Thumbs up. Of course the real issue is why is anything not exactly how HC says it should be, since any properly framed question contains its own answer.
Jad's talking about something else. Oddly enough, not everything in the mkt is part of WB's plot to keep you from stealing.
If you can't find a way to play tesla, netflix or twitter you are wayyy to old for the game--especially when AMZN is a "mature" outfit like ..lol...you and I remember Woolworth--which was on the DOW til it went belly up, and got replaced by WMT, which doubled in price the next day.
Newbie retail road kill, like you once were before you became a spout for the koolade.
Seriously---it's like you were lying through your teeth when you claimed to be a "science teacher."
Like when you were spouting options plays here, but didn;t know what a put actually was.
Like when you claimed to "believe in the science" while refusing to do middle school math.
Look at the thread header---and then go do the p/b; p/s, cash flow, or any other metrick for "picks&shovels" suppliers to any sector.
The header is quite correct. And CAT sells for less than 1x sales.
I pointed that out a year ago. BTX wants to compete against two other existing "gold standard" tests. One of those came from a ticker that ended up delisted and BK before coming back as a shell co.
But of course none of the "believers in science" here bothered to find that out.
No. It's not. THat's just where it trades.
Take a look at the "stats" for that piece of chicken poop bingo.
While it is often true that the old ways are the best ways--except when HC is discussing how the mkts should work--it'd also true that your risk aversion profile suggests you are unlikely to own many tickers where a covered call strategy really pays off.
My only point is that (like the bit on House MD about "Wilson's porno") "Be not afraid. The wood nymphs can teach you the secrets...."
Over the years I had any number of tickers with p/b and p/s at totally bat-s*** crazy levels of wrong that yielded a steady 6% and more because they regularly went through p&d cycles, where the timely selling of covered calls yielded me and mine more revenue than the entities were ever going to do for themselves.
But then, you are unlikely to own such puppies.
As with many things, it's s atandard. It worked well enough for a Nobel. In other forms it's actually used in doing CGI for geographic features. As a standard it has utility, since if something is being offered too far away from it, something's wrong. An enormous amount of retail cannon fodder $$$ got to stay with retail once it became ubiquitous.
HC and his puts strike me as on the gamey side--but that's personal taste. Covered calls, way out on both time/money, especially if you get your charts straight, offer what amount to reasonable divs on some holdings.
For me, they were also an easy way to hit targets, since my roll rate was considerably shorter than say...WB.
Now that the next correction is being put into place by the surge of retail money pushing into the mkt, calls can be a tasty snack.
On the other hand, it's very likely that for a contribution of a half million or so, WB would let you kiss his rump.
"a monkey throwing darts could have made decisions as good as he's made." That was proven about any "expert" over 40 years ago.
For a contribtuion of a few bananas, that monkey would throw stuff at you.
Watching a plan come together is even more gooder.
Noticed that Business Week did a page on negative interest rates this past week... hehehe :-)
" If you havent called Dr Okarma...Do so"
Yeah, It's not like he's got anything else to do but ensure that BTX can keep selling shares.
"Hope" is a town in Arkansas, just like "fair" is where you go to judge pickles and pigs.
HC is having anxiety attacks over the vague sense that if people woke up there'd be less for him to tip the dancing girls.
" at some point the growing liens of debt holders on the limited revenue will become greater than the future producers of that revenue will be willing or able to support, "
Yup. Or as Lord Keynes should have said "In the long run...f***em if they can;t take a joke. "
"and conflict will result. The conflict takes the form of debt repudiation"
No...That's a mild chat over coffee. To me, until multiple people are bleeding "conflict" is a word out of place.
"wealth cannot, because its physical dimension is subject to the destructive force of entropy. "
That fails real world testing--unless you're in the GOP--as evidenced by "global warming."
" confiscatory taxation," Piffle. If you with only the clothes on your back, you have a net profit over what you arrived with.
Heading towards BRK, WB has said at least twice that gov't can run a 2% nominal deficit basically forever. I agree--in fact I will go with a 4% deficit for very long times. The issue is the purpose to which the spending is put, as Arthur Burns explained to Congress about 30 years ago...when he was asked if debt is "good" or "bad."
"Buy your kid a year in college; take a vacation to Acapulco--either way it's debt."
Fundamentally, I see the problem as bad dialectics on what is "wealth." Hint: Rule #1--don't outlive your money.
Take a breath and ask "Why not?" Other than "nominally" what difference would it make?
The number one--which to me is the point--is that it causes risk aversion to create motion rather than paralysis.
Historically, one of the reasons for the FedRes was that the "market" induced negative yields on a regular basis--check the period between that idiot Jackson and Teddy for "The crash of ...."
1. You are mistaking clearing price for "value."
2. Keep digging. THere is cash to be had in finding stocks that churn. Quite often, the churn is the price;
since--bottom line--common stock is little different than a roulette chip any time the mkt cap is anywhere north of the sheriff's auction price of the "book."
3. In my day "float" was everything other than T-shares and the personal holdings of mgt and employees, and as that number drops %wise, price follows.
You may recall me explaining this to missed a few months ago--pushing the overnite rate __nominally___ negative as a stimulus package for the non-welfare queen part of the economy. That is, put a 3% "sitting on your rump" tax on any FDIC insured welfare queen.
"buffett HAD to authorize the buyback" HAD TO ?????????
From a standpoint of playing the game, you're falling for the nonsense brokers used to feed into the biler rooms to get the smoke machine running. Those shares __floated__ to the Gates Foundation, the second WB authorised the click. All of the "figuring" you're doing should have been built into the price the day WB made the big announcement.
A more useful question is how many BNSF folks were hitting 75,80,85; and how did this change their allocation strategy.
A get in the game question to ask is (see my post to looking) how the ___demand___side kept passing on BRK. My answer is that retail cannon fodder and road kill was, once again and always, looking for big quick hits.
" if they do not put it to socially beneficial use," then they are self-entitling welfare queens who would benefit from a gun in their mouth and a d*** up their rump until they choose to loosen up.
I dunno how many times in how many areas of discussion the chart data emerges that coming out of the 74-76 "r word" as the quants began to emerge from the primordial ooze that the present garbage of "money is there to have..not use--cause if you use it, somebody else might get some" began taking over rational thought about "wealth."
I would add that "sharing"--as opposed to welfare queen whining by freeriders--is likewise part of the actual economy--the pay it forward of the DNA playing its own game; which on this board becomes WB figuring out a way around the law against perpetuities.
That may be the reason some may find it "too heavy"--a career in the game of freeriding.