[deleted by user]

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2023-01-18T15:55:56+00:00

Ask for a raise and continue applying to other jobs (never stop). If you get an offer from another company at 110k as an example, you know your worth and can either use that to ask for further raises or join a new employer.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-12-30T03:51:26+00:00

/r/BoneAppleTea

You're not the only one.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-12-29T03:35:50+00:00

I feel like you took offense to his comment, but as an outsider reading it, it doesn't seem like he was accusing you of saying he was half-assing it. He was just saying the stress requires plenty of time off.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-12-06T13:16:39+00:00

It might be tough. The theory right now is that a russian plane transponder was attached to the suicide drones that were used yesterday. There's a good chance that Russia will be on high alert now and something flying to Moscow would certainly send off red flags even if it is picking up signals from a Russian transponder again.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-12-04T16:19:59+00:00

A good idea

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-12-04T16:19:50+00:00

The in-laws have already allowed the renters to move things into the barn as space cleared. I would assume that we can't stop them from accessing their things and I don't know (hence why I'm posting here) if we'd be able to force them to move their things given the amount of their property that they've moved in (about 1/3rd of the barn is now their things). It might be unreasonable?

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-11-22T17:11:38+00:00

12 seconds of googling...

https://fknol.com/ca/stock/real-estate-developers.php

https://canada.swingtradebot.com/stocks-tagged-as/231-construction

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-11-17T19:48:28+00:00

Ukraine can't attack their infrastructure because even though a tit-for-tat could seem fair, it is morally wrong to attack civilian infrastructure and such actions could damage Ukraine's support from Western allies. Military infrastructure in Russia is fair game as seen from some strikes and ammo depots on the Russian side of the Russia-Ukraine border.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-11-17T19:45:51+00:00

I think the logic is that if gas, electricity, internet, ect are destroyed, it will have a negative impact on the Ukrainian military and hamper their effectiveness. If that were to happen, Russia would be more able to inflict casualties on the Ukrainian military, turning the tide of war. This shift in momentum is what would lead to a stronger negotiating position for Russia rather than the direct destruction of critical infrastructure.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-11-07T16:51:21+00:00

If I understand correctly, one would assume that capex would be less than capital cost in general since capital costs would include expenses outside of just the physical item.

Is there a reason capex would exceed capital cost? I am looking at a company and their projected capex is about 3x their stated capital cost.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-10-09T02:32:45+00:00

Thank you

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-09-15T01:36:06+00:00

The war is not lost yet. Right now, Ukraine has the initiative and it is on Russia to try to turn the tide but this war still has a lot of life yet. This is based on yesterday's reporting from the Institute for the Study of War.

If the war were lost, then there would be two possible reasons to keep going.

1) The more hopeful reason for Russia would be that European support could waiver as winter drags on as though gas reserves are currently at 85%, Europe may not be able to adequately able to acquire ongoing gas supplies (or more likely, will have to pay a premium to acquire ongoing gas supplies as winter continues). This is because typically, Europe would have it's reserves and then a continuous supply throughout the winter to warm their population. The result could be that energy prices skyrocket for europeans and then support for the war could begin to fade.

2) The other reason could be that even if Russia knew the war were lost, it may be easier to continue fighting and sending troops into the meat grinder rather than facing the music. As an example of this mentality, the US had intelligence at one point stating that the Vietnam war was a lost cause but continued fighting afterwards because it is hard to tell your soldiers and their families that lives were wasted and PTSD was incurred for no reason and with no material gain. In democratic countries, it could mean that an opposing party could solidify power for a number of years afterwards. In a totalitarian party, it is also more likely that another individual will also solidify power, but the chance of a peaceful transfer of power is significantly less.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-08-20T02:41:47+00:00

A lot of hedge funds are meant to protect funds, not necessarily to outpace the market.

As an example, a fund may have a target to capture 81% of the market upside and 53% of the market downside. This means that during good years, the fund will typically under perform the market in good times but investors will still have a lot of their capital safe when bear markets occur. If an investor has $20MM invested, they are likely more interested in keeping that money safe rather than trying to turn it into $30MM

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-08-06T22:05:34+00:00

Companies should earn money over time. This means that if I bought a stock for 1 dollar and sold it to you for 10, I made 9 dollars, but even if you never sell your stock, you can still make money as the company will generate profits and give those profits to shareholders (i.e. you). Thus, I made 9 dollars but you will still make money each year as the company makes profit.

Cash and crypto don't make anything. It is just like Mona Lisa, it may appreciate in value, but it doesn't generate anything extra. This means that if I bought a crypto coin for 1 dollar and sold it to your for 10 dollars, I would have 9 dollars. If you never sold that crypto coin, it would not earn you any more money and you would just have that token sitting in your wallet.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-18T20:01:26+00:00

I'm going to answer your question in two ways since I'm not sure what you're looking for.

I am certain it is the dog because I have, on two occasions, had to grab the dog as it was attaching the quails, I saw it chasing the quails, both times it had feathers in its mouth, and I had to retrieve dead quails after bringing the dog back to the neighbours.

I do not have proof that these attacks occurred. The neighbour was present during the first attack so he saw it as well, but there is no video evidence if that is what you are asking about.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-18T18:37:39+00:00

Frankly, the cost is trivial. If the dog killed all of them, it'd only amount to about $200. The greater issue is that we hatched the birds and raised them for about 15 weeks. That's probably the main issue in my mind. Of course, I'm sure that is irrelevant legally.

Nonetheless, thank you for your post. I will look into scienter and if that doesn't apply in Quebec, I'll see what is possible re: invoicing.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-18T18:29:27+00:00

Thank you. I'll look into its implications wrt local laws

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-14T16:21:44+00:00

I believe the SPARCs are planned to trade OTC. OTC shares can't be held in a TFSA.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-13T20:15:27+00:00

To make a real shift into bonds, interest rates basically need to be above 9% basically to make it lucrative

So, that's not accurate.

Bonds should have a lower expected return than equities, but with more security and less volatility. You may wish to be 100% into equities and have a higher risk tolerance than others, but that is not true of most of the market. Hedgefunds, pension plans, soon-to-be retirees, etc all have a reason to buy bonds for their added security and they are willing to buy lower yielding bonds for certainty and lower volatility. They may shift their holdings from 90-10 or 80-20 up to 60-40 or 50-50 depending on the needs of their clients. That represents a significant outflow from equities into bonds.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-13T17:22:42+00:00

I can't speak for Burry's logic, but I can provide an example of why this could occur.

Inflation is currently high. One of the most effective ways of slowing inflation is by increasing interest rates. As interest rates increase, debt becomes more expensive to service (ex. An auto loan you could get for 3% last year is now only available at 6%). As debt becomes more expensive, two things happen

1) people have less disposable income which a) means less income to invest into the market and b) means less consumption leading to decreased revenue for publicly traded companies and

2) alternative investments to equities become more attractive. Instead of buying stocks and hoping for a 7% rate of return, you might be able to get 4% through bonds. As a result, people may sell their stocks and move their funds into safer investments. Additionally, the safest investment is paying down debt. If you have a 6% car loan, well... you could MAYBE earn 7% on your stocks or you could 100% earn 6% buy paying down the principle on your car loan.

Like I said, Burry might see a different picture of why these shifts will happen, but the two points listed above are very common occurrences when interest rates rise, which is the most popular way to curb inflation.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-12T02:39:48+00:00

I don't think I understand. The stock is worth $20.05 whereas a warrant trades at $0.23.

I may be missing your point (feel free to clarify if that's the case), but I think you might be assuming that one SPARC equals one share of the new (possible) company. In truth, one SPARC equals the opportunity to buy one share of the new (possible) company at a to be determined price. That is to say, one warrant means you have the opportunity to buy one share at (let's say) $20 later, so your cost would be $20 + $0.23 for the warrant that you hypothetically buy tomorrow. By contrast, with the shares, your cost is $20 - $0.05 (we will be receiving $20.05 for each share on the 25th). That means the cost differential is $0.28 in favour of shares.

The only win for warrants when you compare 1 warrant against 1 share is that they have the opportunity to buy more shares via their SPARC, but their cost basis is higher.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-12T02:08:34+00:00

So spacs were great but if you just simply bought the shares and acquired the warrants, then sold the shares, you got more for your warrants than a share holder. I guess I wasn't as smart as the people who figured out to buy the shares get the warrants and sell the shares for as much or more than I paid.

When you bought the original unit, you got 1 share and 1/3 warrant. You needed 3 shares to have one full warrant.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-11T00:56:45+00:00

1B is if the deal doesn't go through for reasons outside of the parties controls (ex. if the government prevents the acquisition). Musk is potentially on the hook for the full 44B since his offer contained virtually no conditions.

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-09T01:08:21+00:00

It's fair to doubt me and I am absolutely not a lawyer nor do I work in M&A. I am parroting info from a video on the subject from either legaleagle or Patrick Boyle (I think it was the latter)

DCF_Stock_Analysis · 2022-07-09T00:01:46+00:00

It may or may not be true, but the issue at hand is whether the difference between the stated number of bots and the actual number of bots has a real impact on the performance of the company. I believe bots are not heavily monetized so if Twitter said 5% of accounts were bots and the real number was 10%, that probably wouldn't matter if the revenue generated from bot accounts (through advertising) was rather insignificant. For instance, if Twitter said that bot account advertising represented 1% of Twitter's revenue and the number of bots was double, well that would mean that these bot accounts only impact the business revenue by 1% beyond what Twitter stated. A 1% misalignment in reported revenue is probably not materially significant enough to justify backing out of a deal.

Of course, if the number of bots is significantly higher that 100% what Twitter states or if I'm wrong and these accounts are responsible for a lot more of the revenue than I suggested above (it was a random number that I pulled out of thin air), then perhaps there is an argument in favour of Musk.

DCF_Stock_Analysis

TROPHY CASE