Gregmal

IMO and mine only this is the new SHLD and a great trading vehicle to keep an eye on for the next few years. The company clearly has some immensely valuable assets. Personally I don't see how a larger PE shop doesnt swallow this if it is truly up for grabs, but nonetheless like SHLD was for many years, this will likely provide the keen observer many opportunities to swing rather out-sized trades in short periods of time.

Funny, but deriving from the same topic, I remember when there was some uproar over American Brian Gionta being named captain of the Canadians specifically because he didnt speak French. So I'd imagine the bar is a wee bit higher for PM.

Well, DT is already ruining our lives. In response to his order, Iran has implemented their own sanctions including travel bans for American citizens. Shucks. Guess I'm going to have to change my vacation plans...

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever... Are you like a dumbass? Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities. Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens. *I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump... Just to further add to the gun ownership thread!!! What would the response be to people who want to own guns to protect themselves/property? Maybe members of this board don't know or appreciate...but there are areas of America where law enforcement can't/won't protect the citizens. I know this for a fact as I live in one of those areas...What would you do about Detroit? I would posit that citizens have the right to protect themselves if the police can't or won't. Yes but obviously cities tend to be liberal and gun violence happens more in cities but alas, there is no correlation! On a serious note, cities with very harsh gun laws(the same ones whom happen to be super violent, and super liberal) which prohibit law abiding citizens also tend to have ineffective law enforcement as you mentioned. Taking away guns doesn't stop the criminals, whom will have guns whether they are legal or not. But yea, keep punishing those who follow the rules. Tax those who work for a living to give to those who don't. Raise insurance premiums on younger people who are healthy to subsidize older people who aren't. Keep all the borders open to whomever wants to rumble on in, while on the other hand people who go through the proper channels wait 10-15 yeas for citizenship... The best is that there is not even really an attempt to justify these things from the people whom support them. Instead just some blanket buzz word gets thrown back at you; like "racist" or "alt-right", etc.

I have long been an admirer of Canada and even considered potentially moving there under various circumstances(none having to do with politics). The issue when comparing to the US is its an apples and oranges situation. Canada has not made enemies everywhere on Earth by constantly meddling in everyone's business. Canada does not have a neighbor to the south who's people regularly trespass(in many cases violently, and often with contraband) and then blow out babies with no intention of paying a penny. Canada, because it has not really made enemies the way the US has, does not have to worry to the same extent about people coming into the country and seeking to annihilate it's citizens for no good reason. I would also probably gander that the education system in Canada (pre-university) is worlds better; which is also partially the reason its citizens happen to be more insightful and productive, although thats just my opinion. I do some business with folks in Vancouver/BC and the long running joke is that the only difference between BC and California is that BC basically offers everything you'd like about California, without much of the shit you wouldn't. I kind of feel this applies to Canada vs the US as well.

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever... Are you like a dumbass? Cities tend to be liberal and gun violence tends to occur more often in cities. Without diving into your level of deplorability, I would politely point out that I simply referred to the misnomer that restricting gun ownership is the answer as in all these crime ladel hell holes the majority of these crimes occur with unregistered guns. Which will continue even if you take away all the guns owned by law abiding citizens. *I appreciate the editing of your post. With the original tone I would have had nothing left but to assume you where one of the deplorables who voted for Trump...

The problem down here(in the US), is that the lower middle/middle/upper middle class fight for themselves while the lower/upper class play politics. On one end of the liberal spectrum, you've got the have nots who are entirely reliant of handouts. This is the largest demographic, period. Then on the upper end you have the "haves" who've already made their money and are well set, are more so now sanctimonious and all about philanthropy/seeking some twisted greater good. I've always thought Canada had a slightly better balance, but all over it seems the hand out crowd is taking over.

Okay, I suppose that you can argue that statistics about homicides by guns are completely irrelevant to a discussion about homicides by guns. It's not the way I would approach the discussion if I wanted to prove my point, but you and I think differently. Since you prefer the murder rate, USA has about 5 murders for every 2 that Canada has. Therefore, I'll assume that you'll concede the point that gun-control makes sense if you actually care about keeping people alive. (Some fun trivia: on February 2nd, we'll hit the 30th anniversary of the last time a cop was killed by a gun in Vancouver. Also--since we care about all cop murders, not just gun ones--the last time a cop was killed in Vancouver.) I see. As long as you exclude every place that you don't like, and restrict the area of comparison to a tiny geographical area comprised of less than 0.5% of the country's population, then gun ownership doesn't matter at all. Are you listening to yourself? Next time you analyse a business, I suggest you exclude all the money the company spends on salaries--it'll make it look really profitable! So what you're saying is that the US is inherently more violent, and so therefore it's great to ensure all these inherently violent people have guns? Hmm. It kind of amuses me that Trump's been implying that the immigrants are the criminals, but from what you say, it would probably be better diluting the inherent American aggressiveness by increasing the number of peaceful immigrants. :) With respect to the UK, let's look at the situation. (I know you tend to throw out statements out without bothering with facts or evidence, but it's helpful to me when the conversation is actually grounded in reality.) http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/04/24/article-2313942-1974D490000005DC-694_634x522.jpg So, this chart isn't adjusted by population size. Thus, all else being equal, you'd expect every line in this chart to trend up as the population increases. Yet what do we see since the 1997 gun ban? Homicides down. Violent crimes went way up, and then down. Net of everything, violent crimes are up about 10-15% despite the population growth since 1997. So this doesn't support your argument either. At best, we have lower homicides and roughly equivalent violent crimes. That said, I'm starting to understand why you throw out these statements without any supporting evidence. You know, I understand that with you, when there's a conflict between your ideology and facts, ideology always wins. But you'd save everyone some time and be more persuasive if next time, you'd just say, "I think freedom to bear arms is more important than reducing the number of men, woman, and children who die from guns." (Seriously. I can respect that position over these half-hearted attempts to pretend that gun control wouldn't work. I think, for instance, that privacy should trump spying on Americans in an attempt to root out terrorists, even if allowing Americans privacy would result in more Americans being killed by terrorists. That's basically a completely parallel argument to the one you should be making on gun control.) That's a valid point. It certainly wouldn't be easy getting to reasonable gun control, and may not be worth the effort. This is a lot of mingled garbage. Let's isolate Chicago. Where the majority of gun related violence occurs with non-registered guns. Lets look at NY; doh, same thing. California, doh, same thing. Funny, all are huge liberal hubs as well. Why don't we break down Texas by county/region/(dare I say it, Republican vs Democrat territory) as well. Oh, you get the same thing. Heck even compare gun violence within NY to upstate vs NYC. But I suppose if we look at it from this angle we're being racist or whatever...

I would also add that while you do need a sponsor for the 7, your state can sponsor you if you are just looking for a 65. In total it's less than $500.

The easiest way, and it's almost guaranteed if you can humble yourself for a few months, is finding any old small name retail brokerage/advisory office. They'll likely pay you a couple hundred bucks a week and you'll have to cold call for 8 hours a day, not fun... But they'll sponsor you, and in most cases pay for your testing and materials and then once you have the license you can pretty much go anywhere. The other way is with a larger name, similar to what you mentioned. But they are more selective and typically like a specific type of resume (IE brand name school, BA in finance, several years minimum experience, etc). This is harder and kind of beats around the bush. Basically the financial food chain works like this for those of us who don't have Ivy League MBAs and an inside track on an investment banking job, at least to one seeking out basic securities licenses. Smaller bucket shops hire and license anything that has a pulse. Throw shit against the wall and see what sticks. Bigger firms take the cream of the crop. They don't hire 1/10th of the number the smaller firms do because they essentially just wait til the smaller firms license people and then poach them; saving obvious expenses and headaches that come with training. Once you have your license however, then its on you and if you are cut out for it you can make a living at either type of firm. If you are just looking to manage moderate amounts of money and have a low-mid 5-figure income you are probably better suited using a firm that specializes in umbrella/OSJ structures.

Here you go. Hope this helps https://www.kaplanfinancial.com/securities/series-7-var-1/ SecuritiesPro™ QBank (Online + Download) $124.50 Add to Cart Practice your test taking skills and test your knowledge with thousands of exam-focused questions and solutions. This interactive QBank allows you to build personalized exams based on length and topic of your choice and features unlimited exam attempts that are randomly generated each time. The Qbank also gives you the ability to: Complete the exams online or print them out to study on the go. Review your performance on previously taken exams. Track time spent on a question and/or exam. Search for specific questions within your QBank. Create personal notes and bookmarks on questions for future reference. Build weighted mock exams to provide a comprehensive test review of all material. *The online access period for your Qbank course is 5 months. An additional five months may be purchased at $49. Please call or email our student support center to request this extension.

The best, hands down, is Kaplan. I have taken the 7, 24, 63, and 65. The books are ok but it's basically all the same stuff regardless. The secret to passing the test(outside of the obvious answer:knowing the material!) is to be familiar with the format. You can buy the Kaplan online practice test generator service for a couple hundred bucks. It is well worth it. If you already have a decent understanding of industry related stuff, just taking the practice tests, with the option to have the correct answer and explanation shown after you answer the question, 2-3 times a days will have you ready to pass the real one in a couple weeks. The test is shuffled each time as well and there are like 10,000 questions so its not just straight memorization.

You answered your own question -- bullies target people they perceive to be weak. It's also a very symbolic part of Trump's racial [and racist] political strategy that has proven successful, so far. This is nonsense. Maybe in some aspects for Trump I'd agree, but in relation to Mexico, its utterly absurd. The same could be said about Canada. The difference is you don't have record numbers of Canadians running over the border, joining gangs, committing crimes, and filling up your already over crowded prisons. Mexico is definitely a problem. Their entire country is run by cartels and their government is corrupt. It's in a lot of ways similar to Chicago. Another small, poor area I'm sure many think Trump is bullying. What I like about Trump is where he sees a problem, he gets on it right away and tries to fix it. What makes me nervous about Trump? His judgment, temper, and ultimately whether or not he is capable of solving all these problems. But at least now the problems are being dealt with.

After big concentrated investments in RFP, SD, BBRY, and SHLD, I can't believe he's still in business.

Gotta love Ackman, blind and ballsy. Examples, page 5... ouch. Then 10 pages of self touting. Page 15 Smaller investments with higher risk - adjusted returns but smaller portfolio allocations in light of the investments’ added risks: Fannie & Freddie- OK, yes, the above makes sense. Valeant- LOL. The position is small now, yes, but that was not always the case. I would be insulted if I was an LP reading that. At least have the respect not to feed me a sales script Bill

I don't think there is any question that voter fraud is occurring. The question is HOW MUCH of it is going on. How is that? A). A "bigwig" (Alan Schulkin, Commissioner of Board of Elections NYC) is caught on tape discussing how they bus people into certain districts to vote, he also goes on to discuss other types of fraud and that massive fraud is going on: http://www.dailywire.com/news/9876/watch-nyc-dem-election-official-caught-video-there-amanda-prestigiacomo Why did this not get more attention? Absolutely shocking.... B). Here in Michigan almost half of the voting districts in Detroit did not have their votes recounted as there were problems with the ballot box (being unlocked), the number of people showing up to vote didn't match the number of ballots cast, and on & on. Mind you, not all of this is due to voter fraud. Sometimes there was 1 more ballot cast than recorded, so that is more likely a clerical error than a scam going on....but there certainly were goofy things going on. Simply the fact that there is so much sloppiness & error is a scandal in of itself. C). Many, many states are embroiled in litigation in regards to voter ID. I have to show ID to enter federal buildings, courts, libraries, casinos, etc. How do so many people go through life without any ID? Are poor minority people of such destitution that they can't afford the $5 to get a state ID? How do they drive? They can't figure this out? Just pondering this out loud. Q: Why would you NOT want ID's to be checked when voting? A: In order to enable wide scale voter fraud. D). When I was living in Houston Texas, there were millions of illegal immigrants. Most of them were hard working, decent people. HOWEVER, you can't tell me that some of them aren't voting. Is it 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, more? Nobody really knows. E). In the last election, there were districts in OH & PA where Mitt Romney (and others) received 0,1,2 votes. These were almost all in minority districts. No doubt, Obama was going to win these districts and win them heavily....but the Republican wouldn't get 1% of the vote? The Green party wouldn't get 1%? Obama got 100% or 99.9%? This wasn't 1 or 2 districts...this went on in many districts. If that happened in more than 1 or 2 districts, I would think alone would be evidence of fraud going on... This is just what I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure that there are other things going on. So yes, there is voter fraud going on, just a question of how much, and how much an effect it has on the outcome. I've stayed out of this mainly because most people can't seem to have a rational conversation on the subject of Trump, but this sentiment is spot on. Who cares who won the election; shouldn't something that undermines the entire election process such as voter fraud be investigated and taken seriously? It seems that with certain crowds, they are just set on being petty. Prior to the election, I dubbed it the "forest for the trees" crowd. Now they are just sour whiners. For instance, Trump comes in and immediately starts doing what he promised he'd do, and people find new hairs to split to call him a hypocrite. For God's sake, he came in and said we were getting ripped off on F-35 and AF1 deals and people complained!!! How dare he try to get better deals. This is partially what I think is needed. A politician has no clue what to do when negotiating a deal with a business. He says "I want this!", and goes and buys it regardless of cost because its not coming out of his pocket, it is coming out of ours. Whereas a business man first and foremost determines whether the item in question is a want or a need(big difference), and then sits down at the table and negotiates a deal on terms he finds acceptable because generally he has to justify what he is spending. Its about time we have someone in office who will at least attempt to justify where he's sending our money. I for one found it appalling we're actually funding abortions in foreign countries. Cuz yea, that's totally why I drive to work in the morning(on highways with pot holes the size of basketballs nonetheless/woo hoo infrastructure!)... To have my money taken by the government and wired out of the country to aid abortions in foreign countries. Its not like we could use the money elsewhere...

From afar this analyst sparked rally seems to eerily coincide with an expected equity raise...

What I've found is that after rather extraordinary events, everything becomes "the next (such and such)". There were plenty of "the next Enrons", plenty of well written and documented articles on "the next financial crisis", etc. VRX was rather incredible. Since the blow up, I've probably read a half dozen articles or write ups on "the next Valeant". The truth is, these rarely happen because people now look out for them. The next black swan will come from somewhere unexpected. And then there will be thirty million articles on "the next black swan".

+1 The argument that it's better to keep stores running at losses rather than shut down as fast as possible never made sense to me. Then they say, well some of them are profitable; well keep them running then! But so far after hundreds of store closures SHLD continues to burn money. People don't seem to be thinking dynamically, that those stores are only profitable now because of the scale, but they wouldn't be stand alone.. so just shut the god damn thing down, all of them. Probably the same people who defended Eddie for keeping the stores open since it's "emotionally difficult to lay off all those people". Yea, meanwhile he screws over his own shareholders and makes shady financing deals on top of that. There is no excuse. He's not delusional; imo he personally (and ESL) will end up just fine. It makes me concerned as a SRG holder to be honest given the recently announced financing there, but it makes me feel a bit better that Buffett is an owner. I've never really been a sympathizer of Eddy's but is there not merit to the idea that shuttering all the stores at once could just as easily harm the value of the real estate in terms of sheer volume coming to market all around the same time? Otherwise, I always think its funny to look at this as follows. Say you come here from another planet. You have no context. You read the timeland/transcript of the SHLD story. There isn't a way in the world where you walk away thinking anything but "this Lampert guy is a moron". Meanwhile many of us, capable and intelligent folks, keep rationalizing everything he's doing simply because "he's Eddy Lampert".

The first question would depend on the scenario. Your second question depends of the probability of certain scenarios. It appears some of the catalysts may not be occurring as swiftly as some may have hoped.

For a while he was touting short Chinese Banks and short certain pharmas on some obscure patent litigation basis. From afar, it seems he is always talking up a massive trade he's about to make a fortune on. I've spoke to a couple people who have invested with him and the consensus is that he's a bright guy who comes up with some oddball stuff that sounds great but like everyone else, when it comes time to turn ideas into dollars, he sometimes leaves a bit to be desired.

I personally think Macy's is becoming the new SHLD. Not in a disparaging way either. I bought a little this morning. Seems to have a lot in common with much of the original SHLD thesis except a bit of a head start on monetization and at least for the time being, no problem turning a profit.

Yup. I've long loved and followed the SHLD story. SRG was basically the crux of the story being put into a safety asset. I've wanted to own this forever but the things you mentioned and the overall secular decline for the entire retail sector makes this hard to really leap at. It long been my personal take that the day SHLD files for bankruptcy will be within a 6 month window of when the optimal time to initiate a SRG position occurs. But the developments with M & Co could mean even more of the same type of asset coming to market all around the same time, which gives me further pause.

Anyone have any new thoughts on this? I've kicked around putting some new cash in this here but its hard to overlook how pitiful this has done in a very favorable market. If the SOTP story isn't in play and we're forced to value this on an income basis, it could get ugly.

Under your mid case scenario, if you believe that they can eventually convert into a REIT and purge the taxes, then the Deferred tax liabilities go away which is a $10 difference. The subsurface deal was done in Feb of 2016, probably the worst time to structure minerals deals in the last few years. If you use the deal figure, then that's another $3 difference. Regarding IRR and etc. Any thoughts on the fact that land does rot over time. It tends to appreciate. When there are less land parcels left over due to land sales, it tends to go for more. That's part of the charm of owning real estate/land from the owners perspective. You sit on it and it tends to appreciate over time (barring big 2008/2009 style great recession). Nonetheless, I find the John/Mark and David Winters dynamic absolutely toxic. Agree on pretty much everything you said. Regarding the last piece, perhaps I can add some color. Take it with a grain on salt. I've had personal, one on one interaction and communications with all three. -Albright is incredibly bright, but an arrogant schmuck whose communication skills leave a lot to be desired. He's quietly deceiving, nasty when he gets push back, and always seems to be looking out for himself. Given how much money he makes, I don't believe for a second he needs to keep selling his stock every other week to pay off a margin account. -Patten is a very genuine, nice guy. Through my most recent talks with him, I've gotten the feeling(just my interpretation) that he is kind of disappointed in the fact he is likely to lose his job over this Albright/Winters debacle. He gets a lot of whats going on, and given his qualifications, if anything IMO, is underpaid for the work he does. I wouldn't care if he were interim CEO til a replacement is found. -David Winters is an interesting fellow. A little eccentric on top of being somewhat anti-social but all in all a very nice guy who seems to shoot straight. His performance often gets ridiculed, but he's cut from a certain type of value investor cloth. He's not afraid to stick to what he knows and doesn't really have any interest in chasing what's currently popular in search of performance. IMO he's kind of a Bruce Berkowitz but where Berkowitz tends to finds his way into "value" assets most initially view as outrageously risky and speculative, Winters finds good old conservative "value" staples to be his thing. The style and approach is basically the same though. Fitting their JOE/CTO positions and scenarios are almost mirror images.