Foreign Tuffett

In the medium to long term, one possibility is simply that society simply imprisons/detains less people. This would be akin to what happened with psychiatric hospitals. https://www.npr.org/2017/11/30/567477160/how-the-loss-of-u-s-psychiatric-hospitals-led-to-a-mental-health-crisis

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gamestop-citron/citrons-left-is-still-short-gamestop-even-as-stock-bounds-higher-idUSKBN29V291 Despite saying he was done speaking out about GME on Friday, Left gives Reuters an interview today about GME in which he basically paints himself as the weak hand at the poker table. I continue to be baffled by his recent behavior: Step one: Release a short video on Thursday that more-or-less taunts longs Step two: Concede defeat on Friday Step three: Give an interview on Tuesday in which you say you are stressed out, but still in the fight None of those steps makes the least bit of sense to me given that Left is purportedly trying to make money on a short position

Just noticed Nikola back at $25. I suppose market participants have, once again, forgotten that this company straddles the line between outright fraud and just being an idea. I also saw that, as I predicted in November, Worthington sold all its NKLA stock. https://www.barrons.com/articles/an-early-nikola-investor-sells-all-its-stock-51610727082

Per today's 8-K, pro forma annual rent including SNO leases is $150.6 million In Q4 2015 the equivalent number was $202.9 million I get that all the SHLD leases are now gone, but that is far from rapid progress.

Just my opinion, but I don't think this whole Wall Street Bets things is a lasting paradigm. To steal from some book titles, I would be cautious about believing that this brave new world is the end of history. Imagine all the folks who were talking about a 'new normal' during the tech bubble. I think the story is as much about Melvin Capital's huge blowup as it is about anything else. $2.75 billion is just a huge number for a hedge fund bailout. The infamous LTCM bailout was ~$3.6 billion (not adjusted for inflation)

27 "PPV" events. I don't see how that makes any sense. You can't have a special attraction every other week. They weren't getting significant actual PPV revenue, right? So the frequency of the events is to sustain the network subscriptions? Yeah, that would be my thought. One way to make the network more attractive is to have more content that is exclusive to it Edit: I also agree with BG2008 that the rise of mixed martial arts has been decidedly negative for WWE

Today's deal with Peacock/NBC looks to be a continuation of gradual WWE's loss of pricing power and general relevance. * Prior to the launch of WWE Network in 2014, pay per view (PPV) events cost $45, with the exception of the flagship Wrestlemania event that was priced at $60. To quote ElCid's VIC article "Total PPV buys have declined at a -6.7% CAGR from ’06 to ’13." * WWE Network launched in early 2014 for $9.99 a month. Almost seven years later it still costs $9.99 a month. WWE Network includes all PPV events along with other content. Note that WWE did 12 PPV events in 2013. Compare that to no less than 27 in 2019. * Now WWE Network (at least in the US) is being folded into Peacock. So for $9.99 a month you get the WWE Network and all of Peacock's other content, ad-free. WWE has greatly benefitted from still having a diehard cadre of fans in a fragmenting media environment, but this humble respondent thinks that the continuing erosion of the product's popularity is going to be the deciding factor at some point. The popularity of the WWE itself probably peaked in the early 2000s.

, Note that GME filed to issue up to $100 million in new stock on Dec. 8th.

I think an important part of the story is the Citron debacle. In the middle of the trading day on Thursday Citron released this video. One of the statements made in the video is "you won't see a squeeze from here on in." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEi2axM4hwI&feature=youtu.be Roughly 24 hours later Citron released the attached statement. I would imagine that bulls, not without reason, saw this statement as complete capitulation. So one way to think about this is that, ~24 hours after denying a short squeeze would happen, Citron probably played a not insignificant role in creating one.

Not closely although i do hold a position and continue to believe it's trading at a material discount to the value of it's timberland. I think it provides a reasonable inflation hedge but outside of that, don't see much in the way of a re-rating catalyst. If shares are continually bought in at a material 'discount'/book, I'm happy sitting tight for the time being. Have you got any further thoughts? Particularly on how the VULC liquidation may guide for a fair value of KEWL's assets? I was actually looking at this as a decent comp. https://www.lymetimber.com/2019/09/16/affiliates-of-the-lyme-timber-company-lp-to-acquire-555000-acres-of-timberland-in-michigan/ My understanding is that VULC was able to get a premium for its timberland due to it being under-harvested (for lack of a better term), so I'm not sure that's a great comp

How about an update? Prospectus supplement just filed: "As of January 22, 2021, there were 287,276,558 shares of Class A common stock outstanding, 51,796,784 shares of Class B common stock outstanding" With the stock at $3.51 the current market cap is $1.19 billion. Makes even more sense now than it did last month.

Is anyone still following this? At first glance it look like Mai is moving things in the right direction (repurchasing shares at relatively low prices, doing some interesting deals, etc).

"No Time to Die" delayed from April 2 to October 8 "Ghostbusters Afterlife" delayed form June 11 to Nov 11 "Uncharted" moving from this July to next February "Black Widow" still scheduled for early May, but it is widely expected to be pushed back

Citron going public with a short case today. https://twitter.com/CitronResearch/status/1351544479547760642

Seems like the regulatory environment in Mexico for MLMs would be extraordinarily relevant here, but I have yet to see any substantive discussion of that risk, either here or in the VIC article.