Gregmal

Not to single out Mr. Gibbons but this is in a nutshell, exactly what the case against Buffett has become. There is no effort to be objective. Nothing is surprising anymore because it all fits the same narrative. Just like Mr. Buffett, Mr. Gibbons has decided that "He's With Her"... and then retroactively crafts opinions around that focal point. I honestly can't even believe a sane and rational person would contend that WJC and Melania Trump would have even remotely similar effects of the presidency of their spouses. When HRC was under investigation, WJC was holding back alley meetings with the attorney general for God's sake. Whereas the most Melania has ever done(not that she'd have much use anyway) is smile and wave at a crowd... There is so much hypocrisy and everything these days is stuffed with an agenda. It's completely unavoidable. Elizabeth Warren made a fortune scamming the little guy. She was a Republican too, up until '97 if I remember correctly. Then she decided her pockets were fat enough, and now has an entire platform based off of criticizing people who "rip off the little guy". So many of these guys use the system and then the second they've made it, immediately make it their goal to turn around and make it even harder for the next guy to get there. There is an excellent interview with Lee Cooperman where he accurately points out, that in 2012, for the first time ever, Mitt Romney was lambasted for his wealth. As if being successful was now wrong. And yet, fast forward to this election, where one candidate openly brags, exaggerates and lies about how wealthy he is, and the other one criticizes his wealth while making 11,000,000 a year giving "speeches". Mr. Buffett used to be America's watch dog and voice of reason. Now it seems everything from him either has an agenda or some political spin to it. Geez, look at how he handled things with Coca Cola. So unfortunately for most Americans, there won't be a real winner next month.

Her husband. The Underwoods, eh, I mean Clintons have always been a two for one kind of deal. Putting WJC back in the White House isn't exactly going to make one feel better about themselves if voting against Trump is solely based off of contempt for his outrageous lack of control around the ladies. They are both world class poon hounds. Ah, I see where you're coming from. Like you shouldn't vote for Trump because Melania isn't smart enough to know that plagiarizing a convention speech is a bad idea, and we don't want someone that stupid in the oval office. There is a fairly rational case that one shouldn't vote for either Trump or Clinton. But implying that Melania Trump will have even a fraction of the power/authority WJC would in the same situation is pretty outlandish.

There is definitely a lot of truth to the statement about getting board and just "doing things" to do them. If one were Zen-like in their discipline, picking spots is really not that hard. The hard part is following the markets closely enough to find these opportunities, while not acting on anything but the highest quality ones, which could mean 1-2 trades over a 3-4 year period. I'd probably even say it's easiest on the short side as every couple years or so some easily identifiable scheme gets enough exposure and gets large enough in scale that you can make a killing in a real short period of time. As far as longs go, as someone else mentioned, it seems every so often a quality name gets out of whack due to outside circumstances and creates a great long term entry. The stupidity of the selling behind JPM's London Whale comes to mind. A 6B loss lead to 35% of the market cap being wiped out, when anyone with a trained eye could have seen that there was a tremendous value investment to be made. I remember seeing GE at about $8 in 2009. Under what circumstance would GE be out of existence?

Depends entirely on the investment. Some large cap low beta names I'll lever up as much as the heart is content via ITM leaps without risking a margin call or even a substantial outlay. If I'm bullish on GM I'd rather control 2,000 shares via a $25 LEAP costing $16,000 and not pay taxes on the dividend vs put down $66,000 using cash or a margin account. Of course this varies depending on ones risk tolerance but if you can get comfortable with the business and grasp which general ballpark we're in relative to the cycle it's not really all the risky.

Hillary Clinton is a sexual predator? Just out of curiosity, what are you referencing here? Her husband. The Underwoods, eh, I mean Clintons have always been a two for one kind of deal. Putting WJC back in the White House isn't exactly going to make one feel better about themselves if voting against Trump is solely based off of contempt for his outrageous lack of control around the ladies. They are both world class poon hounds.

Maybe a hair off topic, but I don't for a second blame Trump for not releasing his return right now. And Buffett, being a guy who is clearly smart enough to read between the lines and definitely capable of sizing up the current situation, shouldn't fault Trump either. But again, pushing his pro Clinton agenda, advocates it anyway. Can you honestly say it s a wise business, or more importantly personal choice for Trump to release his taxes in this environment? Good Ole Grampa Buffett gets praised for releasing a tax return because he's on the same side as all the major news outlets. It shouldn't take a genius to understand that should Trump release his returns, everyone, ranging from some small time j/o with the slightest understanding of tax law, all the way up to the most heralded forensic accounting firms (probably put on task with dollars coming from the Super PACs/Mark Cubans of the world) would immediately start dissecting his release with the full intention of trying to "find" some sort of evidence that would harm him, or at the very least, insinuate he's doing something awful and un-American. So that then begs the question, if you were Trump, why would you release your return? There is literally NO benefit to doing so. Oh, I understand that it's better for Trump to not be transparent. But is it a good thing? He's running for president. Buffett isn't. All presidential candidates release their tax records. Trump said many times in print and on camera that he would release his tax records. He's attacked others in the past for not releasing their tax records. So if he's not releasing them, it makes all the sense in the world that he's going to look like a liar and a hypocrite and people will think that he has something to hide (and apparently he did, based on the 1995 leaked document -- but I wonder what else is in the rest?). Should people just say: "Oh, it's better for him not to release them, because there could be embarrassing stuff in there. Fair enough, we don't want to know and won't hold it against him, he can play by different rules." You think republicans aren't scrutinizing the tax records of democrats and that Fox News and talk radio and a thousands websites wouldn't be all over things if there was something scandalous in these documents? Scrutiny comes with running for office, and the highest scrutiny goes for the highest, most high-profile office in the world. Trump just likes to have his cake and eat it too. I'm going to run for president, but I don't want to be held to the same standards as other presidential candidates. Well, it blew up in his face; maybe he shouldn't have been sexually assaulting women all these years and then telling his campaign not to do opposition research... What are the odds that there isn't some security camera footage of him grabbing a woman against her will somewhere..? Trump is a horrible hypocrite. Possibly the worst of anyone. A direct contrast to the message he's trying to promote. Frankly, this entire election sucks. Either way we're going to have a sexual predator in the Oval Office again. Fortunately, as Buffett himself has said, regardless of who wins, America will go on and the quality of life will continue to get better for everyone. So I suppose with Buffett, the disappointment here more so related to him being the gold standard of wisdom for decades, and now being just like everyone else; a puppet for propaganda and hypocritical rhetoric.

Maybe a hair off topic, but I don't for a second blame Trump for not releasing his return right now. And Buffett, being a guy who is clearly smart enough to read between the lines and definitely capable of sizing up the current situation, shouldn't fault Trump either. But again, pushing his pro Clinton agenda, advocates it anyway. Can you honestly say it s a wise business, or more importantly personal choice for Trump to release his taxes in this environment? Good Ole Grampa Buffett gets praised for releasing a tax return because he's on the same side as all the major news outlets. It shouldn't take a genius to understand that should Trump release his returns, everyone, ranging from some small time j/o with the slightest understanding of tax law, all the way up to the most heralded forensic accounting firms (probably put on task with dollars coming from the Super PACs/Mark Cubans of the world) would immediately start dissecting his release with the full intention of trying to "find" some sort of evidence that would harm him, or at the very least, insinuate he's doing something awful and un-American. So that then begs the question, if you were Trump, why would you release your return? There is literally NO benefit to doing so.

You do know that he decided at a relatively young age to give away his fortune? Munger confirmed it. I believe it's Andrew Carnegie's influence. If this was some vanity gesture to secure a legacy and be popular, you think he'd be giving it to someone else's foundation without putting his name on it and wouldn't do a bunch of high profile stuff in his name while he's alive to bask in the glory rather than compound as long as he can to give as much as possible? The situation has gotten a lot more extreme over the past 10-15 years when it comes the issue that Buffett is highlighting, which can explain why he's been more vocal about it. The rise of the financial sector and hedge funds and high paid executives has a lot to do with it. Before the 80s this world used to be very different -- read up on the shocking excesses of the time and they seem super quaint. But if you read his letters and interviews, Buffett has pretty much spent his whole life criticizing the financial sector and overpaid executives and bankers who add little value yet have carved themselves preferential treatment. This is just in line with his long-term views. But anyway, you didn't say it was unfair or fair. But if you do believe it is unfair for some of the mega-rich to pay 15% on their income while much, much poorer people pay much higher rates, then maybe you disagree with Buffett's way of trying to fix the situation. That's all right. But I think maybe you can understand that there's substance behind his position, and that he's genuinely trying to correct a situation that he sees as unfair and damaging to the United States, and he isn't just playing games for whatever end. Anyway, if Buffett is such scum to some of the posters here, I'd love to be able to shine some light on their lives to see how they fare in comparison... Quite contrarily it would seem, I actually have great admiration for the guy. He's a legend and as far as what he's done, all the praise is warranted. Should Tepper, Loeb, etc, be taxed at 15%. IDK. Do they need the extra money? Absolutely not. Its a sticky situation and my only issue is that Buffett had generally been one to call it as he saw it. Over the past decade he seems to consistently support a more liberal agenda(not even trying to get into politics here). Thus, IMO what I respect about an individual is their ability to give their 2 cents(2 cents that is consistent with who they are) without a bias or clear, predictable agenda. Ask Lizzie Warren what she thinks about ANY ceo and I'm sure its got a negative slant to it. That's the predicatable bias I'm referring to and regarding his stance on taxes, Buffett comes off as someone who's just trying to be pro-Clinton in a not so roundabout way. So not to rehash already made arguments, being against nepotism and then naming your son, the next in line, or deriding a candidate for using the same tax system you've used, to his advantage, simply because you would like to see the other candidate elected, is massively hypocritical. Maybe I'm mistaking his overly philanthropic and generally (of late) liberal leanings as his desire to polish his legacy. Its possible.

Yeah, how dare he pay himself such a low salary when most other CEOs of his stature pay themselves tens and tens of millions plus large stock awards and low-price options with easy vesting targets, not to mention non-monetary perks like fancy offices, large staffs, private planes, etc... ::) Many of those listed things Buffett has already enjoyed in spades in one way or another during his lengthy existence. Now however, much like Soros, given his age, things like his "humble salary" are far more significant because they allow him to craft a narrative that deceitfully wraps up his legacy as "kind, gentle, philanthropic, humanitarian" vs the opportunistic and shrewd, ruthless capitalist he truly is. Although I am sure Warren is thrilled there are people who interpret his 100k salary exactly as you have... Keep making stuff up if it makes you feel better and helps you support your ideological position. Buffett isn't saying this stuff to save a few millions or to be popular (this is actually the main thing that I see him criticized for, especially by his peers in the financial world who are worried about themselves). He thinks it's better for the country and for the system if the mega-rich who get favored treatment (15% carried interest, etc) were made to pay rates similar to other people. Maybe that seems unfair to you and you think they should keep their lower rates than everyone else despite being richer than everyone else, but don't pretend like Buffett's whole life has been a sham just so he could in his old age take positions like this. Taxes have been much higher than they are now during Buffett's life and it never stopped him from doing business. I'm sure you also view the fact that Buffett is giving all his money to charity and has convinced tons of other billionaires to do the same as some kind of nefarious scheme... Not quite sure what is "made up". Its well documented, even in this thread the many ways in which Buffett has become a major hypocrite over the past decade or so. I have no interest one way or the other in the carried interest debate as it does not effect me. I have never said it is unfair but it is quite cute of you to put words in my mouth to prop up your argument. If you don't think Buffett is far more aware of his "popularity" and legacy now than he was 20-30 years ago, then thats fine. But you are wrong. In fact, your last point about Buffett giving away his fortune pretty much solidifies my stance.

Yeah, how dare he pay himself such a low salary when most other CEOs of his stature pay themselves tens and tens of millions plus large stock awards and low-price options with easy vesting targets, not to mention non-monetary perks like fancy offices, large staffs, private planes, etc... ::) Many of those listed things Buffett has already enjoyed in spades in one way or another during his lengthy existence. Now however, much like Soros, given his age, things like his "humble salary" are far more significant because they allow him to craft a narrative that deceitfully wraps up his legacy as "kind, gentle, philanthropic, humanitarian" vs the opportunistic and shrewd, ruthless capitalist he truly is. Although I am sure Warren is thrilled there are people who interpret his 100k salary exactly as you have...

Spot on TXvestor. More or less the middle class is being eaten alive. My definition of middle class is probably a little more liberal than most for simplifications sake, but unless you are uber wealthy(8 figure NW and up) or super reliant on "the system"(under 40-50k/year AI), you are pretty much at the mercy of the system. The 8 figure NW people simply dictate the rules, while the lower end of the spectrum simply doesnt care and continues to vote as instructed provided they continue to get thrown their proverbial bone.

The entire system is skewed to benefit the ruling class. The few that are in live by an entirely different set of rules as the rest of the country. How long do you think a congressman waits in line at the DMV? How long do you think Buffett waits on hold if he has an issue with the IRS. How does wealthy rapper caught with a dozen assault rifles and drugs get 1-2 years and 22 year old no name minority caught with a gram gets jail plus probation for 5 years? There's people in jail for minor mishandling of classified information. Meanwhile Hilary gets off because she was simply careless but not deliberate? I probably couldn't even get out of a traffic ticket using an excuse like that.. yet this woman is running for president! Trump is 100% right in pointing out that its because of career politicians like HRC that the system is the way it is. And Buffett, being one of the few who benefit greatly, obviously is a proponent of it continuing. The most ironic aspects of the election to me where millennial favorite Bernie Sanders revealing that lowly ole champion of little guy made over 200k last year and paid less taxes "than his secretary".(that's the saying right?) Then you have career politicians, WJC and HRC, with 100,000,000 net worths. How exactly does one accumulate so much wealth on a civil servants wage? Harry Reid? Nancy Pelosi? Ted Cruz? Paul Ryan? Please explain this to me? And yet still, these same folks want to vilify the Romneys and the Trumps of the world who have built(and in some cases destroyed) their wealth largely taking risks, in the public eye. The level of hypocrisy is so stunning.

This is indeed pretty amazing. Have to wonder what towns and municipalities will do as these, if they go mainstream will virtually eliminate speeding tickets and DUI's, both huge sources of revenue for a lot of towns.

I get that the cars are nice, and Musk is innovative and all, but I'm surprised(new here obviously) to see a thread on this on a value investing forum. Is there a rational bull case for this stock here?

This company has all the earmarks of something I'd love to like. I probably have a longer time horizon than most as well. Unfortunately these shysters have not only made this as opaque an investment as possible, but they have also now forced investors to assume the worst. A horrible and debilitating combination.

Why do you feel this is a true statement? I don't really buy that. There are plenty of buyers. A PE firm could easily take down the whole entity and then lower their basis over the next couple years by selling off the REIT focused assets and property and collecting the cash from land already under contract. The land costs roughly a million a year to carry. Even if one were to continue to do what is already being done with the land I don't think it would be some crazy long or expensive process. The thing that s being overlooked here is that in order for a sale to have taken place there needed to be a willing seller. Even if you believe that management did not WANT to sell the company, do you think management is eagerly trying to sell the West acreage to Minto? If you do, then you'll understand that even in the best case, with two willing sides to a transaction, selling large plots of this land can take a long time. Local munipalities, federal agencies, preservation groups, etcetera all need to have their say on these things, and that means that converting raw land to more tangible value takes many years, at best. Potential bidders were/are aware of that, and very few public companies or PE groups are willing to undertake the sort of multi-year bet that allows them to maximize the value of all the land. Fair enough. Who knows what things looked like exactly at the time. I just think now when you look at it, its a much different situation. You're probably right about hesitancy of buyers if they are looking at monetizing 8,000 acres of W-95 residential/farm land. But now we effectively have ~3,000 acres left, with 1/3 being prime acreage worth 150,000-250,000 per. Another 1,000 is industrial land that isn't terrible hard to move either. Per management, they think they'll have the rest of the land sold in 4-5 years. So barring a potential buyer demanding 50% off from FMV, it's still fairly easy to come up with a 15% IRR here, in which case a I have a hard time buying the argument that there were not buyers. Nearly two dozen NDA's were signed. The problem was that you can't ask for NAV with these types of assets.

Why do you feel this is a true statement? I don't really buy that. There are plenty of buyers. A PE firm could easily take down the whole entity and then lower their basis over the next couple years by selling off the REIT focused assets and property and collecting the cash from land already under contract. The land costs roughly a million a year to carry. Even if one were to continue to do what is already being done with the land I don't think it would be some crazy long or expensive process. The thing that s being overlooked here is that in order for a sale to have taken place there needed to be a willing seller.

Completely agree. Management is the problem. Their best case is they continue to get paid quite a bit of money and eventually the stock goes up simply because it is so undervalued and they bank a huge windfall from stock options and run a public REIT from now until they decide to retire. Worst case is they get fired without cause and 45 days later collect two years salary and keep all their stock options and chances are this is much higher in a short time anyway.

New here so didn't figure out the quoting thing til now but what I would say here is that those values don't really need discounting, at least not in my opinion. That's your margin of safety. The sale Friday basically encompasses the low end of the I95 land. I'd use 150k if I needed a fire sale liquidation number. Realistically you've got about 350-400 acres that are no question about it 250,000 land and then a congestion of land probably worth between 150,000-250,000, numbers that will only go up as development continues. In fact one of the worries I've had, is much like the Tomoka Town Center plot, management will blow this out in bulk too soon, rather than let it ride out the wave of growth taking place. The Industrial land is realistically probably 25,000-40,000 and acre. The left over ~900 West land probably goes for a small premium to what Minto paid, 20,000-25,000. Plug those figures in and we're already talking $108+. So even with the DTL, $90 is inexpensive. It's just that right now, after the illusion of a sale process just having taken place, people are down beat on the valuations. The truth is two years ago people were calling for $100+ and there is no disputing that this company is in an exponentially stronger position now than it was then.

Those are solid points and as of right now I think investors have a bit stickier of a road ahead than many assume. If you look at investor sentiment, the preference is for monetization, however management is very much in favor of the REIT. Do we all make money in both situations, sure. Both with REIT conversion also comes a big tax bill and a new valuation metric (FFO as you mentioned) vs the current situation in which this is really only a SOTP play. People like to discount time value of land monetization factor but the truth is that in the current ZIRP environment, $1 today is worth about the same as $1 5-10 years from now. The cost of carry on the land is a little over 1,000,000 per year so a potential buyer isn't overly burdened nor forced to create some crazy 15-20% IRR to break even. The lack of sale came from the process not being run with the intent or desire to sell; management had nothing to lose fighting this, which is exactly what happened. In the first post here the guy talks about this possibly being a 5-10 year process. That seems spot on. 2-3 years form now, this is higher regardless of REIT or no REIT. As the income portfolio has grown, I've begun to question whether it wouldn't make sense to go REIT and then spin out the land as a separate company. I have no clue what the tax implication is there, but people banking on a re-rating from REIT may be in for a rude awakening. The current executive team has demonstrated zero ability to realize value for it's shareholders and as I'm sure many are aware, companies can simply remain perpetually undervalued, especially land co's.

Here are my numbers Income :16m @7% cap - $230M Land : Under contract – $103M East Of 95 - 1000 acre @ 250k $250M West - 4400 @ 16 - $70M Industrial – 1,000 @ 20 - $20M + 24M(Subsurface) + 34(cash) + 15M(Golf etc) Assets = 746 M - Liabilities = 244M (includes 42M Deferred tax) = 502M/5.8 shares NAV = $86.55 Now what kind of buyer would be interested in such a deal. REIT wouldn't be too interested since most of value is locked in non income assets. A builder or a PE would require a discount since they either have to develop this(capital injection) or sell piece by piece( time value). That discount is worth $5-10. This is not a Macy's or SRG kind of properties. This leaves out the 24,000,000 loan portfolio. The income properties are actually easy, although time consuming, to get a rather exact valuation for. I'll share my breakdown which is kind of a blend of how the company does it in their presentations, and how others seems to do it. Land Under Contract 100,000,000 Other assets: 110,550,000 Loans 24,000,000 Subsurface Interest 24,000,000 Beach Front JV 5,700,000 (cost)/ 7,500,000 (conservative FMV of recently approved rezoned parcels with development ability) Impact Fees, Mitigation Credit, Infrastructure Reimbursement: 10,800,000 Golf Operations @ 1.5x sales 8,250,000 Cash+1031 Restricted Cash 36,000,000 Income Properties: 260,828,645 245 Riverside 25,100,000 6.84% 1,717,811 WFC NC 42,300,000 6.52% 2,760,909 TCS Arizona 8,133,096 7.75% 630,315 Bloomin Brands 14,900,000 est 5.00% 745,000 WFM 2014 22,914,730 5.10% 1,168,651 Lowes TX 2014 15,283,333 6% 917,000 At Home NC 9,190,000 est 7.00% 644,000 The Grove 11,400,000 *** est 475,000 (24 hour tenant avg 375,000 NOI, Wawa 100,000, plus remaining subspace) Hilton Resorts 2013 19,493,075 8% 1,559,446 DKS 6,890,625 8% 551,250 BBY 5,343,750 8% 427,500 Harris Teeter 2008 10,836,000 6.25% 677,250 Big Lots AZ 2013 5,621,538 6.50% 365,400 BofA Monterey 8,400,000 est 5.50% 462,000 Mason Commerce 4,270,477 9.00% 384,343 BKS FL 3,644,670 10% 364,467 Big Lots MD 2013 5,511,476 6.50% 358,246 Concierge FL 4,396,022 9.00% 395,642 RAD WA 2013 7,441,853 7.50% 558,139 Lamar (WBP) 850,000 10.00% 80,000 Walgreens GA 6,048,000 6% 362,880 Walgreens FL 5,460,000 6% 327,600 CVS TX 14,900,000 est 4.40% 650,000 7-11 TX 2,500,000 5.44% 136,000 These reflect updated FMV using comps. However if you simply want to use purchase price, you get numbers higher than what you get using a straight 7% cap. Total 471,378,645 + 6,400 acres of land Less Liabilities 151,400,000 Debt 137,400,000 Payables+Infrastructure 14,000,000 DTL is wiped out now that REIT conversion is back on Confirmed Assets 471,378,645 + 6,400 acres minus liabilities 151,400,000 gets us to +319,978,645 + 6,400 acres Current Shares Outstanding est. 5,720,000 FV $55.94 + 6,400 acres land From the 6,400 there is the mitigation bank which is 2,366 acres the company has guided as yielding between 5,000-12,000= 11,830,000-28,392,000 Residential deal in final phases of negotiations, 1053 acres at 15,000-20,000 per acre= 15,795,000-21,060,000 2,981 Acres left, add another 27,625,000-49,452,000 Now we're at 60.77-64.56 + 2,981 acres (of which >1,000 are prime I95 land that on the low end run 150k/acre) Even here if you run 150k/acre for the 1,000 East I95 and 15k/acre for the Industrial+West this gets you another $31.42 bringing your still very reasonable NAV to a range of 92.19-95.98. Of course one can make the case the industrial acreage is worth more than 15k and the I95 land more than 150k but I'm fine going by this. How do you unlock this? You take out mortgages at a conservative 60% LTV on the income properties so you still capture a positive spread yet now have roughly 150,000,000 new cash on top of the 84,000,000 from cash+loans+subsurface. 234,000,000 is a lot of money to return to shareholders. Especially against the current 290,000,000 market cap. And the best part is you can do it without really touching anything core