2016 elections - because it's never too early

[lustindarkness]

I support the Rickroll vote.

[Liep]

I agree, America would do well to get a Danish first lady.

[FunkMonk]

Maybe it is just me, but content completely aside...Trump's canned/teleprompter speech delivery is terrible/dreadful/boring.

His off-the-cuff rally speeches may usually be crazy, but his impromptu delivery at least functions well.

His speech delivery is garbage. They should just let him go up there and adlib everything, the way he does. Way more entertaining, at least. Even charming, sometimes. But I don't see him swaying any foreign affairs voters with speeches like the one he just gave. For one his delivery is worse than a fifth grade student council debate, and second no serious foreign policy wonk will ever take him seriously. Because he's Donald fucking Trump  people aren't voting for him because of his idiot policies, whatever they might be in any given day (he flips back and forth so much anyway), they're voting for him because he makes them feel better about themselves.

Sad!

[FunkMonk]

So, uh, what the hell is Donnie doing with all that cash?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-clinton-has-owned-airwaves-general-election-n631706

But in that same time frame, Donald Trump's campaign still hasn't spent a single cent on a general-election ad, with two pro-Trump outside groups coming to the rescue with $12.4 million over the airwaves. That's a nearly 9-to-1 advantage in ad spending. And it raises some important questions for the Trump campaign. When will it FINALLY start airing advertisements (with him trailing in key states and nationally 84 days to go until Election Day)? What is Trump doing with his campaign money (after the New York Times reported two weeks ago that Trump and the GOP had raised a combined $82 million last month)? And will any other outside groups come to Trump's defense? Political scientists, you now have an amazing case study on your hands: What happens in a presidential race when one side owns the airwaves for two-straight months?

Oh, and get this: The Green Party's Jill Stein ($189,000) and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson ($15,000) have spent more on ads than the Trump campaign ($0) in this general election.

Likely, all the hookers and blow a presidential candidate could ever want. Don is living the dream, fellas.

[Legbiter]

So, uh, what the hell is Donnie doing with all that cash?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-clinton-has-owned-airwaves-general-election-n631706

But in that same time frame, Donald Trump's campaign still hasn't spent a single cent on a general-election ad, with two pro-Trump outside groups coming to the rescue with $12.4 million over the airwaves. That's a nearly 9-to-1 advantage in ad spending. And it raises some important questions for the Trump campaign. When will it FINALLY start airing advertisements (with him trailing in key states and nationally 84 days to go until Election Day)? What is Trump doing with his campaign money (after the New York Times reported two weeks ago that Trump and the GOP had raised a combined $82 million last month)? And will any other outside groups come to Trump's defense? Political scientists, you now have an amazing case study on your hands: What happens in a presidential race when one side owns the airwaves for two-straight months?

Oh, and get this: The Green Party's Jill Stein ($189,000) and Libertarian nominee Gary Johnson ($15,000) have spent more on ads than the Trump campaign ($0) in this general election.

Likely, all the hookers and blow a presidential candidate could ever want. Don is living the dream, fellas.

A month ago he was supposed to be in a funding crisis.   

I suppose he could blitz her with TV ads in October in select swing states but maybe he'll just stick to social media.

[celedhring]

IIRC Trump had a pretty good month re: fundraising in the runup to the convention. He should have plenty more cash than he's apparently spending.

[Legbiter]

IIRC Trump had a pretty good month re: fundraising in the runup to the convention. He should have plenty more cash than he's apparently spending.

Being under budget and not wholly donor-owned would be in keeping with his projected image. 

[FunkMonk]

Where's the money Don?? Where's the money???

If you slide some my way I'll vote for you 

[FunkMonk]

IIRC Trump had a pretty good month re: fundraising in the runup to the convention. He should have plenty more cash than he's apparently spending.

Being under budget and not wholly donor-owned would be in keeping with his projected image. 

That's not the image he's projecting 

In other news
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/hillary-clinton-prepare-trump-debate-lewinsky-227033?cmpid=sf

The person picked to be Hillary Clinton's sparring partner in her upcoming debate prep sessions is expected to confront her about the death of Vincent Foster, label her as a rapist's enabler, and invoke the personally painful memories of Monica Lewinsky and Gennifer Flowers.

Clinton's team is beginning its preparation ahead of the first general election debate scheduled for Sept. 26 at Hofstra University. And one of the key components of that prep, campaign allies said, is finding a person who can stand in as Donald Trump during mock debates and launch personal attacks on the former secretary of state that will make the real Trump look tame by comparison.

Who among us have what it takes to accept this challenge?

[The Minsky Moment]

Pointing out examples of the market mispricing shares is not the same thing as proving a systematic underpricing of long term investment.

I don't think one has to prove systematic mispricing to prove the point.  The deal I mentioned was very large and very well publicized and the Street got it very wrong.  A few years later ebay did another big deal with skype.  The Street liked the deal and the stock went up 2% on the news.  It was a dud.

The idea that there are diligent gnomes on the Street evaluating these kinds of investments by doing carefully honed analyses of long term returns and competitive dynamics is risible.  Ebay got punished for the 2002 deal because  it was perceived doubling down on ecommerce at a time when the dotcom bust was still the dominant narrative.  The 2005 was seen more favorably because tech was "back."  Those kind of simplistic trend narratives dominate - the Street didn't have the slightest clue about the true prospects of either of those businesses.

There isn't anyone out there who is rigorously analyzing individual investment projects.  That's why 90% of the time any significant asset acquisition or capex expansion plan knocks the share price down - ceteris paribas, the street just assumes that more expense and more spending is bad, and less is good.  That's why pharma stocks went up for years by cutting R&D until a decade out the Street suddenly became shocked - shocked - that new drug pipelines dried up.   The only exceptions is when a particular sector or investment becomes trendy and sexy and then it is OK to throw some money around.  (Which is usually a good sell sign for the smart value investor types . . . ) 

[Jacob]

So, uh, what the hell is Donnie doing with all that cash?

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/first-read/first-read-clinton-has-owned-airwaves-general-election-n631706

My guess: he paid back himself the $50M (+interest) he loaned to the campaign. A while back he loudly proclaimed how he would forgive the debt since it was pointed out that he hadn't; but AFAIK he never filed the paperwork.

So yeah, he's making sure he's coming out okay financially from this.

[garbon]

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/fundraising/291503-trump-campaign-apparently-soliciting-foreign-cash-despite-warnings

Trump camp apparently soliciting foreign cash despite warnings

Donald Trump's presidential campaign appears to be soliciting foreign donations despite multiple warnings and a criminal complaint filed with the Department of Justice.

On Sunday, an Australian member of parliament, Terri Butler, emailed The Hill the latest fundraising solicitation she'd received from the Trump campaign.

The email, received on Aug. 14 just after midnight Australian time, went to Butler's government email account. It asked her to make a campaign contribution to Trump so she could "join the highest ranks of our campaign as an Executive Member."
Butler told The Hill she has received several fundraising solicitations from the Trump campaign at her government email account.

Butler is hardly the first foreign official to receive solicitations from the Trump campaign. Members of the United Kingdom Parliament, Peter Bottomley and Bob Blackman, have told The Hill that they've received numerous fundraising appeals on the Republican nominee's behalf.

Asked why the Trump campaign was continuing to solicit foreign donations — particularly the latest email to Butler — a Trump official told The Hill, "The person received one email because they signed up for our system. It was flagged by the system and removed."

Campaigns typically purchase email lists from trusted vendors, and care is taken to minimize the risk of illegal solicitation. Such care is taken because the law on foreign donations is black and white.

It's illegal for foreign individuals, corporations and governments to give money directly to U.S. candidates or to spend on advertising to influence U.S. elections. It's also illegal for U.S. candidates to solicit foreign money.

A source involved in online fundraising who is not affiliated with a presidential candidate said campaigns typically use what are known as "suppression programs" to ensure their fundraising lists don't contain email addresses that are likely to result in illegal solicitations.

No evidence has surfaced of foreign money being given to Trump, but experts say the campaign is flouting the law by soliciting foreign donations nearly two months after first being first warned about the practice.

"The Trump campaign's continuing solicitation of campaign contributions from people who are obviously foreign nationals is clearly illegal," said Larry Noble, the general counsel for the non-partisan watchdog Campaign Legal Center.

"Given the news reports, the complaint we filed with the [Federal Election Commission] and the letter we sent to the Department of Justice asking for a criminal investigation, his refusal to put a stop to the solicitations is compelling evidence of the campaign's flagrant disregard for the law."

The Hill first reported on Butler's situation — and the solicitations going to other foreign government officials — a month ago.

Butler says she never signed up to any Trump list and has no idea why she's being solicited by the campaign, given that her foreign government email address appears easy to identify.

"Hi @realDonaldTrump can you take me off your email list please?" Butler tweeted on Monday.

Asked to explain why foreign donations were still being solicited despite numerous warnings, the Trump official blamed "scammers." 

"We routinely check for foreign nationals," the official told The Hill on Monday. "However, we've seen sometimes that scammers will continue to try to add them to our system."

The Campaign Legal Center and another non-partisan campaign finance watchdog, Democracy 21, sent a criminal complaint to the Department of Justice after The Hill and other news outlets revealed that the Trump campaign had not heeded the watchdogs' first complaint, filed with the FEC on June 29.

The Hill contacted the FEC and the Department of Justice on Monday, but neither body comments publicly on the status of investigations.

"To protect the interests of those involved in a complaint, the law requires that any Commission action on an enforcement matter be kept strictly confidential until the case is resolved," said FEC spokesman Christian Hilland.

Fred Wertheimer, the president of Democracy 21, said the Trump campaign's foreign solicitations are unlike anything he's seen in the 40 years that he's monitored campaign finance.

"It's inexplicable and impossible to understand why the Trump campaign appears to still be illegally soliciting foreign donations after they have been put on notice numerous times that this is illegal," Wertheimer said on Monday.

"There is no ambiguity about the fact that these solicitations are illegal."

[The Minsky Moment]

The Supreme Court upheld those foreign donation restrictions a few years back without an opinion.
Although query how that can be squared with Citizens United - the first amendment protects foreign nationals as well as US citizens.

[Admiral Yi]

That's why 90% of the time any significant asset acquisition or capex expansion plan knocks the share price down

This sounds very much like proof of systematic mispricing.

[The Minsky Moment]

This sounds very much like proof of systematic mispricing.

Fair enough  - I confess to the exaggeration.  But it is trivially easy to find big and obvious examples of anomolies.

Take this story knocking Google stock for over investing in capex in 2011: http://www.forbes.com/sites/greatspeculations/2011/01/31/too-much-capex-kills-googles-stock-price/#3212633977c5

The stock adjusted for split was about 300 then, 800 now.

The fact is that a company may be in a better position to assess the viability or strength of an investment than the "markets" - both because it may be in a better position to understand and analyze the dynamics of its own industry than a gaggle of 20 something spreadsheet toting analysts, and because it possesses relevant private information (note that restrictions on insider trading can be a significant source of informational inefficiency).  So the scenario presented by the survey - that corporate insiders may as to at least *some* potential investments have a different assessment of the investment bona fides than than the market and some reason to think their assessment may be more reliable - is both theoretically and empirically plausible.