Castanza

Any thoughts on what the share price of MO will be when the merger happens? I've seen math suggesting anything from $42 (can't imagine shareholders approving that) to $52.

Is Juul not working out well for them? I'd love some color on that if you're interested in providing any, I don't know anything about it and it is an interesting subject. I think it's the threat of government more so than the consumer demand. Can't remember his name but one congressman has already said he will introduce legislation to ban Juul if the usage rates don't drop among teens. They already banned the top three flavors teens were purchasing. It's amazing really. Here we are trying to legalize weed (unfiltered smoke) and also trying to ban vap devices.

The question is will they ever do it? Shareholders seem to be getting a bit antsy with the class actions. But there still seems to be very little talk about a spin-off. https://www.retaildive.com/news/l-brands-hit-with-class-action-over-financial-disclosures/561763/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-08-21/victoria-s-secret-sags-again-as-bath-body-works-keeps-growing

Taste is subjective. I think the key metric moving forward will be sales from fast food restaurants. To me this "user base"? represents the average Joe. If these people aren't eating it then you know critical mass has been met and growth may be extremely slow if not non-existent moving forward. But hey this could surprise us. Hell, my Dad whom I traditionally consider a meat a potatoes type of guy went out of his way (never eats fast food) to try the Impossible Whopper at BK. He said it was pretty good and that moving forward if traveling would probably opt for that if fast food was the only option. I can also see soccer moms buying their kids plant based burgers in drive-thru instead of typical happy meals. McDonald's has been desperate for a "healthy" fix to their unhealthy happy meal dilemma. Perhaps Disney would even partner with them again if they somehow included toys only in healthy Happy Meals?

I think there are two separate issues that some on here are conflating. Global Trade and Free Trade (Free Market System) The first is important and it easily can be elaborated on with the short skit "I Pencil". The second is something that does not currently exist and is the current motivation behind the tariffs. At the end of the day we are fighting government intervention with more government intervention. It's been a long time coming and the chickens finally came home to roost.

I don't trust the US legal system in general. It works sometimes especially when you are middle class and can afford a decent lawyer. Where the legal system breaks down completely is when the defendant is either a police officer, politically connected, very rich, or very poor. The poor get screwed over. If you are poor and the legal system gets you in its sights you are going to jail whether or not you actually did anything. The other 3 groups can do whatever they want and rarely suffer consequences for their actions. And the politically connected are at the top of the food chain. Even if you are very rich, if you are in a position to do real harm to the politically connected your life expectancy is very short indeed. I agree with this. But on the other end of the spectrum we have ambulance chasing lawyers who take ridiculous cases like "I spilled my coffee on myself and it burned me." and sue the hell out of companies for things that should be dismissed as common sense. The exodus of common sense in society has lead to the degradation, corruption, abuse and ultimate failure of our judicial system. And it's happening at an exponential rate.

58k a year may not be quite equivalent to others such as engineers etc. But at the same time teachers are public servants. No public servant job should use salary as the primary "attractant." How about go compare teachers salaries to the average wages of everyone in the cities who pay taxes to support them. You'd find the majority make much less and have much worse benefits (healthcare, guaranteed pension, summers off, tenure, etc) and completely over looking all the social benefits as well. Looking up my old hometown (high paying SD) the average salary was 34k for average citizens while teachers avg salary is 57k and range from 45-71k. That's a big difference and I'd be willing to wager that is a similar ratio wherever you look. I'm sure areas of discrepancy do exist.

Thanks for sharing that Bill. Very interesting approach!

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans? That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate. A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large. Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak. I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce. I suspect tuition would go down, not up. Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives. They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans. If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly. The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent. But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy. I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability? I'm not sure what lawsuits you're referring to. Lawsuits on the guarantees? I may have completely misunderstood what you were saying. What I thought you were saying was that if students upon graduation could not find a job would be able to sue the college and put the loan back on them to be paid. What did you mean by accountability/guarantee?

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans? That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate. A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large. Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak. I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce. I suspect tuition would go down, not up. Universities currently have incentives to continually raise tuition to fund internal salaries, various projects, etc. -- the typical bureaucratic incentives. They have been able to raise headline tuition more than inflation because of subsidies arising from federally issued or guaranteed loans. If that subsidy were taken away and the risk of loss were placed on universities, I believe they would find ways to cut tuition costs (and the attendant risk of loss on their guarantees) significantly. The public/private distinction is an issue, and public schools might continue to enjoy a taxpayer subsidy to some extent. But they are also the universities with the lower tuition costs to begin with, and legislators could make any university debt non-recourse to the state, preventing any taxpayer subsidy. I believe this is already the case for most public university systems in the U.S. -- although they are considered arms of the state for many purposes, their debt is not backed by the full faith and credit of the state that sponsors them. https://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/25/why-your-first-job-out-of-college-really-really-matters.html My concern would be that incentive's colleges to get jobs for graduates would create a more pay to play employment model. As the article above says 40% of college grads take jobs that don't require a degree. How would universities handle the inevitable lawsuits? Or is that not what you are saying in terms of accountability?

Any solution that requires regulators to determine worthwhile degrees, etc., is probably far more complicated than it needs to be. Instead, why not make the university enrolling the debtor-student guarantee any federal issued or insured student loans? That way the institution in the best position to create a good education at the lowest possible cost is directly incentivized to do so. They also would be incentivized to help their students get good jobs after they graduate. A guarantee from that university seems to make much more sense than guarantee or loan from taxpayers at large. Wouldn't this create a massive discrepancy between private and public institutions? I mean public schools receive state legislator and federal funding. So having them guarantee the loans would still technically come back on tax payers right? I know the majority of their funding is probably derived from tuition but there is certainly a tax element. Whereas private universities receive no state/federal funding. Then you have the issue of capping tuition costs. How would you do this with the inevitable demand of either tuition increases to pay these guaranteed loans? Either that or they ask for more money from state and federal funding. I'm not saying your wrong but it seems like the money is coming from the same pool so to speak. I agree with the regulators part. I wasn't thinking of having them determine what degrees are worthless. More along the lines of recognizing supply and demand in the general workforce.

I distinctly remember sitting in my dorm room wondering why the hell I was paying 20k a year for power points. That's exactly what the majority of courses are. Yeah you get some valuable lab work and get to talk with the professors but the majority of "learning" is done on your own. Youtube can teach you Calc, Chem (minus the lab), Biology, Physics and everything else just as well. The only thing different is it's free and there is no accountability or way to prove you "learned" it. It's easy to see the value of education looking back in history. But looking forward not as much. Seems to be more about making connections and having a piece of paper to market yourself and check off a box.

wow that's great. Must be a really nice cabin at $315 per night vs all the other cabins on Air BNB at less than half of that. Hey that's what my family member told me. I never verified it lol perhaps they embellished. Looking now it actually looks like peak season is more around $230 a night :P So not quite half, but certainly not as high as I mentioned before. My apologies.

A bailout is completely ridiculous and would have a negative effect on the future of education and generations. It's a band-aid solution at best. A bailout is also a huge slap in the face to people who were responsible like myself. I went to college for Petroleum Engineering (2yrs). End of my sophomore year I realized the industry was starting to show signs of slowing. I figured hey, I don't want to be 60k in debt and not have a potential job lined up. So I dropped out and took a year off. To the scoff of my college friends and others I took a job as a lowly UPS driver and busted my butt on 12 hours days. I made pretty good money (I was lucky). I decided to finish school in another program at an online university. I don't believe that the university you go to really matters unless it's an IVY. Well I continued to bust my butt getting up at 4:30 in the morning to study, head to work, get home around 8 and then study a few more hours in the evening. Practically had no weekend etc. But when all was said an done I graduated basically debt free, had a good savings account and a job to hold me over until I found a job. Ended up only taking 2 months to find one that paid the same with way better hours. I'm in better shape than all my friend who WILLINGLY chose to take out enormous loans. I would say financially I'm 4-7 years ahead of most people I graduated with. So a bailout? No, screw that. I payed my way and I'm not paying for anyone elses poor decisions. I'm paying out of pocket for masters right now. I agree with some others on here that one of the most harmful things this education system has done to young American students is tell them "you must go to college." This bailout will do nothing but devalue higher and lower education further. In my opinion this generation needs to learn from their mistakes (whether it was their fault of not). If a bailout is given do you think these parents are more or less likely to push their kids into college at any cost? S many of these "white collar" jobs could be done by smart high school graduates with some basic training. But as it stands now the Bachelors degree seems to be the new GED and the Masters is quickly becoming the new Bachelors. That trend needs to be reversed. __________________________________ Solution? First and foremost I don't believe the govt should be in the business of loans. But being that it exists the system clearly needs reformed. Put stipulations on loans. 1.) Loans should only be given out to HS graduates who have good GPA's. 2.) Bureau of Labor should do studies every so often to see the supply and demand of jobs. Loans should only be given out to students majoring in say top 10 needed careers (RN). 3.) This dependency on govt loans needs to be reduced. I say ween the total number of loans given over a 10 year period until you hit 0. (maybe a it extreme) 4.) State schools shouldn't offer "worthless degrees." If you want a basket weaving degree then you can pay your own way with a private loan at a liberal arts university. 5.) Reform High School and add apprenticeships. Say Katie is good at math and has in interest in engineering. Well maybe starting junior year let her work at a local engineering firm for a few hours. This gives experience and lets employers find possible future employment. Perhaps if this is done some companies would come up with contracts saying "we will pay for your college education if you commit 5 years of post grad employment to us." Not only that it would help create better trained HS students. It could potential reduce this ridiculous barrier (Bachelors Degree) for many of these jobs and bring back merit to a GED. (I understand this might not factor in employment laws etc.) You don't needs a college degree to make a good livings. As it stands now poverty is less than 1% across any ethnicity if you follow these simple rules. 1.) Graduate HS 2.) Don't have a child before graduating HS 3.) Upon graduating HS take any full-time job you can get (can be minimum wage).

A family member of mine bought land up in Sauble Beach Ontario about two years ago. Built a cottage on it. Mortgage is$1k a month (all expenses) and they rent it out Spring -> Fall for about $2200/week. They have had almost every week booked the past year. They live in the states and pay some local company $50ish a week to clean it. There are definitely some niche locations you can find as CorpRaider pointed out.

I'd like to see something like Waste Management. It certainly is expensive right now, but it would branch them out a bit more.

What would be a good instrument for placing such a bet as a retail investor? I remember around 2010 Soros or his proteges made a similar bet on interest rate increases using some derivative instruments, but I forgot what it was and I wouldn't be able to access such instruments anyways. Maybe not a perfect answer to your question but Eurodollar futures could be a decent play with the current ECB climate.

Honestly not sure what I said that is hostile? But if you took it that was I apologize.

Most things related to health and life expectancy are hereditary. Diet certainly plays a role (more quality vs longevity)..but at the end of the day health freaks are laying on their death beds at age 70 like the rest of us. Except they are wondering what the Hell they're dying from :p

That's not entirely true. Much of the greenhouse gas comes from poor farming practices such as poor diets for the animals, heavy pesticides, hormones etc. Local organic farming can be better for the environment than purely going "veggie." large crop lands can hurt ecosystems both locally and downstream. The majority of crops can be considered invasive species. However I don't think anything is set in stone. At the end of the day humans are omnivores not herbivores. But to each their own. Personally about 80-85% of my meat consumption comes from hunting season. Load up the freezer once a year and help manage the deer and wildlife populations. :P But I am no stranger to veggie or portabella burgers. https://www.motherjones.com/environment/2010/07/is-vegetarian-diet-green/ https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/aug/25/veganism-intensively-farmed-meat-dairy-soya-maize ___________________________ As Greg pointed out earlier in the thread. I think this is more a fad than anything else. And at the end of the day what moat does BYND have? Veggie burgers have been around for awhile and the competition is growing. Once the market is saturated people will begin to look for the cheapest alternative. $BYND is currently more expensive than actual beef.

Down 47% in 9 days... Just gets better and better

Added to: BERY WFC

Nice call on this!

I can't believe the price of those things! Like a used car. It's like the Apple of exercise equipment.