Printable View
"Just a prank bro"Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
Give me a break. Own your viewpoints or shut the hell up. I'm so tired of shitty viewpoints getting trial ballooned then people pretending like it was for laughs when they get slammed.
As far as Montana - you elected a shithead that physically assaults journalists when confronted with tough questions. You're getting what you voted for.
6 week low in the ten year rate.
Bought a lil BABA with the mad money account... in general I hate China stocks because I can't trust, but the price seems good.
And Intel is on sale still.
Otherwise I'm waiting. Lot's of open orders as things step down
When Powell immediately shook off .75 hike he knew there was no way. .50 in June is questionable now
DXY is 3% off it’s recent high. Good support a couple % lower. This is good news short term.
Yeahman: not surprised, it's real fiscally conservative to spend money advertising on a product that's already flying out the window. I'm sure the working class stiffs will still vote him in again though.
Finally, the housing supply shortage is solved!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
On another note, airfare is insane - Paid $584 R/T RDM-DEN for mid-June. Used to be about $300.
Can confirm... had to pay over $500 to fly to DTW and back from DEN. :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Toadman
Higher airfares are good....forces people to stop flying...reducing fossil fuels and promoting the idea of electric planes. Besides....an extra $200-300 for a flight is noise for you dentists building $1M custom homes. WIN WIN!
A good thing? While it isn't a big deal for me (and I'm no dentist or custom home owner), it is a big deal for most travelers.Quote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
With the exception of the last two years, about 50% of Americans travel by air every year, so this isn't some 1%er thing. These are people visiting their families, staying connected to the world, and yes occasionally taking their once a year vacation. 2/3 of <40K/yr households fly occasionally!
The environmental impact of air travel is small compared to other sources and negligible compared to its benefit of connecting the world.
In summary, shove your misplaced environmental concerns right up your pretentious ass.
PS, Fuel efficient airplanes have been a push for the last several decades. However, electric planes are a novelty, a nice idea to one day take over very short haul, but will never offer considerable range + speed.
So -- is this dip good or bad for taking a gig with a big RSU grant from Alphabet? Asking for a friend....seems like potentially getting stock at discount with potential upside.
$1m doesn’t get you much house these daysQuote:
Originally Posted by sirbumpsalot
It’s neutral as a compensation bonus because it’s a grant and not an option.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Way they explained it to me was that they get X shares of stock based on the current price when they start -- that then vest over 4 years. So if say, 100k in stock 100k/current price = X shares. Seems if those shares go up 10% over next 4 years, then wouldn't it end up being $110k total value if they cash them out at the higher price?Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
Yes but you can’t assume anything. With an option you only make money if the price goes up. With an RSU it always has an intrinsic value.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
Yep -- that's why they are consider the gig. Alphabet RSUs vs startup options / funny money.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
Is responding to price signals not part of the plan to convert to more renewables? Was a carbon tax not part of the progressive plan until recently? What would THAT do to the cost of air travel.Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
Auto transport is 74% of the transport carbon footprint in the USA. Fossil fuels and ICEs in cars and trucks have multiple substitutes on the market that are becoming more affordable with more on the horizon.Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
Air transport is 2% of the global carbon footprint. Substitutes for turbine combustion engines in air travel, especially medium/long haul, are not feasible in the near or intermediate future... perhaps not even in the long term.
Air travel is vastly more fuel efficient than your Pruis. Maybe when everyone is driving Teslas it will be different.
Priorities vs benefits vs substitutes? Air travel is literally at the bottom of my list.
Further fuel efficiencies are possible, and have been the driving point of aircraft development for decades because it is the number one variable cost. It is a natural point of continuous improvement absent environmental impetus.
There are options for sustainable and greener fuel options for aircraft. Here is an example https://www.bio.org/blogs/worlds-fir...thanks-biotech
It’s an employee retention annual bonus plan with value tied to the stock price treated preferentially to cash by accounting and Wall Street. The compensation risk being transferred to your friend isn’t just from google stock price (which unless high up, they have little effect on), it’s also that they’ll still be at google a decision that may be voluntary or involuntary.Quote:
Originally Posted by doebedoe
You're looking at totals, but people drive way more than they fly. Per person per mile air travel polutes more except for maybe really long travel: https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566Quote:
Originally Posted by Summit
And what? Should we be subsidizing air travel?
That story is absolute BS. A gallon of gasoline and a gallon of Jet A produce almost identical CO2 output (Jet A is about 5% more).Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
Short/medium haul air is about 50 pax mpg while long haul is more like 100 pax mpg.
You need a Prius or a truck with 3+ to outdo short haul air travel... and then you can consider time and productivity.
Now that we've cleared that up, you are right: I am looking at totals but also efficiencies and alternatives. You prioritize large and inefficient problems for which are better alternatives. Air travel is none of those.
Multiple sources had similar totals to what I posted. Your just call BS and post no sources of your own...
And I don't "prioritize" anything beyond letting consumers respond to the natural price signals that are already taking place. I suppose I could be talked into a carbon tax but again that would make air (and car) travel even more expensive.
Lol. You dumb.Quote:
Originally Posted by schuss
Before that BS article, the only person I'd ever heard complain that long haul air travel is worse than a car was a whacko luddite chemtrail conspiracy dude. That article complains that long haul air is 2-6x worse than a car per paxmi. Hating air travel for enviro reasons has become vogue really in just the last 3 years. It is luddite BS. There are also some questionable claims out there eg that planes cause extra warming because they fly high, dubious, and often those making that anti-air claim ignore the severe non-CO2 pollution effects of surface transport (some of which occur even with non ICE vehicles).Quote:
Originally Posted by RoooR
Here are some sources for you that back my point and show that cars are typically less or much less efficient per paxmi (and CO2) than air:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/trave...ment-51166834/
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/as...er%20passenger.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/tr...uestion192.htm
https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10311
https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=31512
Attachment 417330
This Federal EIA graph in particular shows the increasing efficiencies over time (this shows all routes including ultrashort haul like LAX/SFO or BOS/NYC and small aircraft/prop routes). Aircraft are least fuel efficient per paxmpg, and therefore more expensive: the shorter the route, the older the plane, the smaller the plane, and the emptier the plane. Pandemic caused airlines to retire their older less efficient more expensive aircraft, so the efficiency graph has gone up considerably more since 2016.
Climate change is a critical issue. It is so sad to see such misunderstandings and misplaced efforts directed at air travel instead of much larger and more solvable climate issues.
Sometimes I worry about whether my kids are learning enough when I see examples of where a ship sailed long ago and all that's left is a dry lakebed.Quote:
Originally Posted by yeahman
What a bloodbath. I shorted SNAP premarket and promptly panic-covered for 5% gain whereupon it tanked another 18% throughout the day. Been so burned by shorting the past few years that it's hard to get the old instincts back. Bob - did you see that cruise lines tanked again? Glad we're out of that gongshow
Only my energy purchases are green and even then I fear what 4matic said; everyone is piling into that so perhaps creating yet another bubble
Lol, if you own 100 shares of CCL stock you get $100 on board credit on every cruise you go on. I’m a member of various Carnival cruising facebook groups. Been comical watching all the people advocating buying the now “cheap” shares the last month or so. Nobody ever mentioning how much debt they took on. People losing $800 to get $100 in on board credit. Heh. I might be a buyer again at sub $9.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
I’m still waiting for my free lunch.
Of all the storied comebacks, I still don't understand why anyone was buying cruise line stocks at any point since March 2020 through the present.
3/20 - 12/21 is obviously one for the storybooks.
XOM does have the large nat gas exposure so it can continue to run ahead as long as NG stays strong. Crude gets a bid on any weakness so likely higher. You never get that much time to sell a top.
T within a shout of a 52 week high. Hope you all sold that dog spin-off.
SNAP exposed that there just isn’t enough global ad dollars and growth In Those dollars to support the valuation on any of the social stocks.
Another thing I’m wondering about is if indexing and sector funds reached a tipping point? Will active management finally have its day?
Sentiment on bonds might be turning. 2y had a big ramp down.
I bought 100 shares of CCL on 4/09/2020 @ $12.00 per. I sold them 8/5/2021 for $22.38 per. I sold two calls on it during that time and bought them both back for a combined profit of $284. It worked out pretty well.Quote:
Originally Posted by dschane
My average was a bit lower. But I had 2 years selling calls on them so got paid 12% pa to wait and ended up liquidating them via calls in the mid 20s. Seemed like a worthwhile rebound play at the time and a way to be long the boomer economyQuote:
Originally Posted by BobMc
I sell products to the cruise industry. The timeline they have on ship refits is nuts. Like a 4 year waiting list. There are only a couple dry docks worldwide that can do them. Nobody loses their spot in line, so while shit was blowing up, these companies HAVE to lay out tons of cash to update ships that may not get used for a long time. It is amazing business from our end, but must be a nightmare on theirs. It will come back strong though, eventually. People love their floating buffets.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc
What was interesting to me was that the Capex on the ships was high but so were the maintenance costs. Once I figured that in the best case I could see for price was low 30s for CCL ( including dilution because they did equity financing at lower prices to keep afloat)Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog
FIFY
Quote:
Originally Posted by warthog
So hit a bear market for a few minutes and now nothing but up, crazy.
Dead cat imo.Quote:
Originally Posted by 406
Shorted SNAP bounce
This is also what I'm thinking... though what the fuck do I know? This market does seem quite loco.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
10y looks like it can go back to 2.50% with just a little nudge. That big spike in the yield curve this month is going to revert.
Bear markets can have insane rallies. In 2000 the nasdaq rallied 30% multiple times before bottoming out.Quote:
Originally Posted by 406