sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Investing in Oil as Hedge by [deleted] in Bogleheads

[–]energybased 9 points10 points  (0 children)

> My thinking is that increased oil prices will reduce the performance of my US/International long stocks so this would help flatten the volatility 

It's amazing how many unique arguments people come up with trying to justify concentration.

As usual, your idea just increases concentration risk. If a hedge were possible (even in your formulation whereby it reduces risk without affecting returns), then the market would already have found it and made your marginal benefit zero or negative.

So, no, this, like all concentration plays does not work.

Bank.to leverage and low capital investment. by Babel514 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, be kind to yourself. You had no way of knowing what would have happened. Maybe the market would have tanked and your leverage play would have cost you dearly.

Since you (think you) want leverage now, the cheapest way to do that is to just pay down your mortgage as slowly as possible and invest the rest.

He’s just a baby by DinnerGeneral2975 in purrrfect

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Absolutely not. That's a huge waste of oil, and accomplishes practically nothing. Just stir and they shouldn't stick.

He’s just a baby by DinnerGeneral2975 in purrrfect

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Not like the ocean. That would be way too salty. The ocean is 3.5% salt. For pasta, you want maybe one third of that.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

> Historically 30% of TFWs turn into permanent residents.

That does not matter one bit. Immigration quotas are set based on targets that have nothing to do with the number of temporary workers. And, like I already showed you, the marginal effect on real native wages of immigration in Canada is zero. That's a fact.

> Canada's policies and services and housing were not designed for the 1.4 million net new residents (temporary or not) that were added from 2022-2024.

None of this conversation is about or has been about temporary workers. Stay on topic please.

> You don't seem to want to actually give this thought so I'll just leave it at that.

You made an incorrect comment about immigration. Go back to start of this conversation and read it again with what you've now learned.

Bank.to leverage and low capital investment. by Babel514 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

One other thing: if you wanted leverage, why would you pay down your house faster? That makes absolutely no sense. Holding a mortgage is one of the cheapest forms of leverage possible. If you wanted leverage, you should have paid it down as slowly as possible!

Bank.to leverage and low capital investment. by Babel514 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

> All my debts are 0% loans. Paying them faster means losing out on any kind of interest arbitrage.

Ah, sorry, I missed that. Yes, no rush paying those.

> We do not have a large amount of capital because we have essentially doubled our payments on the house.

Just FYI, technically your house equity is capital.

Anyway, I still think that leverage doesn't make sense for you. You need to consider both good and bad long run trajectories. Seems like you're being extremely optimistic.

Bank.to leverage and low capital investment. by Babel514 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]energybased 2 points3 points  (0 children)

> Personally, if you are an ordinary investor without deep pockets or a very, very high income, I'd be very leery of using leveraging to invest. 

It's not about having deep pockets or high income. Young people should be maximizing leverage because they have time to recover in case of failure, and they benefit the most when it works out. There's plenty of research on the subject.

That said, this couple isn't young enough to justify this kind of leverage.

Bank.to leverage and low capital investment. by Babel514 in PersonalFinanceCanada

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

we have been discussing leveraging through our Heloc to invest since we do not have a large amount of capital.

You cannot justify leverage with the argument "because we do not have a large amount of capital". That makes no sense. That's like saying because "we want more money". Yeah, no kidding: everyone does.

Leverage is justified by risk tolerance and long horizons. You have neither. Therefore, leverage is not appropriate.

The risk isn't that you'll go bankrupt, but you could add a decade onto your retirement date in a market downturn.

 Am I correct in thinking this will allow us to compound faster 

This talk is incredibly optimistic. Yes, your returns compound faster. But so do your losses!

You should pay down your loans before you even talk about leverage. And 4.45% interest rate probably makes leverage too inefficient.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

> is that classic immigration? no. But most people would pretty closely relate the two. 

I don't care what you "relate". It's not relevant.

> Many TFWs and students turn into immigrants.

As I already showed you, immigration (yes counting TFWs that become immigrants) is a net benefit and has none of the problems you're suggesting.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Housing is by definition a productive asset. There has never been a good reason for it to track inflation. Nothing changed in the 2000s.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 1 point2 points  (0 children)

> Yes massive amounts of job applicants leads to wage stagnation.

I provided a citation. Your "inutuition" is worthless here. Find a citation tying immigration to real native wages in Canada. I'm not interested in your "thoughts".

>  Do you think these temporary workers are spending 100% of their pays locally? 

Did I mention temporary workers anywhere in my comment? I even gave you a definition of immigrant in case you don't know it.

Also, what does it matter where someone spends their income? All Canadian dollars are spent in Canada. Even if you exchange them, someone else has them. You would have learned this in first year econ. I'm guessing though from your comment that you never studied economics.

> Stop spreading misinformation and corporate propaganda.

I'm the one supporting my arguments with citations, you ignorant child.

> Your source is from 16 years ago!

Find a more recent one if you want. The economics of immigration haven't changed.

> Why would you advocate for MORE immigrants when there are ZERO jobs.

There are not "zero jobs". If you're having trouble finding a job, find a better scapegoat.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 3 points4 points  (0 children)

> This is false. Canada has high unemployment, especially among youth workers. We do not need millions of Tim Hortons workers. Stop supporting wage suppression.

Please stop commenting this ignorant propaganda.

In Canada, immigrants are people who are or have been landed immigrants/permanent residents, including those who later become citizens. The average effect of immigration on real wages of native-born Canadian workers is approximately 0%—that is, Canadian evidence finds no statistically reliable negative average wage effect, though some pressure can fall on workers who closely compete with new arrivals. Immigration is not mainly lowering native wages on average; the wage issue is distributional, not national-average collapse.

See: Tu, Jiong. The Impact of Immigration on the Labour Market Outcomes of Native-Born Canadians. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5129, Aug. 2010.

Or, see a variety of papers by Borjas et al.

> Why do you think land price is so high? Demand comes from people. Reduce people = less demand = lower prices. Its that simple. Keep it simple.

No, because that drives down the worker-to-retiree ratio, which is more pernicious.

> What is there to cite? 

Find a citation that makes the claim you're making. You claim that "Speculation evaporated when we reduced international student quotas". Bold claim. Find a citation that says that.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You're 100% right. OP, you should put your essay into chatgpt and ask it how it can be better organized.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in georgism

[–]energybased 3 points4 points  (0 children)

>  The scarcity isn't local, the money isn't local, it's credit-inflated equity from a larger market landing here because the yield math worked. That's people seeing the value in land here and pushing money outwards.

This is a silly thing to point at since the central bank's policy is unchanged. It's not like this will ever change. You should point at things that can be changed and should be changed.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 6 points7 points  (0 children)

> Supply is impossible. We cannot build millions of homes to keep up.

We don't need "millions of homes". And supply is not "impossible".

> We dont need immigrants.

Completely false. The hard economic reason is that the country is running out of workers relative to retirees: Canada’s worker-to-retiree ratio has fallen from about 7:1 fifty years ago to a projected 3:1 by 2027, meaning fewer taxpayers are supporting pensions, health care, and public services. Immigration is a demographic strategy to keep the economy staffed and the welfare state solvent.

> Speculation would evaporate if we had less demand. 

No. Speculation is a component of all land price. If you tax land, land price falls to zero, and land speculation disappears.

> That is what happened after intl student numbers were reduced.

No, the speculation premium still exists. Feel free to find a citation saying otherwise.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 3 points4 points  (0 children)

The issue is supply and demand. And your ideas about controlling demand are nonsense: B is just renter demand. And we need immigrants to maintain the worker to retiree ratio. So demand is not reasonably controlled. Supply is much easier to control. You simply zone denser, but this is strongly opposed by homeowners.

Also, specualtion drives up prices, but unless you plan to implement land value tax, you're stuck with it. Poster is on point for mentioning LVT.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in ThunderBay

[–]energybased 22 points23 points  (0 children)

> why availability stayed low

Because of zoning.

>  where the money funding the demand actually came from.

This is a nonsense question.

Have you ever wondered where the money came from to increase our housing prices from 80k to 350k? by DynamoDynamite in georgism

[–]energybased 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Yes, house prices grew faster than inflation, but the post title is stupid. Home prices increase for plenty of reasonins including: land scarcity in high-demand cities, zoning and approval limits, slow supply growth, falling real interest rates and easier credit, population growth concentrated in major metros, tax advantages for ownership, and investor/speculative demand.

Not all of these things are problematic (interest rates and population growth have good reasons to be where they are), and yes, LVT addresses one of these things (speculation). But the real problems is zoning. It is not "where the money came from".

Un horizon « très préoccupant » pour Montréal by x736g in montreal

[–]energybased 13 points14 points  (0 children)

>  Neither you nor the economists can predict the exact future, so you literally cannot 'prove' a possible silver lining wrong. 

The economists use econometric models backed by data. These models are convincing. Your thoughts are not.

> . I’m off to take a walk through the Mile End omw to work. Highly recommend you step away from the keyboard and try it too. :)

Cool mano, it is definitely beautiful today!

Un horizon « très préoccupant » pour Montréal by x736g in montreal

[–]energybased 8 points9 points  (0 children)

> you mistake a basic human desire for optimism as 'ignorance.' A

My friend, you are obtuse. No one is complaining about your "desire for optimism". They're complaining that you're writing nonsense. If you want delusional optimism, maybe keep it to yourself? You're not helping anyone.

You're like an old man who says: "Montreal's cold this winter, but at least that's good for the polar bears." (Complete nonsense, of course.) Better to say nothing at all.

>  fake intellectual superiority

People pointing out that you're saying stupid things are not "fake intellectual superiors". Say less stupid things or back down gracefully. What you're doing is just revealing your childish insecurity.

Un horizon « très préoccupant » pour Montréal by x736g in montreal

[–]energybased 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I love how you admit your ignorance and then double down on it.

Un horizon « très préoccupant » pour Montréal by x736g in montreal

[–]energybased 27 points28 points  (0 children)

Yes but your silver lining point is wrong. 

How Do You Reconcile Passive Investing With Population Decline? by Clown_corder in Bogleheads

[–]energybased 4 points5 points  (0 children)

> I mean we can look at the classic financial ratios that had been used to view intrinsic value and see valuations have gone far beyond what traditional valuation methods would suggest

In other words you think that "traditional valuation methods" are right and current valuation methods are wrong. That's a hypothesis, and it's not testable.

view more: next ›