BSB Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Why does David Einhorn call Fairfax a "questionable company" at page 355 of his updated book? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nnejad Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Why is he so vocal about his short positions? And then, reports them to the SEC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parsad Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Why does David Einhorn call Fairfax a "questionable company" at page 355 of his updated book? Probably for the same reason some people call David Einhorn a "questionable investor". In his updated book, did he discuss New Century? Cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smazz Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 Wow, first post and your pumpin' this guys book? C'mon man, this is not our first rodeo! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSB Posted January 21, 2011 Author Share Posted January 21, 2011 Just due diligence for my Fairfax investment. I heard Einhorn's 11/28/07 presentation on Lehman, so he has my respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted January 21, 2011 Share Posted January 21, 2011 BSB, What exactly did he write about FFH in his book. If he gives you some detail then why dont you elaborate. Otherwise, why would anyone here bother to comment. Wasn't it Einhorn who tried taking on Frank Stronach at MI Developments and lost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerbaron Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Wasn't it Einhorn who tried taking on Frank Stronach at MI Developments and lost? Uccmal, what's the story between MID and Einhorn? BeerBaron Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uccmal Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Beerbaron, You can google the details but Einhorn was trying to get changes to the captive board of MID since 2003 because he bought shares and thought the company was not being operated in the interest of shareholders, which is wasn't. He sued and lost but kept the shares. Stronach has proven far too tough for any and all activist investors he has ever encountered - you dont go from $0.00 with no education to being a billionaire without some hard-headedness. Einhorn should have known better, but experience is a great teacher I guess. I am still not getting an answer as to what Einhorn wrote about FFh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
given2invest Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 Wasn't it Einhorn who tried taking on Frank Stronach at MI Developments and lost? Uccmal, what's the story between MID and Einhorn? BeerBaron Basically what the last poster said. Stronach is a terrible person and fleeced the company, used it as his personal piggy bank for horse racing regardless of what the shareholders wanted. He tried numerous times to get green mail and didn't succeed but it appears he finally succeeded, getting paid hundreds of millions in assets to give up voting control of the company (not actually selling any stock, simply agreeing to collapse the share structure). But yah, Einhorn misplayed this one big time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rabbitisrich Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 The Einhorn comments referred to Fairfax in late 2006, a time when reasonable questions could have been brought up regarding certain repo dealings and reinsurance receivables quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I really, really want to like Einhorn. But he was wrong about Fairfax and the whole thing with JOE (when he calls out Berkowitz) reeks of hubris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth465 Posted January 22, 2011 Share Posted January 22, 2011 I really, really want to like Einhorn. But he was wrong about Fairfax and the whole thing with JOE (when he calls out Berkowitz) reeks of hubris. I like Einhorn and Ackman, I just dont think of them as gods who walk on water or the next Buffetts. They are just decent investors who one can learn something from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BSB Posted January 22, 2011 Author Share Posted January 22, 2011 Rabbitisrich is right, Einhorn's comments were published in 2007 (original book date). Einhorn describes 3 companies (Fairfax,Overstock, & Biovail) as "questionable", because they took aggressive actions against their critics e.g. short-sellers. Einhorn may have been right about Biovail, I think it settled w/SEC by paying a fine, & may have been acquired "on the cheap" by another drug company.Overstock is currently an investment of Fairfax & Francis Chou. I think Fairfax's "aggressive action" is the filing of a $6 billion lawsuit against the short-sellers in NJ state court (see Fairfax press release dated 7/26/06). It is my understanding this stock manipulation litigation is ongoing. So Einhorn's intuition concerning Fairfax may have been misguided. I recommend reading the Fairfax pleading. If true, the prominent hedge fund defendants are the "questionable" companies.On 12/1610 Overstock sought to amend its lawsuit (commenced 2/07) against naked short-sellers to assert RICO claims, much like Fairfield. Chou & Watsa must have confidence in the merits of this litigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stahleyp Posted February 21, 2011 Share Posted February 21, 2011 This book is a very good read. I'm reading the updated version - "A Long Short (and now completed) Story." On page 355 he states "Allied's success has emboldened other questionable companies like Overstock.com, Biovail and Fairfax Holdings to take even more aggressive actions against the critics. At a minimum, silencing critics through personal attacks will distract some investors from understanding and regulators from dealing with the real problems facing these companies." Chapter 24 was also really interesting. It's essentially about overstock.com and Byrne. If what Einhorn says is true, then Byrne is certainly not the most trust worthy guy. Byrne stated that he was "in" Greenlight. Einhorn refutes that Byrne has ever been to their offices, etc. It's a worthwhile read. Reading the book also gives me much better insight into the level of research Greenlight does when looking at short positions. It's really quite amazing. I don't recall him mentioning New Century. But he did confess to some other loses, like Worldcom. 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