Reddit Posts
Testing out a new strategy for 2024. Purely mechanical with a tiny positive delta bias.
Mentions
Please read the BHB (Beebower/ hood/ brinson) and BSB articles. They were SEMINAL peer reviewed articles. Hint: Market timing (like I mentioned) AND security selection have been shown to give negative alpha even in the BEST portfolio managers in the country.
VFF is selling hemp-derived THC gummies through BHB brand CBDistillery. Not exactly an MSO, but they are at least selling THC products in the US.
re: MSOS and swaps. Looking into their holdings https://advisorshares.com/etfs/msos/ some are listed as swaps while others are not (Terrascend, Planet 13, etc). Anyone know why? Also, welcome SNDL to the msos club? btw I'm guessing VFF is on there due to BHB, which is, admittedly, a stretch... and looks like they grabbed another 115k shares of them yesterday.
Looks like I’ve got some butt hurt bers. The sub has a class case of BHB.
It is very cute that you think that Musk is in all cash or something. If the market tanks, Musk is more affected than most. It isn't like he's fucking Buffett. Buffett has like 50+ billion in cash factoring his %stake in BHB alone. Musk is like all smoke and mirrors too - pretty sure he's doing some MSCI shit.
Interestingly vff also just recently said that their US operations, BHB, is now producing their gummies in house in a GMP certified plant (https://www.morningstar.com/news/globe-newswire/9353932/cbdistillery-brings-gummy-manufacturing-in-house).
HINT: It was NEVER worth it. The data has always supported picking the index fund. Sorry you were late to that message. BHB and BSB studies published in the JFA in 1980's and 1990's put the nail in the coffin for active management. No you are not alone in having NO CLUE what I am talking about. Most FA have no clue about the above peer reviewed published articles I am talking about. Just like in life it pays for the consumer to do their OWN research. No surprise Wall Street does not advertise the results of the results of this old debate before it was settled.
They are currently #2 in Canada and I suspect, unless TLRY purchases another (large) cannabis company, they will be #1 in the next 2-3q. Texas politics will make it hard to do anything but I'm hoping they can grow a leverage intrastate laws.. but who knows, if there's a blue wave and lots of states are banking billions in revenues, it may be sufficiently convincing. Note: Don't forget they have presence in Colorado with BHB and SEVERAL partners that are helping them with vegetables who may be very interested in capitalizing on a more profitable crop. Their real strength, IMO, lies in their existing distribution partners that they've cultivated through the years by way of vegetable deals.
Hey r/gambelero, saw you disliked the VFF er and curious why. They knocked the revs out of the park at 92m USD for the quarter and under 2 percentage points from taken the #1 spot in Canada. They are also 1 of 10 people in the Netherlands that will be servicing 85 coffee shops and those revs should start coming in q1/25. The beauty here is that Holland is not imposing extra taxes on those sales.. I mean there are things like BHB/veg drag but I think the cannabis business continues to shine brightly and that's where the bets are on.
I was thinking BHB was in North Carolina…
Texas is probably the worse state but appears they are accepting medical license request. Regarding hemp, VFF has sunk money into this venture 2x (once with partnerships early on and one with buying Balanced Health Botanicals). Both have been pretty terrible investments (ROI) as hemp/cbd hasn't done much either in the US. I believe BHB contributes about 5m revs/quarterly but cost them 75m in cash and stock. Definitely one of their worse moves thus far.
BHB continues to write down. 14M in q4. Hopefully this is the last. That said, Mike mentioned they're within 3% of the #1 Canadian slot as of Feb end. All this with one acquisition (Rose) and the rest organic growth. And TLRY is out of companies to buy (and out of funds)... They'll take the lead this year imo.
Not all ETF are PASSIVE index funds and not all PASSIVE index funds are done via ETF (original via mutual funds). Chew on that for a little bit. The key is PASSIVE as that is the point of BHB and BSB articles. If you don't understand the difference then got to do some reading. As Charlie Ellis said, "Active investing is winning the loser's game". Think he should know what he is talking about since he used to run Harvard Endowment Fund (made Harvard the largest endowment the largest in the WORLD). I stop trying to convince folks A LONG TIME ago in this argument. The data there already is a clear winner. I just write here from time to time so new readers can see it. The ones who are interested will reach out and ask or follow up and decide to read more. My advice NEVER trust me or anyone else. Just follow what the STUDIES and the DATA say.
Index funds are great as they don't pick stocks. That is the point. They just just pick all stocks that fit their methodology. For example if you choose the U.S. total stock market it will pick EVERY U.S. stock that is investable minus the very smallest stocks (-3% or so of the smallest one out there that are too small for it to invest). They don't choose. The invest in a market cap fashion. They weigh them accordingly by market cap meaning more shares of stocks that are bigger and less in companies that are smaller. So you are gauranteed to get the return of stock market. If it gets +20% you get +20% minus fees. If it gets -20% you get \_20% minus fees. That is fair. That is it. The point is to avoid active investing which is defined as: Security selection and market timing. There are landmark articles (nearly no one knows they exist including the financial pros on Reddit as I have had numerous discussion about this topic which is UBER sad considering they do this for a living) that have decided this debate many years ago. BHB and BSB papers were published years ago showing active management LOSES you money vs. passive index investing. No surprise Wall Street makes sure the main street never learns about those studies.
NO ONE. Please read the BHB (Beebower/ hood/ brinson) and its 10 year follow up study. It showed a negative return on BOTH its active management techniques (security selection and market timing). It was basically the final nail in the argument for active management. Of course, you wouldn't have heard of it as Wall Street makes sure you never hear about it. It took the top 100 or so top pension funds in the country and looked through their returns. These are funds so big (BILLIONS in AUM) so have the access to the top money managers in the WORLD. They found what we already knew for DECADES: Returns are going to be you asset allocation on a weighted basis. The active management LOST money. Of course no one believed it (meaning Wall Street). So they repeated it 10 years later. Same story. So unless you think you are better stock picker then the best in the WORLD (talk about arrogant) you are likely to perform even worse then them. Yet folks keep doing it everyday. So interesting... Can you say Dunnig- Kruger effect.
Yes I did look at that is a classic case of "data mining bias". That is well known in finance. Nothing new and nothing that hasn't been seen a THOUSAND times. Last that as made bid was the "Dogs of the Dow". Data mining works until everyone knows about it then it doesn't. So even if it DID exist the mere fact of using the same principles no longer can work because everyone exploiting it bids up those same companies prices and the premium is lost. Here is your article: [https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract\_id=4448099](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4448099) There are MUCH better ones about failures of active investing if you are interested such as the seminal articles: BHB and BSH studies. Too bad you don't understand index funds. I'm not going to argue. You do you. Buffett himself to academic literature from peer review papers from Jensen original paper in 1930's to now support it but if that is not enough no problem. I don't write these posts for folks like you. You are NOT going to change your mind. There are investors out there who are open to seeing what the data shows. I encourage THOSE investors not to listen to me or you. For those investors go read the data and the evidence (there is a plethora of evidence based research on the subject and no surprise not marketed by Wall Street) and invest according.
Best advice... Read nothing right now. Just focus on getting a great education and getting the highest paid job in a field you can see yourself doing for 30 years. Saving money from that is what makes you wealthy. Everything after that is secondary. Now AFTER that here are the best books: 1. Easy: Jack Bogle "little book on common sense investing" and Allen Roth "How a second grader beat wall street", 2. Intermediate: Bill Bernstein: "Intelligent Asset Allocator", Rick Ferri "all about asset allocation, Jack Bogle "common sense investing", and Roger Gibson "asset allocation" 3. Difficult: Lussier book and Antimen's Book Then make sure you read a couple seminal articles: Trinity study and the famous BHB (Beebower/ hood/ brinson) and followup BSB (Beebower/ singer/ brinson) studies.
When I first starting investing nearly 15 years ago. I didn't need to get "beat" to learn. Most don't know but the data in the peer review published literature is VERY strong on this matter. If folks just decided to be educated on this matter they never would even try. Beebower/ Hood/Brinson (BHB) and their 10 year follow up study Beebower/ Singer/ Brinson (BSB) put the nail in the coffin of active management. Folks can raise their hands and tell me how many have heard of these studies. Yep NO ONE. That is because Wall Street makes sure they are NEVER MENTIONED. For folks who want to know unbiased they are excellent studies. Go read about them and decide for yourself. I'm glad I did when I started by investing journey. BTW... Common sense also told me it is obvious without inside info how can one constitently beat the market if everyone is privy to the same info. at the same time AND no one can predict the future. Seems obvious to me.
Please read the BHB and BSB studies that was the definitive peer reviewed published study on active management. Hint: NO active management is a losers game just like Charlie Ellis who ran Harvard Endowment Fund (largest Endowment fund in the WORLD) has always said. So yeah this argument has already been put to rest, but go ahead and trust the folks on Reddit.
VFF - it's not burning money, it's profitable in Canadian cannabis, expanding internationally, lowest-cost provider, it's got some US assets in BHB and it has 6MM SF of US greenhouse space to convert when able
Sure. Maybe we can start with the Bessbinder or the BHB and follow up BSB study? I def. don't want to mislead other investors (consider I just chastised you for the same). Thanks in advance.
If there is something else I have learned is folks who don't want to learn they are wrong will NEVER admit they are wrong. So I won't spend my time trying to convince you how wrong. I will talk more generally for others trying to learn so they can learn what the data actually says.. Dude named Bessbinder published a peer reviewed article recent. It shows that only 4% of ALL public traded stocks EVER have contributed to all the returns of the stock market to this day. Yeah that is how few of the stocks actually make up the return of the stock market. We already have articles published back to 1930's showing active funds run by active fund managers do worse (Jensen). Those were days when insider trading was easier too so you would think that would be the days their outperformance would continue. The SPIVA studies each year are updated show the same which you can look up yourself. The landmark/ seminal articles published by BHB and BSB in ?JFA showed the top pension funds couldn't outperform their own asset allocations either. This was the real nail in the coffin. GREAT studies and design if anyone wants to read them and are available if you search for them online for free. You want EVER see them mentioned by Wall Street (no surprise). How about REAL life results? Well Jack Bogle interesting enough who founded the first retail index fund (Vanguard sp500 in ?1977) wrote down EVERY single domestic equity mutual fund at the time. He knew folks like you would be arguing at some point which is better. There were 340 or so. So after 25 years how many beat his sp500 index funds by 1-2% (to cover the higher costs of active funds)? 5-6/340+. That make a success rate of: <2%. Yeah that isn't good! So we have no peer review published data from 1930's to now ALL showing active fund managers and pension fund managers who many have advanced degrees from MIT/ Harvard who are MORE then capable then doing 4th grade math running algos 24/7 on computers more expensive then your house is worth can't do it, but somehow you advocate the common Joe is better at it. Please provide you data to prove it as I have provided several published studies to disprove you point of view. Thanks in advance.
Market timing has been shown to have a negative alpha. This was published in the 2 landmark/ seminal peer review papers putting the nail in the coffin of active management in general INCLUDING stock picking (BHB and BSB studies). They were published in JFA circa late 1990's I believe.
Quick answer is: No. Long reason: There is PLENT of data to support it in published data. The longest running is the current SPIVA study (SP Passive vs. Active). You can google it and passive continues to beat active over and over again. The seminal articles on the topic is the BHB and the BSB articles published in JFA in 1990's. No you OR the FA will have heard of them. I literally have had discussion on Reddit with CFP that don't know them. Sad to see a random guy who is NOT in the field of finance know stuff about something a professional knows nothing about, but that is what happens when your paycheck depends on you not knowing the data.
Well you could read the seminal articles on the topic of active management being a losers game and NOT doing it, of course, you won't as would contradict your wishes of doing it. If interested they are Beebower/ hood/ brinson (BHB) "Detereminants of Portfolio Returns" or something like that pub in JFA in circa early 1990's. Then its 10 year follow up study Beebower/ Singer/ Brinson (BSB) also in JFA. Of course NO ONE seems to know these as Wall Street made sure the results were kept buried from the public sphere of knowledge and cognifitive dissonance took care of the rest. But since you asked. Then, of course, you have the ongoing SPIVA studies. The best book on the topic showing the same is Rick Ferri "Power of Passive Investing" where he collates all the published peer review data with all the footnotes showing active management is a losers game (Charlie Ellis line of Harvard Endowment fame).
Sorry that is NOT what the data shows. I am really surprised the folks on Reddit (even the folks who do finance for a living) don't even know the peer review data on it. If you want you can start by reading the seminal articles on the topic that put the final nail in that coffin of active management INCLUDING picking stocks (security selection): BHB (beebower/ hood/ brinson) and its follow up study BSB (beebower/ singer/ brinson) published in JFA in circa early 1990's. Here is a brief overview of the study: The took the topic pension fund managers in the country (top 100 or so). Those are the ones that have access to the top money managers in whatever industries they wanted to invest in at that time. They then looked at their returns. They compared their returns to what their returns would have been if they invested in the same type of stocks using a index passive approach. They found they LOST money with their security selection AND market timing techniques. Of course this sent shock waves through the finance community. No one believed it. They repeated the study using the next 10 years of data and published those results as the BSB study. Again same results. So guess what Wall Street does? Make sure NO ONE ever hears about these studies ever again. If this doesn't convince you just look at JPM private banking arm OWN study (link below). Their OWN study in the end sees NO advantage of adding a concentrated portfolio on an index portfolio EVER. No surprise since their data collecting shows over the last 35 years the MEDIAN stock return of ALL individual stock is a whopping -52%!! [https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/eotm-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy.pdf](https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/eotm-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy.pdf) I really don't think folks realize how hard it is to beat the index. Considering only a minority do ex post and those that do have NO reproduceable way to do it shows it is more gambling then reproduceable skill.
Why do so many random folks put out such nonsense like this without actual evidence to support their position? So what is your data to support you are correct? The long running SPIVA study shows active fund managers don't beat passive. So there goes that. The seminal articles in finance (BHB and is follow up BSB) shows pension funds lose money on active management vs. just sticking to asset allocation via passive management (using their own asset allocation as their own control). So, despite the best in the business (active fund managers and pension fund managers) clearly showing they can't do it there are SO MANY folks who sit at home who have no education close to these above yet are SO CONFIDENT that they are superior despite those folks failing. Why do you guys feel so confident and not just assume you are falling for the Dunning Kruger effect? When I see posts like this I chuckle. The same way I chuckle when I see folks watching the show "ER" and thinking the can now take care of a patient. If folks want to know how difficult it would be win at active management below is a line from JPM private banking that looked at last 35 years of ALL individual stocks. What did they realize the usefulness they could even add by adding a concentrated stock portfolio to their clients? ZERO. That was the number of times they could honestly suggest the number of times one should have a concentrated portfolio of stocks to a index portfolio. If you want to enjoy investing in stocks no problem. Realize the odds are against you and limit it to 5-10% of your portfolio. https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/eotm-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy.pdf
I'm sorry the data is pretty clear the chance of beating the index is low and I mean LOW! BHB and the BSB articles published in JFA showed negative return from active management. That data came from the top pension fund managers in the country so I would say they are pretty well connected with top resources to add alpha and failed. SPIVA is an ongoing study showing passive beats active over and over again. Jack Bogle when he started VFINX in late 1970's kept a record of all equity mutual fund (of course all active) at the same time (340 or so). What happened just 25 years later? 11-12/340 beat his index fund. That is a failure rate of 96%+. I'm being generous NOT including higher cost of active management which lowered that number further. 100% agree there is a world out there outside of U.S. large cap blend (SP500). However the overwhelming data supports most of the time when folks do well it is their asset allocation to the assets doing well and their active management (security selection and market timing) loses them money. This was shown in the BHB and BSB articles. So, when a person looks amazing with their picks it is because that asset is doing great at that time. All that being said I do think there are BIG needs for FA, but touting active management to add alpha is not on of them. Financial planning, helping folks stick to the plan, tax planning, estate planning, advising folks on maxing out IRA, 529, when to use SPIA/ reverse mortgage/ etc... all add HUGE benefits to customers. Not sure why the industry continues to focus so much on alpha when over and over it has been shown to lose out to their corresponding index. Easy way to lose credibility as a field. Just my 2 c. These convos. always remind me of Upton Sinclair famous line "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on him not understanding it" For the investor keep in mind every dollar given away is one less dollar to compound in your back pocket. For those who want read for themselves about the topic the best book that actually discusses the peer review publications is Rick Ferri's "Power of Passive Investing".
I don't think you realize the chance of you beating the market is really, really, really low. I am not going to try to dissuade you or others, but will link at the bottom the data. It comes from JPM own Private Banking arm to their own dismay. In they looked at ALL the individual stocks from 1980 to their publication date 2014 so >30 years. It showed over that time period the MEDIAN return of all stocks during that time was -53%. Yep, that is NEGATIVE 53%. Well what is the chances of finding the next multibagger? Well the chances of finding a stock that will 5x the index is only 7% of all stocks. So VERY unlikely. Every major study that has been done (BHB and BSB) has shown active management (picking stocks and/ or market timing only LOSES money vs. just sticking to your asset allocation. The ongoing SPIVA and DALBAR studies show over and over and over again the same that active management loses money over the index. So if you are going to be a active investor you have to accept you will be a loser in the end. Sorry but that is going to be the end story. You will be poorer. Folks either get it and go passive and become richer or they don't and stay active and end up poorer. https://privatebank.jpmorgan.com/content/dam/jpm-wm-aem/global/pb/en/insights/eye-on-the-market/eotm-the-agony-and-the-ecstasy.pdf
This is a reasonable post. Maybe we can start the convo. of what is the definition of: "investing" vs. "speculation". I am not going to go into a big tirade on passive investing again (unless you want), but the basic reason is a couple. 1. Over the last 40 some years less then 1% of ALL trading days accounted for ALL the returns of the returns. Meaning if you missed those days your returns were less then that of cash. I wrote a post of that about a year ago with all the numbers if you want to search for it. 2. The seminal article BHB study "Determinants of Portfolio Return" or something like that and the 10 year follow up BSB study published in JFA showed the returns of the top 100 or so top pension funds in the country. They showed their returns from active management (picking stocks AND timing the market based on valuations) LOST them money vs. just sticking to their asset allocation. That is consistent with every study up to that point and since that point. Don't worry there is a reason you have never heard of those studies as Wall Street will make sure you never hear of them. You can easily find them by googling them though. I am happy to go more in depth about risk premiums and compensated and uncompensated risk that investors are allowed to take on. BTW, many on Wall Street who you love actually use index funds for their OWN person investments even though they make money off you from their own active funds. Trust me they are not dumb with their own/ family money.
Yes they do MOST endowments trail a simple 60/40 Sp500/ bond index fund. Their is an excellent chart in "Four pillars" by Dr. Bernsteins showing that. Please read "unconventional success" by David Swensen who runs Yale's endowment and he is a FIRM advocate as well as Charlie Ellis as I mentioned that retail does not have access to the quality of alternative asset classes they have. If your interested read the seminal articles I linked the other reply BHB and BSB which were done on the top 100 or so top pension fund money managers in the country. So, I would say IF anyone would have access to top access it would be those guys and THEY they still failed as their active stock selections AND market timing LOST money vs. just sticking to their asset allocation. There is a reason those were seminal articles in the investing industry and also a reason NO retail investor knows about them as Wall Street made sure they weren't very well talked about even to this day outside of academic guys and Bogleheads.
You either believe the data or not that SP are random. Heck the data supports ALL active management is bunk and only loses you money. Read BHB and BSB studies published in JFA. Read ongoing SPIVA studies. Read basically every peer reviewed published study since Jensen study in 1930's. There is NO good data to support ANY active management of ANY sort (stock picking or market timing) let alone technical analysis. It is your greed talking and NOT your head.
Oh dear lord. Looks like you have some reading to do. I won't try to convince you, but will give you one real life TRUE story (not theory). In late 1970's Jack Bogle founded the first retail index fund which is now known as VFINX (vanguard sp500 index fund). He knew at that time someone like you would have this question/ debate/ argument so he wrote down EVERY mutual fund that existed at the same time he started his index fund. So, how did his index fund do just 25 or so years later? Only 11-12 funds out of 320+ funds beat his index funds. If you add just 1.5% extra in fees (which is being VERY VERY VERY conservative) it comes down to about 5-6 out of 320+ funds. That is <2% of ALL active professional mutual funds. So the ONLY way you are going to do better is if: 1. You think you are somehow superior to the professional in experience, knowledge, access to information, access to technology, etc... or 2. The markets have become LESS efficient since Bogle kept track of real life results. BTW, this has been looked at more recent. BHB and BSB are 2 landmark seminal articles published in FAJ. They found active management (stock picking AND market timing) both lost money with the best pension funds in the country. There is a reason you don't hear about these articles as they don't look favorable for Wall Street so they are never mententoned. SPIVA is an ongoing yearly studying showing consistent trailing of active funds nearly every year. The data on active management goes back to an article by Jensen in the 1930's. So yeah there is a reason intelligent investors index and it is not because they want to,but because that is what the data shows. Ask Buffet himself... His own's wife money when he dies is 90% SP500+ 10% treasuries and 0%Berkshire stock. That should tell you something.
This brings up a great discussion for the newer and also less well informed investors. Being an index/ passive investor does NOT mean just being 100% in sp500. It just means not being in active management, i.e. market timing and/ or security selection. What we know is 90% of all short term volatility of a portfolio is due to asset allocation (see the seminal articles BHB and BSB in JFA). That means focus on asset allocation and avoid active management one needs to use index funds that follow passive benchmarks. ONE of which is Sp500 which follows the top 500 or so largest U.S. domiciled companies. Of course, the fallacy of that is one would ONLY be invested in 100% equity and that only in 100% U.S. and then only in Large Caps if one was only in sp500. That is all your eggs in one basket which is still not ideal. That is not ideal diversification which many lead to higher volatility. One may want to add index funds that are international (EM or Int. Dev) or U.S. but mid/small or tilt toward small/ value or add bonds or add alternative asset classes (REITS/ gold/ commodities/ etc...). So yes the OP brings up a great point being a passive index investor is the right approach but that is NOT the same thing as being 100% Sp500. My advice; Focus on passive index investing in setting up your asset allocation according to your willingness/ ability/ need to take risk. If that doesn't make sense to you it is time to do some reading before investing!
No. You should be able to tell that I am an individual investor who is pro do it yourself. As I said investing is as easy as tying your shoelaces. The data is VERY clear that active management (alpha) loses you money (SPIVA studies, BHB study, BSB study, nearly every peer reviewed study since the Jensen study in 1930's, etc...) so why pay someone fees to LOSE you money vs. the index? Every dollar you pay in fees compounds over time. For those reading this. Don't trust me or the opposition. Watch a recent video I happened to watch myself which glances on the topic itself. It is the PBS frontline episode of the Retirement Gamble (think that is the title). Its on youtube for those interested. It is worth it alone for the 30 sec. of ackward silence when the active manager from ?ML or some other house is asked by the reporter about the claim from Jack Bogle makes on how much higher fees from broker dealer fees cost an investor over a lifetime (think it is like 60% or so of their total monies!!). He just sits there speechless and has no retort. He admits not to argue Mr. Bogle honesty and credibility but has no retort himself. Priceless and a deer in the headlights moment. Now that being said I DO think there are reasons to have FA. I think ones who can help an investor stand pat through market thins and not panic sell is worth it. I think ones that get you hooked into estate and tax prep would be worth it. The latter I do not think is legal via a broker deal set up though (someone please correct me). So if you are using a FA pick on that is low cost and serves the purpose you are looking for as every dollar you pay them is one less dollar for you and your family in the future.
I am a bot from /r/wallstreetbets. You submitted one or more banned tickers: BHB. We don't allow discussion of low market cap (less than 500mm) tickers to prevent pump & dump spam and scammers.
I am a bot from /r/wallstreetbets. You submitted one or more banned tickers: BHB. We don't allow discussion of low market cap (less than 500mm) tickers to prevent pump & dump spam and scammers.
Oh boy you have some serious reading to do. Don't trust bogleheads. Don't trust me. Don't trust Reddit forums. Why don't you do what any intelligent person does and do the research and look at the data yourself and NOT just sprout what you think. I can point you to a few pieces of REAL data to get you started... 1. How are professional fund managers whose job to do this everyday do? Well Jack Bogle. like him or not, did a very interesting thing KNOWING folks like you would pop up one day. When he started what is now VFINX (first retail index fund) in the late1970's he wrote down EVERY equity mutual fund in existence at the time. There were 320+. After 25 years of existence in REAL life how many of them beat his VFINX in real life? 11-12 out of 320+ funds. Now if added just 1.5% extra cost (very conservative) due to higher expense ratio, load fees, turnover, trading fees, etc... that dropped the outperformers to 5-6/ 320+ funds. That is a failure rate of >98%. IF anyone is interested there is a great pic and discussion of this in Rick Ferri's excellent "power of passive investing". 2. How about pension funds? Well the seminal articles on this were published in JFA. The first (BHB) and the 10 year follow up (BSB) showed the same thing. It looked at the top pension funds in the country (think top 100 or so) who have the access to the top money managers in the world. They found that active management (stock picking and/ or market timing) both LOST them money vs. just following the set asset allocation that they desired. Of course, Wall Street didn't believe it so they had to repeat its analysis in the next 10 year period. The results? They again produced negative results from their active management. So what did Wall Street do? They buried the studies as if they never were done which is why nearly no one knows they even exist. 3. How about current trends? Well Dalbar studies and SPIVA studies are ongoing and one can view the overall lags. Again active management LOSES money to its set asset allocation it is trying to follow. I know SPIVA results broadly can be accessed from their site. Keep in mind the gap is bigger then they state since they don't measure all of the higher cost of active management such as turnover. 4. How about one off's? Bill Miller of Legg Mason Trust outperformed the SP500 for ?14+ consecutive years. What happened to him? He underperformed the rest of his career showing the original run was just luck. Jack Bogle in "Common Sense" shows active managers who did best (top quartile) in one 5 year period did worse (bottom quartile) in the next 5 year. So if they were great active management folks why such as big discrepancy in just a 10 year period? Bogleheads (like them or not) are EASILY the best educated investors on the web. If you don't agree just go over to them and post. They are mostly engineers/ computer geeks/ physicians so fields that rely heavy on data so be prepared to presents you argument using data.
Yes. Stock prices are random walk. Burton Malkiel (full professor at Princeton) in his now famous book in the 1970's "Random walk down wall street" discusses this aspect. The "random walk" part is in reference to the autocorrelation/ serial correlation of stock returns, i .e. return from one day effects on their returns the next day, month, quarter, or one year is a big, fat zero. In laymans terms that means what happens to stock X price today has NO effect on tomorrow all the way through to next year. This holds true for large cap stocks, small cap stocks, government bonds, corporate bonds, and junk bonds. If your interested the data I know is discussed in Rick Ferri's "All about asset allocation" and David Darst "Art of asset allocation" if you are interested in reading about it. There have been PLENTY of seminal articles in peer review publications showing stock picking is LOSES one money (negative alpha). BHB and BSB articles to name two. Heck this has been known since Jensen article published in the 1930's so nothing new. Just seems to be new to retail investors no matter how much data has just proven the same thing over and over again.
Can you be more especific? BSB shows companies and similar with BHB
Would he? What does he say on the topic? I know he recommends most/ nearly all be in sp500 and not time markets which would make knowing this info. moot. In general, the only use of this type of data or its ilk is to time the market. ALL the data we have supports market timing LOSES you money vs. a static asset allocation (please read the seminal articles BHB and BSB peer reviewed published articles). Honestly, I see a big gap in knowledge on these Reddit forums on investing/ stocks and what the data has already shown and published in financial literature. These are not MY feelings on the topic, but what is accepted financial theory. If folks don't want to believe it that is fine, but doesn't mean they don't exist nor been proven wrong yet to support the prevailing concept on Reddit, i.e. lets pick stocks that are going to be winners and/ or lets look at some metrics to decide if I should in in or out of the market.
These threads is why folks need to spend more time learning about ASSET ALLOCATION. BHB and BSB seminal articles showed 90% of all short term volatility is due to asset allocation and NOT what stocks to pick. or getting in and out of markets (both being active management). The issue with older investors is they haven shown they are as inexperienced and immature as the folks who are investing in their 20's. Neither group understand the basics of what is important in investing. Harry Markowitz won a Nobel Prize for his pioneering work in asset allocation and modern portfolio theory in 1994 and still 25+ years later most folks have NO clue what it is nor its importance. Older investors only have themselves to blame for not learning what is important in investing. Same as they did in 1999 or 2008 or now.
Best books: Beginner: Jack Bogle's "Little book on common sense investing" and Allen Roth "How a second grader beat wall street" Intermediate: Rick Ferri "All about asset allocation", Dr. Bernstein "Intelligent asset allocator", Jack Bogle's "Common sense investing" (get the 10 year anniversary edition) Advanced: Lussier's book. You tube: Ben Felix's videos. Only you tuber to watch if you like videos. Article: The seminal article putting the dagger for active management... Beebower/ hood/ brinson (BHB) article and its 10 year follow up Beebower/ singer/ Brinson (BSB) article. When in doubt... Go to bogleheadsDOTcom. Easily the best forum for investing on line who actually know the data (no surprise they are data heavy as many are computer, engineer, and physicians. They are a great group and love helping folks learn more.
It is only obvious if person A says one thing and person B says another we need data to prove one is wrong. You said I am wrong (worse spreading misinformation) so please provide data from a peer reviewed publication to support retail can predictably beat the index. If you don't have any then this convo. is done on my side as I have plenty of studies saying active loses to passive (Dalbar, SPIVA, BHB Study, BSB study, etc...) Heck Jensens had the original article on active underperforming published in the 1930's! Just quote me one peer reviewed so we can have an legit discussion. Thanks in advance.
The answer is you buy the laggard as you should be aiming at having a static asset allocation (50/50 in your example). So you always buy more of your losers and sell your winners to maintain the same asset allocation you originally chose (50/50). The reason is asset allocation is the investors way to controlling volatility (measured by standard deviation). The now famous landmark paper (BHB study) showed 90% of short term volatility was based on one's asset allocation (mix of stocks/ bonds/ cash/ alternative investments). This is why folks need to spend more time thinking about asset allocation (ways to control risk) then worrying about returns.
Omfg GME bag holders are bag holdin’ bitches (BHB)
Reeedefining what it means to be a bag holdin’ bitch (BHB) lead by RC himself
How about modern portfolio theory or EMH? Both of those won Noble Prizes (Markowitz and Fama respective)? How about that cost of investing is likely one of the big determinates of success (morningstar study)? How about making money, LBYM, and saving it so you can invest it is a major determinant of success (morningstar study)? How about the power of compounding? How about 90% of all short term volatility of a portfolio is due to asset allocation (BHB and BSB studies). How about the data that active management is a loser's game (again BHB and BSB studies, SPIVA studies, etc...)? How about Bessbinder article showing only 4% of ALL stocks since 1926 return better then cash itself? As you can see what you are going to talk about has NOTHING to do with most important aspects of investing. There is no study showing I know that shows any valuation metric is a repeatable way to predict future stock returns (that should be obvious since if there was it would just be front loaded). There is an excellent book on debunking all the technical analysis via evidence based research so that makes technical analysis discussion useless as well that I could suggest.
What data do you have to support ANY of the above gives better returns then passive investing. To suggest it is clearly wrong and worse propagating misinformation to another young wannabe investor. The data clearly shows individual stock investing is a loser's game. SPIVA study (active vs. passive investing) website shows results passive investing in sp500 beats 70% of all active funds (trying to pick individual stocks) in just 10 years and 80% in just 20 years. That is short period of time since most investors horizon is more like 40+ years. BHB and BSB were the seminal studies published in JFA showing pension fund managers choices of stocks and market timing (alpha) LOST them money vs. just their asset allocation. Dalbar studies clearly show individual investors dragging several % points every year vs. the index. So not sure where the data is that any of the steps above make one a better investor then the passive investor who doesn't know anything about investing let alone the claim, The data is clear if you think index funds can't buy you a house individual stock investing is more then likely to make one poorer. If you think index fund investing can't buy you a house, then the data clearly shows it is only worse for those trying to beat the market with individual stock investing.
Anyone who identifies as an “APE” will go down in history as the biggest Bag Holdin’ Bitches (BHB) to ever exist
Nope the only thing I pump is passive index investing. The same as Buffett advices to investors and where he puts his wife's own inheritance after he passes. BTW, please post the literature supporting your "90% of investors" claim. I can give you mine for pension funds (BSB and BHB studies). I can give you mine for active fund investors (data compiled in Jack Bogle's "common sense investing"). I can give you mine for individual invstors (DALBAR and SPIVA studies past and STILL ongoing).
If you still hold GME you’re a Bag Holdin’ Bitch (BHB)
DFV sold. You’re a pathetic piece of shit. Also, you are clearly a Bag Holdin’ Bitch (BHB)
Can't agree. I have not seen any data to support individual stock investing adding alpha to one's portfolio. BHB and BSB studies published JFA confirmed NEGATIVE returns when picking stocks from the top pension fund money managers. Active fund returns whose whole job is to pick stocks miserable returns have been known since Jensen's first article in 1930's. Only thing the studies up to current has shown is picking stocks LOSES money, i.e. a "loser's game" as Charlie Ellis would call it in his famous book, "Winning the loser's game". He should know a thing about in investing since he was he head of Harvard's endowment fund (the largest/ one of the larget endowment fund in the world).
Bag holdin’ bitches (BHB) = APES
GME losers are the biggest bag holding bitches (BHB) of all time
Bag holdin’ bitch (BHB) spotted
1. Just to be clear, Pure Sunfarms gained overall market share in 2021. On the price cutting trend you refer to, we think that continues in 2022 but price cutting to grow is not sustainable. It’s like musical chairs - at some point only 6-8 chairs will be left at the table. Our plans have never wavered and we will be one of the seats at the table. \~ Mike Here's the other piece to think about. For us, we’re going to do what we have to do to defend our turf. Mike just said it, but it’s worth saying again. What our competitors are doing is unsustainable. Pure Sunfarms has more levers at our disposal to pull to make sure we strike the right balance between remaining competitive and remaining profitable (unlike our competitors). And we’ll be prepared to use them as we need to. \~Mandesh 2. This won’t be news to those of you who have heard us say this before. We’ve proven our belief that there’s not necessarily any benefit in being first to market. When we look at any new product, we work hard to make sure we get the product right and have the ability to win, wherever we go. We’ve always been looking at pre-ground flower, since the early days. But the consumer base had to be ready for it to be successful. And we’re starting to see it now. By value oriented, we’ll assume you mean everyday premium. Any time you add new SKUs to a segment you’re already in, there’s always a risk that there might be some cannibalization. But we’re confident that we’re going to grow the bigger pie and our new pre-ground SKU will offset any possible cannibalization. We’re prepared to understand the impacts and make some adjustments as we go, but this move will help us grow share of overall flower for Pure Sunfarms. \~Mandesh 3. On the Netherlands: it seems that you have a very good shot at being a dominant force in the young Dutch cannabis space. Given that Leli Holland will be an indoor grower, do you anticipate any challenges helping them build their business given that most of your experience comes from greenhouse growing? Also, I heard you say something during the AGP fireside chat that the first revenue from this venture is expected in Q1 2023. Is this still on the table? Appreciate the vote of confidence on the Dutch opportunity. We definitely agree. With respect to challenges around indoor growing, the type of high intensity greenhouse growing we do is equal to fully indoor growing. Where we can convert a greenhouse asset for cannabis and be more efficient at a lower cost, we will do so. In the Netherlands, we are required to go indoor to manage aroma in urban environments. We’re confident that we will have the same cultivation success. Plus now we have the benefit of ROSE’s experience with their indoor indoor facility Quebec. On first revenue, yes, we are targeting the first quarter of 2023, however, that is contingent on a number of factors, including some that are out of our control – the Netherlands is back to significant COVID restrictions. We will keep everyone updated as we proceed. \~Mike 4. We agree that there is unrealized value in VFF’s share price, and we do view share repurchases opportunistically. However, we also see tremendous growth opportunities in our business as cannabis markets continue to develop and we benefit from strong consumer-led demand for our brands. So, as with any capital decision, we assess the return from any investment, including share buy-backs, relative to all opportunities we see. We are a growth company. \~ Mike 5. We are continuously looking at any and all opportunities to create value. I think we have a pretty solid track record of finding unique ways to do this. The US cannabis industry is in its infancy, and it’s my belief that it will change fundamentally from the MSO model once federally legalized. So, I would say that we will continue to be open minded about what makes the most sense for VFF and its shareholders as the industry changes -- with our #1 priority being to build a business which creates sustainable shareholder value. \~Mike 6. As we mentioned, ROSE is a great opportunity for us to access the Quebec market. Yes, it’s in our plan to do so as soon as we can. We’ve already started to provide some of our BC-grown bud to ROSE via a wholesale agreement, which they are distributing through some of their brands. We’re also in the process of mapping out a Pure Sunfarms branded approach for the Quebec market. We’ll have more to say about that on the next investor call. \~Mandesh 7. I appreciate your work on BHB! You are right that 2020 (vs. 2019) was definitely a very tough year for Balanced Health - and for most of the US CBD sector - even the best of the best - due to the lack of clarity from the FDA, the regulatory body overseeing the sector. We knew this when we bought it in 2021 and believe that the price reflected both the recent trends AND the fact that it is one of the few profitable CBD companies. Big Box retail partnerships in the CBD category is a great opportunity for BHB / Village Farms but it is early days for this category at these retailers as they, too, await regulatory clarity. We have started connectivity and are in the planning stages to be a meaningful partner for these retailers when they give us the “green” light. \~ Mike 8. We’ve heard it too. We take consumer feedback and experience to the heart of everything we do. And we’ve recently made some changes to improve our processes, and we think consumers are going to see that reflected in our product. Like any new industry, we learn a lot as we go. We’re always striving to get better, including investing in new technologies, and constantly evaluating our supply chain to make sure we’re delivering a great consumer experience. We really want consumers to keep sharing their feedback directly with us. We take it seriously and use it to get better. \~Mandesh
Thanks for all the questions -- I think we posted some answers in the wrong spot on the original event -- apologies. 1. Just to be clear, Pure Sunfarms gained overall market share in 2021. On the price cutting trend you refer to, we think that continues in 2022 but price cutting to grow is not sustainable. It’s like musical chairs - at some point only 6-8 chairs will be left at the table. Our plans have never wavered and we will be one of the seats at the table. \~ Mike Here's the other piece to think about. For us, we’re going to do what we have to do to defend our turf. Mike just said it, but it’s worth saying again. What our competitors are doing is unsustainable. Pure Sunfarms has more levers at our disposal to pull to make sure we strike the right balance between remaining competitive and remaining profitable (unlike our competitors). And we’ll be prepared to use them as we need to. \~Mandesh 2. This won’t be news to those of you who have heard us say this before. We’ve proven our belief that there’s not necessarily any benefit in being first to market. When we look at any new product, we work hard to make sure we get the product right and have the ability to win, wherever we go. We’ve always been looking at pre-ground flower, since the early days. But the consumer base had to be ready for it to be successful. And we’re starting to see it now. By value oriented, we’ll assume you mean everyday premium. Any time you add new SKUs to a segment you’re already in, there’s always a risk that there might be some cannibalization. But we’re confident that we’re going to grow the bigger pie and our new pre-ground SKU will offset any possible cannibalization. We’re prepared to understand the impacts and make some adjustments as we go, but this move will help us grow share of overall flower for Pure Sunfarms. \~Mandesh 3. Appreciate the vote of confidence on the Dutch opportunity. We definitely agree. With respect to challenges around indoor growing, the type of high intensity greenhouse growing we do is equal to fully indoor growing. Where we can convert a greenhouse asset for cannabis and be more efficient at a lower cost, we will do so. In the Netherlands, we are required to go indoor to manage aroma in urban environments. We’re confident that we will have the same cultivation success. Plus now we have the benefit of ROSE’s experience with their indoor indoor facility Quebec. On first revenue, yes, we are targeting the first quarter of 2023, however, that is contingent on a number of factors, including some that are out of our control – the Netherlands is back to significant COVID restrictions. We will keep everyone updated as we proceed. \~Mike 4. We agree that there is unrealized value in VFF’s share price, and we do view share repurchases opportunistically. However, we also see tremendous growth opportunities in our business as cannabis markets continue to develop and we benefit from strong consumer-led demand for our brands. So, as with any capital decision, we assess the return from any investment, including share buy-backs, relative to all opportunities we see. We are a growth company. \~ Mike 5. We are continuously looking at any and all opportunities to create value. I think we have a pretty solid track record of finding unique ways to do this. The US cannabis industry is in its infancy, and it’s my belief that it will change fundamentally from the MSO model once federally legalized. So, I would say that we will continue to be open minded about what makes the most sense for VFF and its shareholders as the industry changes -- with our #1 priority being to build a business which creates sustainable shareholder value. \~Mike 6. As we mentioned, ROSE is a great opportunity for us to access the Quebec market. Yes, it’s in our plan to do so as soon as we can. We’ve already started to provide some of our BC-grown bud to ROSE via a wholesale agreement, which they are distributing through some of their brands. We’re also in the process of mapping out a Pure Sunfarms branded approach for the Quebec market. We’ll have more to say about that on the next investor call. \~Mandesh 7. I appreciate your work on BHB! You are right that 2020 (vs. 2019) was definitely a very tough year for Balanced Health - and for most of the US CBD sector - even the best of the best - due to the lack of clarity from the FDA, the regulatory body overseeing the sector. We knew this when we bought it in 2021 and believe that the price reflected both the recent trends AND the fact that it is one of the few profitable CBD companies. Big Box retail partnerships in the CBD category is a great opportunity for BHB / Village Farms but it is early days for this category at these retailers as they, too, await regulatory clarity. We have started connectivity and are in the planning stages to be a meaningful partner for these retailers when they give us the “green” light. \~ Mike 8. We’ve heard it too. We take consumer feedback and experience to the heart of everything we do. And we’ve recently made some changes to improve our processes, and we think consumers are going to see that reflected in our product. Like any new industry, we learn a lot as we go. We’re always striving to get better, including investing in new technologies, and constantly evaluating our supply chain to make sure we’re delivering a great consumer experience. We really want consumers to keep sharing their feedback directly with us. We take it seriously and use it to get better. \~Mandesh
Lots to get through here. 1. To answer your second part of this question first, many brick and mortar retailers are waiting for regulatory clarity to sell CBD. Big Box (and other) retail partnerships in the CBD category are a great opportunity for BHB / Village Farms but it is early days for this category. We have started connectivity and are in the planning stages to be a meaningful partner for these retailers when they give us the “green” light. 2. No, and there are no plans to do so at this time. 3. We have a license to both grow and process hemp in Texas. 4. Altum is actively distributing its medicinal flower brand (KIND) in Australia and continues to order from PSF, we report on any meaningful developments. With a 12% stake in Altum, we are encouraged by the progress Altum is making. The Asia Pacific is a long-term opportunity. \~ Mike 5. For strategic reasons, we don’t share our partnership playbook publicly. 6. Interesting question but for competitive reasons, we’re not going to publicly share our Quebec distribution strategies or plans. We will keep everyone up to speed as we execute in Quebec – it’s a big opportunity for us. 7. Every new initiative is a learning opportunity. We applied learnings from the conversion and ramp up of operations of D3 to D2. And similarly, we expect to apply learnings from D3 and D2 to D1, should we choose to move it to cannabis production. Two other considerations that I will add on the subject. The overall larger scale of adding D2 and, if we chose to, D1, should contribute to further efficiencies due to operating an overall larger footprint (all of which is adjacent). And D1 in and of itself could be more efficient than D2 or D3, being more than twice the area (2.8 million square feet vs.1.1 million for each of D2 and D3. I also need to add that these learnings will be just as important when we convert our US facilities to cannabis. When cannabis can be shipped across state lines, the current intra-state vertical integration model will change and the ability to produce at scale will be a significant advantage. And our experience in Canada will be a further advantage. 8. The buyback authorization is intended to be used opportunistically. We’ve heard this feedback in the past and encourage VFF investors to explore taking advantage of any trading opportunities in the stock. 9. Thanks for the question but this is not the forum for this topic. 10. Our IR consultant is named Loderock Advisors. I am grateful they suggested that Mandesh and I do this AMA. 11. This is a great question. I spend the vast majority of my time running the business but I am a huge advocate for VFF and the cannabis industry. I’m happy to speak about this passion in any format and really enjoy this AMA. Thank you for your support! Stay positive! We are aligned on realizing strong value for your investment in all the work we do to build shareholder value. \~ Mike
GME morons are reeeeeedefining what it means to be a bag holdin’ bitch (BHB)
Ryan Cohen bought GME but thats about it bro. GME is the biggest PnD in history and you morons will be bag holdin’ bitches (BHB) until you die or GME goes bankrupt which will most likely happen in <5 years.
All of these fake ass GME posts about people YOLO’ing their life savings are fake AF. Desperate morons reeeedefining what it means to be a bag holdin’ bitch (BHB) before put eyes
**If Texas legalizes but Village is still prohibited to grow because of Nasdaq and federal regulations would you consider temporarily leasing out that space to another grower at that time? Would Village be able to spinoff into a subsidiary to grow in the Texas greenhouse legally? Delisting?** We have strategies in place to deal with different scenarios based on the regulatory outcomes. \~Mike **Are the 4 greenhouse facilities in Texas broken up into a way that would be easy to convert over time like Delta 3, D2 and D1?** Yes. \~Mike What would be the order of conversion and expected cost of conversion for the first facility? The answer would depend very much on how the regulations unfold. \~Mike **What has been your favorite legislation announced thus far and which has the most traction in your eyes if any? (ie MORE, SAFE, CAOA HOPE)** SAFE – because it’s the safest bet to pass.\~Mike **I have tried a few products from CBDistillery and I'm a huge fan. (I read an article that suggests combining omega 3 fish oil pills with my CBD and it's been working wonders )** Great! \~Mike **Any update on federal clarity with regards to CBD and the opportunity of getting products into nationwide retail?** We believe it’s a huge opportunity once the FDA provides clarity – that’s when we think big retail gets involved. \~Mike **I'm curious on what steps or legislation we can support to ensure all competitors are held to the same standard that BHB follows with regards to safety and legitimacy of CBD before it become synonymous with snake oil.** Lots of CPG industries have regulations and standards but it doesn’t mean they are always adhered to. A safe, consistent product is something you have to actually execute on day-in and day-out to build a brand. Consumers can help by purchasing from companies you can trust. It’s in your best interest personally as well. And certainly buy more Balanced Health products :-) \~Mike From my U.S. American perspective with access to headset data it appears that Alberta is an extremely challenging market with competitive pricing. Will pricing become more rational this year or will our competitors continue to sell products at below their cost of production? By the way congrats to Jet Fuel Gelato on joining the top 10 in Alberta it appears to be a huge hit with consumers. At some point the musical chairs on pricing in Alberta is going to stop. Producers can only sell below their cost of production for so long. We’re already starting to see brands make adjustments upwards on some products in that province. Thanks for the congrats on Jet Fuel Gelato. We’re super excited. We think it’s going to be a top-performer in the country just like Pink Kush was. \~Mandesh **Any color on the hang drying that you mentioned on the Q3 call?** We’re excited to bring hang-drying to all of our flower, planned by Q2 of this year. We’re already starting to send some hang-dried product to market today, so consumers will no doubt notice the roll out from batch to batch. \~Mandesh **Any update on with Israel and the major opportunity there?** We’re talking to various partners in Israel. There’s a lot of demand for our everyday premium product and brand there and we see opportunity as Mike has mentioned. \~Mandesh **Any insight into the first harvests of Delta 2?** No difference from our current harvests from Delta 3. The quality and output is on par with what we’re already providing the market. \~Mandesh What are your thoughts on ‘shred’ or pre-milled flower? is it a race to the bottom? Sharing what I said before: We’ve always been looking at milled flower, since the early days. But the consumer base had to be ready for it to be successful. And we’re starting to see it now. Anytime you add new SKUs to a segment you’re already in, there’s always a risk that there might be some cannibalization. But we’re confident that we’re going to grow the bigger pie and our new milled SKU will offset any possible cannibalization. We’re prepared to understand the impacts and make some adjustments as we go, but this move will help us grow the share of overall flower for Pure Sunfarms. For us it’s not a race to the bottom, we’re already starting to see prices become normalized. \~Mandesh **I tried to purchase a few 100$ of PSF swag online last year and was unable to check out due to my US address. I'd love to be able to support Village in more ways than buying tomatoes, CBD and Bota products and loading up on shares.** We’re sorry to hear that. The regulations prevent us from shipping our merchandise outside of Canada, but we appreciate your support. \~Mandesh
Could you disclose what BHB does with Hemp byproducts? to be specific, does the production of CBD generate hemp fibers which can be used for the production of paper, textile,...etc.?
First off, Mr. Degiglio, congrats on your first grandson and Mandesh congrats on another healthy child! I really appreciate you guys taking the time for the AMA. **Texas** 1. If Texas legalizes but Village is still prohibited to grow because of Nasdaq and federal regulations would you consider temporarily leasing out that space to another grower at that time? Would Village be able to spinoff into a subsidiary to grow in the Texas greenhouse legally? Delisting? 2. Are the 4 greenhouse facilities in Texas broken up into a way that would be easy to convert over time like Delta 3, D2 and D1? 3. What would be the order of conversion and expected cost of conversion for the first facility? 4. What has been your favorite legislation announced thus far and which has the most traction in your eyes if any? (ie MORE, SAFE, CAOA HOPE) **BHB** I have tried a few products from CBDistillery and I'm a huge fan. (I read an article that suggests combining omega 3 fish oil pills with my CBD and it's been working wonders ) 5. Any update on federal clarity with regards to CBD and the opportunity of getting products into nationwide retail? I'm curious on what steps or legislation we can support to ensure all competitors are held to the same standard that BHB follows with regards to safety and legitimacy of CBD before it become synonymous with snake oil. **PSF** 6. From my U.S. American perspective with access to headset data it appears that Alberta is an extremely challenging market with competitive pricing. Will pricing become more rational this year or will our competitors continue to sell products at below their cost of production? By the way congrats to Jet Fuel Gelato on joining the top 10 in Alberta it appears to be a huge hit with consumers. 7. Any color on the hang drying that you mentioned on the Q3 call? 8. Any update on with Israel and the major opportunity there? 9. Any insight into the first harvests of Delta 2? 10. What are your thoughts on ‘shred’ or pre-milled flower? is it a race to the bottom? 11. I tried to purchase a few 100$ of PSF swag online last year and was unable to check out due to my US address. I'd love to be able to support Village in more ways than buying tomatoes, CBD and Bota products and loading up on shares. **Random thought** App Harvest has attempted to enter the produce space this past year with newly developed greenhouses in Kentucky and promises to completely automate the cultivation and harvesting side of CEA in their new (empty) facilities They have a market cap of $400mm(down from 3.5B in February 🤯) on 500k of sales in Q3 On this metric Village should be valued at $30B+ on our $41m produce sales alone ;) I hope this doesn't keep you up at night like it does for me mike.
This is posted from “w” on yahoo finance: 1. Does BHB extract in house? 2. Will BHB buy old inventory from VFH? 3. Has PSF started to sell in Quebec? 4. Do we see PSF partnering in some way with craft growers? 5. Has our GMP certificate come through ( as I think that is why they called this AMA ) and if so when should we expect first shipments and ball park figures? 6. Has Altum sold the last batch of shipment and are in need of alot more? 7. Will BHB start selling BOTA in canada ( as I tried to get a shipment but to no avail )? 8. Any word on Netherlands? 9. Hows the tomato's doing?
You’re a 🤡 and a bag holdin’ bitch (BHB)
The biggest reason is 99% of gamers never go in to a GME store or on their website. Why? Because we have the internet and you can download games. Are you folks fucking retarded? GME died in 2006 when gamers stopped flocking to their stores to buy limited numbers of new games in the box. If I want hardware I buy it cheap as possible from amzn or wmt, not fucking jacked up prices from GME. Please hold those bags tightly you bag holdin’ bitches (BHB)
Hold those bags you bag holdin’ bitch (BHB)
I'm trying to figure out if this post is tongue and cheek or not. If this one flew over my head I apologize for this... DO NOT LISTEN TO THIS POSTER!!! Nearly every study that has been done as shown index investing does better then any active management Don't believe me or the OP just read for yourself. 1. Pension funds losing to index funds: BHB and BSB studies. In short both the original and 10 year follow up studies showed NEGATIVE returns for both picking out stocks and market timing based on valuations by its managers vs. the index return. 2. Active fund managers: Real life data: Jack Bogle when he started first retail index fund (now VFINX) wrote down every equity fund available at that same time (320+) and followed them forward. So, what was the score card after just 25 years? 11-12/ 320+ beat the index. If you add in a VERY conservative extra 1.5% higher costs to active funds (loads, expense ratio, turnover, taxes, etc...) it came down to 5-6/320+ which makes it a whopping <2% beat the index! Chart is in Rick Ferri's excellent "Power of passive investing" if folks want to check it for themselves. 3. Retail investors: Dalbar and SPIVA ongoing studies. Irony is passive investing gives you the average market return, but is MUCH higher then any return active management gives along the way. Sure there are the Buffett's of the world, but the question is would you bet your future retirement dollars you are one of them? Jack Bogle excellent line fits in here... "Everyone thinks they are an above average investor just like everyone thinks they are an above average dresser". One has to be wary of their own ego and overconfidence in abilities.
Hold those bags you little bitch. God damn you folks are fun to mess with. Bag holdin’ bitches BHB’s
Never read the book... any good? Me... I read a lot of investing books from Jack Bogle's "Common sense investing", Dr. Bernstein's "Four Pillars" and "Intelligent Asset Allocator", Rick Ferri "AAAA" "Power of passive investing" Roger Gibson "Asset Allocation", Lussier's book ?forgot the name. Read journal articles like BHB and BSB articles. Read Harry Markowitz nobel prize disertation. Read SPIVA and Dalbar results when they are available and updated. I read a lot about market history as well. My fav. website is bog99heads to visit regular where they discuss a lot about papers and evidence behind different investing plans. As said I have no issues with active management, it is everybody's own money. I am glad it works for you (though 2018 to now has been a VERY quiet period outside of a 2 month stretch). Easily, the easiest to make money in my 10+ year investing life. I don't care about convincing folks to change who are embedded with their approach. I just feel any new investors should hear a different take (especially one that is actually rooted in some science and data). It isn't like I am saying these are my opinions as I can quote whatever article or paper I am getting the information from. If they choose to follow it or not is up to them.
No it is a loser's game as in it creates negative alpha. Please read Charlie Ellis, former head of Harvard Endowment fund (I believe largest endowment in the world) who wrote, "Winning the losers game". You can also read the seminal peer reviewed published articles on the subject (BHB and BSB studies) published in Financial Analyst Journal. Or you can just follow the ongoing SPIVA study.
I wish I could say it was me, but this is has already been proven by evidence based articles. There are 2 seminal articles on this matter published in ?JFA or something like that. First was by Beebower/ hood/ brinson (BHB study). It took the top pension funds in the country that you would think have access to the best data/ computer/ tech/ minds etc... They looked at their returns over the past 10 year period. They found their alpha (security selection and market timing) LOST them money over what their asset allocation should have given them thus producing a negative alpha. Of course, NO ONE on Wall Street believed it was true so they repeated the study over the next 10 years and published it as well called the Beebower/ singer/ brinson study which again showed the same negative alpha. No surprise, NO ONE talks about the articles as Wall Street doesn't want anyone to know about the results. There of course multiple other ongoing studies showing the same thing (SPIVA and DALBAR) studies. Are their folks who have and can produce positive alpha? Sure, but the fact it is not easily reproduceable n a systematic way and you only get one shot at retirement saving should deter most logical investors.
Long only traders? Not many. Please read the BHB and BSB articles that were published, SPIVA studies, Dalbar studies, etc... Heck the chances of outperforming long term (via active management) has been known since Jensen seminal article published in ?1934 or so. Now if you think you can trade short and long like Citadel or Rennaissance or other hedge funds. Good luck with that.
Well if you consider pension funds smart money which they are then no they aren't any better. There are 2 seminal articles peer reviewed and published that, no surprise by Wall Street, are never discussed. The BHB and BSB (10 year follow up) articles showed the top pension funds alpha for security selection and market timing each gave a negative alpha (lost money) vs. just sticking with asset allocation. Mind you that doesn't even include the high costs of paying smart money folks. This is why I find it so comical folks chase "smart money" like it is some fool proof way to make money. It isn't. Now there are few out there who do beat the market, but can folks figure it out BEFORE they do it and on a after tax after fee basis over 25+ years? History would point to... no. More common is folks find the new flavor of the month on Wall Street, start following them, and then join them back to RTM (reversion to mean).
Not just novice investors. So there was a couple seminal articles (BHB and BSB) in finance that no surprise are not discussed by Wall Street. The first was an analysis of the results of the ?top 100 or so top pension funds in the U.S. These are ones that you expect have access to the best minds, most research, most powerful computers , etc... They found looking at those results that their alpha (the extra return that the management brought by active management via picking stocks and market timing) was NEGATIVE vs. the benchmark. That means in that 10 year period of returns they LOST money vs. just throwing into passive funds. Of course, no one could believe it so they repeated the study after the next 10 year period (BSB study). Again it showed a negative alpha. So the most reasonable conclusions would be: 1. You still don't believe the data, 2. You think you are have an advantage over the top pension fund managers, or 3. Somehow the 20 year period between the 2 studies is not indicative of todays time period. No issues looking for individual stocks, but the majority of the money you or I need to grow for retirement should be in index funds. Personally, I'm 95% index funds. I was 100% index funds for the first 10+ years of investing and just now put a 5% slice for upcoming stocks I see that may go 10x (most or all are not in indexes so would have no exposure via index fund route).
removing carbon dioxide to use in production?! ….what other grower is doing this? AND making money doing it?! NO ONE that’s WHO! I am so happy to have found VFF and to now be a Villager (VFF/PSF/BHB). Wake up to the future of cannabis folks; Its name is Village Farms International.
You know a lot. And FoodCooker62 is right on point because in the end everything comes down to cash flow from operations *(positive)* and earnings *(positive)*. BTW you forgot to mention the entry into the US with the Balanced Health Botanicals (BHB) Acquisition.
well they're expanding to another 1.2m sqft by spring (half in the fall and half in the spring) with d2. they said they're maxed out on their first green house now (d3) so that's like 18kkg/q they're going through. expecting eu certification btwn now and september and entering quebec around november. Plus wholesale has been a possibility for them since they can grow so affordably (btwn .40-.50/g grow IIRC). cbd allows them a side door into weed in the states and should gen some decent revenues for them in the mean time. their purchase, BHB, is already in 7500 stores (most Albertson) and VFF has access to probably 30000 more with walmart/target/wholefoods/tj/etc from their veggie venture. this could be a nice sleeper for them.
Wow... did not know this was apart of the BHB acquisition... Just ordered a few things for my fiancé
> You assume doing the former will result in positive alpha I don't assume that. Learning about investing may or may not make you perform better than the market. But I sure as hell know that someone won't beat the market if their entire experience is one reddit post. > If so, please review the seminal articles on the fallacy of alpha (BHB and BSB studies). BHB article looked at the top pension managers in the country (the best, brightest, most well informed, best access to data, fastest computers, etc...). The found over a 10 year period the alpha of active management (security selection and/ or market timing) led to a NEGATIVE alpha (worse returns then just holding the index). The the active managers were up in arms so they repeated the study in the next 10 year period and the BSB follow up article showed the same results. This is all interesting, and something I'm aware of. However, it's not quite analogous to what an individual (like me) is doing. I have several important advantages that a pension fund does not have. 1) Size. It makes intuitive sense that the more size you have, the harder it is to generate significant returns. Law of large numbers and all. Let's say Warren Buffett really likes this company and thinks it's worth 3x what it costs. Well if the company is worth $500mm there's not much he can do with it. And the little he can do with it is not worth his time. But if you're dealing with $250k in capital the story is different. **This is the biggest advantage. I don't need my strategy to work for $50 billion. I need it to work for <$1mm** 2) Incentives/mandates. Pension fund managers have strict mandates and incentives. I have none of that. I could do nothing all year and not have to worry about people thinking I'm slacking off and not doing my job. I don't have any "assumed rate of return". No one's gonna fire me or force me to sell off my positions if I'm down 10% for the year. That freedom means I can do things the Buffett way - hold few and hold long. 3) Concentrated positions. I can dump all my money into one stock and no one could tell me otherwise. In fact, up until recently that was sorta true. I took a job at a software company 4 years ago and received RSUs. I took the job in big part because I thought there was a ton of potential, and in that time the stock has 10-15x'd, and up until recently those RSUs made up a giant chunk of my networth. I'm already far past where I would be if I had been earning market returns on those. So, ultimately I do believe it's very possible to beat the market. Having small size, concentrated positions and unwavering emotions are key. Not everyone can/will do it, but it's possible.
You assume doing the former will result in positive alpha. If so, please review the seminal articles on the fallacy of alpha (BHB and BSB studies). BHB article looked at the top pension managers in the country (the best, brightest, most well informed, best access to data, fastest computers, etc...). The found over a 10 year period the alpha of active management (security selection and/ or market timing) led to a NEGATIVE alpha (worse returns then just holding the index). The the active managers were up in arms so they repeated the study in the next 10 year period and the BSB follow up article showed the same results. So, if you are betting on active management it is just that a bet/ gambling with no data/ science to back it up outside of Buffet did it so can I.
Beginner books: "How a second grader beat wall street" Allen Roth and "Little book on index funds" Jack Bogle. Intermediate: "All about asset allocation" Rick Ferri, "Intelligent Asset Allocator" Dr. Bernstein, and "Asset Allocation" Roger Gibson. Advanced: Lussier's book and Ilmanin (?spelling) book. 2 seminal articles as well to drive the point home published in ?JFA (BHB and BSB articles). Those above will give you all the data based approach to investing vs. speculating/ gambling you see discussed often on reddit and elsewhere.
I would start putting those in 25 ticker batches then. I don't see any reason to own that many individual stocks. TBH, the data on security selection is pretty bad even in the best of hands, i.e. negative alpha. There are 2 seminal articles on the subject published (BHB and BSB studies). My advice do 95% passive index funds and leave 5% for fun. The fun would be individual stocks.
Are you talking about Gibson? If so, I don't follow him at all, but don't have the animosity you seem to have :). His book though is a good one on understanding the importance of diversification and MPT (modern portfolio theory). Personally, in the intermediate difficulty category I like Bill Bernstein's "Intelligent asset allocator" and Rick Ferri's "All About Asset Allocation" more then Gibson's book. Throw in Lussier's book and Ilmanen's book in the difficult level of books with the one's I mentioned in the easy category to the OP with some financial articles thrown in (BHB and BSB in particular) and you have a pretty good library on where to learn about investing.
Correct. But then again do you know what you are doing? He doesn't think most/ any do INCLUDING his own wife which is why he put ALL her future inheritance in 90%Sp500/ 10% Treasuries. Please reread some of his Berkshire Hathaway shareholder letters. He is VERY clear most folks should be in index funds. Good example, he had a 10 year bet with a hedge fund manager about a decade ago if hedge funds (access to the best info/ brains/ computers money can buy) can beat a simple Sp500 index fund. Buffett said no and he was right. 10 years later SP500 destroyed the hedge funds. Now Charlie Munger does not believe in diversification, but then again are you Munger? I don't know his stance on what the average investor should be doing. I will have to find the recent (last couple of years), but someone looked at every stock on the stock market from ?1929 (Since Cowles kept track of the data) to current. They found very few (think it was some 4% or so) of ALL stocks ever listed beat just putting your money in cash at your bank. Most studies (seminal articles BSB and BHB studies) shown alpha from active security selection is a negative return to a static asset allocation (not as bad as market timing, but still a negative to returns). In the end the data is OVERWHELMINGLY against active management. Folks either figure it out or they don't. Now if we lived in a frictionless world (no transaction costs/ taxes) then maybe just maybe individual stock picking may do a bit better. Not great odds.
Please read the seminal articles on the topic of active management being a losers game, i.e. you LOSE money and not increase $$$ in your net worth investing in individual stocks. They are the famous BHB (Brinson, Hood, Beebower) and BSB (Brinson, Singer, and Beebower). Think they are in Journal of Portfolio Management. The articles are named, "Cross sectional returns..." You can do both (job and individual stock investing) but what most (including you) have not figured out is picking individual stocks as the backbone of your investment plan leads to NEGATIVE returns. So in the end you work hard to make money to invest said money into a plan that loses you money n the end. If you want to try individual stocks go ahead with 5% of your net worth, but thinking you can do it as your main investment thesis over a 25+ investing lifespan will only lose you money in the end. This has been PROVEN over and over and over and... Most folks don't learn it and thus why most folks don't amass $$$ in their investments going into retirement. These are NOT my opinions, but based on the data backed up by finance. Heck, a guy names Jensen wrote one of the first articles on this topic in 1934 and still folks haven't learned so no surprise folks even now don't get it.
The results obtained with ketogenic diets could be attributed to a reduction in appetite due to higher satiety effect of proteins or to some effects on appetite control hormones. A possible direct appetite suppressant action of the ketone bodies and more in detail by the BHB that it is supposed to act both as a energy/satiety signal (according to Kennedy’s lipostatic theory) and as central satiety signal per se.
Ketone bodies are then used by tissues as a source of energy through a pathway that involves firstly that BHB is converted back to AcAc this is then transformed into acetoacetyl-CoA and, finally, two molecules of acetyl-CoA are formed from acetoacetyl-CoA which are used in the Krebs cycle. It should be underlined that glycaemia, even though reduced, remains within physiological levels.
It is of interest to underline that ketosis is a metabolic state characteristic of humans, even if not unique, for example, due the relatively high-fat and low carbohydrate content in rodent milk the concentration of ketone bodies in suckling offspring can ranges between 1 and 2 mmol and this influences the increase in active uptake of BHB by the brain. However humans are more susceptible to ketosis-induced fasting due to the greater brain/body mass (this can explain why newborns are more susceptible to ketosis).
After 3–4 days of fasting or a very low carbohydrate diet the CNS needs an alternative energy source and this is derived from the overproduction of acetyl-CoA which leads to the production of so-called ketone bodies (KB): acetoacetate (AcAc), β-hydroxybutyric acid (BHB) and acetone.
Ketone bodies are then used by tissues as a source of energy through a pathway that involves firstly that BHB is converted back to AcAc this is then transformed into acetoacetyl-CoA and, finally, two molecules of acetyl-CoA are formed from acetoacetyl-CoA which are used in the Krebs cycle. It should be underlined that glycaemia, even though reduced, remains within physiological levels.