LC

Sanjeev, you are a friendly fellow! I hope to meet you one day! I have a few guesses...I remember there was a thread a few months ago where you mentioned (in the context of a rising market) there were still opportunities to buy whole companies at great prices. You mentioned some small-cap Canadian company I believe. I am thinking it is along those lines...a 500m-1.5b Canadian company.

Thank you!

In other words, asset prices are up but earnings power is still low.

how can the UAW go public with the shares when Fiat has the option to buy them at a contractually agreed upon price...

Why now...I mean, what has really changed from the sale of Safeway Canada to prompt this upgrade now? The only thing is perhaps a rise in value of the properties? After paying 2b of debt with the Canadian money they will have what, a bit over 2.5b left? Then let's be conservative and take 300m FCF per the VIC short thesis from the remaining ops. That's 3b they're working with. They could halve the shares outstanding. Given the competition (whole foods etc.) they should divest some real estate now while they can get good prices vs hanging on to them and trying to compete with better branded grocers.

Thanks for the words, SD. I am still working on learning how to turn off my emotions. Sometimes I'll check my portfolio, see all green or all red, and it's a trigger: I forget about the business, I forget about Mr. Market, it just becomes a game of are the little pieces of paper going to go up or down? I'm getting better at realizing when I start letting my emotions get the best of me...I just log off and turn my attention elsewhere.

Just my thoughts on your last point...I don't think "small govt" and a "broken/loophole-filled tax system" necessarily go hand in hand.

Krazeenyc, your quote above about the "simplistic" issue of a proper mouse tracker being a decision-maker made me think of a post I made back in June... It's interesting why people buy tech products. Some treat it purely as a tool. A device to complete a task. But the more people use it, the more people want to experience the device. They see it as an extension of themselves. Their personality is part of the device, they use it to express themselves. A mouse pad on a laptop...just being able to have the computer move exactly as you want it to move as you send a nervous signal from your brain to your forefinger...that is a critical factor for the Apple customer. The more in tune the device is with our own brain, the more pleasurable experience it is to learn, communicate, and work with! Take a hammer: hammer's aren't made with straight handles anymore. They're ergonomic. The interfacing between us and the tool is an important factor for professionals who use hammers daily. For those who use cell phones daily, the same argument may apply... This is the reason I own Apple. I own them because they are able to create the most natural relationship/interfacing/"syncing" between humans and computers that the world has ever seen.

I don't follow...if Android users start spending more, how does it follow that the iOS ecosystem becomes less profitable?

I have to say, I don't think they should attack the mid and especially not the low end of the market. Remember Munger's question about instances when a high price can actually increase sales: one such scenario is "mission critical" devices. Is a do-it-all smartphone not a "mission critical" device in people's daily lives?

When the stock fell in May to the $50.00 range is when I became interested. Knowing the history of Eddie & Bruce (i.e. their history of buying back shares), it was almost reminiscent of the leveraged BRK trade when it was at 110% of BV and Warren had stated they would buyback shares at that price. Not a perfect analogy but that was my thinking. I watched the stock fall slowly over the next week or two...I wanted to purchase LEAPs but the implied vol was too high. I believed (and still do) in the RE thesis and the extreme concentration of ESL/Fairholme...I didn't see as a bad thing for the thesis! This is abouts when Ericopoly was discussing his purchase of these contracts for the tax write-off. But as the implied vol was so high on the options I purchased a stake in the common with a cost basis of around $46/sh. Over the next two months the common fell but the implied volatility on the LEAPs fell much more. The LEAPs I looked at (Jan 15 - $50 strike) traded down from about $10/contract in June to around $4.50/contract in August. I sold out of the common and into the LEAPs. Half my position was sold today at a price of $12...the rest we will see...I just wish I had put more into it :(

Did anyone take a dip in the '15 calls? I believe 60-strike price contracts were trading in the 4.50 range about a month ago. They are a tidy bit higher now :D

thanks for posting!

Nice to know...hopefully I will never feel the urge to use it :)

Heh, it USED to be marketing...they reclassified expenses in "marketing & admissions expense" in 2010 into other expense categories...the more I dig deeper the less I like about this industry (surprise). Some figures for Strayer: % of students taking full online courses (2012): ~30% 2006-2007 Staffing: Student Services (teachers etc): 450 Recruiters: 395 Career Services: 150 Students Enrolled in 2008-9: 41,000 # of these students withdrawn by mid 2010: 13,250 (32%) Graduation Rate (2010) : 13.9% _____ So let me summarize the model: Spend a ton on advertising to (pardon the judgement) generally unmotivated people during midday and late late night Enroll these people via cheap, easy credit, and utilizing a force of 400 recruiters (vs. 450 teachers. TOTAL) Offer online classes so they don't even have to go to class 32% drop out after 1-1.5 years Another 55% drop out over the rest of their time at Strayer 14% graduate Pretty sketchy business model. And this is THE BEST of the for-profit schools. Frankly, their new tuition model DTEJT1997 refers to sounds like they're offering discounted tuition to get their %s up in order to get the gov't off their back. Again, these are the best of the best. Well, I think I made my decision at 1 am here....(now let's watch the stock rally 30%)

Honestly, I think selling clothes vs. selling electronics are marketing to two totally different customer bases. Although I wish JCP gave him more time to see how it would play out. I don't buy the cash burn argument. Radically changing strategy requires a large up front investment. Retail investment isn't like infrastructure...you don't invest over time. It's almost all up front, and the payoff takes time.

Not to state the obvious but if they're offering to tender for "any and all notes" at $1,067/note and you can buy them for an adequate discount...seems relatively simple to me to notify your broker of your intention.

I haven't seen the specific ads but I am aware of their policy. It is one of my reasons for not having pulled the trigger, as it could represent a structural change in the industry versus a temporary issue. I am still undecided on this issue...I think in terms of my valuation my only choice here (as I've spent about 2+ weeks internally debating the issue) is to attempt to discount the probability of it occurring and working that into my mental model of what the company is worth. I have no doubt that Strayer University will exist, whether that will be in the same form as the last 12 years or adapting to a lower revenue business model is the issue. It does help that the have a large capital base (100+ schools) and an increasing count of online students. Capex should level off and presumably their operating costs for teachers etc. will come down.

So if the current short interest is 6.8m, the recent increase in price is due to shorts covering...?

I came across a nice website which has aggregated a good amount of Buffett's writings and quotes today and wanted to share with the board: http://egpeclub.home.comcast.net/~egpeclub/The_Warren_Buffett_Business_Factors.htm

You're right. It's actually a bit disconcerting. Is Mr. Market simply totally off on this, or is there some side-dealing afoot that the public is unaware of? Usually when I value a company and there is HUGE discrepancy between my valuation and the market's, it is a sign that I've missed something and I tend to stay away... This would normally fall under those circumstances, but because there is a clear catalyst and because I am making a leveraged bet via options and the amount is not even 1% of my portfolio... I liken the situation to the state lottery commission releasing a statement saying, "one day during the next 6 months the lotto numbers will be 123-456". So while it seems strange, and maybe you can't trust the information, the risk vs. reward is so well defined that you would play those numbers every day for 6 months. If you lose, you're out maybe $180 , but if you win, you win big.

Below is the official release uploaded to EDGAR on 9/3/13: (emphasis mine) WUXI, China — August 30, 2013 — Suntech Power Holdings Co., Ltd. (NYSE: STP) (“Suntech” or the “Company”), one of the world’s largest solar companies, today announced that following productive discussions with its key stakeholders earlier this week in China, an understanding has been reached with its Creditor Working Group led by Clearwater Capital Partners and Spinnaker Capital Limited for restructuring the Company. The Company intends to immediately commence preparations for implementing a recapitalization plan that contemplates a scheme of arrangement as part of a holistic restructuring of the Suntech Group. The principal components of the restructuring scheme would include: (i) identifying the key assets to be retained by the Company to allow it to continue its operations at a rationalized scale; (ii) the exchange of outstanding debt into the Company’s equity; (iii) the setting of maximum debt levels for the Company’s operating subsidiaries; and (iv) the introduction of a new strategic investor that will provide the necessary funding through the purchase of newly issued equity to complete the restructuring process. This will permit the Company to substantially improve its balance sheet and to be well positioned to continue as a major worldwide supplier in the solar industry. The Company anticipates entering into a restructuring framework agreement in the next week or so to document the understanding that will allow the Company adequate time to execute the restructuring so long as it progresses the recapitalization plan and complies with the other terms in the restructuring framework agreement. Mr. Zhou Weiping, Suntech’s President said, “Important steps forward are being taken towards a new Suntech. During this restructuring period, Suntech has continued to maintain its production and warranty obligations. The restructuring will allow us to cut our costs and optimize our margins and production. Although there is expected to be substantial dilution for our existing shareholders, we believe that these measures will put us in a better and stronger position to serve our current and future customers in China, Japan, the EU, USA and around the world.” As noted in prior announcements, the Board of Directors has recently been reconstituted to a smaller, more geographically focused Board with the skillsets necessary for the development and execution of a restructuring plan. Recent new director appointments are: Mr. Michael Nacson, the new Chairman, who has been based in Southeast Asia for more than 30 years and has extensive restructuring experience, including projects in Hong Kong, China and North America, with a focus on the manufacturing, technology and electronics sectors; and Mr. Kurt Metzger who has lived in Asia for 18 years and has significant experience relating to risk management/debt restructuring, particularly in the sustainable energy sector. Mr. Nacson and Mr. Metzger were nominated by the Creditor Working Group. The Company and the Creditor Working Group will also be working together to identify a full-time executive to assist in the restructuring process and to work with the current management team to rebuild the Company to its former prominent position in the solar industry. Suntech’s Chairman, Mr. Michael Nacson said, “We are pleased that we have been able to make progress on discussions with key stakeholders involved that puts us on a good footing to move forward with a clear business plan.”

I've always looked for companies with established histories, and run by people who seemed trustworthy. I remember a company run by a (and I say this as a compliment) boring, 60-something year old doctor from the Midwest. I never met the man or heard him speak, but his background seemed a bit more trustworthy versus say, the CEO of Medical Marijuana Inc, a former real-estate broker going on CNBC who was long on hype and charisma and short on operating results.

Brilliant thing about Apple (or maybe just Jobs) is he knows when to release products. the iPad was the first commercially successful tablet. Tablets have been around since the 90s. But the consumer was not ready for it. My gut tells me the same thing is occurring with all the "TV" products...

is the asterisk necessary? I've never used it before when manually quoting