Rod

I invest in Canadian stocks.
Bluesky @rodbhar.bsky.social

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@MikeRWhiskey @EricDLombardi @globalnewsto uh.. it's a CON gov't

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@pickover @sketchplanator from your point of view light would behave normally.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@FindleysFinance @QualCompounders You should have stopped reading after "Trump says..."

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@doubledee3 @ejwwest @hausfath "Zoom out"!
"No. Not that way"

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@Emolclause She should focus on helping the people she hurt not whining about herself.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@DoctorVive This guy has to be a psychopath. He's been at it as long as I can remember.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TCOEnthusiast @WSB_redditor There's still a lot of time to come up with the $40M

[Rod @Rodbhar]

$MPCT.UN The Scarborough Junction development is being advanced with funding from the Ontario Gov't. Dream Impact Trust owns a piece of this, so what could it be worth?

https://t.co/fnMhj1NPsB

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TCOEnthusiast @WSB_redditor Aren’t these publicly traded under $MPCT.DB.A?

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro There was one blog I recall that tried to figure this out in detail. I forget which one.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

Tim may be the only one to get this story right.

[Tim Isgro @TimIsgro]

Charlie Munger once read a single magazine article, spent ninety minutes thinking about it, and made $80 million investing in the idea.
The company looked like a disaster. It had a ton of debt after five spinoffs in six years, and its revenues shrunk because of the 2001 recession. Principal payments on its debt were coming due that the company couldn't make.
I spent weeks reconstructing what Munger actually saw, down to finding the exact article he likely read in 2001.
New series at The Owner's Memo.
https://t.co/puPcZn7OfP

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@mikajm11 @Math_files Ironically, if 0% were a fifth option, it would be wrong!

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro I've seen people try to explain this. Your's is the only one where I can imagine the thought process Munger went through at the time.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@Math_files If being "correct" means the answer you choose equals the chance of picking that option, the probability is zero.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro Yes you did. I missed that.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro Right. But that 4% number bothers me because everyone (almost) gets it wrong! Even Duca in the interview you reference. He says only 4% of stocks outperform T-bills. The real number is 43%--not a small error lol.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro There is clearly plenty of skew, but not nearly as dramatic as the 4% number suggests.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro By 10 year periods:

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@TimIsgro The 4% figure is deceptive because all the money losing stocks are lumped in with the other 96%. A better metric is what % outperform the market average. That is ~35%. You don’t need to own any in the top 4% to do really well.

[Rod @Rodbhar]

@CDInewsletter Not if you add walnuts.