Apple is now worth more than the entire Russell 2000

Not really a meaningful impact from a long term return perspective. It is possible that treasuries sell off in the short run... though so will everything else

So you’re betting on the 30 PE expanding to 40, and so on. AAPL had a PE of around 10 a few times in the 2010s, so 300% of the return since then has been multiple expansion, rather than earnings growth.

Returns from multiple expansion are obviously limited the higher the multiple gets.

3% return/year is the implied return if the multiple and earnings stay the same in perpetuity. The multiple can also just as easily go down, keep in mind. Historically, elevated valuation multiples regress to the mean, even if it takes years to do so

I like PINE here at 10x AFFO, far cheaper than peers like O or ADC, but with similar risk profile. CTO same story. Both around 10% earnings yield, and better positioned than peers for growth. PINE is classic retail net lease, CTO is outdoor shopping centers in the sunbelt. Growth prospects, but also fine if they stay flat and yield 10% in perpetuity

Bonds are interesting here, but would need to see wider spreads for higher quality/non-idiosyncratic ones to be compelling. I like and own MPW bonds, which pay 10%+... much safer than the equity.

Certain BDCs are a screaming deal if you assume their portfolios can weather a recession well enough. CSWC is one of my favorite more traditional middle market lenders with 13% yield and low leverage. Conservative/smart management.

RWAY is one of my favorites here… over 15% yield with room to grow. Venture debt lender, valued at around 0.7x book value. They’ve been lumped in with other Venture lenders whose portfolio quality is very poor in comparison.

Lenders can easily blow up in a severe recession if they’re mismanaged or have weak portfolios… but given the banking turmoil, the sector has sold off indiscriminately and more than priced it in for some.

PBR.A has a PE around 2-3 and pays 30% a year in dividends. Valuation is low due to political risk from new Brazilian government.

For a more speculative play, NLCP pays around 13% yield with 0 debt, and some cash on hand. They own cannabis cultivation/retail facilities. The sector is falling apart due to declining cannabis prices, but we just hit the inflection point recently where pricing is starting to rise again due to competitors dropping out, and I think the fears have more than priced in what’s to come. Not one I’d own longer term due to eventual offshoring of production.

These are my more compelling total return plays, but there are many many more that are safer and still yield far higher than AAPL.

JEPI is a great one… owns primarily defensive stocks, and pays 10%/year from options income. However average holding PE is around 22, so Im waiting for it to get knocked down into the teens before I go bigger. Same with SCHD

That will make things a lot easier for me. Doing actual research myself was kind of hard.

/sarcasm

Instead it’s about foot races!

“ The phrase means “follow the rules or obey an authority.” “Tow the line” is a misspelling based on “toe” and “tow” sounding the same, but “tow the line” is always an error. The phrase comes from the idea of standing at the starting line before a race (i.e., getting as close as possible without overstepping the mark).”

Their increased local suppression, political and military flexing may be helpful to those consolidating power at the top, but they are costly moves to maintain, and have upended the compounding economic power game they were quietly winning.

> “The greatest victory is that which requires no battle.” [0]

[0] Sun Tzu (Some Chinese guy), The Art of War

What did they do?

China has been literally abducting foreign workers and you think the fact that companies want to leave the country falls squarely on the shoulders of the US government?

This has been happening for decades, it's only in the last ~8 years the US and Europe realized they are getting screwed and started to ensure areas of national security were not reliant on China.

So yeah, it's all the fault of the US.

…in the past, because in the past the strategic goals of the the CCP leadership aligned with many companies' with regards to the economy.

What are the current and future strategic goals of the current CCP leadership?

> They were looking to expand that relationship before the US government shut it down. They wouldn't have been planning that if it was going poorly.

It's one thing for a country to want to improve their economy and the living standards: the US (or anyone else) wouldn't really object to that. It's something else to (e.g.) claim entire regions of oceans (in conflict with international law) and start building bases:

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...

Most of China's neighbour's don't mind their economic growth; it's their military growth that is getting some folks nervous.

Also concerns over IP theft.

And furthermore, I don't think American businesses have caught up to thinking this way, but they've really lost the ability to think like people who design and make products nowadays. Quality assurance on even formerly trusted brands has dramatically eroded. They all fall back on efficient logistics and cheap returns to make up for it, but that's a big hidden cost in time and effort from the consumer.

The whole consumer products industry needs to rediscover how to make good stuff. I think there will also be a decent bit of training the consumer to accept things costing a few extra bucks instead of impulse buying with the assumption they can easily return it (but will never get around to returning).

Regardless of what’s right, I know very few people here who want a war with China over Taiwan.

I think in retrospect, Communism was never as post nationalist as people pretended at the time, and was just "the available motivating ideology". Kind of like how all revolutionaries were Islamic State for a few years.