Readit NewsHeck of a lot of "support cost" to get to $670k
Whether the numbers are either wrong or if that is truly what support costs look like at a university would be interesting to know.
Most stocks suck:
> We study long-run shareholder outcomes for over 64,000 global common stocks during the January 1990 to December 2020 period. We document that the majority, 55.2% of U.S. stocks and 57.4% of non-U.S. stocks, underperform one-month U.S. Treasury bills in terms of compound returns over the full sample. Focusing on aggregate shareholder outcomes, we find that the top-performing 2.4% of firms account for all of the $US 75.7 trillion in net global stock market wealth creation from 1990 to December 2020. Outside the US, 1.41% of firms account for the $US 30.7 trillion in net wealth creation.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3710251> Four out of every seven common stocks that have appeared in the CRSP database since 1926 have lifetime buy-and-hold returns less than one-month Treasuries. When stated in terms of lifetime dollar wealth creation, the best-performing four percent of listed companies explain the net gain for the entire U.S. stock market since 1926, as other stocks collectively matched Treasury bills. These results highlight the important role of positive skewness in the distribution of individual stock returns, attributable both to skewness in monthly returns and to the effects of compounding. The results help to explain why poorly-diversified active strategies most often underperform market averages.
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2900447And it's not always the same 2-4% of stocks: a stock may shoot up in value, and if you're holding it at that time to can capture that, but once it has already gone up it may perform average-to-poor going forward. At that point, if you're still holding on it, it will be a drag on your (average) returns.
Who the fuck invented that logic of "those companies prices are too high, we have to let them consolidate into a monopoly so they lower their prices"?
China turning off your transportation is.
Is this a feature? It seems like making more parts to break.
Surely there's a better way to get independent cooling control. E.g. one compressor with valves to control which side(s) the coolant flows to?
How do we compare the pain (and yes, some destruction) that we have to endure today against the devastation that is clearly in the horizon for both regions within a decade or two?
To be sure, what's going on today should have been done twenty to thirty years ago. Doing this today is far more difficult and painful.
I think Kevin O'Leary put it best: What we want a reasonably free markets. It isn't just about tariffs. It's about regulatory lockout, intellectual property and more.
For example, India imposes as much as a 110% tariff on US cars and trucks. The list of such actions --which also included non-tariff rules-based restrictions-- is long. From China imposing up to 25% on our cars, autos, chemicals and food to the EU, Canada, Mexico and others following suit. Brazil collected over $800 million in retaliatory tariffs blocking US pharmaceuticals, autos and textiles.
In other words, the relationship with hundreds of countries has been very one-sided for a long time. US industry needs to export to thrive, but if countries like Turkey impose 140% tariffs on our autos and trucks, markets are de-facto shut down.
How long can any country survive this kind of inequity?
So, yeah, this is a rough moment. I hope it is for the best. Everyone benefits from a more open and balanced market.
And then, of course, there's one of the elephants in the room: Intellectual property theft.
Going back to Kevin O'Learly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKkdor6_rw4
https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=567065763062114
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jGFWWqbDwuw
https://www.tmz.com/watch/kevin-o-leary-china-tariffs-04-09-...
Which is not being discussed enough.
And that the current situation can go on a long time but not forever.
And as for your second paragraph, it has that thing I don't understand that so many people seem to have in their brains that if you explain why a thing is true, it is no longer true. I do not understand it. Explaining why they haven't moved on does not suddenly make it so they have moved on. They haven't moved on. Best of luck to them but I doubt it's going to work very well as a strategy in 2025 any more than it did in the 1980s.
This is an interesting observation. I've seen the same thing.
I think the clue is in the "it is a choice"...perhaps they are perceiving seeing some sort of judgement being made of Atari implicit in your argument???
In other words, it can be true at the same time that (1) The are not moving on and (2) It is a choice.
And #2 does not invalidate #1.
> Javice asked an “outside data scientist” to fabricate a list of customers when the bank asked for proof of Frank’s user data, -NBC
If they had 3 million fake accounts and didn’t catch the fraud, then they were in on it.
It’s a great deal. If the company does well, everyone wins. If it doesn’t, then you already know you can claim fraud.
At that point it’s not fraud.
That is quite a quote. Hard to believe that wasn't long ago.