shhughes1116

I wouldn't say I am negative. I originally bought Viacom in the mid-20s, HODL through the March 2020 tank, and then sold in the high-40s (and missed the subsequent rip to $100) I tend to think mid-40s is a fair price, and I tend to think high-20s is a reasonable price to accumulate. When volatility is high, I like to sell at the money puts for stocks I like. In this case, the premium was too juicy to resist, and puts me into the stock at my buy price if I am put the shares.

I sold some puts.  Jan 2023 @ $40 strike for $11.50.  I'd be happy to buy Viacom again in the high 20's.  Seems like we are going to end up with five or six big players in the United States - Netflix, Disney Plus, HBO Max, Peacock/Hulu, Paramount Plus and maybe Prime Video or Apple TV, and these services become the new "TV bundle".  I have a hard time envisioning a scenario where ViacomCBS does not own a substantive portion of the streaming pie.  I tend to think the smaller players (i.e. Discovery Plus, Showtime, EPIX) get rolled up into the larger services to provide additional scale and content.     

To be honest, I hope it is not an isolated case.  The pricing disruptions caused by this forced unwinding of positions is great for those that are patient and hold some cash.  Nice option premium on VIAC for instance.  And I hope that the end result, as people see this blow up, is a reduction in leverage across the entire system.  I think this would be healthy for the financial system, and to my point above, lucrative for my portfolio. 

VIAC Jan 2023 puts @ $40 strike for $11.50.  I'd be happy to buy Viacom again in the high 20's. 

Hoovering up some UNTC. Not generally an O&G guy (aside from midstream), but this one is pretty cheap and the publication of post-restructuring financials should make that more obvious.

Yes, greening is still negatively impacting citrus production in Florida. Production is down more than 50% over the last ten years. The various interventions studied and applied have not been effective at reducing the spread. Infected trees have also been found outside of Florida, in Southern California and South Texas. There is a semi-last ditch collaboration with Bayer AG to identify a solution. In the meantime, a substantial amount of groves in Florida get transitioned to cattle grazing land.

I was impressed with his work at WPC, and again with his work at GPT. He seems to do a good job at laying out his vision, executing on his vision, and doing all this while treating shareholders well. I had planned to sell GRIF as the price moved closer to NAV. However, with Gordon around, I've kept the entire position.

They have a nice asset in Wyoming, which is cost-advantaged relative to synthetic production, and cost-advantaged relative to other trona miners. However, I don't trust management. Didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out they inflating annual production through deca rehydration, and eventually production would drop off significantly. The manner in which they disclosed this made them appear either dishonest or incompetent. Happy to chat more about this one on a dedicated thread for CINR.

This precisely and concisely sums up the problem with our present day society. To a certain extent, people are willing to tolerate inequality because our system is set up in a way that enables people to improve their lot in life through hard work, ambition, and creativity. That said, I believe this door to the middle and upper class is closing for many folks in society. If people feel like they can't improve their lot in life, they become a lot less tolerant of inequality. And when they have nothing, then they have nothing to lose by destroying the system. If we don't solve for this sooner rather than later, I don't think there will be much of capitalism left to save in the United States. I think this is where we need to be careful with how we describe the solutions. I see equity and equality differently. I believe in equality - equality of opportunity. We should endeavor to make sure people have access to education and other tools that enable them to start businesses, earn money, and to generally improve their lot in life. I do not believe in equity, which seems to be a disincentive for ambition, personal responsibility, and hard work. I struggle to see the difference between equity and socialism.

SDS.

I think it was pre-recorded.

They are not playing offense, they kick the cans down the road. A lot this retailers like Brooks won’t exist 10 years from now, but SPG can’t afford to have vacant spaces in their malls so they have to keep zombies alive. The whole thesis that malls can become office spaces, experience Locations and Restaurant rows get covitzt. They are screwed, imo. I think I will see the Roosevelt mall in LI getting gutted out in the next 20 years, just to name one example. How arent they operating from a position of strength? Name one other landlord currently making acquisitions? Name another landlord currently raising capital, at will, at 2-4% rates going out to 2050? What should they be doing, buying companies pre-bankruptcy or propping shit up like BAM is doing? While the narrative you mention is popular, and currently whats driving the share price, its already been debunked, not only by the above, but by the clear and unmistakable fact that we've already seen what happened once they government gets out of the way. Restaurants and experience oriented operations and not dead, or "covitzed". Not even close, once people are allowed to go back they flock there in droves. Which is why you are seeing, even still now, post Covid, quality restaurants trading hands at sub 5 cap rates. The biggest short term risk is the government forcing shutdowns. The largest mistake in fact was shutting things down, because it gave everyone from Joe Schmoe to Gap a semi legitimate excuse to stop paying their bills. But Simon, as they've shown, can weather that. Q2 payout was $1.30, with that being the minimum for 3&4. I think Gregmal is right on target here. Don't get me wrong, I think SPG is playing some defense here. If these retailers stop paying rent and vacate their stores, SPG is going to have some co-tenancy issues, in addition to not collecting rent from the vacant space. I suspect the cost of these potential/future co-tenancy issues is far greater than the cost of picking up these retailers from bankruptcy. Apparel and soft goods are not sexy businesses, and they certainly aren't lucrative. But, after stripping out the debt through bankruptcy, most of these retailers are break-even or slightly profitable, after paying their rent. So SPG picks them up from bankruptcy, keeps them in operation (likely at break-even or slightly profitable, after the rent is paid), keeps the space occupied so SPG can collect rent AND prevent co-tenancy issues. And in the future, when the economy is in better shape, I'll bet SPG spins them off or sells them to recoup their investment. I think think there is one other overlooked benefit here. When SPG takes over the retailers and their distribution operations, there is the opportunity to restructure the distribution operations to better leverage mall space as a "last-mile distribution hub". Using some mall space as a "last-mile distribution hub" will speed up delivery to home, occupy additional space at the mall (generating additional rent) and possibly reduce the amount of space currently needed at larger distribution centers. I see this as a way for malls to fight back against Amazon, using their centrally-located A and B malls to provide last-mile distribution points. Existing space, existing loading docks, and prime locations puts them in a great position to do this. I'll add one underlying thought/assumption, which informs my thoughts above. I have used Amazon (and Amazon Prime) for a long time. I like it. But even after many years of using it, it still only occupies a very small percentage of my retail spending, and that percentage is not growing. Most of the retail spending I do is in-person. This is approach is typical amongst my friends and colleagues. In light of this, I tend to think that malls and Amazon will co-exist long into the future, with certain purchases more likely on Amazon, and certain purchases more likely in malls.

I assumed it was just re-tracement of the losses experienced in Feb/March - just took longer because it was illiquid.

Why have cities always been desired? When travel and communication was more difficult and time consuming cities brought people and ideas together in one spot. Population density was a necessity for ideas to spread and serendipitous meetings to take place. Also it allowed an economy of scale for businesses. All of that still happens in cities, but, I don't know if that is still entirely necessary. People now meet and talk online just as easily as off, and with modern shipping the whole country is your marketplace. Very well said. Still impossible to replicate human interaction, but virtual is good enough for much of day-to-day life, and when compared against cost and livability of cities, will be very interesting to see future trends. Cities may become virtual cities. We know have online community where members can have strong bonds . That wasn’t possible historically. Am I going to go to the virtual theater? the virtual music arena? the virtual ballpark? the virtual museum? the virtual skateboard park? the virtual hospital to have virtual surgery from a top-rated cardiothoracic surgeon? Pardon the hyperbole, but you get my point. People are drawn to cities by the availability decent-paying jobs AND amenities/attractions that are not available in rural parts of the country. The population density of [insert ruraltown USA) does not support a good theater, decent skateboard park, large music arena that attracts big-name artists, decent museum (history, art, sports, or something else), MLB/NFL ballpark, and/or NHL/NBA arena. it certainly doesn't support a high-end hospital with top-rated physicians either - you are lucky to have a good general surgeon and a good general practitioner in ruraltown USA's local hospital. So the idea that people are going to leave urban office buildings, and scatter to the four corners of the earth where they can work remotely from their house is far-fetched to me. I work 1/3 of the time at home, 1/3 of the time in the office, and 1/3 of the time on the road. I have an entire team of folks around the country, similarly situated. If I wanted, I could work 100% from home, and could do so wherever I want in the United States. The same goes for my team. But over the last 10 years, I have found that it is mind-numbing to work from home every single day, and it blurs the boundaries between work life and family life. I have also found that locating myself in rural places, even for short periods of time, is boring. This is not unique to me. I see this same mentality across an organization with 10,000+ people. People are hyper focused on working remote, on getting the hell out of the office, so they can enjoy sunshine and rainbows every day from the comfort of their own house. Yet 90-95% of the people who go off to work 100% remote end up returning to the city and our office buildings. They either went nuts working 100% remote in their small apartment in the city, or they went nuts (in a larger apartment or house) living in a rural area without the amenities they were accustomed to enjoying. I think we are going to see a huge cohort of folks jump on the 100% work-from-home bandwagon. I think we are going to subsequently see, in maybe a year or two, that many of these folks want to return to the office building and the city for the reasons mentioned above. I think the endgame is that most white collar workers will do 50% of their time in the office building, and 50% of their time at home. And most of these folks won't leave the city (or will return) because they will miss the action, the amenities, and the proximity of their friends/peers.

Sold my Google. Figured my quick 15% gain in advance of earnings was something worth holding onto, and had a hard time seeing what would push their shares higher in the near future.