Sportgamma

And at the same time, the prefs aren't moving.

Here in Iceland there have been tests made by random sampling of the population. Based on random sampling, around 0.3% of the population tests positive. Obviously, this is not representative for other countries or populations. In Iceland most of the effort has gone to tracing infections and quarantining people who have been in contact with infected people. By now, over 50% of people who test positive are already in quarantine when tested. https://www.covid.is/data Yeah, Iceland seems to be doing well, but a small country with a concentrated population in a small area (like Singapore) would be much easier to manage w something like this. The random sampling showing only 0.3% infected obliterates the "this disease has been widespread for a long time" thesis. Makes you realize how impossible achieving herd immunity will be (without having large magnitude of deaths/healthcare overload). That's excellent. From Iceland link: Confirmed infections: 1417 Total samples: 23640 (1417/23640) * 100 = 5.99%. How are you getting 0.3%? Assuming your random sampling comment is correct, 6% of Iceland being infected with a swab test that does not even tell people who are already infected, nonsymptomatic and cleared of virus in a country we dont consider to have Covid outbreak is pretty high. The Iceland data is really interesting for testing (understand the virus and compare testing strategies globally). There are two vectors for testing: one is targeted and looks similar to many countries, the other is "random" although the methodology does not reach the pure random definition. At first, for the 'random' part, people self-selected and more recently people can accept to be tested after a random call. In the 'random' group, the positive rate has recently been reported at 0.9% and it may be around 1.0% now but is unlikely to be too far from the 'true' number related to the prevalence in the population. There are limitations: sensitivity and specificity of the test, a negative test today does not mean a negative test tomorrow. Although they report a large number (about 50%) of asymptomatic people in the 'random' group, they may catch the disease before the onset of symptoms. However, this (and the age group profile they show) suggests that most people who get CV have mild or no symptoms, especially if young. The 'random' sampling is done by a genomic sequence entity and the analysis is revealing potentially very potent analytical aspects: -the virus mutates to a degree so that it becomes different from other CV virus elsewhere once it has reached a country or a region -the genetic makeup (and possibly previous exposures to other or more benign forms of CV) of the individual appears to be a key independent variable vs risk of becoming really sick -the virus mutates relatively slowly (good) but it's spreading quite effectively (bad) which makes it quite 'unique', in a way. There are actually three vectors for testing if you look at the self-selected group and the random sampling as two separate ones. If you take the self-selected testing out of the Decode data, the infection rate of the random group is around 0.3%, although the latest published numbers are only from a sample of 950. https://www.visir.is/g/2020139435d/slembi-ur-tak-is-lenskrar-erfda-greiningar-synir-0-3-prosent-smit-uti-i-sam-fe-laginu

Here in Iceland there have been tests made by random sampling of the population. Based on random sampling, around 0.3% of the population tests positive. Obviously, this is not representative for other countries or populations. In Iceland most of the effort has gone to tracing infections and quarantining people who have been in contact with infected people. By now, over 50% of people who test positive are already in quarantine when tested. https://www.covid.is/data

https://s1.q4cdn.com/579586326/files/doc_financials/2020/Fairfax-Financial's-Shareholders'-Letter.pdf

Upwork

True, and perhaps a bit ironic given the fact that they are expressing their concern that the online tech companies might become an ever-increasing size of the S&P500. The earliest writeup that I have seen from Murray on TPL is from 1996 I think, but he's probably been in it even longer. I would think that a fund like a Paradigm fund has a very low-cost base on their TPL position.

I'm not really sure what a bear-shitter is but I don't think that Horizon Kinetics are particularly bearish in the traditional sense. They are bearish in the sense that they hold high cash positions in their funds, but it's not like they are short these names they mention in the commentary. I think you also need to consider what their objective is with an analysis like this. Who are they talking to? They are talking to high-net-worth individuals and institutional investors. They are talking to their clients and potential clients. They are talking to people who manage portfolios. The commentary isn't really a call on the market, it's a scenario. The point is not that this is how things are going to play out. What they are pitching here (the same applies to last quarter's commentary) to their audience is that the S&P500 might have a concentrated exposure to certain events, whereas the HK products will give you very different sets of exposures. They are saying that they have products and strategies that fit well as an allocation option into a portfolio. In recent years we have seen AUMs move from active mangers to index-based alternatives that are structurally cheaper. Closet indexers will not survive in this environment and HK understand this very well. I think many active managers have gotten burned simply because there is nothing that distinguishes them from their direct competitors (value, income, growth, etc). Take Manning and Napier for example. What sets them apart? I can't for the life of my figure that one out. In my opinion, HK has done very well in developing investment products and strategies that differentiate them from other asset managers.

Maybe I'm reading this wrong or maybe it's because I'm Icelandic and a little bit scared, but I don't think one should include the banking operations if we are going to use free cash flow as a metric. Also, isn't a comparison between the cash hoard and market cap omitting a bunch of liabilities, such as €800 million of deposits? A pretty interesting situation nonetheless... https://relatoriointegrado.ctt.pt/media/f4sjdnka/07-consolidated-and-individual-financial-statements.pdf

I've been following Steven as well since FIAT. Clever guy and great at pitching stuff. If he is on the board of a listed company, then there must be some sort of publication. That publication is likely to include "steven woods" "greenwood" and "board of directors" or "board member". Et voilà. What confused me is his claim that they have "obtained a €100 million cash flow stream for free". Hard to see that from the latest annual report...

http://www.payshop.com.pt/ctt-e-investidores/a-empresa/governo-da-sociedade/orgaos-da-sociedade/conselho-de-administracao/steven-duncan-wood.html?com.dotmarketing.htmlpage.language=1

I think their options were very limited. Their need to preserve liquidity is way higher... https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2019/03/28/1788027/0/en/Dundee-Corporation-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-and-Year-End-2018-Financial-Results.html

"F#$k the government, I got my own deficit" - Don't remember if it was John Malone or Frebby Gibbs

Guys, I think we should leave it at that. This is turning into the Corner of Wisteria Lane and Melrose Place...

AngelList: https://angel.co/

As a father of an eight-year-old, in my experience, a kid is going to observe how the people around him behave. How those people behave will have a formative influence on that kid. The rules that parents formulate around how the kid should behave, less so. Particularly if there is a large discrepancy in the behaviour of the rulemakers and the rule they impose on the kid.