviously overvalued or at-risk of serious disruption? And while even BRK owns some great businesses that aren't going away anytime soon, I would still label a lot of them as old economy. As such my own intuition and gut feel is that out performance (similar to the Scott Hall discussions of value vs growth) would come from investing in some sort of proxy for the future economy. Something that will capture the rewards of either a stagnant or growing economy, meanwhile still hold up and come out stronger with any recession. Again, an index fund, but better. For me, I find GOOG to fit this perfectly. While search/ad is the core business, GOOG is so well connected and innovative that they will without question have a hand in shaping the future and capturing the things that drive us there. Not only that, but they easily have the cash to make these investments, and are more or less untouchable in terms of competition(anti trust is probably the biggest threat). Would be interested in hearing what/if anything people use as their lazy, just chuck money somewhere and dollar cost average vehicle.

I was going to comment but forgot, but I've bought all the mattresses for my house through Costco. Paid I think $1600 for a King and a Queen. Essentially, Costco is in the ballpark enough with pricing that I can sleep. On a $900 mattress, maybe I can spend lots of time trying to find it for $800, but I know what I'm getting more or less so its more convenient to just accept getting a good-average price thru them. Not like a $4,500 mattress that I'll find $1,500 cheaper somewhere else. Found the same thing with patio furniture, some furniture, and even some more expensive tools/home maintenance equipment. With Costco I know I'm getting a quality item, if not their return policy is excellent, and I'm getting a good price. Saves lots of time and energy

This x100. I have a good friend who in his mid 20's settled in Pittsburgh. Bought his place in cash, and then kind of started shaping the rest of his life there. The freedom he had from having very little overhead was incredible. Like under $1,200 a month with 25% being discretionary spend. Once you remove the colossal cloud that is a need for money from what drives you, your quality of life is so much higher. The wisest financial thing to do would be to leverage it and keep your capital. But the problem with that is it forces you to keep running in the hamster wheel. If I have $1m USD and own my primary residence and 2 income properties in cash, I don't really need to do anything I don't want to, outside of cover the basic necessities which would be minimal if anything once factoring in rental income. If with the same $1m USD I own my home, a vacation home, and 5 condos all about 20% LTV, every month for the next few decades I need to keep grinding along to cover those costs. If you like playing that game(some do) thats fine. But money isn't everything and having enough of it to provide for yourself and your family an adequate lifestyle brings one freedom. That equation essentially comes down to (money in - money going out > 0). Theres different ways to get the but the easiest is reducing monthly expenses and for most the mortgage is the largest. On the other hand, is your objective in life is the pursuit of money, well, lever up.

God, add this to the list. Just like the threads on politics, there's 3 types of commenters. The genuinely curious, the instigators, and the "oh no we can't talk about this" crybaby bunch. I didn't think the topic is out of line. It's a pretty fascinating subject matter actually when you start looking at the psychology of it and specifically if certain types of temperaments are more prevalent. As someone mentioned, I've met some extremely bright women whom kick ass when it comes to risk management. I've run into a number of female investors who seem just as capable as the men I know. They're just much rarer to find and I personally know and communicate predominantly with men. This was a male dominated business for a long time; this shouldn't be shocking to anyone. I think the bigger issue is recognizing the skew in numbers, and then realizing that investing as a professional takes a certain mindset that hardly comes natural for most. As I mentioned in my first post, the worst investors I've ever met are men. Probably the entire top and bottom 10. It's no slight to any woman out there. It's completely unrelated actually. Just a bi-product of their being more men in the financial world, and as a result the people whom are promotional and well known or even infamous, thus tend to be men.

For a market that is cruising and at all time highs, I think it's super important to note the stealth corrections that have taken place over the past few years in a number of sectors. Commodities, oil, biotech, social media, REITS, retail. This one has all the markings of the next one to get hit.

Just from my own personal experience. The smartest women I know let men handle investing for them. The smartest men I know, some are very good at investing, some are very bad at investing, some let other people handle investing for them. Wouldn't read too much into either though.

Looks like this is done.

I've had pretty solid results with cars. Outside of my first one where I was 23 and wanted an Audi and just walked into the dealership and said if you can get this to my office by 4pm I'll take it. Stupidity. Since I've bought 3 cars. What I've found is that bringing a trade-in always helps. Adds another area where you can negotiate. Also typically from August thru EOY they get very promotional. I've seen some utterly ridiculous deals advertised, ie brand new Jeep Grand Cherokee lease for $175 a month. Of course its a bait and switch, but walking in there and pointing to a paper saying "this is what you advertised, and this is what I'll pay, not a penny more" gets things done, IF you make it clear to them you already have a car, do not need a new one, and are more than willing to walk out the door(and actually walk out the door).

This may sound more harsh then I intend it to be so don't take it the wrong way. But this sort of thinking is a big part of the problem along with "market prices" for tuition thinking. I'd say that the people going into these schools cannot make informed decisions. Part of the problem is the everyone is special and you can be what you want to be bullshit. But also that these students are pretty young and not all have the ability to make the right decision because of youth/inexperience/etc. Furthermore, the biggest part of the problem is that they don't have the information to make an informed decision. For example they think they're gonna make 80-90k 3 years out of school. As DTEJD said here often that's wrong they'll make 40. But they don't know that. Also since the schools became de facto business they market to these kids pretty aggressively and throw a lot of bullshit their way. The employment and salary stats they publish are also cooked which contributes the misinformation. I know a couple of very reputable business schools that flat out lie in their stats. If the reputable schools do it you can bet your ass the lower ones are doing it "bigly". But sure it's the kids' fault they don't know any of this. Why should the schools bear any responsibility. If we follow this path then why do the schools even need admission departments? Not taken the wrong way at all. Open dialogue is great and honestly this IS a big issue facing future generations and imo a worthwhile discussion; not just the law schools either, but universities as a whole. In regards to your points, I wouldn't necessarily disagree, the schools need to be reigned in for sure. But I also think this just excuses people not being diligent. If I buy Company XYZ stock, I damn well better be doing more than just reading the Company's investor packet... Same applies here. Smarter people(especially the type that one would think fall into the category of lawyer capable people) are typically very curious and inquisitive. They are critical. Naive generally wouldn't be a word to describe a person with the skill set needed to pursue a law degree. There is also a sense of entitlement that comes with taking these schools at their word. I should be a lawyer, despite perhaps inferior marks. I should have someone offer me 80k/year once I graduate. But I've never met anyone successful who wholly carries this mentality around that things will just be given to them. No one in their right mind should really think they are coming out of a mid tier school and starting at Baker McKenzie. That would be like graduating from Elon in SC with a 3.5 in Business Administration and expecting a job in investment banking at GS. Outside of the bigger name firms in bigger cities, its small and mid tier firms and associates typically start at 35-60k a year if they are lucky. This is not hard material to find. Otherwise, your only option is going out on your own, which is a roll of the dice and typically even there, you dont make shit for several years. Perhaps getting long winded, but this truly is a fascinating subject to me because of its far reaching and treacherous ramifications. I originally looked into law. Growing up I always wanted to be a lawyer. I went to a small, typical rich kid, 4 year school. I looked at the most popular majors for law school students at the time and picked two, history and English to double major in and graduated with a 3.9. I scored mid 160s on LSAT. Then, among several things, the financial crisis occurred and the idea of spending 3 more years in school, accumulating 150-200k in debt, and then having to be a slave at 50k/yea for 5 years, did not appear attractive to me as getting into the financial world near a generational bottom. Maybe I'm different though. My sister is brilliant. Aced the SATs first time taking them, full ride to UF, always wanted to be a biologist. Knew all along she wouldn't make shit, but she wanted to do something she was passionate about. My younger brother always wanted to be a doctor. Studied hard, got into a good med school, and along the way, always joked, I'll be up to my eyeballs in debt until I'm 50. He knew pay trends weren't what they used to be for doctors doing what he wanted. Decided to do it anyway, but he knew what he was looking at. My youngest brother decided at 16, "I want to be a biomedical engineer". Why? "I'm going to make a shit load of money". And so far, that's what he is doing. I've never met someone qualified to do something, who doesn't know what they are getting into prior to making such a life decision. The one example I have of this, was an old friend. Never the brightest of the bunch, lazy, real leaf floating in the wind. Mediocre high school grades, never went to a real university. Spent 3 years and 30k at a for profit getting a degree in surgical technology thinking he'd transfer to a real school and become a doctor(pipe dream from day 1). Graduated with his degree, which he pretty soon found out wouldnt even transfer over to local community schools. He now delivers packages for Fedex. After starting a landscaping company and failing. So to me I guess, the horrible law school results is more symptomatic of people being allowed to foray into areas they don't belong or shouldn't be in the first place. Couple that with these same people typically being naive and probably uniformed, mix in schools being deceptive and misleading, and yea, we've got problems. The only real answer IMO is being more proactive about teaching people how to identify their strengths, and teaching them how to exploit those strengths. I never saw kids in wheel chairs doing competitive swimming in school. I saw a lot of idiots pursuing MBAs and grasping for a law degree.

Not to be a heartless Republican, but... Shouldn't one be able to use judgment themselves and determine whether the risk/reward is favorable? I mean part of this is the fault of the new-age American philosophy that "you can be whatever you want to be"/everyone gets a trophy, but if one is pursuing a career in a certain field, should they not have a solid grasp on their own competency and more importantly, where they stack up against their peers in said field? I mean, if one has a 3.0 and 140s LSAT is it really a stretch to put the breaks on?

Currently at $53.4 you get $8.10 or about 15% in ~4 months. I don't really see a basis for this not going through, but the size of the spread seems to say otherwise. Even outside of Amazon, you've got Walmart and Dicks which dominate the hunting/fishing market in many places. We've even seen UA venture into apparel here. Best comparison for this being held up would I guess be Staples and Office Depot, but CAB and Bass Pro are far from a duopoly. I've tepidly bought about a very small position.

I wouldn't ride in the vehicle if there were other passengers. Your service would have to be a lot cheaper than the car services. Autonomous busses don't seem very attractive to me, I would never give up my car for that. 100%. Not only do I like driving, but I also like the peace and quiet when I'm driving alone. I would never ride with others. I also like being in control of the vehicle.

Eh, I think this is largely just because of where we are in the perceived cycle. Companies are getting desperate for returns and there seems to be more of a "throwing shit at the wall" approach being made by companies to appease investors.

No. Paulson has a fund for just about everything. The Paulson Fund, The Paulson Advantage Fund, The Paulson Super Advantage Fund, The Super Duper Advantage Fund, The Paulson Gold Fund, The Paulson Merger/Arb Fund. The guy is quite the salesman. I remember reading a piece where he was asked about it and he said it's all just marketing and all he has to do is create a new product and people line up for it. Was fairly interesting.

This should be called the everything but technology stocks thread.

Being familiar with the way mortgage brokerage, stock brokerage, insurance brokerage, and car sales go, so much of this is hilariously spot on. Especially the highlighted stuff. I am sure you also ran into the "sign on mercs"?

Hardly. It appears he willingly tripled his position during the current quarter. While he has owned some GM for a while, he's largely been in and out of it and in significantly smaller size. The is one of his biggest positions he's taken in recent memory.

Just curious as this seems to be a popular name here; what is the case for this vs a BX or KKR?

Well, they've run the business well. They've paid a very nice dividend(some will debate the appropriateness of this vs the buyback, but whatever), and they've bought back a good chunk of stock(this again can be debated). So, they've done a pretty decent job, they've been *pretty* shareholder friendly, and it's done nothing for the share price. As such, in my opinion, there should be some shake up, just to keep things fresh and honest, but no gigantic change is needed. Unfortunately in proxy fights, both sides always seem to need to be highly sensational and super polarizing.

An interesting idea/position for sure...but are you sure that this security is able to be margined? Another thought is that the amount of leverage would simply be incredible, assuming you bought $100k of stock and had $50k of equity. You have the following layers of margin: Your personal margin account x2 The ETF is x2 The individual mREIT companies are usually HEAVILY leveraged....just off the top of my head, I would guess that they are leverage 4x....but they might even be levered 10x, perhaps even slightly more? so you would have somewhere between 16x to 40x leverage in total? Assuming no defaults, blowups, credit seizures, or interest rate moving too far one way or the other...sure, you are going to make a lot of money. Just seems like a lot of risk (leverage), especially when we are likely looking at climbing interest rates for the foreseeable future. No question about it. I have a small amount of my portfolio that I reserve for more screwball type investments. Some heavily complex, some almost stupidly simple. This one is just a leverage bonanza. In regards to the distributions, they have declined from $5.xx ish to now low $3.xx a share although show stabilization/growth for the first time this year. It intrigued me though how quickly you can bury yourself under the cash coming back to you. Maybe wait until distributions return your principle and then just DRIP the rest and see where it goes. Leveraging it, I know IB is default, which I'd imagine is 50%. I know a few other firms that are fine with 50% as well, although I will note that over the past 12-18 months several clearing firms have gotten very tight with margin requirements on levered ETF's.

This is not a screaming buy or intended to be a "timely" trade. More so interesting is the idea/ability to leverage this. 19.5% yield. Say you are able to margin this at 50% you can realistically expect to see the entire return of your principle in about 3 years. My understanding is that this carries some of the negative effects of levered ETF's but not the same type of decay as the worst offenders. The underlying mREITS are in decent shape. So all things remaining equal you're capturing 35-39% on your money here if you can margin this. Anyone familiar with this? Any thoughts?