#1
話說本老師啱啱去咗日本
同個喺日本工作嘅朋友食咗餐飯
自不然講起匯率嘅問題
然後十分之父權地請咗佢
仲叫佢留返啲港幣抗貶值算啦
第二日,就喺臉書見到呢個畫面
話說,雖然坊間盛傳咩偷聽電話、咩大數據演算法⋯ 以我理解佢哋(Big Tech)係唔會做到咁精準嘅,亦冇必要做到。唯一合理(?)解釋只有宇宙同步現像 ("synchronicity")。
#2
#1
話說本老師啱啱去咗日本
同個喺日本工作嘅朋友食咗餐飯
自不然講起匯率嘅問題
然後十分之父權地請咗佢
仲叫佢留返啲港幣抗貶值算啦
第二日,就喺臉書見到呢個畫面
話說,雖然坊間盛傳咩偷聽電話、咩大數據演算法⋯ 以我理解佢哋(Big Tech)係唔會做到咁精準嘅,亦冇必要做到。唯一合理(?)解釋只有宇宙同步現像 ("synchronicity")。
Before humans developed modern concepts of infinities, our concepts of reality were really constrained to small, finite things. When esoteric traditions told us about Greatness and Vastness, we had no idea how to imagine them. In the 20th century, however, with the advent of computer science, we invented a bunch of tools to reason about various kinds of unbounded infinities -- if only we had infinite time. To me, there is a vast untapped potential for the savvy computer theorist to further our understanding of our metaphysical reality with such modern tools. (This also ties in nicely with the simulation theory thingy mapping to the idea that this world we think we live in is not the real thing...)
Interpretation is inherently dualistic in nature.
There is the subject. And there is the interpretation. Linguistically "interpretation" implies it isn't equivalent to the original subject.
And thus it is a creation within the interpreter's mind.
There is a tension between the subject and the interpretation, i.e. which one is real.
In the "objective" (or at least inter-subjective) perspective, interpretations are unavoidable as every subjective mind understands the objective reality differently.
In the subjective worldview, interpretations are not necessary because each subjective "interpretation" (as seen by the objective view) are the truth.
The antithesis of abundance is rationality
If something is good only in measured amounts, it's not actually good.
The diagonalization argument employed in Turing's proof of undecidability of programs seems to be too similar to the straightforward argument of "free will" that it probably warrants a closer re-examination...
反正所有狗屎垃圾都擺晒上嚟,唔掙在
Owner of 萬邦行
----------------
Another cigar butt. tl;dr is this is basically a holding company for 萬邦行 and nothing else. No debt, no financial assets, no funny stuff.
The stock has gone down a *lot* in recent months, and it doesn't seem to follow the ebbs and flows of the Hang Seng Index. Volume is at minimum, so this would have to be a long term investment if we buy since it's unlikely we could sell the stock.
PB 0.228. NO DEBT. Most gross profit (not including revaluation of properties) used for dividends . Yield ~5%
Basically all the book value of the company is in "Investment properties 投資物業" @ 7,064,000 @ 2023
Dividend history is consistent at 3.6 per year (1.8 per half-year) for the past 4 years, but it had been higher at 5.1 per year in previous years. Looking at previous annual reports, it seems that they just distribute most of their gross profit (revenue - costs, not counting adjustments in property values) as dividend. Nothing else happens in the company AFAICT.
Most of its "losses" are adjustments to property prices. Cash flow is positive otherwise.
> Net cash from operating activities 營業活動所得現金淨額 102,243
Dividends paid:
> Dividends paid 已派股息 (90,000)
Which seems fine.
So basically the proposition is whether the rent of 萬邦行 is going to significantly go down further.
Revenue is basically 100% rental and management fees.
The investment property portfolio is basically just 萬邦行 and two other irrelevant properties.
鄭裕彤's New World and Chow Tai Fook owns ~42% of the shares.
It's probably worth waiting a couple months to see whether the price continues to go down. I suspect some cigar butt investors are buying up the stock cheap so the price hasn't gone down for a ~2 months now... That said, currently yields at 5% isn't that great of a deal given that Treasury yields are similar and I'm personally not expecting significant rate cuts any time soon, so ~5% yields in USD are probably around, and yet there are still risks in HK commercial rentals at least in the short term, despite the great location of the property. Probably more of a safe buy at $50. (Note: at $50, the dividend yield if kept at similar levels would be 3.6/50 = 7.2%, which *could* justify the risk of further deterioration of rental income.)
Let's wait a couple months and see.
We might want to go there to take a look before buying as well.