What are the odds that instead of being this juggernaut of cloak-and-dagger-tech, that $PLTR actually doesn't do any of the stuff that it says it does and is either extremely run-of-the-mill or largely fake?

Just a nagging suspicion I have... This CEO talking is full of "red flagginess" to me:

I'm watching it for Druck, but this guy keeps speaking in generalities, changing the topic to broad assertions, etc. all the examples are topical and current -

The real point of Berkshire Hathaway is Buffett is an extremely talented guy who not only made a lot of money, but did it in a way that made a huge difference for other people.

The first can be said of less than 1% of all businessmen, and the second can be said of even fewer. If you think you could have done better by buying one thing earlier or not buying one thing later, you're probably 100% right about that one thing - and 90% wrong about everything else that matters in that picture.

$GOOG had ~ $70 billion in FCF over the last 4 quarters.

They're spending $70 billion on buybacks this year.

Market cap is $1.51 trillion, but they have ~ $100 billion of net cash => 1.41 billion EV.

So almost 5% FCF yield right now, and they're pushing that up for you. But that's only if earnings don't grow at all.

If the enterprise value one year from today is $1.31 billion, then to have a 6% FCF yield, they need to earn $79 billion.

How long will it take Google to grow earnings by 12%?

Ofc I have no idea if stocks will be up 5% next month or down 5% next month,

and ofc rising interest rates and high commodity prices are not a drag on the economy and sentiment,

but the 'real' economy and the new and growing parts of the economy - all that stuff is great. There are many really good companies whose stocks are selling at very reasonable prices, and I think it's a good idea to be buying.

Lots of recent bad ideas (dumb start-ups, story stocks, SPACs) etc. are getting woodshedded, and there are real losses of financial capital there.

I've been thinking a lot about long-term underperformance by "good" stock-pickers.

Consider the story of Mark Sellers, who blew up an amazing track record on one bet, and I just want to track that story. I got into stocks around 2010, and I've only ever heard of one person mention Mark Sellers, but he had a great run:

Thoughts on the $AMC token/NFT dividend idea from a short-seller: I'm short $AMC so a friend of mine sent me something about Marc's suggestion to have $AMC issue an NFT or Token dividend, which presumably shorts such as myself would have to then cover.

The goal of this would be to force a short squeeze (root out ("naked shorts"?).

Best reason to "cut your losses and move on" in investing - because your mental capital is more valuable than your physical capital.

Work through an example of how this plays out: If you're a generalist stock picker w 10 positions, and you expect them to make an average of 50% and you're right about 2/3 of the time,

your portfolio outcomes might look like this:

3 stocks - down 50%
6 stocks - up 50%
1 stock - up 100%

Portfolio return = 25%
Not bad!