Castanza

I agree, give out a 1-1.5k per month loan at zero percent interest with a 3 year re-payment plan of some type. Or we could let people learn their lessons from overspending and to save? Paul you know as well that I am generally not in favor of bailouts...however I am also not against some type of safety net for a unique situation like this. The fact is if people are not allowed to go out to their job then there's going to be a lot of fallout. I'm fine with it as long as there are stipulations on what you can purchase and that it has to be paid back in full. I'd rather see corporations go under than your average Joe contractor who had his jobs canceled for the next 6 months. If the government is going to cause a shutdown and put peoples livelihood at risk then they should also provide a temporary (loan) safety net.

BRKb at 174

I agree, give out a 1-1.5k per month loan at zero percent interest with a 3 year re-payment plan of some type.

At this rate I'm wondering what's the probability the markets will be shut for a while. Politically I can see Trump wanting to limit the damage, and reopen in 6-8 week when things are on the upswing. I don't know the potential downstream impact would be though when trillions of dollars are tied up and can't be used. I thought about the option and need for a market closure for a few weeks, perhaps even until the crisis is over. There are no catalysts until significant progress is made. Relief rallies on lower cases maybe. But this could go on for months. What happens to people drawing on their 401k? Or just in general, how do you deprive people of their money? Just trying to think of what that would actually look like. It won't happen. Markets were open throughout the GFC. It would be the dumbest move ever. For weeks? It's insanity. The result of that would be a de-rating of EVERY single public company. Public markets exist to provide liquidity. That's all. You can't decide to allow liquidity only when the markets are going up and cut it off when the markets are going down. Moreover it's not even gonna matter. Derivative markets are gonna stay open and they're gonna trade. They're gonna create derivatives as markers for stocks and they're gonna fiddle with the settlement to make the whole thing work. You'll be surprised how quickly it'll happen. Of course the spreads are gonna blow up. To castanza's point, "regular" people with 401Ks and such will not be able to take part in the party because they will either not know what to do or won't be allowed to do it due to the nature of the instruments. They'll only have access to their money when the "regular" markets open and they're portfolio is worth significantly less. Nice work Sherlock! What I was really pointing to is that I think the only way to stop equity values imploding is a market close. If they can't do that for whatever reason, market values go one way in a total economic shutdown. The fed won't work. The fed has no business (imo) controlling equity values. If I'm holding company A and the market gets shut down for one month. What happens to my share value when that company goes to zero when the market is shut down? It becomes way to messy when it's done for any extended period of time. I think they are intending to go all digital as they mentioned it last week.

Why would the Democrats bail out Trump here? The Dems will pass whatever they think will help, and the GOP will take it or leave it, and then face the voters. Anyone who thinks big business shareholders are gonna get bailed out by the Democratic controlled House in an election year...please write puts. Didn’t that recent bill proposed by the House eliminate pretty much all fiscal responsibility to employees for big business?

*RuleNumberOne has entered the chat :P

At this rate I'm wondering what's the probability the markets will be shut for a while. Politically I can see Trump wanting to limit the damage, and reopen in 6-8 week when things are on the upswing. I don't know the potential downstream impact would be though when trillions of dollars are tied up and can't be used. I thought about the option and need for a market closure for a few weeks, perhaps even until the crisis is over. There are no catalysts until significant progress is made. Relief rallies on lower cases maybe. But this could go on for months. What happens to people drawing on their 401k? Or just in general, how do you deprive people of their money? Just trying to think of what that would actually look like.

Will do. Can't believe we have people still saying there is no advantage to acting early when we see countries coming out of this who acted early. And then going on guessing that there will be future outbreaks again and mutations/etc so why bother doing anything (absurd). There was also earlier the "they're old people who were going to die anyway" shocking mentality. The "we're all screwed anyway" mentality makes absolutely no sense (and some of these people were initially saying "no big deal, just the flu". And calling this a supply shock when it is clearly a demand shock... Absurd. Almost as absurd as comparing a passenger in your backseat to a cinder block and saying human bodies become projectiles in car crashes and that's why we have seat belts, but oh well--the absurdities keep coming. 1.) I never said testing or prevention wasn’t important. I said targeted testing is probably best. 2.) I did say testing is a game you’re playing from behind at this point an likely isn’t going to be as effective as if it were implemented immediately. 3.) herd immunity will eventually be an important factor especially knowing a vaccine likely isn’t going to be that effective. 4.) I have agreed this is going to have big economic impacts, there is no denying that. I think it’s wayyy to early to assume that countries who have “tested early” are going to be “way better off” than others. China isn’t anywhere close to being out of the storm yet. For shits and giggles: https://www.google.com/amp/s/abcnews.go.com/amp/GMA/story%3Fid%3D128062%26page%3D1

Is this really comparable to 08? Seems more like a supply chain shock than anything. And I’m genuinely asking.

not just severity is a question, but also the length. i mean, china will have taken a large hit, but considering they seem to be coming back on track (and assuming the virus won't just hit them again) the effects seem rather limited. obviously, if things take longer to play out over here, the damage gets increasingly worse. anyway, might be contradictory, but i really believe locking things down now (as appears to be happening) will save a lot of damage to the economy in the long run. This is where the economic costs of precautionary principle come into effect. China/S Korea/Singapore etc took some upfront costs to mitigate spread early in the disease course. As a result, they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. The countries unwilling to bear that initial cost may see protracted crises that will prove much much more expensive over the whole crisis than if they took that initial ounce of prevention. It's like wearing a seatbelt--the initial cost low, the cost of injuries sustained without wearing one much greater and can lead to a lifetime of pain/suffering/debilitation. Wearing a seatbelt is not just about yourself. It keeps you from flying around the vehicle and killing everyone else. So if you want to apply this to current conditions, you have a few countries wearing seatbelts and the rest of the world without them. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter because it’s a global economy. Is Singapore somehow going to weather this global economic shit storm when the US, UK, and other major powers are running on E? If Australia managed to keep every case of covid19 out of their country they are still going to be taken to the woodshed economically because they are almost entirely reliant upon China. This is new information. I always thought in most crashes people hit the dashboard and a seatbelt stops this, not that they are human projectiles ready to hit other humans in the vehicle. Please show me studies on this thanks. ...Also, most cars are occupied by 1-2 individuals on avg. There goes the human projectile theory. At least people will be walking around eating out, doing retail shopping, traveling around within the country for work/personal/tourism reasons in S Korea/Taiwan/Singapore. In places where disease spread continues, this will not be happening. Australia is reliant on China. China is seeing the end of this crisis, so there goes your point about that. Don’t be mad because I poked a hole in your metaphor lol if you don’t believe me go get yourself a cinder block, put it in your back seat, and then slam your brakes. Where do you think that cinderblock will end up? Anywayssss My point was....in this global economy, you’re only as protected from the fallout as much as the next guy. A better metaphors would be a row of townhomes. If I have a sprinkler system and my neighbor doesn’t it isn’t going to help me if they have a house fire. Chances are I’m going to sustain massive fire damage as well. It could buy you a little time, sure. But the fire will run its course and you’ll probably be left with a total loss either way. On China: We don’t trust China in the beginning saying they weren’t being honest with numbers. But now because those numbers are “good” they are to be trusted? ::) My final opinion on this is that covid19 will run its course. I’m not confident that any type of containment is going to slow it enough to buy time for a treatment. Spain, France, Germany, UK, US, etc. The UK is right about herd immunity. The countries that locked down will probably just see new clusters form once they open back up. Unless somehow there is a treatment in place. But so far that estimate is months past the estimated peak of spread.

not just severity is a question, but also the length. i mean, china will have taken a large hit, but considering they seem to be coming back on track (and assuming the virus won't just hit them again) the effects seem rather limited. obviously, if things take longer to play out over here, the damage gets increasingly worse. anyway, might be contradictory, but i really believe locking things down now (as appears to be happening) will save a lot of damage to the economy in the long run. This is where the economic costs of precautionary principle come into effect. China/S Korea/Singapore etc took some upfront costs to mitigate spread early in the disease course. As a result, they are seeing the light at the end of the tunnel. The countries unwilling to bear that initial cost may see protracted crises that will prove much much more expensive over the whole crisis than if they took that initial ounce of prevention. It's like wearing a seatbelt--the initial cost low, the cost of injuries sustained without wearing one much greater and can lead to a lifetime of pain/suffering/debilitation. Wearing a seatbelt is not just about yourself. It keeps you from flying around the vehicle and killing everyone else. So if you want to apply this to current conditions, you have a few countries wearing seatbelts and the rest of the world without them. Unfortunately it doesn’t matter because it’s a global economy. Is Singapore somehow going to weather this global economic shit storm when the US, UK, and other major powers are running on E? If Australia managed to keep every case of covid19 out of their country they are still going to be taken to the woodshed economically because they are almost entirely reliant upon China.

Couldn’t resist and picked up some TRV also. Patients is difficult...

Absolutely It was more of a near term comment that will probably add to the downward pressure.

3 new cruise ships in the pipe for 2021, 22, 23 too, that's got to be expensive. They don't break down revenue for their cruise line their 10k. It's all lumped together under Parks and Resorts which is (going from memory) 25ish% rev?

Still holding some SPCE puts. Some are currently in the money. I have a few speculative ones $5 strike price that incredibly could hit.

What percentage of cash are you sitting on? Definitely not easy selling stuff for loss.

Lime, ginger ale, rye

That's all fine and dandy. But we don't exactly have an oversupply of tests....so wouldn't it be best to put them to the most efficient use? High risk individuals.

If you're under 30 have no debt, a good 401k contribution, a decent job and no kids why not... 100% BRK or 100% MSFT if they reach bargain basement prices probably would work out well.

Gretzky didn't play hockey with a blindfold on. You need to know where the puck is to know where it is going. Testing is preferable to not testing. It really is that simple. It's like saying that not telling sexually promiscuous individuals whether they are HIV positive or not will not impact future spread. This is categorically false and we do not need to go back to 20th century discoveries in medicine each time to address these points that have been shown decades ago. There are some points being made (against testing, action) that can be easily dismissed, but they are brought up almost hourly on here. You both conveniently glossed over the "I'm not disagreeing that there is value to testing (probably only relevant to immediate treatment at this point). Testing is hindsight at this point." (testing for spread containment) Testing to prevent spread is hindsight. I think it's already all over the US. There is probably one or two clusters brewing in every state. By the time someone responds to this comment there is probably a few dozen asymptomatic individuals who just left each cluster zone spreading it further. Targeted testing would be more effective. Testing by risk profile is the only way to get ahead of the spread. Gets tests to high risk individuals and lock down senior care facilities. (the puck is everywhere and it's going to senior homes) Telling people in the 80% that they have covid-19 is a sure fire way to flood hospitals with people who probably don't need any type of significant treatment. I'd rather see the beds we have available left for those who have a high chance of death.

Marketwise I'm not worried. I'm financially secure (very little debt). The emergency fund is flush. The wife and I have solid jobs and I have a good pile of cash for this. It certainly doesn't feel like we are anywhere near the bottom but timing is whatever. I'll probably stick to a bi-weekly allocation (anything of size) from here on out.

The scariest thing is all of the already mentally unstable individuals now being pushed over the edge from this pandemic panic. It's only a matter of time until we see individuals getting mugged, trampled or killed over ridiculous things like the last pack of toilet paper.

Orthopa, the problem is that what you're saying doesn't seem to align with evidence. It seems fairly clear that a bunch of people have died in Italy, Iran, and China as a result of COVID-19. You seem to be claim is that millions in the USA have been infected a long enough time ago that we'd already be seeing lots of deaths if COVID-19 were a big deal. But USA has not seen lots of deaths. So, to be credible, you need to make it simple for us to understand this disconnect. Are Americans just more robust than the Italians, Iran, or Chinese? Do Americans have some sort of herd immunity that makes them less likely to die? Are Italy, Iran, and China simply pretending to have all these deaths, when really, they don't? Is there something about American culture that allows millions to catch COVID-19, but nobody to die? If you don't have some explanation for this disconnect between your hypothesis of millions infected but nobody dying, the most reasonable thing for people to believe is that your hypothesis is wrong. Particularly considering that there doesn't actually appear to be any evidence for your hypothesis except "some people got sick this flu season and didn't die, and it's conceivable that those people had COVID-19". (That said, I don't think you're ignorant. I think you've got the "I'm smart and know a lot about the topic, so my hypothesis unsupported by evidence must be right, and I'll defend it unto death" thing going. Pretty well all smart people make that mistake occasionally.) Orthopa's general point is this. (correct me if I'm wrong) As testing is rolled out nationwide what statistic will compound at a higher rate of discovery? A.) Terminal cases B.) Mild cases The correct answer is B Duh. The counterpoint has been that widespread testing will reduce the number of illnesses at any given time and that Orthopa's ranting is in complete contradiction to every health oversight agency I'm not disagreeing that there is value to testing (probably only relevant to immediate treatment at this point). Testing is hindsight at this point. You're not skating to where the puck is going. You're not skating to where the puck is. You're skating to where the puck was.

Orthopa, the problem is that what you're saying doesn't seem to align with evidence. It seems fairly clear that a bunch of people have died in Italy, Iran, and China as a result of COVID-19. You seem to be claim is that millions in the USA have been infected a long enough time ago that we'd already be seeing lots of deaths if COVID-19 were a big deal. But USA has not seen lots of deaths. So, to be credible, you need to make it simple for us to understand this disconnect. Are Americans just more robust than the Italians, Iran, or Chinese? Do Americans have some sort of herd immunity that makes them less likely to die? Are Italy, Iran, and China simply pretending to have all these deaths, when really, they don't? Is there something about American culture that allows millions to catch COVID-19, but nobody to die? If you don't have some explanation for this disconnect between your hypothesis of millions infected but nobody dying, the most reasonable thing for people to believe is that your hypothesis is wrong. Particularly considering that there doesn't actually appear to be any evidence for your hypothesis except "some people got sick this flu season and didn't die, and it's conceivable that those people had COVID-19". (That said, I don't think you're ignorant. I think you've got the "I'm smart and know a lot about the topic, so my hypothesis unsupported by evidence must be right, and I'll defend it unto death" thing going. Pretty well all smart people make that mistake occasionally.) Orthopa's general point is this. (correct me if I'm wrong) As testing is rolled out nationwide what statistic will compound at a higher rate of discovery? A.) Terminal cases B.) Mild cases The correct answer is B

SAVE is a 3.9B EV...that's chump change. Never say never is right.