No. of Recommendations: 7
for those with a large stake in brookfield, and watching it like a hawk, we should welcome the sporadic rise in articles and postings.
why?
1. it is a sign of some mkt interest, and correlates with the total number of valid supporters AND critics.
one can quickly scan the positive reports for anything novel. this should not turn into a time wasting tesla-type situation where musk fanboys have to read a certain volume of repetitive bullish news to feel good about themselves. despite frequent media coverage, flatt is unlikely to evoke too much emotional reaction in either direction.
the key impersonal points for being in brookfield should already be embedded, otherwise holding large stakes is unwise anyway.
2. treat both overhype and hyberbolic criticism w/out emotion, and wisely budget the time spent on either.
remember, any spike in publications will also result in the quality of most criticism also being weak.
hardly anyone seems to recall the substack dedicated to blowing the roof off brookfield, which has now gone quiet for ~3 years.
https://brookfield.substack.com/there was also a similar blog-type collection ~15 years earlier, which resulted in little actionable insight.
regarding the recent alleged tax-evasion 2023 monogram, the conclusion leads me to feel CICTAR may not know some primary reasons that brookfield even exists, as the conclusion clashes with themes brookfield management has noted in public.
CICTAR :
"Extracting profits from public infrastructure..."
"...many governments face large deficits driven by pandemic public spending..."
In reality, most governments far outspent their means long before the pandemic, and some approached Brookfield to help save them by buying pieces of public infrastructure. brookfield has attempted to scale up their funds massively because they could see this trend inevitably continuing, and being among a small number of entities that could offer 10-100B sized bids. one should not be naive and think tax agreements would not be part of making large deals once governments themselves are sellers\buyers.
i believe the intel deal displays an expansion of infrastructure now "in the government interest", and brookfield prefers deals less discretionary than state&local tax breaks on professional sports arenas.
otherwise, i have insufficient resources available to discern whether brookfield has crossed the line on particular tax situations.
