scorpioncapital

Oligopolies may seem like minting gold but live by the sword, die by the sword. Imagine a scenario where the government allows just 1 provider of some social service - like Communism. It then has the power to set any subsidized fake price it wants, usually due to populism or to appease the people to maintain power. So you get a fake or Potemkin like stock market that is really no market and you get low prices that make the investment not work out. Is a duopoly any safer? Maybe a little. Look what happened to the big banks. As soon as the government got desperate enough and wanted to get some money, it did a 'special tax' for the banks. Remember when government owns everything or near everything it becomes their go to piggy bank. To stay in power or have 'stability' they will prioritize businesses over personal income tax imho. In the end game, everyone is taxed more and more, but I think the lack of a free market is the biggest risk.

My view is you have to accumulate sufficient unrealized gains that if it turns flat for a while you can just wait it out and/or get some dividends too. While buybacks are theoretically similar, dividends seem better to me in a flat period. Also there are now new taxes on buybacks which I am not sure if the equation tilts in favor of dividends.

humans love their big brother protective cocoon? Without fail, they will deliver?

how can the Fed - or for that matter how did Japan control interest rates if inflation was higher than the rate? If the government is buying the bonds is the idea that there is a long time before they own 100% of the market, after which it is no market at all? Any effect on the currency?

isn't this what financial repression is? The rate of interest below the rate of inflation. Negative real rates. Some very smart analysts like Russell Napier, Justin Trennert and Larry MacDonald all think this is inevitable. Arguably Japan did not even scratch the surface, with real rates perhaps 0 to -1% is very mild for a very indebted society. Add capital outflows or lack of investment and it seems we need negative rates that are far lower than even -1%? So how does gov achieve this without 'scaring the horses' to run as Napier says. One way is to fake the CPI stats and create a deception so that inflation is higher and rates are lower than that actual number. Another way is populism. Restrict economic activity or who is forced to hold government debt.

pacbio is 3.80. The offer was at 8. It also seems to be failing after the anti-trust diss. What I see happening is that governments deny mergers on businesses which have such bad management? or other issues (perhaps they were in a competitive market all along!) that they do badly themselves even if the government tried to save them or the public from some big giant. Now, I'm not sure what this means when the government gives them a handicap benefit but they turn around and possibly go bankrupt!

The FTC is even going after money losing or precarious companies. Look at irobot merger fail. Stock from 50 to 8. Or grail by illumina the company doesn't even have a product yet. Meanwhile some drug companies are allowed. It's scary as it seems almost random?

anybody know on what date the mystery non 13-f disclosed investment(s) brk has made is coming out?

Float is more useful when inflation is low I'd imagine. Consider the example of the airline. Perhaps they can get 4% for a few months until your flight, but if interest rate is 4%, then inflation is also higher and their costs may be higher 4 months down the road. So it seems to me neutral at best.

Isn't this a prepayment of the tax on death? The loan withdrawals = the tax owed eventually? I have heard about this strategy. It is used by wealthy in rich countries with high marginal tax rates. The caveat is that the loan rate is < the tax rate (usually) and that you don't get a margin call! I would imagine you have to take a view on overvaluation and reduce debt when market is bubbly and increase it during/after every regular catastrophe or bust. You have to do it prudently. I think there may be some benefits also on deducting interest expense. I know the Davis family used this strategy. The son on this podcast mentions how his dad and granddad who made a vast fortune as investors in insurance companies took great risks on margin. He told the truth - to create vast wealth you need leverage. To preserve it, you do not. So question is what phase we all are in right? this is the podcast - https://youtu.be/o6rgXYt7BnE?si=17PykIM6QV1VtEHr

If they never sell it, how is it different than 'fondling Gold'? How do you derive an economic or personal lifestyle benefit from it?

Some money market etfs you could in theory redeem them from the fund company - like redeeming a bond. But one mm etf I own closed redemptions 1 or 2 years ago and now the secondary market is your only liquidity. I guess MM funds can do this. Maybe something to look at the terms of if you can sell it back to the company or only sell on secondary market?

is anyone worried money market etfs might have liquidity issues in a panic?

Very astute observation. It is why I limit the capital I deploy to monopolies that are no doubt going to be heavily regulated in various ways. Even V/MA I am weary about.

Ai improves efficiency in services and maybe factories? How does it improve efficiency in resource extraction or even political redistribution issues (which reduce productivity)? Do we know that the redistribution regime which is quite strong these days and likely to continue can be offset by productivity gains from AI? Human nature being what it is might also be a drag on productivity. So the question is if there is a substantial net gain after deducting the usual tailwinds.