Spekulatius

Not a problem for those companies not in the index, other than undervaluation for long periods...I'm buying those like hamburgers at half price. It will be a problem for the broad market included in the indices at some point, and could create a panic. Cheers! I must be missing something, but I don’t see a lot of stock being 50% off, just because they are not in an index. Besides, isn’t almost any stock in some kind of passive index, like the various Russel indexes? The only inefficiency I can see is that with the float being weighed rather than market cap, owner operators are systematically underrepresented.

Looks like FDX business in China is going to be impaired. I believe the Chinese are playing tit for tat. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/huawei-reviewing-fedex-relationship-says-051946713.html FDX close to YE2018 lows. Could Deutsche Post (DHL) benefit from this? No position.

I'm pretty sure that you can easily prove that these large swings in price are not a (big) inefficiency. If these swings wouldn't (on average) represent real swings in value you could easily generate alpha with very simple technical trading strategies were you just sell stuff that went up a lot and buy stuff that went down a lot (and it shouldn't matter a whole lot how you construct the strategy). If you agree that making money isn't that easy in the stock market the conclusion is that the observed volatility must mirror the underlying fundamental volatility in business outlook. Good points. The more I think about it, the more I believe you are correct. Essentially, the bet on swings is a bet on mean reversion. It sort of works, but I am not certain it works better than investing in the market using index investing. The reason is that there are periods with strong trend lines, where a lot of returns are not reversing to mean and the fact that returns turns tend to come from few stock delivering outsized returns and you are not likely to get into those using mean reversion.

FIAT in Europe is up ~10.5%, Renault ~15%. It is nice that there is quite a bit of cash coming towards FCAU shareholders. Holding or selling, that’s the big question...

AJC - the above Interview is well worth listening too. I believe they Daniel Ruiz is onto something. one thing they should be noted is they since the US car industry has become an US truck industry, it is essentially protected by a 25% import tax (chicken tax). I believe this tax has a lot to do with the higher profit margins in this sector (the other fact is that trucks are just way more popular in the US than anywhere else), so a trade deal could cause considerable lower profit margins in the long run ironically.

Looks like we will hear something by a Monday. I liked the idea of a tieup with Peugeot better. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/details-fca-renault-talks-set-121310593.html

I'm with you, but didn't they reportedly make a bid of Starz? Suppose Mr. Market may be discounting a roll up/dilution of they take down starz and viab in short succession. Mr Market very likely discounts some acquisitions. Viacom used to the same owner and CBS is a spin-off from Viacom, so it is likely that the owner will combine them to get the Viacom business out of their hands so to speak. Moore’s was against this, but now that he is gone, it’s possible that there is less pushback. Also, while CBS is doing alright short term, one needs to ask how this is going to hold up against the giants like Disney, Amazon Prime and Netflix in the long run. CBS manages this business for cash metrics, while the rest of the industry is going for a land grab and a more LT view. What if they need to pivot?

It’s not as cheap from a FCF perspective. Their FCF is about $1.2B, about $1B lower net income. This is because they capitalized about $1B in program rights. Other media companies do this too, but not to the same extend than CBS does. With a FCF yield of 7%, it’s not cheap enough for me.

Seems outdated. Most spontaneously formed e-teams don’t care where the members come from. There are geographical limitations due to server ping - a player from Asia probably wont due too well in NA because he has a >300msec ping from time delay, but other than that, the notion to have a team based on geographical location seems outdated. I don’t see why expensive venues are needed either.

Awesome. I really like the way they are benchmarking themselves against competitors - very evident specifically in the Dow presentation. It has become one of my larger positions recently and I think it’s a good example to buy a good company with great management at a very fair price.

Rkbabang won.

While in most sectors, the multiples have expanded, there are a few sectors, where multiples have compressed. Automobiles, auto suppliers, natural resources, energy, commercial real estate are sectors where multiples have compressed. Sometimes, it is not the managements fault. Mr Market likes to hear stories right now and sometimes ignores solid cash flow. Maybe the above are value traps, but as long as cash is coming it, the jury is still out, imo.

They gained control without paying premium. In fact one could argue they artificially suppressed the stock. They certainly bought when the stock was at or close to a multi year low. Control is very valuable with real estate. So basically, when BAM has a minority interest, they basically write themselves a permanent call option on a total takeover. They also prevent anybody else from making a bid. I had no dog kn this fight and neither do I with TOO. I stated this before that if you think that BAM will do well, there is no point investing “alongside” BAM or even consider any of their vehicles, because with a GP/LP structure, the GP almost always comes out ahead.

The French had Mitterand for 14 years, Britain will survive Corbin. Mitterand actually had communist ministers in his government. got off a rocky start (and he did nationalize banks etc, but paid fair prices), but later the French stock market was one of the best performing ones in Europe as I recall. Bought a bit BCS to get my toes wet yesterday. I am hoping for more volatility.

As ai keep reminding everyone, TOO wasn’t the first one. GGP was a much larger and way more public screw job than TOO. I also think there were other instances like this, but my memory fails mRNA. it’s not a reason not to invest in BAM, imo. If anything, it is a reason to invest in BAM. As far as the other entities are concerned, if prices get too depressed, expect a bear hug too. they surely can come up with some financial engineering - buying up depressed units, selling IDRs back to the LP, then putting them under self directed management and reissuing units again for a higher price. Heads up, BAM wins, tails up BAM find a way to win too.

On top of the loss, you might also get unexpectedly worse taxes when you fill out your K-1 on Sales next year. These things work in mysterious ways. Been there before... I am avoiding LP‘s where an buyout is possible for that very reason. In this case, there weren’t any recent distributions, so it might be OK, but I have heard about cases, where LP‘s had to pay taxes on „Phantom gains“. These also accrue to the buyer of the entity in most cases.

I agree, Apple could become quite a poster child of a trade war victim, especially when their supply chain gets impacted by the trade war or tech/ IP debate. Other likely victims are semiconductor companies, semi equipment and perhaps Boeing. The export oriented smaller economies in the orbit of China like Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia, Singapore will probably feel the impact more than China itself.

EAF is down probably because of what BBU is trying to do with TOO -- squeeze out minority share holders by taking it under. I don't think this makes sense. BBU is monetizing this investment--they already took it private and are trying to get the money out, not take it back. It all depends on price and valuation. If it makes sense to BAM, I actually think they will do it.

I really think that the vast majority of investors (including Charlie Munger) are too focused on gaining an informational advantage. This makes sense because if you've spent a formidable portion of your career utilizing and capitalizing on an info edge, and that edge has gone away, then it's understandable to lament the disappearance of this edge. But this misses a glaring edge that can still be exploited by mere mortals (i.e. those of us who are far less talented investors than the All-time First Team NBA types such as Munger and Buffett). And that glaring edge is what Roark mentions... the fact that the largest publicly traded company in the world can go up and down by $200 billion or more in market value in a matter of weeks. Basically, this edge is just capitalizing on the fact that stocks fluctuate more than values do. No, there is nothing I know more than the market does about Apple. Yet the stock traded for $90 a share not that long ago and has compounded at close to 30% annually for three years. How is that possible? Either the business value appreciated that much (which it did not), or the market wrongly discounted recent trends (possible), or simply that the market overreacted to near term noise. I think it's a combination of 2 and 3. This happens all the time in the stock market, and it happens now more than it did in the 50's and 60's when Buffett and Munger dominated. This is because the reasons for why the info edge is gone (access to information, the speed of news, noise, etc...) is actually the reason why stocks fluctuate probably even more than they once did. Humans overreact. I think this game is now one of capitalizing on time arbitrage and assuming that you don't have any info edge. Because even with small caps where you think you have an edge, it's very likely that you don't. I think large caps and small caps can get mispriced obviously, and small caps get more mispriced than large caps, but it's far, far more likely to be because of sentiment and emotional swings than because of information that can be obtained. I think it's useful to keep this in mind when looking at ideas, because if you assume that the market already knows everything you're uncovering as you evaluate an idea, you'll look at it differently, and maybe (hopefully) avoid a few mistakes. This is a pretty good point. I think the mean difference between low and the high of even large cap stocks is close to 30%. It is inconceivable that the intrinsic value of the average large cap stock changes by 30% or thereabouts every year . Hence the market can’t be all that efficient. It might be more efficient as a whole, when looking at indexes consistent of hundred of stocks, where these fluctuations even out to some extend, but not for individual securities. i am not sure where this comes from and maybe it has always been the case, even before I indexing became thing, but when you keep they in mind, you can use this to your advantage. It’s not that easy than it sounds, because the market can actually be right, and that should be the default assumption. but even if the market is right directionally, it seems that it vastly tends to over exaggerate the real changes in value that certainly do exists.

DXC and a bit of BCS

Dividend is taxable though. Those holding it in taxable accounts or in a hedge fünf / LP structure are screwed. If you pay 20-30% of tax on the remaking distribution , it’s better to sell at $10. I own this in an IRA so I think I should’ve OK. I will buy more if it drops some. I am thinking $9/share is possible.

The LI railroad pays average salaries comparable to engineering salaries. You probably can nab while waiting for your pension. As for myself, I just want to the richer than my neighbors.

^ Seems splendid cheap. While not as cheap, I have been buying a bit of Nitto Denko 6988.T, which is an international Japanese chemical/material company (the Japanese 3M). they produce tapes made for semi/wafer processing and protection ,as well as materials used for displays, semi manufacturing etc. Higher margin stuff. ~30% of the market cap in cash. Earnings are down somewhat as their end markets have weakened. I think they have decent LT prospects and pay a rising (now ~4% dividend). They also have an US ADR.

^ Pretty good summary from Waywardcloud. Once you look around it is clear that the telecom industry economics in the US a better than almost anywhere else in the world. That’s why Malone can’t duplicate anywhere else what he has done in the US. Just look at LILA, which is worse than LBTYA.

NYC and Boston are turnaround stories on an urban scale. On Illinois, I agree, it seems a basket case. NY and CA at least have the high paying jobs to make it worthwhile to work their. I don’t see they being the case in Chicago. If I were to look for contrarian bets in the heartland, I would look probably at something like Pittsburgh or other ares in PA.