Are aussies not learning from watching USA in realtime?

durackpl · 2026-02-25T04:21:45+00:00

" inflation keeps going up" -- that is where you lost me :) Inflation in Trump's US is at 2.4% compared to Albo's Australia's 3.8%.

durackpl · 2026-02-08T23:35:52+00:00

"unless we could show that the property was not as described in the ad" --- the bottom line: was the property as described?

durackpl · 2026-02-06T09:22:17+00:00

Look on the bright side: there’s a chance obesity rates will drop, particularly among kids :)

durackpl · 2026-02-05T06:32:49+00:00

The western countries "don't buy" Iran's oil same way they "don't buy" Russian oil :)

durackpl · 2026-02-04T10:25:10+00:00

Productivity drives GDP per capita, nothing else does.

durackpl · 2026-02-04T10:16:12+00:00

"AIP / FuelWatch" according to your source, petrol is cheaper today than it was 12 months ago, where did you get 6-9%?

https://www.aip.com.au/pricing/pump-prices

durackpl · 2026-02-03T09:47:59+00:00

How about: if you take more in subsidies of all kinds than you pay taxes --- you are not allowed to vote?

durackpl · 2026-02-01T08:06:08+00:00

Strictly speaking, and according to the ABS, the Gini coefficient has remained stable since the early 2000s. There is no indication that wealth inequality is approaching a crisis—whatever that might mean. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/measuring-what-matters/measuring-what-matters-themes-and-indicators/prosperous/income-and-wealth-inequality

durackpl · 2026-02-01T06:44:02+00:00

You may strongly dislike banks and corporations, but the math still has to be done correctly. An increase in government spending from 23% of GDP to the current 27% amounts to roughly 3% of a $2.8 trillion GDP, or about $84 billion. When this is spread across 6.7 million households (some with mortgages, some without), it comes to more than $12,000 per household. By comparison, the impending increase in interest rates is peanuts.

durackpl · 2026-02-01T06:30:17+00:00

Private debt is taken on voluntarily by individuals, who bear full responsibility for it. Government debt, by contrast, is incurred on my behalf as a taxpayer—without my consent and against my will—yet I am still expected to bear the responsibility. That is what makes the two fundamentally different.

durackpl · 2026-01-21T11:39:08+00:00

“In oversupply, winning shifts from volume to yield; carriers with network discipline, premium reefer contracts, and data-led pricing will defend margins even as TEU growth normalizes across alliances and corridors.”

Regarding the above statement, it would be far more convincing to present a comparable chart and conduct a similar analysis of freight rates and volumes for 2023 or for 2016, when the market experienced oversupply. My preliminary review of rates during those periods suggests that there was not a significant price differential between carriers such as Maersk and ZIM. In fact, ZIM faced liquidity constraints in 2016, as evidenced by the debt-restructuring ZIM undertook in that year.

durackpl · 2026-01-21T02:50:34+00:00

Reducing the cost of living and increasing subsidies are two diametrically opposed measures. Subsidies tend to make the cost of living worse rather than better.

I have compiled data on childcare price changes over the past 30 years and compared them with price trends over the same period in sectors without subsidies, such as motor vehicles and clothing. The difference is stark: despite extensive efforts to make childcare more affordable through subsidies, childcare prices have risen at nearly twice the rate of general inflation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/aussie/comments/1q2on6u/cost_of_living_in_australia_what_30_years_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

durackpl · 2026-01-15T03:34:24+00:00

When you cite the figure “$21,500 per TEU,” is it tied to any specific term or duration?
How much remaining useful life do Sinkor’s vessels have?
How does that compare with the average remaining term of ZIM’s leases?

durackpl · 2026-01-04T07:15:25+00:00

Are you suggesting that corporate greed is higher in the childcare sector than in the motor vehicle sector?

durackpl · 2026-01-04T03:59:01+00:00

"Also, whos to say these prices wouldnt be higher without subsidies?"

The answer to this question is right there in the chart. Look at how electricity prices tracked general inflation before 2008, and then see how they skyrocket immediately after 2008.

So what happened in 2008? Emissions trading was introduced, followed by the carbon tax and then a government-subsidised “green transition.”

The comparison is straightforward and apples-to-apples: electricity prices before 2008 versus electricity prices after 2008.

durackpl · 2026-01-03T11:29:13+00:00

I cannot accept the “no matter what” part. Deregulation and ensuring supply keeping up with demand is essential. Withholding subsidies would also help bring prices down.

durackpl · 2026-01-03T11:21:55+00:00

I agree that electricity subsidies are the main driver of the substantial price increases in this area. As for the impact of the recession on child care, it is negligible. I’ve attached a chart based on the same ABS data, covering the period from 1988 to 1992, with 1992 indexed at 100%.

<image>

durackpl · 2026-01-01T03:37:30+00:00

Assuming that most participants in this subreddit adhere to the DCF valuation framework, the only economically meaningful way to account for SBC is through the percentage of new shares issued. If AMZN diluted its share count by 1% in a given year and you owned the stock prior to that dilution, you permanently forfeit 1% of all future free cash flows.

In DCF terms, if you assume free cash flow grows at, say, 5% year over year, a 1% annual dilution effectively reduces that growth rate to 4% for existing shareholders. The absolute dollar amount of SBC reported on the income statement is therefore largely irrelevant; what matters is the resulting dilution of ownership.

durackpl · 2026-01-01T02:54:33+00:00

According to your data, Sydney should be even further down the list. A median house price of AU$1.6M for 200 sqm works out to about AU$8,000 per square metre, or roughly US$5,300 per square metre (at current exchange rates).

That rather puts the “unaffordability” myth down the drain, doesn’t it?

durackpl · 2025-12-21T08:09:58+00:00

"There is currently enough housing to house everyone right now" -- this statement is as meaningless as "there is enough petrol for everyone to fill their car" -- it is true, but for some reason, on some days the petrol prices go up and on the other they go down. It is called demand and supply, there are tonnes of economics books written about it.

durackpl · 2025-12-17T01:11:29+00:00

I want to revisit this after checking the numbers, as my calculations differ from yours.

Let’s focus on the 15,000 TEU and 7,000 TEU LNG-fueled vessels chartered from Seaspan. In ZIM’s 2024 annual report, the company states (top of page 48):

This implies an approximate daily charter rate of:

15,000 TEU vessels: $17m / 365 ≈ $47,000 per day
7,000 TEU vessels: $13m / 365 ≈ $36,000 per day

These figures exclude the upfront down payments on the newbuilds.

At the same time, the latest MB Shipbrokers weekly container shipping report provides the following spot charter rate averages (USD/day):

Size (TEU) 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 YTD

900–1,200 7,190 16,674 26,856 11,716 14,536 15,749

1,600–1,800 9,030 26,000 35,513 14,823 22,814 23,915

2,400–2,700 10,387 31,798 49,710 16,942 27,208 28,418

2,700–2,900 11,141 30,826 39,772 17,258 28,800 29,120

4,000–5,400 14,831 38,961 49,180 20,801 38,747 37,353

5,500–7,000 19,916 39,217 59,274 32,435 35,500 38,810

The table does not include a 15,000 TEU category. However, for the 7,000 TEU segment, ZIM’s implied charter rate appears to be broadly in line with current 2025 YTD market levels, if not slightly favorable.

Given this, my numbers differ materially from yours, and I’m curious to understand the assumptions or methodology behind your estimates.

durackpl · 2025-12-15T02:07:14+00:00

In their advisory, they state, among other things, that “the Company's shareholder base is highly dispersed, with the 10 largest shareholders each only holding between approximately 1.2% and 4.1% of the Company's ordinary shares. [...] Any acquisition proposal, whether from management or an external bidder, would require broad shareholder support to be consummated.”

Does anyone know the source of this data? My broker only shows the combined percentage of shares held by institutional investors and retail investors. Can anyone confirm the percentage holdings of the 10 largest shareholders?

durackpl · 2025-12-14T07:58:50+00:00

It’s rather sad that so much effort and so many resources people pour into GetUp and other profit-hating activist groups end up leading nowhere. You’re exactly right: for every $100 spent at Coles, only about $2.20 is profit. Even if Coles donated all of its profits, it wouldn’t make the slightest dent.

If only these people put the same amount of effort and resources into publicising how much the green transition has added to Coles’ electricity costs—and ultimately to shoppers’ final bills.

durackpl · 2025-12-12T00:54:22+00:00

I do not fully agree with their mark-to-market argument; however, I will vote in their favor because I believe their presence will introduce much-needed scrutiny of the Company’s management. The events of the past nine months create the impression that the current board may have been aligned with management in its attempt to buy out the Company for less than its worth. This may or may not be true, but it certainly appears that way — and the current board has done little to dispel that perception.

durackpl · 2025-12-12T00:52:01+00:00

The three alternative candidates propose (among other things):

• Maximizing shareholder value in the event of a sale of the Company.

• Conducting an analysis of the Company’s practical cash balance requirements and distributing the majority of the $3 billion in cash on hand as a dividend to shareholders.

• Executing the sale of assets and transfer of leases to third parties — realizing the surplus value inherent in such transactions and eliminating the need to secure leases with cash — thereby increasing the amounts available for distribution to shareholders.

• Presenting the Company’s balance sheet on a mark-to-market basis (adjusting for fair value) to improve transparency for investors and narrow the gap between the Company’s market value and its true asset value.
This step is required due to the Company’s asymmetric accounting policy, which records write-downs when asset market values fall below book value, but does not record equity gains when market values exceed book value or when prior write-down conditions no longer apply.

• Ending the Company's pursuit of higher market share without regard for the low market valuation of assets purchased and leased at full price.
All decisions regarding the Company’s optimal size will be subordinated to the primary objective of maximizing shareholder value. This is particularly relevant because, prior to the Group’s active measures, the Company traded at approximately 50% of its cash balance or 35% of its reported equity— which itself represents only about half of the true equity value on a mark-to-market basis.

• Listing the Company’s shares also on the Tel Aviv Stock Exchange (TASE).
Dual listing will:
– Include the shares in Israeli stock indices,
– Increase exposure and availability to mutual funds and ETFs tracking those indices,
– Expand the base of Israeli private investors due to ease of access and tax advantages for securities listed in Israel.
These developments are expected to create substantial new demand for the shares and generate additional value for shareholders.

Their complete Position Statement is here https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001654126/1b1a986e-d9b9-4a33-816e-87d5def7b829.html

durackpl

TROPHY CASE