|
I guess you like seeing people suffer?
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Baudin posted:I guess you like seeing people suffer? I like seeing canadians suffer.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:52
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:I like seeing canadians suffer. Gee, thanks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Baudin posted:Gee, thanks. As a tax paying, productive member of canadian society, you should be celebrating every moment that another canadian discovers moral hazard.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:55
|
|
|
Buskas posted:Teck doesn't own the Tumbler Ridge mine. You're thinking of Walter Energy. Walter bought all the North BC stuff from Western Canadian Coal in 2010 when met coal contract prices were at or close to $300 a ton. Western Coal could be had for .50/share back at the bottom of the GFC and Walter paid $12/share for them a few years later. Still my favourite all time investment. Western Coal was a relatively high cost producer and really needed high prices to sustain them. They certainly could not be profitable in today's pricing environment. Walter is very poorly run and if you need any evidence, just check the share price. Teck Resources is a different company. They are fantastic operators and one of the few Met Coal players around (and maybe the only in Canada) that can produce profitably with today's coal prices. Teck will be fine and at today's share price represents fantastic value. The market never gets Teck right. Never. They were wrong in the GFC when everyone thought they were going to go bust due to the Fording acquisition debt (turns out banks love to loan to assets, go figure). $3.50 TCK.B is my second favourite investment of all time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 16:57
|
|
|
 welp
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
Cultural Imperial posted:As a tax paying, productive member of canadian society, you should be celebrating every moment that another canadian discovers moral hazard. As if all humans don't fall for moral hazard on a regular basis, including the Chinese, Russians, Americans, and Euros. People doing stupid things because they're stupid isn't new. I also don't have enough saved up to property take advantage of a stock market collapse - need to start working on more files/saving my pennies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Secondary suites are like a new contentious issue for Calgary?? Jesus what a poo poo hole. The entire oil industry doesn't need regulations, the environment doesn't need regulations, pipelines and railways don't need much regulatin' either, but dear god I want the government enforcing who's living in houses to the fullest extend, I mean what if immigrants move in? What about my STREET PARKING?!?! One moment we're a middle class neighbourhood, the next there's a university student and a Filipino family living in people's basements and parking on the street where I'd normally put my quad trailer!
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:02
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Secondary suites are like a new contentious issue for Calgary?? Jesus what a poo poo hole. The entire oil industry doesn't need regulations, the environment doesn't need regulations, pipelines and railways don't need much regulatin' either, but dear god I want the government enforcing who's living in houses to the fullest extend, I mean what if immigrants move in? What about my STREET PARKING?!?! One moment we're a middle class neighbourhood, the next there's a university student and a Filipino family living in people's basements and parking on the street where I'd normally put my quad trailer! You'll hear no argument from me. It's loving stupid, and the whole "but what about my parking???" argument deserves to die in a fire. It really stings that these loving whiny bastards are talking about their god-given right to park on the street that gets paid for (partly) by the property tax I pay on the parking stall I literally have to buy if I want a place to park my car. Not to mention that people in secondary suites are going to be better behaved than people who rent or own a whole place, because the landlord lives in the same house and will get pissed off if they do bad things. It's the dumbest goddamn argument ever. It's also a massive public safety issue, because with the incredibly low vacancy rates, there's tonnes of illegal secondary suites that are unsafe, with tenants often having little legal recourse to fix the situation, and the city often can't/won't do anything about it because it's better to have a really lovely place to live than none at all. I wish more people in Calgary were actual conservatives -- the sort who believe the government needs to gently caress off out of our lives as much as possible -- because then it would be a non-issue. If you want to make a secondary suite in your own property, it's your own business if it meets safety code. As with most other municipal issues, though, we see that the people of Calgary are largely a bunch of useless loving busybodies who are only nominally "conservative" because they're cheap as gently caress. PT6A fucked around with this message at 17:30 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 17:25
|
|
|
Baudin posted:I guess you like seeing people suffer? Have you read any of the thread? He's a sociopath. Saltin posted:Walter bought all the North BC stuff from Western Canadian Coal in 2010 when met coal contract prices were at or close to $300 a ton. Western Coal could be had for .50/share back at the bottom of the GFC and Walter paid $12/share for them a few years later. Still my favourite all time investment. Western Coal was a relatively high cost producer and really needed high prices to sustain them. They certainly could not be profitable in today's pricing environment. Walter is very poorly run and if you need any evidence, just check the share price. Confirming Teck knows what's up and is the only currently profitable met coal co, but you also don't know just how close the market was to being exactly right about the fording deal. It almost broke them and while they're relatively cheap now they've never recovered the value they lost pre gfc. They had to sell assets (as in forced by the banks) and only in the last couple years got clear enough of the debt to look at acquisitions again. Sheritt is also profitable in coal but they do low-grade mine mouth thermal coal that's only valuable because it's a few km from the power plants it supplies.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
PT6A posted:You seem unusually gleeful about something that pretty much everyone in the industry recognizes as a temporary disruption. The next two to three months will likely continue to be bad, but no one I've talked to, in or out of the industry, seems particularly worried about the issue over the long term. But, by all means, continue to look at spot prices and masturbate with self-satisfaction if that's what does it for you.  It's going to be okay! Boardwalk Empire clip, violence at the very end
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Confirming Teck knows what's up and is the only currently profitable met coal co, but you also don't know just how close the market was to being exactly right about the fording deal. It almost broke them and while they're relatively cheap now they've never recovered the value they lost pre gfc. They had to sell assets (as in forced by the banks) and only in the last couple years got clear enough of the debt to look at acquisitions again. No debate Fording almost broke them, but they were able to issue quite a bit of debt based on existing assets (albeit at high rate) to make the bridge loan payment on the Fording debt. As you say, they are out from underneath that now and have an extremely healthy balance sheet. Fording was a great strategic move but the timing was absolutely horrible. They also did surpass pre-GFC valuation in late 2010, but it's been a steady decline to today's price based on the meta of the resource market.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 18:36
|
|
|
Rime posted:What makes you think that the tar sands are different from any other resource industry (mining, pulp & paper, etc) and that they won't just mothball operations that are losing money until the price of the commodity recovers? Oil is a bit different due to the need within society for it. (pulp & paper died due to computers) and mining companies tend to stock pile beyond rare earth metals. The oil will keep pumping but the perks will go away as will the salaries to get it out of the ground. It's the perks and salaries going away that hurts the economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
sbaldrick posted:It's the perks and salaries going away that hurts the economy. Counterpoint - every time a gallon of gas goes down a penny, it adds a billion dollars to discretionary spending in the US. It's not all bad for Canada either. Low oil prices suck if you're in the oil business, but you can be sure as poo poo businesses that rely heavily on energy are rubbing their hands together Monty Burns style right now. Air Canada's stock price has almost doubled since mid-October, and that ain't because Air Canada stopped sucking. Saltin fucked around with this message at 20:28 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Yeah honestly I'd say cheap oil would be overall good for the canadian economy. High fuel prices hurt every single sector other than oil, low oil prices lower the cost of business for just about everything else, from average joe consumers to agriculture to manufacturing to of course transport. Of course high oil isn't even good for the Canadian economy because we barely tax that poo poo, relatively little "trickles down" to the rest of the economy. The sooner the canadian oil industry and housing bubble dies the sooner we can hopefully actually invest in a real economy.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
Saltin posted:Counterpoint - every time a gallon of gas goes down a penny, it adds a billion dollars to discretionary spending in the US. It's not all bad for Canada either.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:06
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I'd be interested in knowing where you got that $1 billion dollar figure. Not saying it's BS or anything, but I wonder if it has taken the slumping CAD$ into consideration. Because the CAD$'s slide sure as heck isn't encouraging Canadians to do more cross-border shopping. You're vastly, vastly overestimating the impact of Canadian daytrippers on the American economy as a whole.
|
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:22
|
|
|
.
Sassafras fucked around with this message at 10:01 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
melon cat posted:I'd be interested in knowing where you got that $1 billion dollar figure. Not saying it's BS or anything, but I wonder if it has taken the slumping CAD$ into consideration. Because the CAD$'s slide sure as heck isn't encouraging Canadians to do more cross-border shopping. I'm not sure what you mean about the slumping CAD and cross border shopping? The US won't miss Canadian shoppers in any significant way. I think you may have misunderstood what I was getting at which was - here's the impact of cheap gas on the US economy, a similar impact will occur in Canada, but scale would be different. So I mentioned it to show the impact cheaper gas can have on an economy. As for where it came from, just google "gasoline penny billion dollars", it is mentioned all over the place as a metric and seems to be well accepted. This article focuses on the opposite effect (money coming out of the economy due to increase) but the principal is the same http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/the-110-effect-what-higher-gas-prices-could-really-do-to-the-economy/254386/ quote:American consumers purchased 172.2 billion gallons of gasoline in 2011, spending just over $400 billion, excluding federal and state taxes. Each 50 cent increase in the price of gasoline adds almost $60 billion to annual consumer bills Saltin fucked around with this message at 21:44 on Dec 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 9, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
Legalizing secondary suites would actually reduce vacancy rates. Suddenly all the illegal suites are going to have to be brought up to code and a large majority arent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:04
|
|
|
Whiteycar posted:Legalizing secondary suites would actually reduce vacancy rates. I'm not sure why you think either of those things are true. (speaking specifically of how legalizing secondary suites would decrease vacancy rates, and why anyone would bother bringing a secondary suite - that they've been running illegally - up to code). e: the numbers quoted for vacancy rates are the CMHC primary market survey which explicitly does not include secondary suites or condominium apartments. Baudin fucked around with this message at 01:57 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 01:49
|
|
|
I Wonder what tertiary suites would look like.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Baudin posted:I'm not sure why you think either of those things are true. (speaking specifically of how legalizing secondary suites would decrease vacancy rates, and why anyone would bother bringing a secondary suite - that they've been running illegally - up to code). Well I didnt know that OK. But I learned something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:21
|
|
|
Victoria did the whole suite legalization thing after decades of it just happening anyways and not being enforced. It resulted in landlords treating their tenants a bit better because the tenant didn't fear losing their place to live so much for complaints. Barely half the existing "illegal" units were made legal. The code was so strict and the red-tape so thick it was often financial suicide to try to make your suite legal. If you're building a new house it's worth it to go fully legal, but if you have an old existing suite in an old house you're opening up a huge can of worms. My friend lived in the basement suite of a house her mom owned and ended up spending about 100k making the suite legal as one thing led to another. Half of them were fairly legitimate, but the other half were extremely subjective things. There's a real big push in the more progressive parts of urban planning right now to sort of "learn from the slums" to address affordability. Basically it's healthy and even critical for cities to have places with very low regulations and standards where people and business can afford the price of entry. Instead of a bible sized list of bylaws and regulations and months or years of red tape to build anything, just set the most basic rules for health and safety and let the community grow organically. In many cases in the last decade governments in various "developing nations" and south america have attacked their slums, done things to try to "solve" them. Generally it involves bulldozing them all and moving the displaced residents to what richer people would consider "nice" and "orderly" communities. This is extremely expensive, disrupts lives, and generally ends in failure. Where the government simply provides resources for the shanty towns, the community takes care of it them selves, they actually pull them selves out of poverty. You spend the money to install reliable water and electric hook ups for a slum, you've just done them a huge favour and they take care of the rest. Poverty goes down, crime goes down, health goes up. You provide them building materials and educate them on how to build safer structures and the whole area upgrades its self. Over time the community keeps raising its standards as the locals can afford to do so them selves or help is provided for them. The place slowly transforms from a miserable slum into a proud working class neighbourhood. They get by fine without parking minimums or rules about their front lawns Now no one is going to zone for "corrugated metal shanty town" in Canada, but I often think our zoning and building bylaws are overly strict, almost elitist or paternal. Give people some land or an experimental neighbourhood, drastically cut the regulations and let people have a place build homes and business. Is your building a structural death trap or a fire hazard? Nope? Go hog wild. Don't worry about aesthetic bullshit like setbacks or expensive luxuries like parking. Just the building code and some extremely simple zoning bylaws. Small lots along narrow streets. It will be a place no one middle class wants to live, but it will be better than living in a horrible illegal basement suite, or the the streets. Then again a style very similar to that works great for japan. People would flip out in north america and say it's a cramped ugly 3rd world slum if they saw a typical Japanese neighbourhood. But they are affordable and grow very organically with little red tape. The zoning system in japan is amazingly simple, generally understandable by a lay-person and mostly just a list of what you can't do, rather than the few things you can do. For instance a neighbourhood might be zoned in such a way that basically says "2:1 density maximum, no heavy industry" and that's it. You want to build a house you build a house. You want to build a convenience store with your residence above you do it. You want parking you build parking, you don't you don't. Want a yard, then don't cover your lot with building. Want a bigger yard then join together 2 lots.    Narrow streets, small lots, little to no setback requirements, very basic regulations and red tape. You might say it's ugly but western residential aesthetics are extremely expensive, both directly to individuals and collectively in terms of the massive cost of all the roads/highways/utilities needed to support it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:27
|
|
|
It's not at all ugly, it's cozy. Great effort post, thanks Baronjutter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:52
|
|
|
Narrow streets like that would be pretty brutal in the winter.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:55
|
|
|
DrBox posted:Narrow streets like that would be pretty brutal in the winter. How so? Japan gets snow and they seem to manage just fine with narrow streets as the dominant urban form. I don't know how they deal with snow but I don't know how anyone deals with snow because :victoria: but I'm sure they have it figured out, I'm sure japan doesn't shut down when it gets snow I hear the same thing re: bike infastructure. "What about snow?? Snowplows are too big for bike lanes!" they just have smaller plows.  Speaking of narrow roads and north americans being idiots, a big reason for our ridiculously wide streets are fire department's dick waving contests. No one wants to argue with fire department heros and they all constantly want bigger and bigger fire trucks. Then they demand traffic engineers have larger and larger minimums. Fire departments are becoming one of the worst forces for maintaining the space planning of sprawl and everything being car-scaled. It's not even car-scaled, it's giant fire truck scaled. They also apparently don't like to reverse so they demand room to turn their toys around as well. They have fire trucks in europe and japan, they are just smaller and urban planners don't let fire chiefs dictate road design to fit bigger and bigger toys.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:I Wonder what tertiary suites would look like. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qKf08vWTkKA
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How so? Japan gets snow and they seem to manage just fine with narrow streets as the dominant urban form. I don't know how they deal with snow but I don't know how anyone deals with snow because :victoria: but I'm sure they have it figured out, I'm sure japan doesn't shut down when it gets snow I hear the same thing re: bike infastructure. "What about snow?? Snowplows are too big for bike lanes!" they just have smaller plows. The location in that photo (Tokyo) gets an average of 11 cm of snow per year, Edmonton gets an average of 124 cm per year. I'm very interested in what Hokkaidō's streets look like:  e: you should check out Edmonton around 2 am when all the snow removal crews are out to remove tons of snow from the middle of the streets.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:How so? Japan gets snow and they seem to manage just fine with narrow streets as the dominant urban form. I don't know how they deal with snow but I don't know how anyone deals with snow because :victoria: but I'm sure they have it figured out, I'm sure japan doesn't shut down when it gets snow I hear the same thing re: bike infastructure. "What about snow?? Snowplows are too big for bike lanes!" they just have smaller plows.  Were you being willfully obtuse? What your picture shows is the last week of November in Montreal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:16
|
|
|
I think there's room for compromise between the hideous sprawl of North American suburbia and the tiny alleys of Asian cities, where nutty drivers on scooters whiz past you at alarming speeds*. * I didn't actually find evidence that there are a lot of scooter-pedestrian accidents in, say, Taipei, but scooters are involved in a large plurality of traffic accidents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:20
|
|
|
Hahahaha yeah, I love how "oh look those streets handle 10cm of snow PERFECTLY fine!" In most Canadian cities, lanes are wider than normal because you need 2-3 extra feet to put the snow that's being plowed to the side of the road. Even Vancouver has way narrower lanes than the rest of the country because it's not needed there.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
Revelstoke, which receives 60-100 cumulative feet of snow a year, and dumps upwards of ten on the ground in a week at times, has normal sized streets. Many of them are vancouver avenue sized, even. They just get narrower in the winter so you drive slowly and carefully and the idiots keep the towing services in business.  They have mini-plows that do the sidewalks, like the big rear end ones but sidewalk sized. Since these exist, they solve the bike lane question in cities that never get snow but have idiots who live there, such as vancouver. Just hand them a picture. Reading opinions about snow and it's percieved impacts, from most Canadians, is hilarious. I firmly believe that most of the country has never experienced more than a foot or two at once in their lives, and if dumped into interior BC would not survive the winter. Rime fucked around with this message at 05:46 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
What's Vancouver's population again? 35 million?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:23
|
|
|
Rime posted:Reading opinions about snow and it's percieved impacts, from most Canadians, is hilarious. I firmly believe that most of the country has never experienced more than a foot or two at once in their lives, and if dumped into interior BC would not survive the winter. Pretty sure the Windsor - Quebec corridor gets more snow than that. BC is not most of the country.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:29
|
|
|
FrozenVent posted:Pretty sure the Windsor - Quebec corridor gets more snow than that. BC is not most of the country. The average annual snowfall for Windsor is a piddly 50 inches over 44 days. I stand by my statement that when faced with 3-4 feet of snowfall in two days, most Canadians would have a panic attack and act like Floridians. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11283875/Bank-of-America-sees-50-oil-as-Opec-dies.htmlquote:"Our biggest worry is the end of the liquidity cycle. The Fed is done. The reach for yield that we have seen since 2009 is going into reverse”, said Bank of America. just fyi
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 07:45
|
|
|
Saltin posted:No debate Fording almost broke them, but they were able to issue quite a bit of debt based on existing assets (albeit at high rate) to make the bridge loan payment on the Fording debt. As you say, they are out from underneath that now and have an extremely healthy balance sheet. Fording was a great strategic move but the timing was absolutely horrible. They also did surpass pre-GFC valuation in late 2010, but it's been a steady decline to today's price based on the meta of the resource market. Gross market value passed pre-gfc but they were diluted to poo poo by a big equity issue in nearly the bottom of the market, so share price never made it past around half of their pre-gfc peak. Going from memory as I'm not at a computer as I write this. Lot of value destroyed. It was the right call because otherwise equity would have had a goose egg, but they've never come close to recovering the value. sbaldrick posted:Oil is a bit different due to the need within society for it. (pulp & paper died due to computers) and mining companies tend to stock pile beyond rare earth metals. The oil will keep pumping but the perks will go away as will the salaries to get it out of the ground. What Mining companies don't generally stockpile. Anything they have in 'stockpile' is usually there because it's low grade and barely worth processing or because the deposit structure demands it. Mining companies don't dig poo poo up and just sit on it because that eats working capital. In a bad price environment the thing you shepherd most carefully is working cap. The relatively low unit cost of oil sands resulting from the huge volume is what will drive them to be unlikely to shut down. Much of oil sands investment is up front infrastructure, much more analogous to a large open pit mine and smelter than to traditional oil and gas development where capital is generally incremental and unit costs are higher but with lower investment per unit production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 10:57
|
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Gross market value passed pre-gfc but they were diluted to poo poo by a big equity issue in nearly the bottom of the market, so share price never made it past around half of their pre-gfc peak. Going from memory as I'm not at a computer as I write this. Lot of value destroyed. It was the right call because otherwise equity would have had a goose egg, but they've never come close to recovering the value. Shares were $61.79 on Dec 31st 2010, which is the highest they've ever been. I'm talking about common shares here - TCK.B, which is what gets traded in volume on the exchange. The reason they were so high is that they were printing money due to the Fording acquisition (met coal contracts were at or approaching $300/ton).
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 13:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 16:18 |
|
|
Kalenn Istarion posted:Gross market value passed pre-gfc but they were diluted to poo poo by a big equity issue in nearly the bottom of the market, so share price never made it past around half of their pre-gfc peak. Going from memory as I'm not at a computer as I write this. Lot of value destroyed. It was the right call because otherwise equity would have had a goose egg, but they've never come close to recovering the value. Add logistics issues to the list of reasons (see prairie grain farmers vs rail last year for an example) but otherwise you're right in that commodity producers don't usually sit on a huge stock pile. Easier to throttle production and have it sit in the ground where storage is free if you're waiting on the markets. Most people would be surprised by how little storage space the average mine / commodity handling facility has. If there's any storage space in the system, it's usually at the end user or transformation plant; and even then these guys usually only stockpile for contingency / logistic buffer. If they want to get in on a good market, they buy futures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 13:51
|
|