Liberty

I haven't downloaded it, but I had a chance to read it before it disappeared. It seemed a bit too bullish in spots, though it made some good points too. I think SA has been having software issues recently, so maybe it'll come back. I suggest going to the frontpage of the site and going to FTP's page from there to see if it appears.

It also seems to me like keeping a decent-sized equity stake in a new vehicle would allow them to steer things in a way that maximizes the chances of the royalty being worth something. They can have board seats, suggest and possibly veto partners, managers, off-take agreements and such. Seems valuable in that way on top of any value realized when they eventually sell the equity.

Agreed, of course, Gio. I'm assuming you're using the general 'you' here and not addressing this specifically at me, correct? Here's a quick rebuttal of the main points of the recent short thesis: http://seekingalpha.com/article/2073923-why-chanos-and-grant-are-wrong-on-valeant Everything here should be very obvious to anyone who took the time to understand the business and business model. I guess there are still tons of people who don't, so they scare easily (chartists and momentum guys and such). I don't mind. Volatility can be good. Worst case, Valeant has a 1.5b buyback program that they can use (though probably not after just a small drop like this -- after all, one of their goals is to take their leverage down -- but in general it could be a possibility if there was a lot more downward volatility).

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-03-06/blackberry-ceo-briefs-white-house-to-cultivate-vip-obama.html

Note the date, it's from January 6, 2011.

Even after the holidays, still more subsidies: http://9to5mac.com/2014/03/07/iphone-pricing-war-heats-up-as-walmart-offers-5s-for-119-and-target-launches-ipad-trade-in-promotion/ I also thought this was interesting: http://9to5mac.com/2014/03/07/iphone-owners-54-percent-less-likely-to-need-to-replace-their-phone/

I haven't had time to read it yet, so I have no idea if it's any good, but I found this posted on another board: http://static.cdn-seekingalpha.com/instablog/23816973-munichvalueinvestments/2732013-fortress-paper-ltd-a-misunderstood-unfollowed-gem-with-multiple-catalysts-in-place

I do. I meant that after that year, shorting what seems to me like a really fast-growing, reall good company with really good management doesn't seem like the easiest way to turn things around. But as per Bagehot's comment, Chanos might not even be short VRX, so that comment is probably moot.

Thanks, I appreciate the details Bagehot!

I haven't found the video of the whole segment either. You indeed have to fight their website to get to the content you want, which is probably a bad strategy for a content company...

If anyone's curious about today, as best as I can tell, Jim Chanos revealed that he was short VRX. I couldn't find a clip or transcript of what he said -- if anyone has it, I'd be curious to see it. Best of luck to him on this one, he'll need it I think. His fund apparently lost about 14% in 2013.

It's down since IPO...

Expectations are so low that just restarting the plant when they said they would is enough for a 10% bump, apparently...

Here you go: http://fm.cnbc.com/applications/cnbc.com/resources/editorialfiles/2014/03/03/2014-03-03%20Ask%20WarrenBuffett%20complete%20transcript.pdf

Vinod, I agree, that's why I pointed out Klarman's style. If I was investing like him, I'd probably build up huge cash positions too while waiting for big distressed debt events. His way obviously works, but I'm not sure if investors with different approaches are taking away the right things from his allocation (apples to oranges). But it doesn't mean that we can't look at his macro comments - even if he says he doesn't act on them - to see if they are convincing. I agree we're probably overdue for a correction, but some people seem to read into his comments (and cash) that we're in very bubbly territory, and I'm not sure it's the case for reason I pointed out above. But who knows? Maybe we're about to see a massive selloff and 30% drop...

Annual letter from Sequoia Fund: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/89043/000114420414013665/v367083_ncsr.htm (thanks Wellmont!)

First thing that comes to mind is that Berkshire isn't just its equity portfolio. It has to hold lots of bonds for its insurance companies, and over time it became more and more an operating business. You could also look at changes in valuation by the market during that period (ie. did multiple to book go down).

Thanks Pedro!

On the rocket side, Musk wants to break into monopoly for military satellite launches, saying he could save government $1 billion/year: http://bloom.bg/1kyHzyE

Thanks. Second question is about BlackBerry, for those interested (nothing terribly new is said, though).

Musk interview at Stanford business school from a few months ago, sorry if it's a repost:

Sometimes I think Bloomberg does it on purpose. Often I click on an articles on their site just to figure out what it's about by reading the intro because the title baffled me. A new kind of clickbait, maybe..

Does that mean the book doesn't work? ;)

Maybe the actual letter has more insights than the summary, I can't comment on it since I haven't seen it, but pointing out a bunch of business trading at very high valuations doesn't really draw a convincing parallel with, for example, the dot-com bubble, IMO. To be clear: I'm not saying these companies aren't overvalued and that you should invest in them. Just that the parallel he seems to be making isn't that obvious to me. Back in dot-com days, you had a whole index trading sky-high, and even old-economy companies were trading super high (Coca-Cola at 50x). But another important difference is that a lot of the dot-com companies were not real businesses. They had no customers and nobody had made money on the things they were doing before. They were truly tulip bulbs. A lot of the current high flyers have actual businesses and real customers. Maybe they are very overvalued, but if the price of Netflix or Tesla drops by 50% or 75%, the business will keep going, or others will take their place because what they're doing is meeting real needs and providing real value. Maybe they'd have to cut R&D and fire employees if they couldn't raise as much equity, but they can be profitable. Most of the dot-com companies had no other reason to exist than to IPO and extract money from delirious investors. Nobody had shown you could make money with what they were doing before, and after the crash, they almost all disappeared. Twitter might be very overvalued, I don't know, but it has real users and could make real money selling ads and sponsored content and such. If there's a big correction, it won't just disappear as if it had been just a mirage all this time. And if you aren't investing in these high-flyers, I'm not sure they have such a big impact on the rest of the economy that you should worry.. I guess if we invert, we could ask: Is there any period over the past 100 years when there wasn't a bunch of high-flying stocks? Probably a few, but I doubt the rest of the time it always meant we were on the edge of the precipice. A correction? Sure. A bubble bursting, leaving rubble in its wake? I don't really see it, IMO. There can always be big external shocks (a big war, whatever), but I don't think valuation alone is bubbly overall. Not that all this is worth much, but it's my 2 cents.

The warrants are up 7% :o