Investing

[Deleterious]

TSMC is a well managed company.  The rumored biggest problems they are supposedly having in Arizona is lack of skilled labor to run the fabs.  They are importing talent from Taiwan and it is costing them a lot to do it.  

They would be smart to take a little of that $100 billion and develop some sort of training program.  Approach MIT or Georgia Tech with a big fat check to build training facilities on their campus.  Split it and have both build a program.   

We cant just keep building plants if nobody is trained to run them.  Its not like the Big 3 where you graduate high school (maybe) and then go to work at the plant.  These are highly skilled manufacturing jobs.  

Edited Monday at 04:53 PM by Deleterious

[chasfh]

lol certain people who post here stink like a fish or something.

Praising the genius of Trump, even in a headline link, is inherently political and deserves a political response. You don't want that political "slop" here? Then strip the politics out of your own posts. Simple as that.

I will not escalate this from here, nor will I liken anyone posting here to sea creatures.

[Deleterious]

The Financial Times is asking the question that interests me the most.

Quote

TSMC has already committed $65bn to build fabrication facilities in Arizona. It was not clear if the $100bn investment was a separate funding commitment or included some of the money previously pledged.

That and will it be the 1.4 nm chips or the bleeding edge equivalent at the time.  Like the Journal said, TSMC only allows -1 generation off shore usually.  

 

[Deleterious]

12 minutes ago, chasfh said:

lol certain people who post here stink like a fish or something.

Praising the genius of Trump, even in a headline link, is inherently political and deserves a political response. You don't want that political "slop" here? Then strip the politics out of your own posts. Simple as that.

I will not escalate this from here, nor will I liken anyone posting here to sea creatures.

Most investment, and even a lot of non-investment, forums have rules that do not allow you to edit article titles.  That is the format I follow, even in the Pistons forum.  I don't even know what the headline says half of the time.

[chasfh]

Just now, Deleterious said:

Most investment, and even a lot of non-investment, forums have rules that do not allow you to edit article titles.  That is the format I follow, even in the Pistons forum.  I don't even know what the headline says half of the time.

Fair comment, although even a sneaky political statement, even one not intended as in your case, makes it fair game. I do want to be clear that I'm not here to drop politics in here unbidden, and I don't, and I didn't this time. That said, I will take your fair comment into consideration in the future. Thanks.

[Tiger337]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

This thread has probably existed for 10+ years now across two different sites.  People still don't understand nobody that participates in it gives a **** who paved the way for these deals.

Some of us do care, but you are right that it's best to keep that discussion out of this particular thread.  I mean If you are deep into the investment world, you are pretty much guaranteed to be investing in something somewhere that is unclean, immoral, unethical or against your ideology.  We kind of have to ignore it in this thread.    

Edited Monday at 05:54 PM by Tiger337

[gehringer_2]

3 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

If you are deep into the investment world, you are pretty much guaranteed to be investing in something somewhere that is unclean, immoral, unethical or against your ideology.

Ha! Didn't someone once say something about eye's of needles or something?  😉

[Hongbit]

I think it’s adding a simple comment of “best suited for the political forum” into the post instead of political commentary.  Everyone will know what that means and one can post more details if they choose in that other forum.

Edited Monday at 09:37 PM by Hongbit

[gehringer_2]

there are places where political policy has a direct, non-severable connection to investment policy - for instance what is happening on Tariffs. If you make a statement that you think the outcome of X (political policy) is going to be Y (economic environment outcome), I wouldn't regard that as "too much politics in the investment thread" per se. That kind of statement properly made is not advocacy either way - it's the core of trying to understand/discuss the future probabilities. 

Edited Monday at 10:05 PM by gehringer_2

[Hongbit]

It looks like most of today’s financial news is best suited for the political forum.   

[oblong]

the whole "keep politics out of this thread" thing isn't a rule so much as a self regulated thing.  The people who participate in this would like it that way so if you do engage in political talk be prepared to be yelled at by them or ignored.    It can be a blurry line when you have major policy shifts that will affect the markets. 

There is a line but I can't define it and we don't have to know where the line exists to know it should be there.

 

[Edman85]

Has anybody tested the boundaries of the IRS wash rules? With a dip, I've been wanting to move money in my taxable Fidelity account from FCPGX to FZROX, and a few more days of this may be able to sell at a loss. Trying to make sure that despite them both being Fidelity Index funds, they track different indices and are thus not "substantially identical."