rkbabang Posted December 14, 2011 Share Posted December 14, 2011 I'm thinking of taking a pretty major position in LUK tomorrow (hoping it goes down some more)--if anyone feels like telling me why this is a stupid idea, I'd love to hear it! I doubled my LUK position yesterday, so I certainly won't try to talk you out of it. If it is a stupid idea, then I am as stupid as you are I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/12/20/jefferies-posts-quarterly-profit-of-39-million/?partner=yahoofinance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Just found this as a good resource to do background research for members of the National Futures Association. They keep track of regulatory proceedings with the CBOT, CME and others. I was lead to this resource as I began reading the CME group's letter to the Senate committee researching MF Global. You can find the regulatory measures against MF Global which they refer to. Also Jefferies was there too. http://www.nfa.futures.org/basicnet/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mevsemt Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Whew... I'm glad those storm clouds are starting to dissipate! This was my largest holding... and that's before today's run-up... http://mevsemt.blogspot.com/2011/11/couldnt-resist.html http://mevsemt.blogspot.com/2011/11/reshuffling-deck.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 Whew... I'm glad those storm clouds are starting to dissipate! This was my largest holding... and that's before today's run-up... http://mevsemt.blogspot.com/2011/11/couldnt-resist.html http://mevsemt.blogspot.com/2011/11/reshuffling-deck.html Nice--I just looked through your blog for a while, also very nice. Keep up the good work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijk Posted December 20, 2011 Share Posted December 20, 2011 jef pre-announced a decent q4 on nov 21, while the stock was trading at $10..... "Our fourth quarter and fiscal year end in nine days on November 30. Anything can happen in any nine-day period in today’s tumultuous global financial environment, but we expect to record operating results for our fourth quarter that, although not where we want them to be, will be profitable and stronger than our third quarter (excluding the Bache acquisition-related items)." it's tempting to lock in gains now but the valuation still looks good and the stock is still trading at 20% below leucadia's cost basis and 30% below berkowitz cost basis.... regards rijk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty Posted January 1, 2012 Author Share Posted January 1, 2012 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/leucadia-national-corporation-completes-acquisition-of-control-of-national-beef-2011-12-30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rijk Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 these web sites show that berkowitz/fairholme bought jef in q2 2011 http://whalewisdom.com/filer/fairholme-capital-management-llc http://www.gurufocus.com/StockBuy.php?GuruName=Bruce+Berkowitz&p=1 while dataroma shows the same purchase in q3 2011 http://www.dataroma.com/m/hist/hist.php?f=fairx&s=JEF anybody know what is happening here? in any case, interesting to see that berkowitz abandoned jef in q4, looks like the conviction was not that high after all, i think that his former partners (goodhaven) are still holding jef..... regards rijk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
biaggio Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 RIJK,don t forget that Fairholm had several billion $ of redemptions (AUM down 70%)-so he had to sell something Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racemize Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 RIJK,don t forget that Fairholm had several billion $ of redemptions (AUM down 70%)-so he had to sell something This seems like the most reasonable answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
txlaw Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 I'd agree that this is probably a case of selling cheap to buy (or hold) cheaper. If Bruce B wanted to keep his AIG, MBIA, BAC, SHLD, LUK, etc., he likely needed to sell off his other holdings due to redemptions. That's probably why all the i-banks have been jettisoned from his portfolio. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted February 7, 2012 Share Posted February 7, 2012 An additional reason I found while reading the Goodhaven report is that mutual funds are not allowed to own more than 5% of a broker/dealer when the position is created. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 Anyone know when our friends at LUK will bring out their 10-K? Turns out my buy on Nov 23st was 5 cents from the bottom, wish I knew it back then! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evolveus Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 You timed that question as well as that LUK purchase...it came out today. http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?action=getcompany&CIK=0000096223&owner=include The shareholder letter should come out in early to mid April. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
valueinvesting101 Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 According to 8K posted today it looks like National Beef earned 221 mil + 52 mil(D&A) = 273 mil and since LUK has NOL assets they will not be paying any taxes on this earning. This seems very good deal at the price of 870 mil. Am I miscalculating something here? http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/96223/000090951812000089/mm03-0512_8kea1991.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted March 6, 2012 Share Posted March 6, 2012 They only have a 80% ownership of the business. Looks like a great deal, even if those earnings aren't sustainable. Nice sell off today, I'm thinking of buying more now it is slightly above (?) BV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grenville Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 A couple of good articles on Jefferies in the FT: Jefferies to set up Europe financing arm http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/9cbafd90-7517-11e1-90d1-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1qLH01PlK Jefferies puts debt debacle aside http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ffede76e-7748-11e1-baf3-00144feab49a.html#ixzz1qLHM17kh Also, Q1 earnings came out last week. The management call was pretty good. Things look to be back to normal. The company earned 77million. The two recent deals for Bache and Hoare Govett were very opportunistic and and the firm is expanding the Bache commodities platform with new hires. I like what I've seen and heard so far. The investment banking business is growing and the earnings run rate is also growing with expansion abroad. Q1 results: http://www.jefco.com/pdfs/0320121Q12FinancialResults.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WarrenWatsa Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Back within earshot of book. Ian and Joe getting little respect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
berkshiremystery Posted April 4, 2012 Share Posted April 4, 2012 Back within earshot of book. Ian and Joe getting little respect. I might add this interesting discussion thread about LUK's NOL's / DTA. http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_L/threadview?m=te&bn=10954&tid=15725&mid=-1&tof=10&rt=2&frt=2&off=1#-1 <snip>.... LUK - Year Reported NOL's (10-K) 2003 ... $3,550,000,000 [approx] 2004 ... $3,900,000,000 [approx] 2005 ... $5,100,000,000 [approx] 2006 ... $5,200,000,000 [approx] 2007 ... $5,400,000,000 2008 ... $5,745,600,000 2009 ... $5,985,000,000 2010 ... $5,400,500,000 2011 ... $4,738,150,000 2010: used ~ $600m of NOLs 2011: used ~ $660m of NOLs ...<snip> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Thanks berkshiremystery. The january sell of 100,000,000 FMG shares and new earnings from Nat beef should use a big chunck of the DTA again this quarter. Letter should be out soon too, maybe we hear something new about the FMG note litigation. It's on the books for a fraction of what it is worth* if they rule in favor of leucadia. I have no idea about the odds tho. Anyone got an idea? (*)LUK's 10-K mentions they earned $214m (before taxes) in interest income in 2011 alone. This was during a year of expansion in its Cloud Break and Christmas Creek operations to a production capacity of 55 million metric tons/year. They plan to expand to 90 million metric tons/year for the area. They sold 46.5 million metric tons in 2011 so if spot prices stay around the 2011 average price level, we are looking at $400m/year in intrest income until august 2019. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsto Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 So, given the uncertainty regarding the litigation around the FMG note, anyone have any thoughts as to what Leucadia could sell the note for in a private sale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scorpioncapital Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 I think the litigation of the FMG note is no longer an issue at this point - it may be in theory but not in practice. Consider that the reason FMG did it was because it was at a time 2 years ago when it was hard for them to raise money to finance their expansion. However, since then, they have raised money in the junk bond market and have not had to offer the sweetner of a royalty note to other investors. The more this goes on, the less likely that FMG will need to do something that dilutes LUK's interest. Given the DTA, I think the odds of a sale of this note is very low. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
prevalou Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 What would cost FMG to dilute luk interest in the note ? They could raies money with à low rate, the rest being indirectly paid by luk through dilution. Am i wrong ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjsto Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Thanks scorpion. That's the concept I was trying to wrap my head around. Why would FMG in practice want to raise money offering royalties dilutive to the LUK note, when that would seem to be a more expensive form of financing? Maybe if iron-ore prices collapse again, that could be an issue in the future. I agree the odds of a sale on the note are low. It always seemed like the idea was to hold on to the note and sell the stock if need be. Which they have done. I wonder if LUK would have held on to the stock if the problems with Andrew Forrest had never existed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tombgrt Posted April 6, 2012 Share Posted April 6, 2012 Thanks for your insight scorpioncapital, makes sense. Good question jjsto. I assume that the position was getting too big given the return on the note. They are plenty cyclical already, no need to keep both a $1b+ position and the note. Just a guess tho. How do you guys estimate IV for LUK? I find it really hard to do and only have a vague idea which is simply related to current book value and future expected BV growth. 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