Spekulatius

I hope the PercentageofVotingStock numbers are off by a factor of 100x or this stock is really expensive. Great info!

How do you know the share count. I get 1,579 shares from the OTCMarket website, but that is based on 2007 data. Earnings and equity can be pulled from the FDIC records, but I don't think the share count can be pulled from there. Anyone has an annual report that they would be willing to share? I also think that last years earnings were and aberration - noninterest income was fairly high last year.

I have sold my position in RR as well a short while ago, since I came to the conclusion that I don't really understand the economics of their business model too well. They are apparently running their business differently than their competitors - they are selling their engines cheaply (and possibly at a loss) , but with a maintenance contract attached that supposedly is profitable. They book a profit based on the perceived NPV of the maintenance contract. This is accrual accounting and means that cash will flow out with each engine sold, which will flow back to RR over the term of the maintenance contract (20 years or so). This means that cash flow and profits become disconnected and one needs to trust management that the accounting is correct, which is somewhat of a stretch, based on prior experience. This business model seems to be different than what competitors are doing, who apparently sell their business at a profit. Now, we have the EU investigations into these maintenance contract and their legality, which could really throw a huge wrench into this, if these contract are going to be voided,nor even modified, I could see a huge write off in RR future. All the above makes RR a fairly hard not to crack. This is not just a cyclical issue, or an issue where management has slipped up in an otherwise strong business, this is a case, where the whole business model that RR works with could be called into question, which huge implications for their balance sheet and future profitability.

I have owned this for years. Earnings have grown quite a bit recently, as has the asset base. I think the increased cost are basically a result of them building out the asset base. The lower interest rates have reduced their profitability ratios but overall profits still have increased. I agree that higher interest rates would do them good. I also own QUCT, another Walker company. I think it was spun of from FMBL as their asset management business in the 70's, but they own other interesting stuff. All the Companies run by the Walker family are ridiculously overcapitalized.

The Carlsbad mall ought to be worth much more so than the average WPG mall, due to it's location in CA. RSE seems to have done quite well with their recent Mall acquisitions in CA, so I think they see potential there. I believe that based on their recent track record, RSE's management is quite capable. I have concerns that WPG's management, which came from Glimcher is not up to the task - this is just based on Glimchers fairly awful LT track record and an apparent lack of skill in capital allocation, even prior to the financial crisis. I am not they have learned much either. So with a long WPG/short RSE you are betting better management against lower valuation and it is not clear to me who wins in his case. WPG's assets are not easy assets to own, their B-Malls need management with good skill to keep them productive, otherwise, they could easily wither and become worthless over time. With the high leverage, that WPG operates with, this quickly can become deadly. At less than $10/share, this is yielding 10% now, but high yields typically scare the yield hogs more than their attract them. Maybe, they should consider the KMI solution and axe the dividend to get more funds available for a redevelopment program.

I remain steadfastly that coat tailing does not work, if you don't know what you are buying. Believe me, I have tried.

Hail the new Trump! Cheers! Mr. Big is certainly not puffing on Cigar butts like famous predecessors, he takes it to a whole new level. I guess if you are a real Dlck, then owning Maxims is fun, even if it loses a lot of money.

Hmm, CPGX raises more capital - I am surprised that they are not using CPPL as a vehicle to raise capital, as CPPL is still trading at a very low yield. Having CPGX raising capital negates the thesis to invest in this, imo: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1629995/000119312515392142/d38403d424b5.htm

13x cash flow is expensive. COV (where the current CEO comes from) could be bought for 8x cash flow for extended time period and I see this s a similar case (commodities business somewhat in need to cost cutting and more innovation). I think a restructuring will take quite some time (as it did with COV) and also requires investing much more in R&D (similar to what occurred at COV). I think a value conscious investor will need to much lower entry point to get a margin of safety.

Yes, and it's a bargain AT TWICE THE PRICE! (wink wink nudge nudge) I wouldn't want to own either one. AMZN has the potential to suck out a lot of the profits from the retail business business. I would rather buy some industrials or costumer products companies like Nestle instead (assuming reasonable valuation metrics). Just FYI the bears have looked like retards on Amazon for 15 years, so. Not saying it's a huge market beater from here, but if you have doubts about the sustainability of the business model you haven't been paying attention. Isn't that part of the problem? Fund managers don't want to "look like retards" so they make sure AMZN is in their portfolio at any price? All I'm saying is look at what you pay versus what you get. If you had $315 billion in cash, would you really rather own AMZN or would you prefer to own all of WMT, TGT, KR, M, KSS, GPS, BIG, JCP, & SHLD?

So someone takes a loss on my 2% cash back card? The 1.5% fee is net to Visa though and there are other layers on top of that. I think merchants pay 2.5% of the transaction value on average, but I could be incorrect.

Decades ago, smartphones were not available. Smartphones run on either IOS or Android, so there is already a huge network of users. Layering a payment system on top of it would not imply building a new network, it would ride on top of an existing network, so would cost may less. So, I think in terms of network buildout and network effects (critical scale), the possibility to take market away from V/MA is there. Will it happen or will Apple/GooG decides it is just easier to ride with Visa/MA? As far as P2P usage is concerned, I don't think he consumer has much power to make a change. I get zero benefit , if I start to use P2P now, instead of using credit cards, but lose all the CC benefits. bye Be, cash back, extra insurance etc. Why would I do it, unless the merchant gives back the savings? Right now, I pay the same using a CC than I do using cash or P2P, except in gas stations. If merchants wood break out the cost of using CC as anextra item (similar to VAT) and let me pAy for the privilege (which merchants are not allowed to do, per Contractual terms), then I switch A hardbeat and so will many others. Come to think about it, legislation that allows merchants to tack on the CC cost on the bill is probably a large thread to CC companies as well and would immediately impact their business model. Does not seem to be likely, but one never knows.

Bought some today's the Fido, paying a bit less than 74. I think the shorted dated bonds are OK, since X has enough assets and liquidity to keep going for a while, but long term, this company could well be toast.

The traditional Amex charge card does not have a credit limit per say, but as Jurgis stated a transaction still will not get through, if Amex this that the Sum charged is out of bounds. I am pretty sure tha Christies has a special deal with Amex and that someone called Amex to make sure the transaction goes through beforehand. It's great advertising for Amex, so I am pretty sure the full transaction fee is not charged in this case.

I look at I levered cash flow (taking EV as an denominator ) because taking he levered cash flounders not account for the risk that comes with high leverage. Just subtracting the cash expense of interest rates is not enough - with large leveragr comes large risk. At current valuation, VRX is mot cheap using EV based metrics, in fact it trades in line with many consumer good pharma companies that do not have controversial issues hat VRX has.

I bought this a while ago for 22 €. The analogy to AIG may be fitting. One thing to note is that Delta Lloyd is a similar case that did not play out well (Einhorn was in the stock as well). Delta Lloyd seems to be undercapitalized and is mismanaged on top of this, while NN appears to be in good shape with respect to the balance sheet, it's just the profitability that is subpar. NN as well as Delta LLoyd should benefit enormously from higher interest rates.

The book value was ~$28 last year before they started to come up with the adjusted book value, (which accounts for the debt and preferred trading above par, as I understand it). I don't like how they started to change their reporting metrics without much of an explanation why. They calculate their ROE based on adjusted book (which makes the ROE appear higher) and I think that is one of he performance metrics that management measures itself. I like direct bank model, on the asset collecting side, but I don't like the car lending on their asset side. Car lending is a crummy business with credit unions falling over themselves to offer 5year car loans for 2.5% or less. Going subprime will only work until the economy hits a pothole. FWIW, this is one of my larger positions; despite the concerns, I think the risk reward is quite good.

Visa and MasterCard don't grant credit, the card issuers do. Visa and Mastercard bear no credit risk, except maybe some small float from transactions. Google and Apple as well as Paypall have already a huge customer base as well as the infrastructure to handle huge amount of transactions and it is fairly easy to replace the functionality of a comparatively dumb credit card (even with chip) in a smartphone. Even though handling transactions is not their core business (except Paypall) it is quite conceivable that they gain market share and put pressure on the profit margins in this space, which could be a huge hit on V and M bottom line. Buying V and M at 30 X earnings is pretty much a bet that this won't happen for another 20 years or so, not a bet that I would be willing to make. Edit:20 years

My wife and I like Mexican food too, but the older generation and many first generation imigrants don't like it, based on my experience. I think Chipotle is at best OK Mexican food though, many locals Retsaurants are much better in Population centers with large Hispanic populace. If you are living in a place with little Hispanic population and hence limtited Mexicans food choices, it may be the best you can get.

Generally not. (My in laws are Chinese).

Jeffries should trade at a large discount to GS in terms of price/tangible book because it is not as good of a business, in my opinion. Jeffries is far more vulnerable (see the issues during the European debt crisis ) and the return on equity seems to be less. They may have benefitted a few years ago from the main competitors being tainted, but that is no clearly not the case any more. Now they are just sub scale, imo.

Its trading at .78 times book including DTAs and AOCI and these last 2 years have been painful for shareholders outside of monetizing core assets and the buyback. I'm all for a little shakeup/change. They have been smart/diligent in returning cash via buybacks/increased div but it doesn't take a great CEO/board to decide to do that. Like Icahn says its been a bit of a no "brainer" of a decision. I think cutting costs are a reasonable move too but at what point do we start to underwrite a little better here

Same here. I don't think the stock is such a great value, but their service is great and they are usually great to deal with. I also agree that he cobra need Amex cards (like the Fidelity cards, which is really issued by BofA) are not quite in the same league, despite similar looking terms. I do have the Fido card as well because 2 % cash back is hard to beat. FWIW, from the Visa cards, I like the Chase Ink the best.

Macy's actually has not grown that much. Since 2007, they have grown revenues from 26 billion to 28 billion annually in 2014. Adjusted for inflation, that is negative growth. Add a bit top line pressure from online sales to the mix and it does not take much to see Macy's shrinking, even in nominal numbers. Shrinking sales does not mean sinking net income. Also 11% is a rather conservative estimate for M's cost of capital. If they move more of their business online, I am fairly certain that their margins will take a huge hit. The Macy story since the recession is one of margin expansion, there was very little organic growth. Now that the revenues start to shrink, there is a significant risk that margins take a huge hit, which will take earnings and cash flow down as well, and there goes the share buyback... I have a sticker on my forehead that retail turnarounds are tough.

CFX was never "cheap" and is certainly not cheap now. A business that trades at 20x earnings and may be shrinking for a couple of years is certainly not cheap in my book. Now a single digit earning multiple and a decent balance sheet, that would be cheap.