Castanza

I bought the two cheapest Robot Vacuums on the market ($89) each. Can't remember what brand they are, but they have been running for two years and work good on our hardwood floors and throw rugs. I agree with Spek, these can be easily knocked off at cheaper prices and do basically the same thing. If my floors need a deep cleaning I'll do it manually instead of relying on a $500+ robot with a wet swiffer on the front.

I agree, this has bothered me for quite some time as well. You can get a EV SSL Certificate from Comodo for a few hundred a year. You probably don't even need that level as there is really only one payment transaction, but for the minimal cost more it wouldn't hurt.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2019/10/28/media-mogul-streaming-services-will-become-large-buyers-of-our-content.html Ted Leonsis Interview on the future of streaming.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/ups-has-mutually-beneficial-relationship-with-amazon-ceo-194750165.html Admittedly I have not been following this sector as closely as I typically do this past year. Between the trade wars and market uncertainty it's been difficult to invest in this sector with any type of confidence. The partnership between UPS and Amazon is becoming quite interesting to say the least. Opposite of what Abney leads on in the interview; word on the street is that Amazon is beginning to try and poach b2b customers from UPS and FedEx. However, this attempt is still limited by bulk and parcel size. If memory serves me correctly Amazon drivers don't handle anything over 25lbs (anything over typically goes to UPS). This is still significant though as Amazon was not previously thought to be entering the b2b space. This UPS/Amazon relationship is something I'm quite excited to see develop over the coming years. But there are so many moving parts to this it's difficult to predict any type of outcome. With FedEx opting out of the 1-2 day Amazon shipping contract it will be very interesting to see how UPS handles this volume (assuming it's pushed to them) increase this peak in such a short time frame. I believe it's been three years since the dreaded Prime Guarantee peak season where FedEx backed out and left UPS high and dry with millions of packages sitting in Louisville. What I can say is that UPS is hiring seasonal workers with the highest wages it has ever offered (U-Haul will be quite happy) as well as many Personal Vehicle Delivery positions. Issues still plaguing the company - Pension issues (Another round of pension buyouts is in the mix for 2020 age 55+ and for all former non-retired employees who have 5+ years vested) It seems UPS is highly motivated to get people off the books. - High wages 32/hr 48/hr overtime. New position 22.4 is being pushed hard. Slightly lower wage driver who also works inside as a loader/unloader. They supplement current drivers with a T-S or W-S schedule. The position cannot makeup more than 25% of current driver workforce. I'd imagine UPS will reach this cap ASAP to maximize resource flexibility. 22.4 employees are guaranteed 40hrs a week (mix of sorting/driving). I think this position will help sure up some of the pension issues by having more full-time employees and also help reduce employee turnover costs in the part-time segments. - Overtime/Weekend Pay (Promises to reduce overtime have been futile in many areas. Drivers still reportedly working 10+ hour days. This should be alleviated somewhat with the adoption of 22.4 as well as the double time pay for weekend work for normal driver positions) All in all it looks like UPS is doing better than this time last year. 3Q19 EPS of $2.01, Up More Than 16%; Adjusted* EPS Up 13.7% to $2.07 • U.S. Daily Volume Grew Above 9%; Next Day Air Volume Jumped Nearly 24% • U.S. Operating Profit Rose Over 28%; Grew Nearly 26% on an Adjusted Basis • Positive Operating Leverage in U.S. Driven by Lower Unit Cost • International Operating Profit Up 24.4%; and 20.3% on an Adjusted Basis • Supply Chain and Freight Operating Margin of 7.3%; Adjusted Margin of 7.6% • Reaffirms 2019 Adjusted EPS (7.75-7.45 up from last year 7.37-7.07) and Raises Adjusted FCF Target to Over $4.0B Investment in network streamlining seems to have helped the bottom line. 26% Operating Profit increase and 10.6% operating margin. Rev percentage increase is down by about 2ish % yoy. http://www.investors.ups.com/static-files/0a62f412-6232-4d28-a04e-5925c9b66da4

Net revenues from sales in our retail channel increased by 192.0% in the three months ended June 29, 2019 to $34.1 million from $11.7 million in the three months ended June 30, 2018. Net revenues from sales in our restaurant and foodservice channel increased by 483.0% in the three months ended June 29, 2019 to $33.1 million from $5.7 million in the three months ended June 30, 2018. Net revenues from sales in our retail channel increased by 156.1% in the six months ended June 29, 2019 to $53.7 million from $21.0 million in the six months ended June 30, 2018. Net revenues from sales in our restaurant and foodservice channel increased by 486.2% in the six months ended June 29, 2019 to $53.8 million from $9.2 million in the three months ended June 30, 2018. We expect further growth in both channels as we increase our production capacity in response to demand and add new customers. We distribute our products internationally, using distributors in Australia, Chile, the European Union, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, the Middle East, New Zealand, the Philippines, Singapore, South Africa, South Korea, Taiwan and the United Kingdom. Our international net revenues (excluding revenues from Canada) are included in our restaurant and foodservice channel and were approximately 12% and 3%, respectively, of our net revenues in the three months ended June 29, 2019 and June 30, 2018 and were approximately 13% and 2%, respectively, of our net revenues in the six months ended June 29, 2019 and June 30, 2018. All of our long-lived assets are in the United States and we have no long-lived assets in any international locations. Net revenues from sales to the Canadian market are included with net revenues from sales to the United States market. Over the next few years, the main driver of growth in our net revenues is expected to be sales of our fresh products, primarily the Beyond Burger, in both our retail channel and our restaurant and food service channel predominantly in the United States, as well as internationally. We also expect net revenues and gross margin to 24 benefit from increased sales of our fresh products due to the higher net selling price per pound of our fresh platform products compared to our frozen platform products. As we seek to continue to rapidly grow our net revenues, we face several challenges. In 2017, continuing into 2018, demand for our products exceeded our expectations and production capacity, significantly constraining our net revenue growth relative to our total demand opportunity. While we have significantly expanded our production capacity to address production shortfall, we may experience a lag in production relative to customer demand if our growth rate exceeds our expectations. We routinely offer sales discounts and promotions through various programs to customers and consumers. These programs include rebates, temporary on-shelf price reductions, off-invoice discounts, retailer advertisements, product coupons and other trade activities. The expense associated with these discounts and promotions is estimated and recorded as a reduction in total gross revenues in order to arrive at reported net revenues. We anticipate that these promotional activities could impact our net revenues and that changes in such activities could impact period over-period results. In addition, because we do not have any purchase commitments from our distributors or customers, the amount of net revenues we recognize will vary from period to period depending on the volume and mix of our products sold, particularly between products in our fresh and frozen platforms, and the channels through which our products are sold, causing variability in our results. Beyond Meat.....The discount R&D prostitute of the restaurant industry. Lockup is one week away....

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress. Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well. So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above? https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression. I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k. But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex) The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward. So it turns out government return on R&D funding (mainly giving money to universities has high rates of return): https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/reports/2012/12/10/47481/the-high-return-on-investment-for-publicly-funded-research/ Why? Govt is likely bad at picking winners and losers, but most research has little payoff to the discoverer. For example, the invention of the internet, GPS, Satellites/rockers, many times doesn't inventors rich, it later made the companies that commercialize the idea, rich. This is why things like basic science research, defense research etc, have such high ROI. Researches benefit very little, but the externality benefit to others is massive. Thus there is an underinvestment into basic research (ie research not designed at improving an existing product or service). Wartime spending is often extreme and reckless. We also hired plenty of Nazis after WWII (operation paperclip). Again, I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in any capacity. There have been benefits (internet etc). But even that is difficult to quantify because you can’t really say the private sector wouldn’t have been able to accomplish it. Your bias seems extreme in favor of govt. Govt funding has also given us ridiculous research spending on trivial things such as treadmills for shrimp....it’s easier to waste money of tax payers. Imagine the outrage of shareholders if companies wasted millions on stuff like in the below link. https://www.rd.com/funny-stuff/wasteful-government-spending/

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress. Nice one. :) Not only that, remember it's the government that mainly funds science so they can certainly bias its direction as well. So, if the issue is for the government to control, direct and introduce bias as a primary driving force, how do you reconcile with the following: 1-federal funding of R/D per GDP has been decreasing, 2-federal funding versus corporate funding ratio has been going down and 3-federal funding to environmental science has not increased despite the dogmatic and alarmist take described above? https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/RDGDP.png https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/USFund1.jpg https://www.aaas.org/sites/default/files/2019-06/Disc-1.jpg Disclosure: I think a balance between corporate and public funding allows to find a compromise between basic research which is necessary for long-term outcomes and also produces constructive surprises, and more applied research with potential short-term applications and profitability. A constructive discussion may help to help define that balance, governance and incentives but I don't understand how undermining a model that has worked so well can not result in less progress or even regression. I’m not saying govt shouldn’t be involved in research. It certainly has benefited the average citizen in the past. But too much govt dictates the direction of research. Especially when you take the government as a consumer and add in the political agenda. Wind and solar are a good example of this nonsense. The govt is not pursuing the path of the best tech (nuclear) and instead letting politics lead the way. I mean look at the Wright Brothers. The govt basically laughed them out of the building and said flight wasn’t possible. Then two guys in a bike shop proved them wrong with 2k. But we also have good examples of a meshing between govt funded and public sector funding (eg. spacex) The issue is trust. Can we trust the govt to choose the best path forward for R&D? Could we trust the top scientists to choose the best path forward using tax payer dollars? Not sure, because anytime humans are involved we have poor decisions being made. But, personally I would rather let a guy like Musk off the chain than allow Nancy Pelosi or Mitch determine what tech is the best moving forward.

Let me correct that for you. Libertarian Science The belief that government intervention can put science in a box and limit progress.

So you are telling me because every physicist agrees that gravity is a fundamental force that invalidates it? The reason no one is challenging CO2 = global warming is that no explanation makes more sense. It's important to know that, climate models are continually improving, so while they all generally agree that carbon causes global warming, they have taken into account more factors like the melting ice caps, Siberia, gulf stream etc (this is not my area of expertise so I don't pretend to know these things well), so they are improving. At some point attempts to falsify climate change caused by carbon have failed and so the refinements all take that as given. That is also how science progresses. Once given enough evidence, some things are taken as given and further theories build upon these facts to model even more nuanced phenomena. The existence of gravity and its theory are not just based on scientific consensus/agreement, but they can be objectively confirmed (or refuted) using empirical evidence. The model (law) of gravity can predict forces/motions of objects with 99% accuracy (e.g., we get rockets on the Moon). The climate change theories and models (horribly inaccurate), as of now, are mostly based on subjective consensus and insufficient data; therefore, inferences made based on them should not be taken as scientific facts. Global warming is also confirmed and could have been disconfirmed by empircal evidence. Global tempratures have been getting warmer since the industrial revolution. Even if we can't get the exact magnitude of some hidden phenonenom, doesnt mean we can't say with high certainty what the direction is. For example demand is downward sloping ie when price goes up quantity, goes down. The elasticity of demand with respect to price cannot be accurately measured, but economist are sure to the point that it has become axiomatic that, generally, demand is downward sloping. Someone commented about how when politics effects science, science can't be trusted. I think many of these models were developed before there was such political controversy in these topics. Keep in mind it wascthe scieintist who first pushed this movement. What changed is the former tobacco lobbiest who told you not to believe what basically every climate scietlntist will tell you is true. Academics have liberal biases generally yes, but if you can demonstrate that a theory such as man made climate change is false, this would get you fame in the academic community equivalent to something like a Nobel. Thus there is hige incentive for people to challenge the prevailing wisdom. The fact that no one can do this, means that scientists are all in agreement and the fact is likely true. - Global Warming is confirmed. The cause is not. - Going against the grain in science typically leaves you jobless and unfunded. No fresh grad just entering the field is going to waste one year of (lucky they even got it)funding on a revolutionary idea that challenges the scientific church and their 80 year old theories. Especially if they want to make a career out of it. You really think the scientific community where people spend entire careers on single topics, writing books, giving speeches etc are gleefully willing to just have their theory abandoned by some non-consensus theory from an unknown scientist trying to make a name for themselves? Then you don't know humans...Take a look back through history at all the inventions and inventors that have been completely stonewalled out of the scientific community. Tesla himself comes to mind.

That is a very ignorant statement as it conflates scientific fact and scientific theories. Vaccines and flat earth is testable and repeatable. People who don't believe in the benefits of vaccines or that the earth is round are blatantly ignoring science. When talking about evolution there are two things that people tend to lump together. The first is Natural Selection and the other is evolution of life from single cell organism to complex organism transitioning between species. The first is clearly proven. It's found both in documented history and in the fossil record and even today in modern life (dogs, horses, etc). The other which includes transitional species is not found in the fossil record. If there is a field of science that has the least amount of certainty it would be paleontology. Climate change is certainly a mix of both and I think that is the reason why most people are frustrated with it. That and because it has to potential to actually impact your life financially where the others mentioned have zero bearing on your life except maybe the anti-vaccine nonsense. I don't think we should be making any rash decisions but at the same time should focus on it as an issue. But the community needs to be more open to causes and reality. My personal issue with it is the clear political agenda and power grab from the UN down.

The ozone layer is 3 millimeters thick on average in the atmosphere, yet we agree that it has significant effects in blocking UV rays. The entire atmosphere is 8Km high. source: https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/facts/dobson_SH.html What’s your point? The Ozone makes up .00000038% of the total atmosphere by your numbers. So what, 9mm of pollution a year? No idea what the distribution of this is in the 8km layer.

Just spit balling here on my phone: There are 62,500 power plants in the world. Let’s assume they are all terrible red tag coal plants (max pollution) 725,000 tons each a year. Earths Atmospheric volume is 5140 trillion tons. Power plants produce 0.00000815% of the total atmospheric volume in pollution a year. Over 150 years that would be .0012 % of atmospheric volume. There are 3 trillion trees on the planet. Trees are estimated to absorb 13-48 pounds of CO2 a year. Let’s just take it less than average and say 25lbs of CO2 a year captured by a single tree. Soooo 75 trillion pounds or 37.5 billion tons of CO2 is sequestered by trees a year. Trees sequester 0.00000729% of the total atmospheric volume a year in CO2. So for shits and giggles let’s use the trees to offset the coal plants...0.00000089% of the earths total atmospheric volume in pollution a year. Over 150 years that would be 0.000129% of atmospheric volume. Yes, this ignores other forms of pollution, volume density of gases etc, but it also ignores other “anti pollution?” mechanisms. What all this means? No effing clue but that percentage makes it hard for me to believe we have any significant impact on anything. Could we get to 1% if we included every source of pollution? It’s like saying a natural gas burning pilot light would eventually heat a domed sports arena located in Antarctic. Again, I can’t answer for the impact of these percentages. Edit: apparently all automobile and industrial activities produce 24 billion tons of CO2 a year. So that would be 0.000004ish % of total atmospheric volume.

Good call, the yahoo article made it seem otherwise. Not to mention this company has a history with odd insider transactions. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/scorpio-tankers-inc-announces-purchase-214445091.html?.tsrc=rss

How has this company not been caught for insider trading? The CEO bought 1500 calls $28 Jan 2020, then announces after the fact a purchase of tankers from a Trafigura who will coincidentally own 10% of STNG after the deal. Calls were bought when stock was at $27 and has now climbed all the way to $36...

Seems we have similar fleeting experiences with Geology. The university I attended had an emphasis around paleontology which was pretty interesting, but not what I was after. I did get to participate in a dino dig out near in the bad lands Montana section and the Green River Formation in Wyoming. But yeah, I had zero desire to be a paleontologist. The other aspects of geology (resources, formations, stratigraphy, etc.) stuck with me. I backpack a lot and often get those book with info on local formations and strata.

It’s definitely a fringe theory regarding oil origins. But the book is an interesting read regardless. However it was recommended to me by a Geology prof who had 30 years of oil and gas industry experience. It would be interesting to see the experiments tried again today with modern drilling technology. Where do you practice geology? If you care to share.

There doesn't seem to be too many discussions on this forum regarding interests or professions other than investing. Not sure if there are any on here who study geology professionally or as a hobby but here are a few topics I follow loosely and find interesting. Deep Hot Biosphere is a book I read in college while studying Geology. It was always an interesting hypothesis to read about. It seems the fracking industry has sparked new interest in the topic but more from a human involvement perspective instead of naturally occurring. - https://www.pnas.org/content/114/27/6895 Similar topic but in regards to Natural Gas Facking and the introduction of microbes which are creating entire ecosystems in the biosphere. -

I did do some reading in Ardmore about a year ago and it seemed that their tankers were specifically equipped to ship low sulfur fuel which is going to become the standard fuel option for ships due to emission regulations. Again take this with a grain of salt as I quickly lost interest in the sector and didn’t do any type of deep dive. But it seemed that although their fleet was a bit older they were better positioned and sort of cornered the market on distributing this fuel.

Curious if you have looked at Ardmore Shipping ASC at all?

My bad. I mean I have had months doing 30% on capital with the put writing strategy. But that’s pretty much luck that I didn’t get assigned. Boilermakers strategy is much more conservative and you can generate 5-10% with confidence.

I was just using numbers based on the original post.

:P You could say the same about politicians. Unless that’s who you were referring too :P

Is it really picking up pennies when your making 30-40% ROC a year? Ask the traders from LTCM. They were heavily leveraged. 25:1 debt ratio....I’m selling otm cash covered puts on blue chip equities which I already own. Hardly an equal comparison.

Is it really picking up pennies when your making 30-40% ROC a year?

The writing of puts takes very little effort on blue chip stocks especially if you're not greedy about premiums and go decently out to 95%+ profitability range. I just don't see how this is anymore risky than owning the underlying stock. As Greg pointed out. Value investors are just as likely to hold BAC on the way to zero as someone who would write puts for premiums with the risk of potentially getting assigned. Now if you do this on say Beyond Meat yeah you're a moron. But doing this on SPY or other securities you would hold long-term, I don't see the risk. Maybe I'm missing something....the majority of you on here are much better investors than myself. How many of you would liquidate a portfolio of $SPY if it dropped 15% in a day? If this were to happen the person who got assigned shares now has the advantage vs the person who is holding. I could write covered calls and collect premiums while you have to hold until SPY climbs back to your dca before you could sell or write covered calls. Think about worst case scenario. Stocks gaps down due to bad earnings or after-market news. Let's say 20% on a $1,000,000 investment. You're out 200k if you owned the stock, but you can close the position and move on. If you sold the same notional in cash secured puts, you're going to have to pay more than 200k above your sale price to close the contract because now vol has exploded across the term structure and the puts you sold are now going to be at a premium (unless if they're WAY out of the money - and even then, massive bid/ask spreads). So your two choices are to accept a loss greater than 20% to close the position and stop the bleeding OR to be stuck with the position. It's NOT the same dynamic as owning the underlying stock. Say MSFT is at 140 and I sell strikes at 115 collecting premiums. If MSFT happens to gap down and I get assigned shares bi deal. I have more leverage with my shares than the guy who bought shares at 140 and is now holding the bag. If MSFT bottoms out there I can now sell covered calls and still profit off my cost basis or simply hold long term. But if you bought at 140 you’re going to be taking a loss until it’s back to your cost basis. I don’t see the risk. If MSFT drops 20% I’m buying anyways. I’m collecting premiums up front so really the only thing to keep this stars they going is to not get assigned (which isn’t bad) plus if I buy an OTM put at say 110 and structure the ratio of buy to sell 2:1 I’m only going to lose money on in the range 110-115. Anything below that is a profit and anything above 115 is a profit of premiums. These are just rough numbers.