Gregmal

I liked some of the action in certain names during the last hour or two of trading. But generally speaking, much like last night, I dont like when the futures immediately rebound following the close. Usually you need all hope lost, and a good gap down to open that can then flush everyone out. Funny side note. Apple still has like 20% downside. To get back to October's prices...

Very informative call today. Would recommend anyone interested in this name or the space take a listen. Most notable points I thought were topics of widespread insurance adoptions, in particular new NY law mandating IVF coverage for employers with over 100 employees. And of course that they are evaluating a Nasdaq listing, although I do not believe that is a near term(ie 6 months) thing. All around good stuff. This one has been a total truck the last week of so.

Added 50% to MSGN, back up to about a 6% position. Small add to PCYO, BRK, MSB. Would guess we're close to a bottom. But what do I know.

Earnings tomorrow so that should be the mover/actionable event. Wouldn't touch it before then.

I do find it interesting, but agree he's probably a little full of it, although not in a nefarious way. Everyone knows, if you cant get stock at market, the move is to tender. If he's not tendering, he's not that serious about buying stock here. However what I did like, is that it seems we're moving towards repurchases, at least in terms of my interpretation of the tea leaves. If we figure the ~125B or whatever cash piles just stays as is, its not unreasonable to deduce that the balance of future earnings not needed for the business should be returned via buybacks. I'm cool with that. At least until more compelling things come along.

small adds to DD, BRK, FIZZ, MSGN

After a few reads I actually thought the letter helpful in addressing, or at least, maybe being a little more transparent on the future. We can all do the run down on the financials, but I think thats a waste of time here in the same sense it was a waste of time getting too granular on Apple a year or so ago(and no one was more guilty of this than I). Berkshire will make lots of money regardless of where the economy or the world go. I think addressing the future gives clarity, and the buybacks, while minimal, are creeping up and setting a floor that should continue to shift supply/demand skews and thus risk/reward profile. Performance wise, who the heck knows but at worst this is kind of an index fund proxy with a world class active manager(s) overseeing it. If $226 was a price they were willing to pay, you can only imagine that turret starts firing more rapidly at 21X, 20X, and definitely 1XX. Again, stacking the deck in the favor of outperformance. Regardless IMO this was somewhat better/more than I had hoped for, with the operating results, good enough. I'll probably add a bit to my position in the coming weeks if its still under 230. Oh yea, and anyone who thinks this has any shot and going down 50% from here is crazy. No way this ever trades at 50% cash. If it even gets remotely close, I'll eat my foot. Mortgage my house. Open up, and take cash advances on Synchrony cards at 26% interest rates, etc. Because as its heading towards those decline levels, I take it they'll be taking action in ways that is substantially increasing the IV. Whereas many fund managers have underperformed and blamed it on lack of opportunity, Ive seen enough here(especially note the "any holder of $20m who wants to sell" quip), that the team here will hit that opportunity out of the park if they get it. They've been waiting waaayyyy tooo long not to.

Personally, I just dont see why one would want anything to do with investing with the Redstones at this point. Some have brought up Berkshire as a suitor here; yea right. They are notorious for not getting involved with bad actors. The highlight reel we saw a few years ago was just a smidgeon, but enough for me to kind of cross this off due to the lack of voting rights here. I get and dont dispute the value, but the Redstones are too much for me. They enable Moonves while its of use to them, then discard him in a cold and calculated manner when he no longer fits their ambitions. Shari, heck, even ran her husband into the mud. Sumner was a disgusting pig as well. You saw how hard they fought to stop value form being unlocked when there was hope CBS was up for grabs....and crushed that. So we already know those type of transactions are off the table. Which is a necessary free call option for me if you want to venture into a space that is possible structurally challenged. But the character issues here are too much. Basically take the worst parts of stereotypical Hollywood people; promiscuous, materialistic, and self absorbed, and financial industry people; petty, cheapskates, egotistical, throw those two on steroids, and force them to procreate. The result is the folks who are in charge here. Pass.

LOL, maybe even more opportunities in the upturn considering you can make money even in poo-poo that goes bust in a downturn. But thats a language most Berkshire investors dont understand.

Maybe Im dated on this, but after a while, looking at this thing, it just gets head scratching as to why people love it so much. Other than of course the fading aura around this being were Eddie and Bruce snuck $150 per share of Sears value....and, oh yea, Warren bought it OMG! I remember thinking, so.... you're the owner of the same assets a lot of companies that are in trouble own, you dont cover the dividend, you dont cover much of your developments, you dont really have any cheap sources of capital, so what exactly is it that you do here and how do you think you are going to create value in the future? And what ever it is, how isn't SPG infinitely better, across the board, in every area and then some, at everything SRG is trying to do?

This falls into the category of buy a comfortable amount on margin and just forget about it. Although, there so much "cheap" real estate everywhere that Ive had to force myself to be a little more selective and/or mindful of liquidity. As much cheap real estate as there is, theres even more cheap illiquid real estate stuff. Eventually, you'll probably make money on most/all of it, but if you have to wait an eternity to get there it might not be worth tying up the funds.

little more MSGN under 14. can thank all these legacy turds like Viacom for continuing to create reasons for people to sell anything in this space into oblivion.

My first instinct with stuff like this that is relatively new (at least new to being commercialized in any significant way) is that there are likely to be better mousetraps built over time. Based on what you know is this kind of software the kind of thing that would have network effects, where one researcher in CA thinks hey I found something promising so I'm going to send it to my buddy in Boston, and they'll need the same software to be able to see the same things? That would be great. I wonder if these softwares won't end up being part of a menu of choices to find new drugs. What I mean is Schrodinger says they their recommendations are physics-based. Maybe that type of software views the world of drug candidates a certain way. Then another type of CRISPR software with some other foundation might be better suited for other applications. From what I read, Schrodinger believed their software was better than others because their software can analyze all potential physical relationships between atoms, even ones that haven't ever been tested. The other CRISPR softwares are more based on actual attempted molecules by other scientists, so they kind of function like machine learning where the more molecules that are input into the software by other scientists the more the software "knows". This probably sounds like gibberish, and it probably is, but its a fascinating area of research/business. The idea that biotech could become a lot more like any other type of manufacturing has profound implications for the pace of drug discovery and ultimately the cost to bring drugs to market, which could reduce the prices of previously very expensive treatments. There was a great Andreesseen Horowitz presentation on this a couple months ago. The CRISPR application stuff is crazy complex and has shoot offs that make it very difficult to really determine "ownership" per say, which is different than an AI based software application. When you integrate aspects of the two though, you probably have something pretty remarkable, or at least capable of being pretty remarkable; although a lot of that is out of my universe in terms of understanding it. So yes, theoretically you could have some AI programs running simulations and algorithms to narrow down the field of combinations that ultimately leads to, say, a CRISPR pill capable of knocking out one's susceptibility to the flu...or (substitute pretty much anything). I feel the programming and software element is actually a little easier to track because its more defined and ownership is clear. Whereas the CRISPR applications you are seeing in labs, have many different intricacies to them and will undoubtedly continue to evolve. First, you had the Cas9 which then had sub approaches. Then you had the whole cpf1 approach widely deemed to be better due to improved precision. Not long after the c2c(x) developments. And so on. Its largely the same names doing a lot of the heavy lifting here, and as some have pointed out, its hard to really pin down how, say "Editas" will be the one who makes money from this 10 years from now, but its a game changing development and those with associations to it should reap the benefits, especially in a decent market.

Yea CRISPR will/is changing everything. There are so many offshoot and modifications from the base technology that its quite incredible. I have a few friends in grad programs at some of the top biomedical engineering programs and everyone says the same thing; that CRISPR is now the foundation for pretty much every application they study. Finding areas to invest is hard though. IP is somewhat vague. The companies working on it trade on potential revenue thats like half a decade or more out, at best...and nothing is even remotely cheap. BEAM Therapuetics I like as well, but its in the same boat.

Citron likes it too https://seekingalpha.com/news/3544070-citron-sees-90-upside-in-this-innovative-drug-discoverer Somewhere there is a market bubble joke in here. How do you buy a big position in a company you like? Buy a small one and wait a few weeks. Anyhow, I sold today, even though it was just a tiny tracker. This is kind of nuts.

Hopefully this allows him to turn his focus. I dont think the current valuation is all that bad regardless. There was a ton of resiliency around $40 even with the overhangs and terrible results. Comps look somewhat favorable here, and you've also now largely gotten this whole ordeal put to bed. Given the still huge short interest and all, I think its somewhat compelling. A corporate action, some have discussed a large tender, would set this thing on fire.

Others have gained market share for sure but at the end of the day La Croix is still the premier name is that space. This has been a MAJOR distraction for Caporrella. Clearing the skies cant undo market share losses, but it can let the brand recover. Sparkling water is a growing product category, there is plenty of money there for everyone. It would be one thing if this had 50% market share and a $10B market cap; it doesnt though. La Crox additionally should be launching several new flavors/products this year, which probably reinvigorate the brand a bit. But I think given the absurd level of focus and time spent by the company on getting this verdict, that the next logical step is to repair the harm done to shareholders. If anyone is familiar with the ownership breakdowns here, its not hard to see several very easy ways Caporella can make a lot of noise.

https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200219005533/en/ Potentially huge implications from this. I bought some this morning

Bought some MSGN

https://nypost.com/2020/02/19/unrelenting-steve-cohen-lingers-over-mets-sale-wants-sny/ Cohen apparently wants SNY as part of the Mets deal. Market value is said to be $850-$1B with gross profit of $150M. MSGN owns the rights to multiple teams in multiple sports and regularly does $400M in gross profit. Another checker indicating the market is still there for these assets and that 1) YES is a good comp, and 2) this is really just a trade on Dolan not being a putz and losing $2.5-$3B in value.

Yea its entirely possible. IDK Ive heard from a number of people if you do these right you can make outstanding money. I was invited to go out to view a few of them but haven't yet taken that up. I had someone pitch me two days ago on section 8 housing deals in Philly as well. But in regards to both, Im just not really interested in dealing with those types of people and situations.

Is that strictly passive? Or time intensive which equates to an imputed income? "very part time" was basically the gist of it. You're not dealing with shit everyday and often you can find a manager with handyman skills and cut a deal where he lives there rent free in exchange for managing the property.

Just passing along what Ive been told(no audit lol), his family has been running them for decades. They own the land. Cheap acreage. Like dirt cheap to acquire. You can buy the mobile homes for like $20-$30k a pop and these things are inherently simple. Fixing them is easy if theres problems. You get 30 years plus out of them. If you own multiple parks you can even move them around easily depending upon demand. Rents believe it or not can (area dependent obviously) be in the $800-$1000 range. Even the shit ones are like $500+ a month.

If done properly, mobile homes are a total gold mine. 20%+ type stuff. Brother in law does a bunch of this in central Florida.

Shorting momentum trash is a good way to get over by a dump truck lately. Yea PLUG has driven a large one up my a$$ past few months, but its still a terminal short. NVTA Ive got a pretty good handle on the story part. Their JPM Conference pump job has become predictable(why all the smart guy short pitches were awfully timed) as has the rally to earnings. From here though, they'll have to do better than losing $1.20 for every $1 in revenue. I dont think they do. Always size these small should be the requisite disclaimer.