Guybrush

Investerare med fokus på investmentbolag.
@guybrushinvest.bsky.social

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@EkonomiGabriel Tackar!
Har retat mig mer än en gång på autoplay men nu är den avaktiverad.

[Gabriel Mellqvist @EkonomiGabriel]

På svenska, instruktion. Varsågod!

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@ibinvestorX @dividendbomber Satte in en hundring på SAVR och köpte TIN för ett par år sedan, det var den enda investeringen jag gjorde där så nu är avkastningsgrafen på SAVR kvaddad för alltid.😆

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@ibinvestorX Nyhet från 2024 😆

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

Hej @ibindex, Svolders innehav Wästbygg ska enligt https://t.co/km6RwZWTVZ ha gått ned med -48.18% igår, enligt Avanza gick den +6,67%. Kan ni se varför det blivit så?

[Shay Boloor @StockSavvyShay]

MY OPEN LETTER TO PRESIDENT TRUMP

The frustrating part is that I was on board for a reset. Truly. I’ve said it publicly. I’ve written about it in this very feed. I understood the need for a detox. For decades, the U.S. economy played the part of the rich guy at the table -- picking up the check for a global order that no longer worked in our favor. We hollowed out our industrial base. We enabled unfair trade imbalances under the illusion of diplomacy. We subsidized demand for cheap imports while outsourcing the hard questions about how our domestic workforce would adapt.

Eventually, that had to stop. It was unsustainable -- financially, politically, and morally. We couldn’t keep pretending that a consumption-led economy held together by zero-interest rates and global fragility was a long-term solution. I wanted a rebalancing. I welcomed the idea of a harder, smarter America-first policy that pushed for fair treatment, reciprocal agreements, and a real industrial strategy rooted in technological superiority, national security, and capital formation. That would’ve been leadership.

But that’s not what this is.

What you’ve rolled out isn’t detox -- it’s whiplash. This isn’t strategic decoupling. It’s scattershot retaliation dressed up as reform. There’s no roadmap. No operational playbook. No clear articulation of where this ends or what the metrics of success even are. It’s not an attempt to responsibly unwind America’s role as the global shock absorber -- it’s a brute-force attempt to disorder the existing system with no viable alternative in place.

You can’t replace a fragile supply chain with chaos and call it resilience. You can’t build American industry by torching the scaffolding that underpins capital flows, labor mobility, and global coordination -- especially when the U.S. itself no longer has the domestic capacity to meet its own industrial needs. You talk about bringing jobs home, but the U.S. doesn’t have the labor force, permitting structure, or wage flexibility to stand up full-scale manufacturing at speed. And now -- after years of deportation policies and underinvestment in vocational training -- you’ve made the labor gap even wider.

Capital isn’t going to rush to fill that void just because you raised tariffs. It’s going to wait. It’s going to sit on the sidelines and preserve optionality. Because right now, no CEO can confidently model a five-year capex plan. No board can greenlight supply chain onshoring when they don’t know whether a tariff rate will double next quarter based on your Twitter account or some arbitrary trade deficit formula.

That’s the issue. This wasn’t rolled out as part of a comprehensive American renewal strategy. It wasn’t coordinated with the Fed. It wasn’t communicated clearly to Treasury. It wasn’t backed by a labor reskilling program or any form of public-private manufacturing incentive beyond empty slogans. It was dropped like a bomb -- seemingly designed more to shock than to build.

And in the absence of credible structure, capital is retreating -- not realigning.

I was ready to endure the pain of a thoughtful, structured reset. Most long-term investors were. We’ve lived through tightening cycles. We understood that globalization, as it stood, had reached a breaking point. But this isn’t a correction of imbalances. This is a rupture without scaffolding.

What you’ve created isn’t reindustrialization. It’s an intentional sabotage of capital planning. No executive is going to build a factory with four-year political horizon risk, a floating tariff regime, and no labor certainty. No investor is going to fund expansion in a market where the basic cost of imports can change weekly based on what country has a current account surplus that week. The system you’ve launched isn’t designed for certainty. It’s designed for control.

And the irony is -- we’re not even punishing bad actors. We’re punishing everyone. Allies. Poor countries. Longstanding partners. Israel gets slapped with 17% tariffs while dismantling their own to support American imports. Vietnam gets hit with 46% because it’s become too productive. Lesotho, one of the poorest countries on Earth, faces a 50% tariff because it doesn’t buy enough U.S. goods -- as if that were a sign of unfairness rather than poverty. It’s incoherent. It’s cruel. And it undermines any claim to moral high ground.

You say this is about protecting American workers. But no worker is helped by policy so erratic that no employer wants to hire. No consumer is helped when import costs rise and domestic capacity doesn’t exist to replace them. No investor is helped when the cost of capital spikes in the face of weaponized uncertainty.

This is not a plan to make America stronger. It’s a gamble that markets and allies will blink first. It’s brinkmanship with no floor.

And the most maddening part? There was a path. A real one. A version of this policy that could’ve worked -- not in headlines or soundbites, but in practice. A path that applied pressure with purpose, that aligned economic force with long-term national interest, that sent a clear message to adversaries and partners alike without destabilizing global commerce or blindsiding capital allocators.

You could’ve gone after China -- hard -- and had the backing of nearly every serious investor and strategist on the Street. Not just because of trade deficits or currency suppression, but because China has been actively undermining our economy and our people. I would’ve supported a four-year plan to end all dependence on Chinese manufacturing unless they stopped stealing American IP (DeepSeek). No more games. Make it explicit: if they don’t comply, we’ll back Taiwanese independence and bring the entire global semiconductor economy with us. No ambiguity. No half-threats. As I see it, China is at war with us -- and our policy should reflect that.

With the EU, you could’ve played it clean. Match auto tariffs percent-for-percent. That’s fair. And then leave the rest alone -- especially goods and services. We run a huge surplus on services with the EU. It props up some of our biggest competitive advantages -- enterprise software, consulting, cloud, defense tech, streaming, media IP. Tariffing the EU outside of autos would be like shooting your own foot for balance. We’re not in a trade war with Europe. We're in a competition for global enterprise dominance -- and right now, the U.S. is winning.

That’s what real strength would’ve looked like. That’s what an America-first trade doctrine could’ve achieved. You’d be rebuilding the system from the inside out -- not just throwing bricks through the windows and calling it a redesign.

Investors would’ve backed it. CEOs would’ve planned around it. Global partners would’ve respected it -- even if they didn’t like it. And capital would’ve flowed toward American resilience instead of retreating from American unpredictability.

But instead of that, you went with chaos. And now, confidence is shattered. Not because the numbers are bad -- but because no one knows what the numbers mean anymore.

That’s the cost of burning down the rules without building new ones.

So no, this is not the detox we needed. It’s not strategic decoupling. It’s not a path to renewal. It’s a slow, loud dismantling of the very foundation that has allowed American capital, innovation, and enterprise to dominate for decades. And it didn’t have to be this way.

But now we’re here. And the market is reacting accordingly -- not to the fundamentals, but to the sense that the future may no longer be modelable. That’s not a trade. That’s an exit.

I don’t want this post to be hyper-political. This isn’t about red or blue. It’s not about the 2024 election cycle. It’s not about ideology. It’s about strategy. It’s about execution.

It’s about understanding that when you're the United States -- when you sit at the helm of the global economic engine -- every policy you roll out reverberates through capital markets, supply chains, boardrooms, and governments. Words become signals. Signals become pricing. Pricing becomes pain -- or progress.

And I hope -- for the sake of the markets, for the sake of businesses trying to plan, and for the future we’re all investing into -- that it’s not too late to recalibrate.

Because we don’t need more noise.

We need a plan.

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

Den här räntesatsen står ut lite, är den verkligen korrekt?
⁦@Investeraren⁩

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@Investeraren Som jag förstår det måste man föra över medel från krediten innan man lägger en köporder för att inte riskerar att övertrassera. Kan man få till en automatisk överföring från krediten så att man inte riskerar att övertrassera samt slipper betala skatt på medel som inte används?

[ibindex @ibindex]

Ibindex har fyllt 10 år! 🥳
Vi önskar oss en retweet 🎁
Sidan uppdaterad med tio års historik 📈
In och titta https://t.co/JEIDFIMfFO 👀

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@aktieoptimist Tror inte jag kommer behöva ångra avyttringen.🙂

[Compounding Quality @QCompounding]

Aswath Damodaran on the disadvantages of the ROIC metric:

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@aktieoptimist @ibindex Gillar listan (uppenbarligen), Linc kan också vara värt att titta på även om premien är lite väl hög.

[Darth Putin @DarthPutinKGB]

I gave a psychopath his own army of criminals and they broke the law & betrayed me.

The dildo of consequences rarely arrives lubed.

[Jonathan Kärre @JonathanKarre]

Okej här är min bisarra upplevelse av Gröna Lund. Redan första åket är det ett ungdomsgäng som tränger sig förbi några flickor i 10-årsåldern bakom mig och mina barn. Jag säger till grabbarna att det inte är okej, att de ska ställa sig sist i kön…

[Per Håkan Börjesson @Spiltan]

Så trevligt att du gillade boken om @spiltan Invest historia. Personligen är "Sagan om barnen som fick en överraskning när det gick i pension" min favorit i slutet av boken. Retwitta så lottar jag ut några ex av boken om ni är intresserade.......

[Intel @intel]

Today, we lost a visionary.

Gordon Moore, thank you for everything.

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@DrDampen Det verkar tyvärr som att den molntjänst som behövdes är nedlagd. https://t.co/BhudSPGJhN

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

@DrDampen Om du vågar dig på en alternativ appbutik så skulle det här kunna vara den app du letar efter.
https://t.co/Wp2g8GnQ7G

[Svensk Historia @svenskhistoria]

Den 6 januari 1612 utsågs Axel Oxenstierna av Gustav II Adolf till rikskansler i Sverige, en post som han innehade i 42 år. #svhist #dagensdatum

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

Historisk utveckling:
2019: +44,33%
2020: +68,07%
2021: +32,10%
2022: -14,07%

CAGR: 28,8%

Skillnaden mot min tidigare portfölj är att jag inte har desto mer i investmentbolagen VNV och VEF, kanske köper mer framöver.
Stabila diversifierade innehav för oroliga tider.

[Guybrush @erikhswe]

-14,07% för året.
Länge sedan jag gjorde en portföljuppdatering. Började studera under hösten och sålde därför större delen av portföljen för ett halvår sedan. Har dock fått ett jobb som börjar i Januari och har därmed köpt in mig igen (på i princip samma nivå som jag sålde)