It has come to my attention that those on fintwit likely need to issue disclaimers so that others may disregard their opinions.

In the interest of transparency, I hereby disclose the following:

My public "high conviction" trade for Q1 2021?
I hadn't ever used their services.
Nor the services of the *vast* majority of their rivals. What few services I have ever used of their rivals, I am a very basic user. The most basic of basic users.

Those two phat events I pounded the table on last year? I've never even been to the country of one of them. And
would never ever be a buyer of their products or services - theirs or a competitor's. And that other pound-the-table special sit last summer? I've been to that company's home country. But I haven't consumed their services. Or been to some of the countries where they operate.
That financials trade making me look bad currently? Haven't used one of their products. The service co making me look good? Ditto.

That industrial I liked vs their takeover candidate sub back in Oct? 15y ago I bought one product of a sideline biz, secondhand. It worked. The sub
which makes 7-8 digit price tag stuff? I climbed on some a few times, but never turned on let alone used.

That 30+ name basket from the other day?
You guessed it. Nada. Zilch. Nothing. Not one.
And finally that really luscious and interesting special sit announced just about 2wks ago?

That conglomerate merging with another conglomerate with really weird downside contingent options and that weird geometric option to the upside? Here I am on solid ground. I have used
the products of 2 of Conglomerate 1's several dozen portfolio companies, totalling ~1% of NAV. One was once 17y ago. I don't remember using it, but I know I did. The last time for the other ~5yrs ago.

I am, apparently, uniquely unqualified to analyse stocks. Carmakers? I once
owned a car, bought used. Chinese real estate developers? No experience there. No FB ads. No Postgres. No Lambda.

I know Excel, so MSFT might be OK.
And I know record players.
If anyone knows any record player makers, send them in... Image

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with baufinanciaphaster 👹

baufinanciaphaster 👹 Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @bauhiniacapital

8 Jul
@ValueHao IMO neither. They are what they are. One cannot simultaneously be proud of all the tech development China has created and then kill it. So CCP brings it in line.

When automobiles were first made 120+yrs ago, driving them was a total free-for-all. Anyone could make them. Lots
@ValueHao did. But safety? Minimal. The accident/injury/death rate was significant. The first pedestrian accident was 1896. Auto insurance came out in 1897. When public outcry arose, road rules/signage became standard. Drunk driving laws were put in place (NJ 1906). Driver education too.
@ValueHao And it continued. I am not sure we shouldn't think about a lot of what is going on now as a similar governmental reaction. China's govt today is different than US state/federal govts 100yrs ago. And the context is different, both domestically and geopolitically, but anything
Read 4 tweets
8 Jul
Very interesting thread on China's "crackdown" and within a Chinese perspective on control, makes utter sense.
A lot of tech development in China has been in the mode of "move fast and break things" (or "Shenzhen speed") and the war has been a war for territory on the idea platform size will eventually win in "winner-take-all" markets.

China has, sporadically, been taking aim at the
"winner-take-all" construct and abuse of market power. The pulling of the Ant Financial IPO and BABA's fine were recent examples.

There was a good article in the WSJ about 3mos ago which talked about the aftermath of how officials had been shocked about the potential for media
Read 29 tweets
6 Jul
Any one of these by itself is "reasonable", but...
• as Tencent gains size, and influence, its ability to drive gains through minority investment will decrease. Tencent is in line for a "abuse of market position" investigation.
• a "reasonable" discount for PRX may not be 25%.
What is the right discount for a case where investors have zero real influence in voting, and it is not in the interests of those who hold voting rights to discontinue their reign?

If you planned on the PRX entity being 80% Tencent and 20% non-Tencent assets in terms of NAV in
10yrs, and 70/30 in 20yrs, what is the "right" discount for PRX as a "middle-of-the-range" discount?

Should the "right" discount for a perpetual holdco be 15-35% centred at 25%?

Why?
Read 9 tweets
20 Jun
One could take this any one of several ways.

1) Because bitcoin exists, and there are 100 million satoshis on 21 million bitcoin, there are 2.1 quadrillion satoshis out there, which is plenty.
Countries define it as legal tender and implement a low-cost exchange at all times so that vendors of goods and services may take fiat-equivalent. Life goes on, fiat continues to be used. But countries recognize that those who own bitcoin are a kind of super-economic class
of their own, and basically accrue wealth. They are the true capital. Everyone else is labor. Think Elysium or Altered Carbon.

The goal of bitcoin owners at that point would be to get govts around the world to outlaw every OTHER crypto.

And everyone in the world - the 99% -
Read 22 tweets
12 Jun
The idea that bitcoin "ultimately shifts power from banks & corporations back to the people globally" is an idea which could only be held by someone who doesn't understand money.
The reason why bitcoin shifts the power "decentralizing the power" away from banks and corporations and "to the people" is not a quantity problem, which is the usual argument for rising price. It is the database protocol.

And as everyone knows, database protocol for the cash
in your wallet or the gold bars in your vault is key. If you go to the bar to pay for a round of pub-brewed ale, the very act of pulling out your wallet and withdrawing a C-note involves a bank taking a spread on you, and the corporation which forced the branded wallet upon you
Read 12 tweets
3 Jun
I am going to take the other side of this. In a lot of ways.

First, @andrewrsorkin's point about $GME and $AMC being the "public" take on it I expect meant the "non-involved public"

Second, "the [US] general public" doesn't know much about "short selling abuses, short sale...
2/n: ...mismarking, FTDs, and the complete lack of regulatory enforcement and oversight."

Short sale mismarking? No epidemic of this. It happens. Internal, independent auditors, and the SEC find these things. People get fired. The SEC charged BTIG last week with 90 instances
3/n: dating to 2016-2017 from a single HF which had a history of abuses. One or more BTIG employees screwed up. The HF abused BTIG, and the market, and admitted it. The SEC found that BTIG didn't push back hard enough when the HF lied.

sec.gov/litigation/lit…
Read 19 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(