Gregmal

Don't rip it though. Then they'll all go "at least read the book first. It's got some real sources!" LOL Partisan hacks getting rich off Trump. Only joke is on the people paying for this nonsense.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/18/andrew-mccabe-is-planning-to-release-his-own-trump-book/ LOL everyone is trying to get rich telling stories about Trump. Liberty, I expect you'll give us the review when you get it?

Borrow is around 600%. Never seen that before.

I thought the above is excellent. I wholeheartedly agree with you. I guess I can clarify partly as I perhaps take into consideration the situations guys like us are in and didn't explain fully the context. You definitely put in a ton of time with your due diligence. But I'm sure you can also relate to not having 25+ analysts at your disposal and the fact that often all the work they'd be doing falls on you. Thus there is a value to the time you have to spend on an investment. That is part of the risk to reward equation. I think one should always try to expand their circle of competence. But there's also a bit of a time management skill involved and being able to determine when one is climbing Mt. Everest and getting paid $15 an hour to do so, just doesn't make sense.

https://nypost.com/2018/09/17/paul-singers-hedge-fund-backs-away-from-athenahealth-deal/ He's back at it again with the antics. I feel like if you gave any half competent person $10B+ they could do what Elliot does. Basically just trash companies/board, litigate, and play poker trying to force sales.

I'll play a little devil's advocate but first preface it with the following statement. I'll take your math at face value. Same as I would Brookfield. I've personally found that getting that granular is often just too time consuming relative to what's already out there(IE a larger investor already being there) versus the likelihood the numbers play out that way due to macro circumstances. In other words, all the time you've spent breaking it down and crunching projected numbers, how often is this justified vs just kind of getting a general view of consensus numbers and as Munger has said "not needing to know a man's weight to see if he's fat"? I know it's different, but it's why for an investment like BRK, AAPL, GOOG or AMZN(FD:I only currently own GOOG but have prior owned all at one point or another), I do zero number crunching because the likelihood I have an edge over every other market participant in the name, is zero. Second, is this not more or less a macro bet? Again, I own some cyclical stuff and IE GM have been hearing "peak auto" forever now, so I'm not saying macro bets are bad, but does this not more or less boil down to that? I actually remember talking with you a while back and discussing an MLP that was boring but promising and buying after you spoke highly of it. It then got bought out. I owe you a beer! But generally MLP's, LP, etc are just kind of neglected areas that carry stigma's and seem to be out of favor since about 2015. I'm not sure I see a catalyst to that ending. Especially if rates keep rising. Third, not saying this is the case with your investment, although I don't think one consciously does this, but I feel the longer the bull market rages on the further into complexity a lot of value investors tend to go. I mean earlier in the decade it was BAC and AIG. Now I see a lot of very different stuff. Last couple years it's been into highly levered companies/distressed assets. At the end of the day, if you are right, that's all that counts. But I've always personally steered away from companies with high debt/EV levels but have noticed a lot of value investors have moved to this space recently. Is this in any way a biproduct of something potentially being optically quite cheap, but at the same time a higher risk investment than you'd typically get into? A lot of what you wrote seemed to be giving credit to Brookfield's track record. If Brookfield wasn't in this, would you look at it the same? The assets in many cases as you mentioned depreciate and become worthless. I view this as time working against you. So, I admire all the work and knowledge you have here, but isn't this kind of the classic "to hard" pile investment? It seems you disagree but I just think sometimes simpler is better and when there are too many moving parts that can move the needle rapidly, the investment becomes much more of a speculative gamble than anything else. I'll point to FRP, there just wasn't a way to lose with that investment. It was classic value. Here's I see a lot of ways I can lose. As you pointed out "The downside is very obvious. Too much leverage, capital intensive, and commodity exposure. " Isn't this then just a tough business to be in? Or in other words, aren't there easier investments out there? Just my 2c and a lot is simply general observations from a distance so take it with a grain of salt.

I've done the same thing for a while with CIBR. Easy, low maintenance returns. Have looked at this one too but not bought.

Reminisces of a Stock Operator

If it's a well run, quality company with staying power, I'd pull the trigger. Not buying stock because one is crippled with fear over the next big one is the most common road taken to the land of mediocre returns.

The tards are insatiable, but it always ends the same. Literally EVERYONE in this is short term, which is an advantage to longer term investors. I get a kick out of reading some of the commentary on this. "It's cheap because it's down today and CGC and CRON are up"... This is who's on the long side of this stock.

Saw that last night. Pretty incredible there are people paying 30% per month to short this. Utterly stupid. Especially when, as I've mentioned, you can put on essentially the same trade, IE short a longer dated $20,$30,$40, etc call, pretty much for free. This whole thing is pretty breathtaking though. The other names, CGC, CRON, etc already look to have cracked. Been a while since I created positions via options but isn't there an arbitrage opportunity then, to buy the shares and lend them out (pocket the 30% or whatever your broker gives you) and recreate the opposite position via options so you are market neutral? edit: nevermind - you'd have to go long the puts which should have the 30% carry baked in. While there isn't really an arbitrage opportunity per say, I think there are ways similar where the odds are very much in your favor. At the current HTB fee of 370% annually, if you went long the stock while selling a longer dated $20 call, you are in an arbitrage position after what? Maybe 3 weeks, assuming the stock stays around here, or goes higher? Even if it goes lower, you would be hedged down to $20, essentially meaning the trade equation works for you if the stock doesn't go below $20 before the short rebate covers the difference. This situation(TLRY) is very fascinating to me on multiple levels.

For a double in a month or so... by all means. Better idea than the usual watch paint dry, buy FFH or BRK stuff.

Saw that last night. Pretty incredible there are people paying 30% per month to short this. Utterly stupid. Especially when, as I've mentioned, you can put on essentially the same trade, IE short a longer dated $20,$30,$40, etc call, pretty much for free. This whole thing is pretty breathtaking though. The other names, CGC, CRON, etc already look to have cracked.

Two questions How many hacks have tried capitalizing on Trump fever with books? How many people/organizations have made a ton of money off of the business of riding Trump's coattails since he became president? Wasn't Trump highhandedly responsible for reviving the NYT?

Quite awesome. Only way it would have been better is if he took a knee!

I think the big question is whether they re-up the buyback or not. If they felt 4B at 92 or whatever is worth taking down in 2 months, you figure they'd keep it up once they blow through the current program. If not, then it's likely this was just a move to save face. I agree the dividend is stupid.

BUD to me is IBM. Better companies out there and their problems are largely their own doing. Like I said, I own HEIA

Because stoners don't drink beer? Yea IDK I've actually started buying Heineken a bit lately but think the marijuana thing is utterly overblown. The first aspect is this; the second it is fully legal, anyone with resources will get into it. Its not like these second rate companies that are currently trading for billion dollar valuations are going to have a monopoly on pot. Second, even in regards to it's medical uses, again, there is nothing proprietary about it. No barriers to entry. Nothing. It's a commodity. Third, the TAM really isn't that big. People are acting like if legalized we're just going to have a country(actually in many cases, a world) full of useless, high, zombies. (Hopefully) we won't. The point was that their research showed that they do drink and that for some marijuana can be a substitute. Greg, the rest of this was a bit off topic. I just wanted to point out a risk to the OP not derail the thread. I don't really get how this is off topic. It was brought up that marijuana could be a threat to these types of companies. I explained why I don't think that is the case, at all. There is no reason to think Bud, BF, TAP, or SAM, or MO, BTI, etc wouldn't walk right into this market when they wanted to. These companies have all the resources and political connections necessary to do it. When you look at all the garbage currently in this space, and the shady/questionable characters involved, I'd even wager the powers that be would encourage it. You don't really see these types of companies(in the weed biz) and characters in tobacco and alcohol anymore. They'll get smoked out of marijuana too. If anything this becomes an advantage for a company like BUD. I mean if what's on topic is that people might prefer weed to beer, than I don't know how it's off topic questioning why BUD wouldn't potentially be a beneficiary of that?? Heineken currently has a cannabis infused beer. Off topic?

Because stoners don't drink beer? Yea IDK I've actually started buying Heineken a bit lately but think the marijuana thing is utterly overblown. The first aspect is this; the second it is fully legal, anyone with resources will get into it. Its not like these second rate companies that are currently trading for billion dollar valuations are going to have a monopoly on pot. Second, even in regards to it's medical uses, again, there is nothing proprietary about it. No barriers to entry. Nothing. It's a commodity. Third, the TAM really isn't that big. People are acting like if legalized we're just going to have a country(actually in many cases, a world) full of useless, high, zombies. (Hopefully) we won't.

IV has come out of the options a little bit, but there's still enough there to be worthwhile. You're basically trading against tards at this point. No one in their right mind is buying at these valuations. $2M contract announcement causes 900M market cap increase? Okayyyy. That and traders, which IMO are just speculations/gamblers, another form of stupid counter parties. Personally I don't think we've seen the top yet. IB had borrow at nearly 325% earlier, so being outright short is silly as well. Lot of different ways to play this.

It's something I've also noticed. It seems many here, and with value investors in general, there is some prerequisite for one to be so crippled by fear of "the next big one" that they spend all their time burying their acorns, however unlike squirrels, the events they prepare for are not annual, they're pretty much generational. Yet the next notion of the "value investor" is to act as if these generational events happen much more frequently than they do, and believe that they(the investor) will be waiting right there with a huge pile of cash to pick up all the great, cheap businesses when it happens. Historically, this is not how it works. Not only does this make them so frugal it becomes counter productive, but it makes it a miracle for them to even get within an earshot of beating a benchmark. If you are a half skilled investor, or simply put in the time, it's pretty darn easy to regularly generate alpha producing ideas. I think "being hedged" or crying about valuations became a clever institutional tool used to milk fees and justify shitty performance.

https://nypost.com/video/elon-musk-should-invent-a-way-to-shut-his-mouth/ As someone who creates their own living and enjoys wearing sweatpants to meetings just because that's what I feel like wearing... God bless Elon. His first look at that joint made me think the thoughts going through his head were "I could definitely find a more efficient way to do this"... He's either going to do something colossal, or go out in a massive cloud of smoke.

They have bought quite a few shares back (7% of outstanding), while keeping the balance sheet steady. The multiples have come down in the whole space, including car suppliers. The German car companies are even cheaper than GM at this point. FCAU has performed better, but it is the exception not the rule. They've been lackluster for a company that has traded at 5-6x now for several years. More significantly, they have offset a bunch of this by inexplicably issuing shares to executives, who then immediately turn around and dump them at market. Creating "long term value" is the biggest farcical anecdote out there, and ultimately a big time enabler of poor management. If your stock hasn't gone anywhere in almost a decade, forget the fact we're in a stupid long bull market, you haven't created long term value. Plain and simple.

GM priced over $2B of notes today. Wonder if they will finally do something proactive. Otherwise I'd have to think the end is near for current management. Bottom line when you trade at 5-6x earnings for multiple years there is no excuse for your shares outstanding to not decrease substantially, especially if your share price has been in the dumps. Barra, instead, has plowed money into R&D and other nonsense(including a few great investments) and ultimately shareholders have little to show for this. While I once ripped the strategy at Fiat, it's proven true, you don't need to go crazy on R&D spend. GM doesn't pay taxes, and generates significant FCF. How the heck has neither the share price gone up OR the share count decreased by 25%+? The skeptics have been wrong crying "PEAK AUTO" for the past 4-5 years. That's not an excuse anymore.

Not a value blog, but I've always found this one interesting https://www.stockgumshoe.com/