thepupil Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBTC Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump Thank you Pupil. Apparently people are not too comfortable with the conversion from common to options. What do you make of that? Do you think the cash raising is done or might Ackman have other plans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump It doesn't matter the assets under management relative to the liability - everyone posts variation margin for derivative positions (OTC and cleared) because the banks will not accept that risk. Bridgewater with $135B in assets under management posts margin. PIMCO with a trillion in AUM posts margin. Pershing Square will also post margin. It's just as simple as that. That variation margin just from the puts is going to be close to $400M at this point which is a good chunk of the cash he just raised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBTC Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump It doesn't matter the assets under management relative to the liability - everyone posts variation margin for derivative positions (OTC and cleared) because the banks will not accept that risk. Bridgewater with $135B in assets under management posts margin. PIMCO with a trillion in AUM posts margin. Pershing Square will also post margin. It's just as simple as that. That variation margin just from the puts is going to be close to $400M at this point which is a good chunk of the cash he just raised. Thanks for that. If posting margin is the sole purpose of the raising, it seems he's done until VRX hits $10. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwing100 Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump It doesn't matter the assets under management relative to the liability - everyone posts variation margin for derivative positions (OTC and cleared) because the banks will not accept that risk. Bridgewater with $135B in assets under management posts margin. PIMCO with a trillion in AUM posts margin. Pershing Square will also post margin. It's just as simple as that. That variation margin just from the puts is going to be close to $400M at this point which is a good chunk of the cash he just raised. TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump It doesn't matter the assets under management relative to the liability - everyone posts variation margin for derivative positions (OTC and cleared) because the banks will not accept that risk. Bridgewater with $135B in assets under management posts margin. PIMCO with a trillion in AUM posts margin. Pershing Square will also post margin. It's just as simple as that. That variation margin just from the puts is going to be close to $400M at this point which is a good chunk of the cash he just raised. FYI, PSH raised net proceeds of about US$670mn (note this does not include other Pershing Square investment vehicles) from the conversion from common stock to options. Given PSH's short put position on 3.687mn VRX shares at a strike of US$60.00 this would be more than sufficient to finance a margin call even if VRX went to zero. (it would require US$221mn [3.687 x 60 strike price on the put]). This leaves a remaining cash balance of US$448mn at PSH. This link shows the PSH short option position on VRX of 3.687mn shares at a strike of US$60.00 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885590/000119312515385412/d68063dex995.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thepupil Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump It doesn't matter the assets under management relative to the liability - everyone posts variation margin for derivative positions (OTC and cleared) because the banks will not accept that risk. Bridgewater with $135B in assets under management posts margin. PIMCO with a trillion in AUM posts margin. Pershing Square will also post margin. It's just as simple as that. That variation margin just from the puts is going to be close to $400M at this point which is a good chunk of the cash he just raised. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't disagree with you that they may have to post margin on derivative positions. I may have misread your tone, but it seems like you are saying there is substantial blow-up risk here and that's where I don't agree because of the small size of liabilities related to AUM and the nature of the liabilities (in PSH's case, bonds with no NAV covenants, so no "margin call scenario" and wrt the options they are primarily fixed downside type of stuff, ie we know what Pershing will lose if/when VRX goes to zero). On the options, I think it increases the risk of leverage increasing, but so far they are of small size and we don't know what he's doing with the proceeds. So far he's been converting into ITM calls and cash, that to me looks like buying puts and limiting risk. Now if he takes that cash and puts in another giant binary bet, then the risk reduction won't matter. I'm not an ackman fan at all...I just think news of his imminent demise / blow up is greatly exaggerated, but it doesn't matter because I am too small a fish to buy the bonds to take that position. I'm just trying to put the losses / leverage / risk in context here. A virtually unlevered (so far) low gross fund with some very liquid holdings and no real short book just shouldn't be top of mind in terms of blow-up risk. Below is the main thing I took issue with. If HLF went up 10-15% in day, PSH would lose 1-2%. Hardly consequential. To me the below quote seems alarmist. If you were saying if HLF went up 100% and he lost another 10% of NAV that it would be bad, I agree. But it still probably wouldn't cripple him to the point of some kind of massive forced selling. Permanent capital will help, but it would hardly matter if he has to liquidate more holdings to cover the margin on a short position that went up by 10 -15% in a single day right after his largest holdings has tanked by 60% in the past week.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBTC Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 FYI, PSH raised net proceeds of about US$670mn (note this does not include other Pershing Square investment vehicles) from the conversion from common stock to options. Given PSH's short put position on 3.687mn VRX shares at a strike of US$60.00 this would be more than sufficient to finance a margin call even if VRX went to zero. (it would require US$221mn [3.687 x 60 strike price on the put]). This leaves a remaining cash balance of US$448mn at PSH. This link shows the PSH short option position on VRX of 3.687mn shares at a strike of US$60.00 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885590/000119312515385412/d68063dex995.htm Thank you kiwing100. Very clear. I would be quite shocked if he does anything strange with the cash after what he has gone through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TwoCitiesCapital Posted March 22, 2016 Share Posted March 22, 2016 TwoCities, as of 2/29 Pershing Square had $12.2B of AUM. They've since lost 8-10% or whatever so let's call it $11B. A $400MM liability related to the put has very little counterparty risk. I repeat, Pershing square has relatively low gross, abundant liquidity, and is using next to no "margin". I doubt the counterparty is at all worried. The PSHNA bonds have rallied to $91 / $92 (from $85 / $86 on the day of VRX -50%) as I think the market is starting to digest that the blow up risk is quite minimal here. Two cities, can you elaborate? he has very low gross exposure (in the context of hedge funds), 1 short position that is primarily long term OTC put options, he lost like 8% of NAV on the VRX move; it's not like he has a 100% position. I simply don't understand how this turns into a margin / leverage issue. He's pretty much unlevered. bump It doesn't matter the assets under management relative to the liability - everyone posts variation margin for derivative positions (OTC and cleared) because the banks will not accept that risk. Bridgewater with $135B in assets under management posts margin. PIMCO with a trillion in AUM posts margin. Pershing Square will also post margin. It's just as simple as that. That variation margin just from the puts is going to be close to $400M at this point which is a good chunk of the cash he just raised. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I don't disagree with you that they may have to post margin on derivative positions. I may have misread your tone, but it seems like you are saying there is substantial blow-up risk here and that's where I don't agree because of the small size of liabilities related to AUM and the nature of the liabilities (in PSH's case, bonds with no NAV covenants, so no "margin call scenario" and wrt the options they are primarily fixed downside type of stuff, ie we know what Pershing will lose if/when VRX goes to zero). On the options, I think it increases the risk of leverage increasing, but so far they are of small size and we don't know what he's doing with the proceeds. So far he's been converting into ITM calls and cash, that to me looks like buying puts and limiting risk. Now if he takes that cash and puts in another giant binary bet, then the risk reduction won't matter. I'm not an ackman fan at all...I just think news of his imminent demise / blow up is greatly exaggerated, but it doesn't matter because I am too small a fish to buy the bonds to take that position. I'm just trying to put the losses / leverage / risk in context here. A virtually unlevered (so far) low gross fund with some very liquid holdings and no real short book just shouldn't be top of mind in terms of blow-up risk. Below is the main thing I took issue with. If HLF went up 10-15% in day, PSH would lose 1-2%. Hardly consequential. To me the below quote seems alarmist. If you were saying if HLF went up 100% and he lost another 10% of NAV that it would be bad, I agree. But it still probably wouldn't cripple him to the point of some kind of massive forced selling. Permanent capital will help, but it would hardly matter if he has to liquidate more holdings to cover the margin on a short position that went up by 10 -15% in a single day right after his largest holdings has tanked by 60% in the past week.... Maybe we just misread each other. My only point was that the low client flows don't really matter if he's still having to liquidate and leverage to cover margin calls which is likely a similar response he'd have to redemptions. Given the pettiness of the disagreement with him and Icahn awhile back, I wouldn't have been surprised if Icahn (or Loeb, or any of the HF dudes who hate him) announced new/increased positions in HLF to drive it up while other people were front-running Ackman to drive down his longs further exacerbating his selling/re-leveraging. It's not a "virtuous cycle" in that it couldn't be repeated, so it probably wouldn't lead to his blow up, but it would have certainly made his week alot worse if he had to come up with another $200M in cash to cover margin for the short position. I don't think PSH is going to "blow up", but I do think it's going to take a long time for him to recover from the VRX and if I owned the stock I would be slightly concerned about his replacing equity exposure with options to fund the margin as it does increase the risk to those positions by a fair bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kiwing100 Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 FYI, PSH raised net proceeds of about US$670mn (note this does not include other Pershing Square investment vehicles) from the conversion from common stock to options. Given PSH's short put position on 3.687mn VRX shares at a strike of US$60.00 this would be more than sufficient to finance a margin call even if VRX went to zero. (it would require US$221mn [3.687 x 60 strike price on the put]). This leaves a remaining cash balance of US$448mn at PSH. This link shows the PSH short option position on VRX of 3.687mn shares at a strike of US$60.00 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885590/000119312515385412/d68063dex995.htm Thank you kiwing100. Very clear. I would be quite shocked if he does anything strange with the cash after what he has gone through. Aside from using the cash for future potential adverse mark to market valuations and margin calls on: 1. Short sale position of HLF 2. short put position on VRX with strike of US$60 Given the price drops over the last year, PSH might use the excess cash to buy more common stock or call options on VRX or PAH, or a new investment holding ... The other Pershing Square Capital open ended investment vehicles however might also need to fund investor redemptions, something that PSH as a closed end fund will not have to face. If you look at the PSH holding in VRX historically, they have basically tried to average down when the price fell a lot below their cost. Initially PSH bought common stock at 178.38, then when the VRX price fell to 108 (a fall of 39%), PSH averaged down and managed to get the average cost per share for the common stock position to US$119.76. In October 2015, PSH bought some listed LEAPS with a strike of 120.00 when the stock price closed at US$118.61 Then in Nov 20, 2015 when the stock price closed at US$91.00 (about 24% lower than the average cost per share on the common stock they owned, and 49% from their initial entry price into the common stock), PSH averaged down aggressively with options. These options expire on 20 Jan 2017 1) PSH bought calls with a strike of US$95.00, however given the volatility the OTC options were expensive, 2) so PSH tried to get them cheaper by selling calls with a strike of US$165 which help to offset the cost of the 95 strike call options. 3) to get the cost of the 95 strike call options even cheaper, PSH also sold put options on VRX with a strike at US$60. It might have seemed unlikely at the time that the VRX share price would fall a further 34% from the current price of US$91.00 (after all, it had already fall 49% from their initial entry price when PSH already believed it was cheap). The 60 strike on the put would have been a 66% fall from PSH's initial common stock purchase price. As the market price of VRX fell to US$28.00, PSH faced margin calls on the VRX short put with strike of 60. Given that there was most likely little excess cash in the PSH portfolio (as it was mostly invested) to meet the margin call, PSH sold its common stock positions of MDLZ and APD to raise cash. PSH still wanted economic exposure to the stocks it had just sold, so it took option positions in those stocks. PSH bought call options in 1) MDLZ with a strike of 30 (vs the stock price of 36.34 on the day it bought the call options). The options expire in September 2017. 2) APD with a strike of 67.11 (vs the stock price of 134.22 on the day it bought the call options). The option expiry is March 2018. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JBTC Posted March 23, 2016 Share Posted March 23, 2016 Aside from using the cash for future potential adverse mark to market valuations and margin calls on: 1. Short sale position of HLF 2. short put position on VRX with strike of US$60 Given the price drops over the last year, PSH might use the excess cash to buy more common stock or call options on VRX or PAH, or a new investment holding ... The other Pershing Square Capital open ended investment vehicles however might also need to fund investor redemptions, something that PSH as a closed end fund will not have to face. If you look at the PSH holding in VRX historically, they have basically tried to average down when the price fell a lot below their cost. Initially PSH bought common stock at 178.38, then when the VRX price fell to 108 (a fall of 39%), PSH averaged down and managed to get the average cost per share for the common stock position to US$119.76. In October 2015, PSH bought some listed LEAPS with a strike of 120.00 when the stock price closed at US$118.61 Then in Nov 20, 2015 when the stock price closed at US$91.00 (about 24% lower than the average cost per share on the common stock they owned, and 49% from their initial entry price into the common stock), PSH averaged down aggressively with options. 1) PSH bought calls with a strike of US$95.00, however given the volatility the OTC options were expensive, 2) so PSH tried to get them cheaper by selling calls with a strike of US$165 which help to offset the cost of the 95 strike call options. 3) to get the cost of the 95 strike call options even cheaper, PSH also sold put options on VRX with a strike at US$60. It might have seemed unlikely at the time that the VRX share price would fall a further 34% from the current price of US$91.00 (after all, it had already fall 49% from their initial entry price when PSH already believed it was cheap). The 60 strike on the put would have been a 66% fall from PSH's initial common stock purchase price. As the market price of VRX fell to US$28.00, PSH faced margin calls on the VRX short put with strike of 60. Given that there was most likely little excess cash in the PSH portfolio (as it was mostly invested) to meet the margin call, PSH sold its common stock positions of MDLZ and APD to raise cash. PSH still wanted economic exposure to the stocks it had just sold, so it took option positions in those stocks. PSH bought call options in 1) MDLZ with a strike of 30 (vs the stock price of 36.34 on the day it bought the call options). The options expire in September 2017. 2) APD with a strike of 67.11 (vs the stock price of 134.22 on the day it bought the call options). The option expiry is March 2018. Thanks. Nice review of events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Fresh off the press. 2015 Annual Report. http://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2016/03/PSH-Annual-Report-12.31.151.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dorsiacapital Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 FYI, PSH raised net proceeds of about US$670mn (note this does not include other Pershing Square investment vehicles) from the conversion from common stock to options. Given PSH's short put position on 3.687mn VRX shares at a strike of US$60.00 this would be more than sufficient to finance a margin call even if VRX went to zero. (it would require US$221mn [3.687 x 60 strike price on the put]). This leaves a remaining cash balance of US$448mn at PSH. This link shows the PSH short option position on VRX of 3.687mn shares at a strike of US$60.00 http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/885590/000119312515385412/d68063dex995.htm Thank you kiwing100. Very clear. I would be quite shocked if he does anything strange with the cash after what he has gone through. Aside from using the cash for future potential adverse mark to market valuations and margin calls on: 1. Short sale position of HLF 2. short put position on VRX with strike of US$60 Given the price drops over the last year, PSH might use the excess cash to buy more common stock or call options on VRX or PAH, or a new investment holding ... The other Pershing Square Capital open ended investment vehicles however might also need to fund investor redemptions, something that PSH as a closed end fund will not have to face. If you look at the PSH holding in VRX historically, they have basically tried to average down when the price fell a lot below their cost. Initially PSH bought common stock at 178.38, then when the VRX price fell to 108 (a fall of 39%), PSH averaged down and managed to get the average cost per share for the common stock position to US$119.76. In October 2015, PSH bought some listed LEAPS with a strike of 120.00 when the stock price closed at US$118.61 Then in Nov 20, 2015 when the stock price closed at US$91.00 (about 24% lower than the average cost per share on the common stock they owned, and 49% from their initial entry price into the common stock), PSH averaged down aggressively with options. These options expire on 20 Jan 2017 1) PSH bought calls with a strike of US$95.00, however given the volatility the OTC options were expensive, 2) so PSH tried to get them cheaper by selling calls with a strike of US$165 which help to offset the cost of the 95 strike call options. 3) to get the cost of the 95 strike call options even cheaper, PSH also sold put options on VRX with a strike at US$60. It might have seemed unlikely at the time that the VRX share price would fall a further 34% from the current price of US$91.00 (after all, it had already fall 49% from their initial entry price when PSH already believed it was cheap). The 60 strike on the put would have been a 66% fall from PSH's initial common stock purchase price. As the market price of VRX fell to US$28.00, PSH faced margin calls on the VRX short put with strike of 60. Given that there was most likely little excess cash in the PSH portfolio (as it was mostly invested) to meet the margin call, PSH sold its common stock positions of MDLZ and APD to raise cash. PSH still wanted economic exposure to the stocks it had just sold, so it took option positions in those stocks. PSH bought call options in 1) MDLZ with a strike of 30 (vs the stock price of 36.34 on the day it bought the call options). The options expire in September 2017. 2) APD with a strike of 67.11 (vs the stock price of 134.22 on the day it bought the call options). The option expiry is March 2018. This is largely correct, but a bit wrong on several points. Just to clarify, Ackman initially bought around 20 millions shares in Spring 2015. I think his average purchase price was in the high 100s - 180/190. In October, post Left, Ackman then bought 2 million shares. This slightly reduced his purchase price, although certainly not to an average cost of 118. I haven't seen anything about these October leaps, but perhaps you have. In November, Ackman did the options trade basically as you described. There were actually two collars, one for Feb 2016 options and one for January 2017 options. The entry price appears to have been in the 70s. The Feb 2016 options expired below Ackman's break even on that segment. Matt Levine has an excellent graph of the profit/loss on the trade http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-11-24/bill-ackman-found-a-cheap-way-to-buy-more-valeant-stock#footnote-1448386568376). The trade, obviously sensitive to time expiry, meant that he would break even in the low 160s. At this point in time, per Matt Levine, (http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2016-03-15/ackman-s-valeant-investment-keeps-getting-worse) Ackman will have on paper lost his entire investment of 4.1 billion if Valeant goes to 17 (because of having to pay out the puts). If it goes to 0, Ackman will lose 5 billion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ballinvarosig Investors Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 Fresh off the press. 2015 Annual Report. http://assets.pershingsquareholdings.com/2016/03/PSH-Annual-Report-12.31.151.pdf While PSH’s discount to NAV has remained relatively narrow during most of 2015 and early 2016 – typically less than 5% – in recent weeks, the discount has widened substantially and has averaged about 13% since March 1, 2016. I suspect that this is largely due to fear about the rapid decline in Valeant’s stock price. At the current discount to NAV of about 12%, an investor is paying almost nothing for our investment in Valeant. If you want a free option on Valeant - then that looks a good way to play it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 It would have been nice if Ackman mentioned his manipulation with option positions in the AR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If I don't read his letter, I won't know his results are heavily front loaded. :) His performance after 2009 isn't that interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 If I don't read his letter, I won't know his results are heavily front loaded. :) His performance after 2009 isn't that interesting. You dont read his letter..which translates into you dont read the 10k and as such all you are left with is making jokes....i guess if thats your style. ADP not interesting CP isnt interesting HHC isnt interesting.....do you love to read about businesses or is this just a hobby? Furthermore, in light of the high-water-mark feature of the Fund, investors will pay no incentive fees until NAV increases by 68%, and exceeds $26.37 per share. Looks like you get bill for free for a while. Free option on Fanie and Freddie also, well not really free. They sent advisors over to VRX. That first third is a pretty good read. I though there was a rather concise The Govt is tapping pershing square about drug pricing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doughishere Posted March 25, 2016 Share Posted March 25, 2016 The VRX position is only a year old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 The Company’s Annual General Meeting will be held in Guernsey on 27 April 2016. Wonder what the attendance here will be like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
writser Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 This was pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RS8HJT4_Ero Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
returnonmycapital Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Was it ever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fareastwarriors Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 The Company’s Annual General Meeting will be held in Guernsey on 27 April 2016. Wonder what the attendance here will be like. Doubt there will be many shareholders there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jurgis Posted May 11, 2016 Share Posted May 11, 2016 Copying Q1 letter from Fannie thread: http://www.valuewalk.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Pershing-Square-1Q2016-Investor-Letter_May-11-2016_PSH-1.pdf VRX screw up is still reverberating through PSH portfolio. Ackman sold a bunch of ZTS, MDLZ, CP probably at least partially to deal with losses on VRX options. If not for VRX, the quarter would have been crappy, with VRX it was horrible. Assuming previously mentioned option positions, future is probably gonna continue to be volatile (see 10% gain in April... and VRX current price). Disclosure: I still have some PSH. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
muscleman Posted May 12, 2016 Share Posted May 12, 2016 I find this part especially amusing: "On April 20th, CP reported that first quarter revenue had declined 5%, as a result of the tepid macro-economic environment. On the earnings call, CP President Keith Creel highlighted that volumes will likely be down 6% for Q2, but that trends should improve in the second half of the year as comps get easier." ;D ;D Oh I feel taller now since I am comparing with dwarfs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurelius Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 This might be interesting! There is quite a substantial discount to NAV as per 15 Nov. - 27,7%. Also worth noting investors will pay no incentive fees until NAV increases by almost 60%, and exceeds $26.37 per share (high water mark). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnny Posted November 17, 2016 Share Posted November 17, 2016 At that price you're almost buying Chipotle at fair value! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now