GVC.TO - Glacier Media

[JEast]

A consolidation post:

National advertising is still about 10% of their community newspaper business.

 

I suspect (not verified) that the national spot advertising as a percentage of total community revenue is most likely in the 4-6% range.

 

Cheers

JEast

[Parsad]

it matters because it tells us how much "skin in the game" management has. you and cardbooard cited 33% ownership by mgmt, but now it appears this isnt correct. mgmt are principals of MVC, which itself owns 27%. this doesnt necessarily mean management have that level of skin in the game, because we don't know how much of MVC mgmt owns directly. correct?

 

This is semantics.  Prem doesn't own all of Sixty-Two Corporation, so should we be concerned that he doesn't have enough at risk?  I don't own all of Corner Market Capital, so should that negate how committed I am to making sure CMC doesn't lose money?  I think this is somewhat irrelevant.  Cheers!

 

Look, you said management owns a third of the company, and I'm merely pointing out that this isnt true. Did I say anything else, like this company is a bad investment, or management doesnt have enough skin in the game? No. I'm perplexed as to why you are interpreting it that way. I'm merely trying to get the facts straight.

 

My point was that they controlled 33% (at one point) and still own about 28% after the distributions to other investors...who are probably family, friends and children trusts.  It's not like it's Sardar and he owns 1.5% of BH and controls 18%.  It's just something that really isn't relevant to the actual thesis of the investment, and there was no intent to mislead anyone.  Cheers!

 

I beg to differ. Wouldn't you say having 33% direct ownership and, say, 15% direct ownership makes a big difference, especially when we're talking about a micro cap?

 

edit: apologies for taking the discussion off a tangent.

 

Yes, but you are talking about 33% and 28%!  ;D  Cheers!

[petec]

I am just starting work on this so apologies if the answer is on page 3 of the annual report, but...

 

...several people have mentioned that the Postmedia acquisition did not work out well.  What is the history behind that?  Does anyone have a sense of what multiple they paid, with hindsight?

[sculpin]

Any idea what the potential market value of the Company's non core real estate could be? Also, there is a discount way of buying shares in Glacier through GVIC which is listed on the TSX as GCT and GCT.C. I believe the applicable exchange ratio is that one share of GVIC is worth about 33% of one share of GVC. So theoretically with GVC worth $1.26 then GCT should be worth about $0.42 but trading at only $0.28 on last trade. Very illiquid though.

[petec]

What on earth is GVIC?  I can barely find anything on it!

[sculpin]

Yes it is part of Glacier management's convoluted and opaque capital structure. In this case it was set up to provide tax losses which has now come back to bite them. Given that GVIC no longer has a reason to be, Glacier's Board of Directors and the management should clean up the Company's structure by converting GCT & GCT.c into GVC common shares. This would definitely improve the liquidity & make this much more easy to understand.

 

Glacier Announces Equity Investment in GVIC Publications Ltd.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA, Mar 24, 2006 (CCNMatthews via COMTEX) --

The Board of Directors of Glacier Ventures International Corp. ("Glacier" or the "Company") (TSX:GVC) is pleased to announce that its wholly-owned subsidiary 0747036 B.C. Ltd. ("0747036") has acquired approximately 94.9% of the equity of GVIC Publications Ltd. (formerly Stressgen Biotechnologies Corporation) ("GVIC Publications").

 

Under the transaction, GVIC Publications received shareholder and regulatory approval to be restructured under a plan of arrangement (the "Arrangement") whereby a) all of GVIC Publication's assets and liabilities were transferred to a new biopharmaceutical company that will carry on the former business carried on by Stressgen Biotechnologies Corporation, and b) 0747036 acquired 5,838,284 Class B Voting Shares and 237,178,557 Class C Non-Voting of GVIC Publications, representing approximately 40% of the Class B Voting Shares, 98.19% of the Class C Non-Voting Shares and 94.9% of the equity in GVIC Publications for $9.25 million. 0747036 and Glacier have no interest in the new biopharmaceutical company.

 

GVIC Publications will now focus on acquiring one or more businesses operating in the information communications sectors. GVIC Publications will seek to raise capital as required to finance such acquisitions.

 

Glacier acquired the shares of GVIC Publications for investment purposes.

 

Shares in Glacier can be traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol GVC.

 

About the Company: Glacier Ventures International Corp. is an information communications company focused on expanding across North America through both internal growth and the strategic acquisition of information communications companies that provide essential information and related services through print, electronic and online media.

[Packer16]

Do you have a source or reference for the conversion ratio.  TIA.

 

Packer

[petec]

Yes I found that announcement on the website but it is pretty opaque!  Thanks. 

[sculpin]

Back in 2007, Glacier paid $1.00 per each share of GCT & GCT.c. Trying to find conversion data. Unfortunately management has been vague about this for years now. Perhaps someone who is closer to the Company can elaborate.

 

 

June 29, 2007 18:20 ET

Glacier Announces Acquisition of Shares of GVIC Communications Corp.

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(Marketwire - June 29, 2007) - Glacier Ventures International Corp. ("Glacier" or the "Company") (TSX:GVC) reported that it had acquired a total of 1,400,000 Class B Shares and 1,400,000 Class C Shares of GVIC Communications Corp. ("GVIC") in two closings at a purchase price of $1.00 per share. The purchase price was satisfied by repayment of a portion of a $15 million note that was issued by GVIC to Glacier as partial payment of the purchase price in connection with the previously announced sale of Glacier's assets to GVIC.

 

As a result of the transactions, Glacier owns approximately 37.9% of the Class B Shares and 97.7% of the Class C Shares of GVIC. Glacier acquired the shares as an equity investment in GVIC.

 

Shares in Glacier can be traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange under the symbol GVC.

 

About the Company: Glacier Ventures International Corp. is an information communications company focused on expanding across North America through both internal growth and the strategic acquisition of information communications companies that provide essential information and related services through print, electronic and online media.

[gary17]

I can add this to my list for the management; unfortunately they have not returned my call or email since monday.

[plato1976]

This Q2 compared with last Q2 the revenue is down slightly, even with the consolidation of the acquired business ? hmm...

 

As a follow-up and to consolidate previous information posted elsewhere, I propose a clarification to the 'land' value on the balance sheet. 

 

As of 12/31/12, land was valued at historical cost of $17.7 million.  Of that total, roughly $7m was due to acquisitions in the last few years leaving $10m.  Of the $10m, most of that land was purchased in the '06-'10 timeframe.  I therefore suggest that land values are not as extremely undervalued as previously mentioned as the stated value does not represent land that has been on the books for 20+ years.

 

Cheers

JEast

[uncommonprofits]

Yes it is part of Glacier management's convoluted and opaque capital structure. In this case it was set up to provide tax losses which has now come back to bite them. Given that GVIC no longer has a reason to be, Glacier's Board of Directors and the management should clean up the Company's structure by converting GCT & GCT.c into GVC common shares. This would definitely improve the liquidity & make this much more easy to understand.

 

I don't see this as a slam dunk for Canada Revenue Agency.  In fact to this point the only thing disclosed so far is that CRA has 'proposed' to issue a notice of reassessment.  Obviously, there is some correspondence going back and forth before they actually do.  Should CRA go forth and issue a notice, then perhaps the odds of a negative outcome increase.  However, it will be a long drawn out process that will take years.  I don't believe they set up this tax loss structure just because they could get away with it and CRA would never catch on.  They likely have a strong defense.  It could take a very long time before we know if they have actually been bitten by this and to what magnitude if any.

 

As for converting the GVIC ownership structure over to GVC - I kind of wonder if the opposite might be true.  I wonder if this could possibly be detrimental to their defense they now have ongoing with CRA.  Perhaps any decision on such a conversion would be best put off until this issue is resolved with CRA.  Then again whether they were to do such a conversion or not - might make no difference at all to their defense  - but it's something to think about.         

[muscleman]

I can add this to my list for the management; unfortunately they have not returned my call or email since monday.

 

I spent a few hours trying to understand this company, and I have a few questions. Could anyone please help me understand, or could you please add these to the list for management?

1. They claimed that business information is their highest growth area, with high margins. What are their competitors in that space, and what kind of moat do they have?

2. business information delivered 45% EBITDA. How about cash flow? What kind of cash flow is it delivering?

3. Local community newspapers seem to be another area that they feel good about. What is the cash flow for that? Regarding moat, I think probably they have a good one, because local community people usually get used to reading one type of newspaper for their whole life. Am I wrong?

4. What is their plan to address the debt issues? Refinance or pay down? What kind of debt covenant is that? Sorry I didn't find it. I only found that they have 6.9 million non-recourse and 95 million revolving bank credit line.

5. Someone in this thread claimed that management is the most brilliant he ever saw. Could anyone please help me understand what proved them to be brilliant? The other question is, can this media business be run by an idiot and still thrive (Buffet's preference)?

6. Property value. Someone in the thread said 10M of their properties were purchased from 04-10. I know that in China, especially Beijing, any property bought in 04 should have already gained 1000% by now. Not sure about Canada. Can we assume that their properties, 17M on the book, are actually worth 50 Million?

[gary17]

I spoke to the CEO Jon Kennedy earlier today - 

Some notes;

1 debt to earnings ratio - he can't comment as he doesn't think it's material; and didn't want to give that out to the competitor (David Black?? - anyone know who he is?)  - he did indicate that they will continue to meet it.

 

2 priority for cash flow is to pay down debt.  then will consider either acquisition or share buyback - certainly at current price level he acknowledges that's what they would consider doing, but priority is paying down debt.

 

3  He indicated they are selling real estates to pay down debt.  / My thought afterwards is are they selling because they are just doing that or they are trying to meet the debt to earnings ratio.................   

 

4  dilution - they issued shares to finance acquisition - apparently they started with only 5M (?) so that's what they needed to do.

 

5  He acknowledges the company is undervalued.  He thinks traditional print business is about 4x EBITDA and the business information business should be 7 EBITDA.  The strategy is to get as much cash flow out of print to pay down debt and acquire business information businesses - i.e., slowly transition the company to the kind that deserves higher EBITDA multiple. 

 

There are two points that I couldn't quite make out as I was interrupted by a page on my office line:

 

6. I believe Jon was trying to explain about the last acquisition (Post media?) - how that if they didn't buy it, David Black (the competitor??) would and that would erode shareholder value - so they had no choice but to buy and pay what they paid.  I will do some more digging on this, but if someone knows the history to this ,please fill the gap. 

 

7  He indicated some tax assessment by CRA - a 20M figure came up.  and They felt pretty confident that's how much they owe based on past rulings from courts. 

 

Jon spoke very quickly - one topic lead to another - 

 

I hope this is of use.

 

###

 

Does anyone know if a public company's CEO can see who is selling or buying their stocks?

# # #

 

Just want to share my thoughts on the traditional print media business...  I think you guys have convinced me mathematically this is an undervalued company, but I kept wanting to think about if the business is sustainable in the long term (even if I am only holding it for a short term). My thinking is that the print business has probably declined to a level that has flattened out.  The internet is great, but it cant (yet) put content right in front of the audience - i.e., ads on facebook won't get to me unless I go on the internet.  On the other hand, community papers are delivered free to your doors - it's hard to avoid when it is right at your door step.

 

Gary

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[plato1976]

ok. So they think they owe 20M tax ?

 

I spoke to the CEO Jon Kennedy earlier today - 

Some notes;

1 debt to earnings ratio - he can't comment as he doesn't think it's material; and didn't want to give that out to the competitor (David Black?? - anyone know who he is?)  - he did indicate that they will continue to meet it.

 

2 priority for cash flow is to pay down debt.  then will consider either acquisition or share buyback - certainly at current price level he acknowledges that's what they would consider doing, but priority is paying down debt.

 

3  He indicated they are selling real estates to pay down debt.  / My thought afterwards is are they selling because they are just doing that or they are trying to meet the debt to earnings ratio.................   

 

4  dilution - they issued shares to finance acquisition - apparently they started with only 5M (?) so that's what they needed to do.

 

5  He acknowledges the company is undervalued.  He thinks traditional print business is about 4x EBITDA and the business information business should be 7 EBITDA.  The strategy is to get as much cash flow out of print to pay down debt and acquire business information businesses - i.e., slowly transition the company to the kind that deserves higher EBITDA multiple. 

 

There are two points that I couldn't quite make out as I was interrupted by a page on my office line:

 

6. I believe Jon was trying to explain about the last acquisition (Post media?) - how that if they didn't buy it, David Black (the competitor??) would and that would erode shareholder value - so they had no choice but to buy and pay what they paid.  I will do some more digging on this, but if someone knows the history to this ,please fill the gap. 

 

7  He indicated some tax assessment by CRA - a 20M figure came up.  and They felt pretty confident that's how much they owe based on past rulings from courts. 

 

Jon spoke very quickly - one topic lead to another - 

 

I hope this is of use.

 

###

 

Does anyone know if a public company's CEO can see who is selling or buying their stocks?

# # #

 

Just want to share my thoughts on the traditional print media business...  I think you guys have convinced me mathematically this is an undervalued company, but I kept wanting to think about if the business is sustainable in the long term (even if I am only holding it for a short term). My thinking is that the print business has probably declined to a level that has flattened out.  The internet is great, but it cant (yet) put content right in front of the audience - i.e., ads on facebook won't get to me unless I go on the internet.  On the other hand, community papers are delivered free to your doors - it's hard to avoid when it is right at your door step.

 

Gary

[gary17]

That's how I understood it.  But what he thinks and what CRA thinks is toe different things.

[plato1976]

ok. No idea how they are supposed to pay this 20M - but presumably we just add another 20M to the debt when we estimate the EV

 

That's how I understood it.  But what he thinks and what CRA thinks is toe different things.

[gary17]

sell more real estate i suppose.

 

i'll get more info from this thread and may be call him again next week or go visit him -  he did offer to talk again if i have more question, and i'm not shy about asking dumb questions  >:(

 

 

ok. No idea how they are supposed to pay this 20M - but presumably we just add another 20M to the debt when we estimate the EV

 

That's how I understood it.  But what he thinks and what CRA thinks is toe different things.

[gary17]

 

7  He indicated some tax assessment by CRA - a 20M figure came up.  and They felt pretty confident that's how much they owe based on past rulings from courts. 

 

All - I'd ignore this statement for now.  As I was interrupted - I can't be sure if he said they felt confident that's how much they owe or they felt pretty confident they will win (which indicates they won't owe 20M) - it's essentially what's been stated in the annual report.

 

I must apologize - I hate incomplete info , particularly something that makes a significant difference on the valuation -  So I will try to get a more affirmative answer from him. 

 

 

[Parsad]

ok. So they think they owe 20M tax ?

 

I spoke to the CEO Jon Kennedy earlier today - 

Some notes;

1 debt to earnings ratio - he can't comment as he doesn't think it's material; and didn't want to give that out to the competitor (David Black?? - anyone know who he is?)  - he did indicate that they will continue to meet it.

 

2 priority for cash flow is to pay down debt.  then will consider either acquisition or share buyback - certainly at current price level he acknowledges that's what they would consider doing, but priority is paying down debt.

 

3  He indicated they are selling real estates to pay down debt.  / My thought afterwards is are they selling because they are just doing that or they are trying to meet the debt to earnings ratio.................   

 

4  dilution - they issued shares to finance acquisition - apparently they started with only 5M (?) so that's what they needed to do.

 

5  He acknowledges the company is undervalued.  He thinks traditional print business is about 4x EBITDA and the business information business should be 7 EBITDA.  The strategy is to get as much cash flow out of print to pay down debt and acquire business information businesses - i.e., slowly transition the company to the kind that deserves higher EBITDA multiple. 

 

There are two points that I couldn't quite make out as I was interrupted by a page on my office line:

 

6. I believe Jon was trying to explain about the last acquisition (Post media?) - how that if they didn't buy it, David Black (the competitor??) would and that would erode shareholder value - so they had no choice but to buy and pay what they paid.  I will do some more digging on this, but if someone knows the history to this ,please fill the gap. 

 

7  He indicated some tax assessment by CRA - a 20M figure came up.  and They felt pretty confident that's how much they owe based on past rulings from courts. 

 

Jon spoke very quickly - one topic lead to another - 

 

I hope this is of use.

 

###

 

Does anyone know if a public company's CEO can see who is selling or buying their stocks?

# # #

 

Just want to share my thoughts on the traditional print media business...  I think you guys have convinced me mathematically this is an undervalued company, but I kept wanting to think about if the business is sustainable in the long term (even if I am only holding it for a short term). My thinking is that the print business has probably declined to a level that has flattened out.  The internet is great, but it cant (yet) put content right in front of the audience - i.e., ads on facebook won't get to me unless I go on the internet.  On the other hand, community papers are delivered free to your doors - it's hard to avoid when it is right at your door step.

 

Gary

 

I think you misunderstood.  The $20M number is probably the taxable losses they are reassessing.  They haven't discussed any possible actual numbers payable, so I find it hard to believe, as well as illegal, that he would tell you the number on a phone call.  Here is the excerpt from the notes in the 2nd quarter report, as it isn't final and the process could drag on for some time.  Cheers!

 

Contingency

 

In March 2013, an affiliate of the Company received correspondence from Canada Revenue Agency

(“CRA”) proposing to issue a notice of reassessment with respect to the utilization of non-capital

losses by the affiliate, pertaining to taxation years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The Company believes

that it has reported its tax position appropriately. No provision has been made in these financial

statements for additional income taxes, if any, which may be determined to be payable on ultimate

resolution of this matter. Should CRA issue the notice of reassessment, the Company’s affiliate would

be obligated to pay an initial payment of fifty percent of the reassessed tax amount plus penalties and

interest, in conjunction with appealing the reassessment. The Company believes its affiliate has

substantial defences in response to the matters raised by CRA and would vigorously appeal any

reassessment. Nevertheless, the initial payment upon appeal, as well as the proposed reassessment

by CRA, if upheld, would have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements and cash

flows. Notwithstanding, the Company’s affiliate has the financial capacity to pay such amounts, if any.

The likely timing to resolve this matter may take years. As of August 14, 2013, there has been no

change in the status of this matter.

[gary17]

Sanjeev

Have you spoken to Jon before? I wonder what your impression is

 

On the taxes - I was told they have a lot of tax shelters and they've saved a lot of taxes over the years.

 

As an investor I'd probably make the worst case assumption -  if he had mentioned that they are dealing with a potential 20M tax bill and he doesn't think the company owe any of that based on past rulings from the courts in Canada -- to me that is still a big unknown and a potential 20M bill is a big item for a 120M company.  For CRA to come question tax practices over the years is in itself a bit questionable to begin with. 

 

When we discussed company valuation, he mentioned that he had gotten someone to look at their business and that the traditional print is worth 4x EBITDA and business information is worth 7x - so the strategy is to transform and use the print cash flow as much as possible....  I may have misunderstood again here, but my gut impression is that he seemed quite keened on telling me how the business should be valued and how it is under valued right now -  I just thought that if he is the majority owner and knows the business is sound, I would have expected him to say we are growing our business and the valuation should take care of itself as we deliver better results.    You know what I mean - he sounded more like an 'investor' than a 'business owner' to me. 

 

He also spoke quite fast - almost like he's had this conversation many times today - just one subject after another. I only interrupted him a few times to ask the questions I wanted to ask..........

 

And one more thing.  When we just started the call, while I asked him to wait as I find my notes to ask him questions, he asked me first: so where did you learn that McElvaine and Chou have been selling?

 

ok. So they think they owe 20M tax ?

 

I spoke to the CEO Jon Kennedy earlier today - 

Some notes;

1 debt to earnings ratio - he can't comment as he doesn't think it's material; and didn't want to give that out to the competitor (David Black?? - anyone know who he is?)  - he did indicate that they will continue to meet it.

 

2 priority for cash flow is to pay down debt.  then will consider either acquisition or share buyback - certainly at current price level he acknowledges that's what they would consider doing, but priority is paying down debt.

 

3  He indicated they are selling real estates to pay down debt.  / My thought afterwards is are they selling because they are just doing that or they are trying to meet the debt to earnings ratio.................   

 

4  dilution - they issued shares to finance acquisition - apparently they started with only 5M (?) so that's what they needed to do.

 

5  He acknowledges the company is undervalued.  He thinks traditional print business is about 4x EBITDA and the business information business should be 7 EBITDA.  The strategy is to get as much cash flow out of print to pay down debt and acquire business information businesses - i.e., slowly transition the company to the kind that deserves higher EBITDA multiple. 

 

There are two points that I couldn't quite make out as I was interrupted by a page on my office line:

 

6. I believe Jon was trying to explain about the last acquisition (Post media?) - how that if they didn't buy it, David Black (the competitor??) would and that would erode shareholder value - so they had no choice but to buy and pay what they paid.  I will do some more digging on this, but if someone knows the history to this ,please fill the gap. 

 

7  He indicated some tax assessment by CRA - a 20M figure came up.  and They felt pretty confident that's how much they owe based on past rulings from courts. 

 

Jon spoke very quickly - one topic lead to another - 

 

I hope this is of use.

 

###

 

Does anyone know if a public company's CEO can see who is selling or buying their stocks?

# # #

 

Just want to share my thoughts on the traditional print media business...  I think you guys have convinced me mathematically this is an undervalued company, but I kept wanting to think about if the business is sustainable in the long term (even if I am only holding it for a short term). My thinking is that the print business has probably declined to a level that has flattened out.  The internet is great, but it cant (yet) put content right in front of the audience - i.e., ads on facebook won't get to me unless I go on the internet.  On the other hand, community papers are delivered free to your doors - it's hard to avoid when it is right at your door step.

 

Gary

 

I think you misunderstood.  The $20M number is probably the taxable losses they are reassessing.  They haven't discussed any possible actual numbers payable, so I find it hard to believe, as well as illegal, that he would tell you the number on a phone call.  Here is the excerpt from the notes in the 2nd quarter report, as it isn't final and the process could drag on for some time.  Cheers!

 

Contingency

 

In March 2013, an affiliate of the Company received correspondence from Canada Revenue Agency

(“CRA”) proposing to issue a notice of reassessment with respect to the utilization of non-capital

losses by the affiliate, pertaining to taxation years 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011. The Company believes

that it has reported its tax position appropriately. No provision has been made in these financial

statements for additional income taxes, if any, which may be determined to be payable on ultimate

resolution of this matter. Should CRA issue the notice of reassessment, the Company’s affiliate would

be obligated to pay an initial payment of fifty percent of the reassessed tax amount plus penalties and

interest, in conjunction with appealing the reassessment. The Company believes its affiliate has

substantial defences in response to the matters raised by CRA and would vigorously appeal any

reassessment. Nevertheless, the initial payment upon appeal, as well as the proposed reassessment

by CRA, if upheld, would have a material impact on the Company’s financial statements and cash

flows. Notwithstanding, the Company’s affiliate has the financial capacity to pay such amounts, if any.

The likely timing to resolve this matter may take years. As of August 14, 2013, there has been no

change in the status of this matter.

[Parsad]

I'm still very confused by the comments that you guys are saying Francis is selling.  He still has the same 513,000 shares in the Asia Fund for the last two years ending June 30th, so where are you guys getting your information from?  Too many presumptions about why managers are selling without knowing the facts!

 

There was some discussion about Tim selling part of his Rainmaker stake a while ago, but no one knows exactly why, so some posters came to certain erroneous conclusions.  When you assume, you know what that means, correct? 

 

Don't guess about why managers are buying or selling.  You have no idea if it is because the thesis has changed, or they are selling for tax losses, or selling to other entities to get them involved, or simply selling because they may want to retain liquidity or are facing some redemptions.  Guess work is not analysis!  Cheers!

[gary17]

I won't base my analysis on who's selling or buying

But I just find it surprising he thought that was important.

 

I want to know though if a company CEO sees who's selling and buying on a daily basis.

[Parsad]

I won't base my analysis on who's selling or buying

But I just find it surprising he thought that was important.

 

I want to know though if a company CEO sees who's selling and buying on a daily basis.

 

I didn't hear the conversation and don't know the context of the discussion, so I have no comment either way.  I just find that some of the details of the conversation were missing, so it's hard to figure out the accuracy of what was said, especially based on the information filed.  That's why I base my analysis solely on what is filed, rather than any conversation with an executive.  The executives that I have dealt with in the past, I did so more out of friendship and curiosity than anything to do with the investment...be it Prem, Sardar, Patrick Byrne or Mike Pruitt.  Cheers!   

[krazeenyc]

I'm still very confused by the comments that you guys are saying Francis is selling.  He still has the same 513,000 shares in the Asia Fund for the last two years ending June 30th, so where are you guys getting your information from?  Too many presumptions about why managers are selling without knowing the facts!

 

There was some discussion about Tim selling part of his Rainmaker stake a while ago, but no one knows exactly why, so some posters came to certain erroneous conclusions.  When you assume, you know what that means, correct? 

 

Don't guess about why managers are buying or selling.  You have no idea if it is because the thesis has changed, or they are selling for tax losses, or selling to other entities to get them involved, or simply selling because they may want to retain liquidity or are facing some redemptions.  Guess work is not analysis!  Cheers!

 

A couple of years ago chou sold from almost 800,000 shares to his current position. That's what someone wrote -- but then i think it passed down the grapevine and info was lost in translation.