Libs

have put in $1 increments in the 108-150 range. Schwab. I will give that a try, thx.

I don't see a quote for the 138's , just 135's ($2.00) and 140's ($3.15). So that one (140/135) costs $1.15, and at $135 you make $5 or 4.7:1. Do I have that right? What about the 150/145. Cost $2.25. Stock only has to drop to 145 and you make over 2:1. Not bad. You might be on to something. Thanks.

With TSLA the growth story is completely broken. No new models, EV'S slumping, layoffs, and all this for 60-70X earnings. The downside is huge and Elon's got nothing that will turn things around for at least 5 years, and that's IF robotaxi and FSD gain traction, which I highly doubt. So I have a fair amount of TSLS, which is great because I can use my IRA to short it. I'll hold TSLS for as long as it takes to deflate this $500B bubble. That's the long-term play and i can weather the volatility in TSLS. The options are short-term gambling, with earnings on 4/23, and expiry 4/26. Smaller in size. My bet is that this recent decline still hasn't priced in the earnings miss that is coming. Also early estimates on Q2 deliveries are really bad - down 10% Y/Y again.

Very helpful, thank you.

Can it be that simple? I thought the options market was a lot more efficient than that.

I'm sure the answer is obvious, but I couldn't find a satisfying answer with a search. Obviously I'm an options neophyte. Example: Tesla stock price is $157. The April 26 $175 puts cost $20. Meaning I need the stock to be at 175-20= $155 to break even. A $2 drop from the current price. Right? Meanwhile, the April 26 $157 puts (ATM) cost $8...which is a $149 break-even price...now you need the stock to drop $8 to break even. What am I missing? Aren't the $175 puts a much better deal?

Bingo. As a friend of mine says, "wow, Marxism is the unluckiest system; if only some country could finally pick the right people to try it out!" Karl Marx inflicted untold misery upon the world.

Why?

Someone once asked if he knew how to play the piano. “I don’t know,” he said. “I’ve never tried.” Another classic.

I bought a handful for $200 each way back in the day (2015?); then bought two more for $50,000 each a little while ago. Talk about averaging up! Anyway that last buy was to get me to to a 3% position, where it will remain untouched. I guess it's 4% now.

Here is a list of U.S. Sanctions, from the Treasury Department. https://ofac.treasury.gov/sanctions-programs-and-country-information Luca- I like your posts on other topics, I think you have a lot to add, but I think you are way off on China. Just look at the drop in foreign investments in China; down 90% since 2021. That's not just because of sanctions or human rights abuses. Investing in a communist country is dangerous as hell.

Sold most of my Tesla puts that exploded this week. I'm finally in the black betting against Tesla (my white whale!).

The comments about railroad and energy are quite jarring, and a complete departure from the past. Kudos to Warren for facing these issues head-first. As a shareholder it's forcing me to re-examine some of my assumptions, though. I had thought these two pillars were iron-clad.

Classic. The property bubble was driven by central planning mistakes - 1) they incentivized local governments to raise revenue by selling land to developers; 2) They made sure Chinese had no other good investment options. And of course, the bubble finally blew up. And the solution? More central planning! I see China as basically a battle between their hard-working, resourceful people and the CCP, which is constantly doing stupid things to hold them back ( one child policy, Covid, etc.) It's the same race we have here in the U.S., but here the people still have a shot to overcome the idiots we elect. I think.....

<A great example as I've mentioned so many times is the insurance broker contingency commissions, something that I considered quite accurate as to Spitzer's complaint> Sorry for a quick derail here, but I remember this well. I was in the thick of it as a branch (So Cal.) marketing manager for one of the major insurers. This was the mid 90's. We came up with the genius idea of offering bonuses to the brokers (Marsh Mac, Gallagher, etc.) if they put X amount of business with us for the year. It never occurred to us how unseemly it was! But of course, in keeping with Munger's teachings about incentives, brokers would, especially at year-end, put clients with the wrong carrier, to hit the goal. Not very ethical. To go on a further tangent- at this same time (actually 2000) Buffett thought it was OK to 'rent out' Berkshire's balance sheet. As I recall AIG took him up on that. Most of us thought Brandon ( Gen Re head) took the fall for him on that one. A very rare lapse of judgement on Buffett's part IMO. End of tangent. I think Dealraker has made me nostalgic for my old P & C days.