Liberty

Doesn't morningstar already give you 10-year data without subscribing? I thought that the subscription was mostly adding analytics stuff (from their analysts and screens/mechanical thingies). Or do you get more data if you subscribe? What I wish it I had a service with long-term data (10, 15+ years) with CAGR information pre-computed (kind of like in Markel's annual report, they have these CAGR lines, and rolling 5-year CAGR, etc). If anyone knows a service like that that doesn't cost a ton, please let me know. I like to be able to eyeball things quickly sometimes.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2015/07/15/a-tale-of-two-nations/

Don't get me wrong, this is not a moral crusade, it's because I want to make money that I don't want to partner with people who I don't fully trust. Cheers!

Out of curiosity, what data service(s) do you subscribe to, Nate?

But the company doubled in market cap during the last twelve months... A $1.6 billion gain out of a company that had a capitalization of $1.6 billion... How have you exclaimed?... Holy shit!! ;) I'm sorry, but being paid a third of a billion dollars in cash straight from the shareholders' wallet on top of already generous compensation and large equity holdings for making a deal that we don't even know yet if it'll be a good one rubs me the wrong way. The man's a big shareholder. If his deals are good, he'll benefit along with other shareholders. Why does he need to extract so much cash so quickly from the company? Wouldn't that cash compound for all shareholders inside the company rather than just benefit Mr. Franklin in his personal account? As I already said, I'm not against big compensations when deserved, but there's a limit to how far I'm willing to go... Good luck! Maybe it'll turn out wonderfully. But I skip companies that I think will probably do wonderfully all the time because of red flags, and so far it's been worth saving myself for my true 'soulmate' companies...

That kind of stuff worked at PAH, so why not keep getting way more than common shareholders on top of already generous regular compensation, options, and other perks...

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-15/netflix-will-support-charter-acquisition-of-time-warner-cable

What are the chances of that happening?

Looked at MIDD a couple years ago, really liked the ROIC, ended up passing. Obviously I should have bought :) Congrats on your successful long-term investment!

How so? I can see how you'd get the benefit of extra security (and related, more borrowing capacity?) but in a non-blowup scenario, aren't you only promised the economics of the specific subs that you're tracking? LiLAC will benefit from Global's balance sheet to reduce its borrowing costs, can leverage its scale to negotiate on content deals, use its technology (Horizon boxes), etc. It's still paying Global something for some services, but as a standalone it wouldn't have access to nearly what it does by being part of Global.

My understanding is that technically, you're really a shareholder in the parent, Liberty Global. But in practice, you will track the assets of the tracking stock. Or the lazy way to think about it is, if it's good enough for John Malone, it's good enough for me.

Some of them were dumped right into my hands. Gotta love spin-off dynamics (or tracking stock dynamics as "we were tutored to know") :) I still can't believe one of my orders was filled at 41 on friday morning :) In other news (via Bluegrass Capital), Digicel is filing for IPO in the region: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645826/000119312515236163/d946689df1.htm Potential target for LILAK? Maybe buying just some assets? Nice. Looks interesting, thanks Liberty! I get the feeling that Digicel, CWC, LILAC, and Grupo Televisa will do all kinds of deals in the coming years...

Some of them were dumped right into my hands. Gotta love spin-off dynamics (or tracking stock dynamics as "we were tutored to know") :) I still can't believe one of my orders was filled at 41 on friday morning :) In other news (via Bluegrass Capital), Digicel is filing for IPO in the region: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1645826/000119312515236163/d946689df1.htm Potential target for LILAK? Maybe buying just some assets?

I suppose it all depends what the discussion we're having is. Is it about Tesla succeeding? Is it about Tesla stock being a good investment at this price? Is it about EVs replacing gasoline cars? etc. Personally, I was more talking about Tesla succeeding at its stated aim, which is to catalyze a move to electric cars, and about EVs replacing gasoline cars. I don't really have an opinion on Tesla's stock, or whether the whole auto industry will be in trouble because fewer cars are sold over time (but the ones that are, I think, will eventually be electric).

This one? http://www.amazon.com/Security-Analysis-Business-Valuation-Companion/dp/0470277343/ What would you say makes it better? Thanks in advance.

Apparently there's still quite a bit of difference. It's qualitative, not just a question of degrees. People with Model S say that nothing comes close, and some have driven more expensive exotic cars. You just can't compare the gearless immediate torque and low-center of gravity (battery in the floor) to anything that is ICE-powered. Price is the main thing. But what when good EVs with long range are similarly priced to gasoline cars? It's not that people don't care about things like that -- it's that it's a rich person's problem. Most people (american's at least) are forced to buy cars to go to work, pick up their kids, go to the grocery store, etc. Cars are major expenses and people are very price sensitive. I'd play the bear here, but I haven't done my homework on this one. It is certainly possible that EV's will be cost and functionally competitive with gas engines in 10 years, and that will push people to adopt EVs and abandoned gas engines. There's no reason why EVs can't be cost competitive with gasoline vehicles, and eventually cheaper. In fact, they are mechanically a lot simpler. An electric motor the size of a watermelon, a bunch of batteries that are getting better and cheaper every year, some power electronics and software to control it all... Compared to dozens and dozens of moving parts and fluids, explosions and toxic gases, 70-80% of the energy in the fuel being wasted as heat... Internal combustion engines are such a dirty hack, it's a wonder they even work at all. They were the best we had for a long time and we've done wonderful things to make them perform as well as they do now, but they're still uncompetitive with electric motors as soon as you have good enough batteries. As with almost everything else in the modern world, electricity is simply a more elegant way to do things.. Just a question of time before it happens.

Apparently there's still quite a bit of difference. It's qualitative, not just a question of degrees. People with Model S say that nothing comes close, and some have driven more expensive exotic cars. You just can't compare the gearless immediate torque and low-center of gravity (battery in the floor) to anything that is ICE-powered. Price is the main thing. But what when good EVs with long range are similarly priced to gasoline cars?

morningstar.com should be useful.

One of the best books I've read on valuation has a new edition coming out next month. This is the 6ht, the 5th that I've read had a red and white cover. Thought it'd interest some here: http://www.mckinsey.com/client_service/corporate_finance/latest_thinking/valuation http://www.amazon.com/Valuation-Measuring-Managing-Companies-Website/dp/111887370X/

Yes, I'm rolling in it.

http://blog.geoffralston.com/the-electric-car Interesting read. I'm not sure I would go that far about the whole gas station thing, but I do agree that things will likely happen much faster than most expect once a few tipping points are reached (probably $30k, 200 miles range, and all the other benefits of EV over gasoline, combined).

Looks like index funds might be done dumping LILA/LILAK... We'll know for sure over time.

Yes, I would absolutely make that comparison. In a raging bull market, companies are valued on blue sky potential. In a bear market they are valued on short term earnings and assets. Given that Tesla is consuming tons of cash, they are very dependent on the capital markets remaining favorable. What I'm seeing on one side is a promoter asset-gatherer who built a house of card that was bound to crumple in the next down cycle because the only thing that held it up was high commodity prices (on which he had no control). On the other, I see extremely brilliant technologists who built companies from nothing by creating things that are useful to humanity and that have the potential to transform for the better the industries where they are playing. Tesla is growing at 50% a year and constantly reinvesting massively in new things (Model X, Gigafactory, Tesla Energy, Model 3, Supercharger network, probably other secret things). That's why they're not profitable. They could be if they just dialed this reinvestment back (like Amazon), but it would be letting short-term win over the long-term. If you think they can't be profitable with the best, most desirable vehicle on the market that has had waiting lists since it came out, and with battery costs going down every year, then we'll have to agree to disagree. They don't need the equity market to survive, but having access to it can certainly optimize their rate of reinvestment since they don't generate as much funds as they can productively use. Batista was just doing highly leveraged bets on commodity prices, not designing space rockets and competing against government-entrenched monopolies... A very different animal. There's more to life than valuation (especially GAAP valuation - ask John Malone). Likening Holmes and Musk to Batista doesn't make sense to me.

Technology startups are not valued on their assets (at least not how you meant it here). What were Google's assets in 2001 or whatever? That's not what mattered. I understand the impulse to be skeptical, but comparing Holmes to Batista is just random and uncalled for IMO. Might as well compare Elon Musk to Batista while we're at it...

I see no reason to compare her to Eike Batista at this point. He was highly leveraged, operating in a fairly corrupt and bureaucratic country, in a cyclical, commodity industry, while being extremely promotional to push his public companies to ever higher valuations. She's been in stealth mode for 10 years working on technology and runs a private business that has only been valued by extremely savvy investors like Larry Ellison, and as far as I know they have no debt. If anyone smells a bit like Batista at this point it's Drahi, in my opinion...