CEO asks the following, go get an investment team or buy a company that will be, prospectively, both a consistent generates attractive risk adjusted returns for clients, and a good business. What do you like? Some guidelines:
Money is no object.
High quality teams/firms available in every asset class
No geographic restrictions
No strategy or style restrictions
No tiny capacity or super niche - closed end fund arb, or stamp collecting
FB
Saudi aramco
would go very long oil (calls, forward, shares, whatever on oil, E&Ps, other correlated industries). Then announce that I was shutting production. Then cash out then go short and open the taps. Repeat over and over.
I’d get into premium financing, factoring, or some other form of lending that is consistent as long as proper controls are in place
Litigation finance.
china. http://www.visualcapitalist.com/2000-years-economic-history-one-chart/
improving. they grew their wealth and income per capita exponentially.
smart. they have the highest average iqs.
cheap. Their gdp per capita is about 15k.
populous. nearly 1/5 of the world is chinese.
dominant. for the majority of the past 2 millenium, china numba 1!
with that said, if us wants to win, we need to own them!
Completely off topic but…nukes are only an option if they are the only way for a country to avoid destruction. Since using nukes guarantees retaliation that would destroy the country, they are a non-starter. That said, a land invasion of a large country like China or the US is never going to be successful anyway. They are too big, the cost is too high and without simply obliterating the population you will face a constant insurgency. Even with substantial disregard for human life, Germany couldn’t win in Russia in WW2. The days of a force like the Mongols “conquering” large swaths of geography through force are long gone.
Unfortunately, the most likely scenario where nukes would be used is a terrorist organization that has no homeland or people that would be subject to mutually-assured destruction.
own as in purchase their economic interest via stocks or bonds.
the us can try outcompeting china, which is what a trade war is for.
use tech to basically make human capital obsolete.
anyways in terms of war, i dont think it’ll happen. nukes are a huge detterent. navy, airforce, land is all just positioning and securing borders, but it is pretty useless. nukes are prolly a better way to win a war. problem is every major player has 1. so a mexican standoff is very unlikely especially cuz we are americans!
lol i mean at some point other people will take note and bank would place higher premiums on those options due to the volatility.
anyways, aramco has cheap plentiful oil. they have the highes roi in their industry, so they should be the only ones expanding. oil will be replaced in the future by renewables so they need to utilize their assets before they are useless. they have 270 billion barrels. they produce 11m barrels/day, or 4b/year. so they will not run out in 67 years at current run rate. it cost them 10 bucks to produce the oil vs 25 bucks for shale. they should just maintain and prevent others from expanding. they should keep telling people they are expanding production to dissuade others. when oil prices are high, ipo, and diversify the proceeds into other sectors.
I took a close look at this, gosh it’s a dirty business, even for wall street.
Good one. But strong chance alpha wiped out by war.
Love that. Capacity seems to be an issue on factoring and sale-leaseback in general.
Sure is, but it meets the criteria you specified in the original post.
Be careful with investment suitability 
Point taken.