LMCA - Liberty Media

[giofranchi]

I know Softbank quite well and frankly it shares a lot of qualities to Liberty Media.

 

One thing: if I am right about Liberty Media, it will never get to a $76 billion market capitalization. In this regard Malone differs much from Buffett. His favorite holding period is definitely not “forever”. He goes where he sees the most value. Develops all the potential for growth he sees. Then spins-off. Keeping what I call “the mother-vehicle” (Liberty Media) relatively small. Imo this allows him to always find new bargains, that move the needle significantly for Liberty Media shareholders, with relative ease.

I cannot say if Softbank replicates this sort of business model, but a $76 billion market capitalization and a $120 billion NAV make me think it does not.

 

Gio

 

[Wilson-TPC]

Like I said in my two earlier posts, you have to understand how data is carried through the air to make an argument for streaming music. Please read Bronte Capital's latest blog for a brief introductory in spectrums and how congested the current landscape is.

 

Idk if you looked at how much streaming music takes in data usage, but it would be prudent to do so. And I've attached the ATT data plan. Please view for your forecasting pleasures.

 

[Wilson-TPC]

Speed and quality are below average. Did you take a look at data usage vs capacity?

 

Don't take what Masayoshi Son say and think that's the case with the carriers today. He says Sprint needs scale. No, they just really need better spectrums and more money. That's why T-Mobile is a good fit because it has the spectrums they so DESPARATELY need, low frequency second tiered spectrums.

 

There's a limited amount of low frequency spectrums. Verizon owns majority of it. There's an abundance of high frequency spectrums. High frequency spectrums don't have the range this requires more capex buildout which will take time and costlier packages for more data.

 

Spectrums are like beachfront properties. Once you own it, too bad. No one else will get to touch it unless you sell. There's nothing T-Mobile and Sprint can do unless they build out a tower for each high frequency spectrum they use. Hello forever capex spending. Looks Verizon and ATT will keep laughing at their futile attempts.

[Picasso]

Is it possible that the low frequency spectrum will be more frequently used for voice while the high frequency which can hold the capacity is used for data?  I don't know how carriers differentiate this if at all.

 

Otherwise you will end up with a situation where you waste the resource of low frequency for data hogging tasks to a point where costs for data plans will go up, not down.  The data capacity issue seems like it would be much less of an issue if you used the high frequency spectrum.

 

Obviously others know more about it than I do, but it seems like carriers will have no choice but to run up capex on the less desirable frequencies unless we want $1000 monthly data plans in 20 years from now.

 

Sirius has a high class problem of hitting about $2 billion of EBITDA in 2018 so I hope I don't come off as a bear on the stock.  I was highlighting a headwind that seems likely to occur.  You seem to understand this pretty well, I wonder if other SIRI or LMCA shareholders understand it as well as you do.

[giofranchi]

You seem to understand this pretty well, I wonder if other SIRI or LMCA shareholders understand it as well as you do.

 

I don't. Neither I need to: the beauty of partnering with the best entrepreneur out there! ;)

 

Gio

[Picasso]

You seem to understand this pretty well, I wonder if other SIRI or LMCA shareholders understand it as well as you do.

 

I don't. Neither I need to: the beauty of partnering with the best entrepreneur out there! ;)

 

Gio

 

Yeah Malone and Maffei are pretty damn good.  I owned LMCA in the past but sold it as it traded close to NAV about a month ago.  The long-term returns in the stock will be driven by the cash flows but I decided I wanted to own it at a larger discount given the risks I thought were present.

 

Maffei seemed pretty cocky in his last interview so maybe there are no risks.  ;D

[Wilson-TPC]

Is it possible that the low frequency spectrum will be more frequently used for voice while the high frequency which can hold the capacity is used for data?  I don't know how carriers differentiate this if at all.

 

Otherwise you will end up with a situation where you waste the resource of low frequency for data hogging tasks to a point where costs for data plans will go up, not down.  The data capacity issue seems like it would be much less of an issue if you used the high frequency spectrum.

 

Obviously others know more about it than I do, but it seems like carriers will have no choice but to run up capex on the less desirable frequencies unless we want $1000 monthly data plans in 20 years from now.

 

Sirius has a high class problem of hitting about $2 billion of EBITDA in 2018 so I hope I don't come off as a bear on the stock.  I was highlighting a headwind that seems likely to occur.  You seem to understand this pretty well, I wonder if other SIRI or LMCA shareholders understand it as well as you do.

 

The reason why it's called a low frequency spectrum is because it's ability to travel the distance it's frequency allows.

 

The lower the frequency the more distance it can travel but the lower the information (e.g data).

 

The higher the frequency, the shorter the distance, but the higher the information

 

Radio uses an extremely low frequency, but the amount of info is limited. Data unfortunately requires higher power capacity and due to the nature of where people drive with their cars, carriers will be required to allow cars to use low frequency spectrums which are in HIGH demand. Thus why I'm extremely skeptical of cheap pricing in cars.

 

The only way carriers can use high frequency spectrums in more areas require more towers built which will take a long long time.

 

If you model out SIRIUS, which I have spent an insane amount of time on. I used 14 million new car sales and a 70% penetration ratio with a 42% conversion rate. Assuming 1.8% churn, and no net new adds from used cars which is still in its infancy as it contributed 1 million sub adds in 2013. I arrive at 1.95 billion at 2016. It will easily surpass 2 billion by 2018. Cars enabled with SIRIUS XM will grow to approximately 107 million by 2018.

 

 

[Picasso]

Is it possible that the low frequency spectrum will be more frequently used for voice while the high frequency which can hold the capacity is used for data?  I don't know how carriers differentiate this if at all.

 

Otherwise you will end up with a situation where you waste the resource of low frequency for data hogging tasks to a point where costs for data plans will go up, not down.  The data capacity issue seems like it would be much less of an issue if you used the high frequency spectrum.

 

Obviously others know more about it than I do, but it seems like carriers will have no choice but to run up capex on the less desirable frequencies unless we want $1000 monthly data plans in 20 years from now.

 

Sirius has a high class problem of hitting about $2 billion of EBITDA in 2018 so I hope I don't come off as a bear on the stock.  I was highlighting a headwind that seems likely to occur.  You seem to understand this pretty well, I wonder if other SIRI or LMCA shareholders understand it as well as you do.

 

The reason why it's called a low frequency spectrum is because it's ability to travel the distance it's frequency allows.

 

The lower the frequency the more distance it can travel but the lower the information (e.g data).

 

The higher the frequency, the shorter the distance, but the higher the information

 

Radio uses an extremely low frequency, but the amount of info is limited. Data unfortunately requires higher power capacity and due to the nature of where people drive with their cars, carriers will be required to allow cars to use low frequency spectrums which are in HIGH demand. Thus why I'm extremely skeptical of cheap pricing in cars.

 

The only way carriers can use high frequency spectrums in more areas require more towers built which will take a long long time.

 

If you model out SIRIUS, which I have spent an insane amount of time on. I used 14 million new car sales and a 70% penetration ratio with a 42% conversion rate. Assuming 1.8% churn, and no net new adds from used cars which is still in its infancy as it contributed 1 million sub adds in 2013. I arrive at 1.95 billion at 2016. It will easily surpass 2 billion by 2018. Cars enabled with SIRIUS XM will grow to approximately 107 million by 2018.

 

Makes sense to me.  I think your case is more substantial than my worry about internet radio. 

 

If the churn moves higher than 1.8% to say 5%, how much of an impact does it have on your EBITDA estimate?

 

And if that is the case would it not be better to buy SIRI directly versus through LMCA?

[Wilson-TPC]

If churn reached 5% at the current sub levels. Then I'm afraid, all SIRIUS XM shareholders are doomed.

 

First and foremost, we need to understand what's contributing to the churn. If you look at historical churn, evidences have indicated that for self paid subs, the only reason they've left is because of a switch in cars and less than 10% is due to dissatisfaction with the product.

 

If you try out the product, and try and cancel, SIRIUS requires you to call in. And if you call in l, the customer service rep will entice you into a new sub program. The retention department does an excellent job keeping you, as most of their bonuses are based on how well they can keep customers.

 

Buying Siri vs LMCA depends on your time horizon. According to my math, by 2018. It will own 87% of Sirius XM, and imo LMCA will make an offer for the remaining 13% which is going to be very cheap for LMCA. If SIRIUS XM stays depressed and I assumed a 25% price appreciation for SIRIUS XM stock, and assuming only 10% price appreciation. By 2018, LMCA will own 97% of Sirius XM.

 

With these numbers, it's evident that LMCA is much much more attractive than SIRIUS XM. As LMCA will be able to buyback it's shares at the exact same time SIRIUS XM is.

 

One last note, if you pass the 80% ownership, LMCA will have access to SIRIUS XM's cash flows.

 

 

[Wilson-TPC]

Just fyi, churn has never passed 2% in any given year even in 2009.

 

Lastly, play with music streaming on Verizon's data management page.

 

15 minutes of streaming music a day requires 450 mb. Which means that my math on average cost would actually be substantially higher, but you can adjust the amount of minutes someone listens to per day.

 

https://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/splash/datacalculatorPopup.jsp

 

 

[merkhet]

I suspect that the question of choosing LMCA versus Sirius has more to do with expected returns than expected tax liabilities.

 

Sirius might compound its value by some CAGR higher than the mix of assets at LMCA before being bought into the fold by Liberty Media (likely stock-for-stock so no trigger of tax liabilities). Alternatively, Liberty Media has a lot of optionality, such as the Vivendi verdict, to use in terms of generating value. That's the real question facing an investor -- not tax liabilities.

 

Also, as others have pointed out, I put a big fat zero on the value of a lot of the non-publicly traded assets, so the 10% discount is likely understating things.

[giofranchi]

I decided I wanted to own it at a larger discount given the risks I thought were present.

 

I remember Buffett saying that it is almost impossible to overpay for the truly exceptional CEO… That’s why I buy and almost never sell. I just keep buying when I get the chance to increase my investment with the odds overwhelmingly in my favor. Meanwhile I try to generate and save as much cash as I can. That’s practically all I do.

And all I am comfortable doing… Based on BV or NAV I wouldn’t be able to choose when to invest in something like Fairfax, Liberty Media, Biglari Holdings, GreenlightRe, ThirdPointRe, etc., because, given their prospects for future growth, they all seem extremely cheap to me…

 

Gio

 

[prevalou]

An other point in favor of Sirius versus internet radio is programmation scale. With 21 m paying  subscribers , you can offer a very diversified program (sport for instance). Internet radios are numerous and  will eat at each other, unable to get scale.

[ItsAValueTrap]

An other point in favor of Sirius versus internet radio is programmation scale. With 21 m paying  subscribers , you can offer a very diversified program (sport for instance). Internet radios are numerous and  will eat at each other, unable to get scale.

Right on.  As a content distribution platform, that part of Sirius will be difficult to disrupt with technology.

[compoundinglife]

 

The reason why it's called a low frequency spectrum is because it's ability to travel the distance it's frequency allows.

 

The lower the frequency the more distance it can travel but the lower the information (e.g data).

 

The higher the frequency, the shorter the distance, but the higher the information

 

Radio uses an extremely low frequency, but the amount of info is limited. Data unfortunately requires higher power capacity and due to the nature of where people drive with their cars, carriers will be required to allow cars to use low frequency spectrums which are in HIGH demand. Thus why I'm extremely skeptical of cheap pricing in cars.

 

The only way carriers can use high frequency spectrums in more areas require more towers built which will take a long long time.

 

If you model out SIRIUS, which I have spent an insane amount of time on. I used 14 million new car sales and a 70% penetration ratio with a 42% conversion rate. Assuming 1.8% churn, and no net new adds from used cars which is still in its infancy as it contributed 1 million sub adds in 2013. I arrive at 1.95 billion at 2016. It will easily surpass 2 billion by 2018. Cars enabled with SIRIUS XM will grow to approximately 107 million by 2018.

 

 

 

In general I agree with your statements but there are some inaccuracies in there.

 

The reason its called lower frequency spectrum is because frequency refers to the frequency of oscillation of the electromagnetic radiation, when you transmit at lower frequencies you oscillate at a lower rate than when you transmit on higher frequencies. All other things being equal (transmit power, antenna gain etc…) transmissions on lower frequencies will travel farther than transmissions on higher frequencies.

 

  While it is true that on lower frequencies you can generally carry less information in aggregate, this is to the best of my understanding not a function of the frequency itself. Bandwidth does not change. For example a 10 kilohertz channel  (typical AM broadcast channel bandwidth) can carry the same amount of information regardless of the spectrum you are transmitting in. A channel of X bandwidth size can carry Y amount of data in 700mhz or 2.4Ghz. The difference is in the total amount of channels available in the slice of spectrum you are talking about. 

 

For example Broadcast AM is between somewhere around 500kHz and 1600kHz with channel size/bandwidth of 10kHz, you can have a little over 100 AM stations in that band even though it is very tiny (measured in kilohertz, not megahertz or gigahertz). Look at the broadcast FM band which ranges from 88Mhz to 108Mhz and you have about 100 channels but with a bandwidth of 200hz, twenty times the bandwidth per channel. You could use that channel size (200hz) in the AM broadcast band but you would only be able to fit 5 channels in it. This is more confused by the fact that AM and FM are actually types of modulation and not bands but because these bands in particular are generally referred to by the type modulation used on them. You could broadcast an FM signal in the AM broadcast band or vice versa if it was legal to do so.

 

One major issue with this as well is that the lower you go in the spectrum the more you have deal with noise on the spectrum. Due to the better propagation characteristics, the lower you go you the more you have to do deal with signals from other transmitters farther away and signals bouncing off various parts of the atmosphere. This was a big problem for broadcast AM radio, stations in other states far away could interfere with a local station you are trying to listen to.

 

This is why ultra high frequency and microwave bands are great for mobile line of sight applications. Because they don’t propagate as well you can have fine grain control over coverage area of the signal to have “cells” and reuse the same spectrum multiple times as long as you have architected your system and frequency allocation properly. Also because of the smaller wavelengths you can have much smaller high gain antennas.

 

The rub and the point you were making is this, more people listening to streaming music in their cars equates to either much more bandwidth or an increase in the amount of cell towers (more towers operating at a lower power) or a combination of both. Both of these are expensive.

 

Now lets think about this another way. Let’s say for a moment that every car on the road at any given time in the United States listens to some form broadcasted music in their car. If every car on the road in the US were doing this over the cellular network (lets say using pandora) then it would require a massive investment from the carriers to support this. Part of the reason is that when using things like pandora or streaming a radio station over the internet each individual listener is consuming bandwidth (both RF and Internet)  for their connection. In the Satellite radio model each listener is *listening* to a broadcast on a given frequency just like AM or FM radio. Sirius can support an infinite number of subscribers as long they scale their customer support and back end systems IT/IS systems to handle this huge amount of listeners at minimum additional cost. The satellite does not have a limit on the number of receivers that can listen to it. I suspect that if every car on the road in coverage of a cell tower streamed pandora at the same time that cell tower would quickly become useless, there is a lot that would need to happen to support this.

 

On top of that as satellite radio subs go up they can reduce prices, hell they could even offer a “free” package with a free device that only has advertising driven channels. They could even partner with pandora and offer some of the most popular pandora channels on satellite radio. I believe a 2GB data plan will give you around 15 hours of pandora, if that was all you did. That gets expensive quickly. 

 

[Wilson-TPC]

 

The reason why it's called a low frequency spectrum is because it's ability to travel the distance it's frequency allows.

 

The lower the frequency the more distance it can travel but the lower the information (e.g data).

 

The higher the frequency, the shorter the distance, but the higher the information

 

Radio uses an extremely low frequency, but the amount of info is limited. Data unfortunately requires higher power capacity and due to the nature of where people drive with their cars, carriers will be required to allow cars to use low frequency spectrums which are in HIGH demand. Thus why I'm extremely skeptical of cheap pricing in cars.

 

The only way carriers can use high frequency spectrums in more areas require more towers built which will take a long long time.

 

If you model out SIRIUS, which I have spent an insane amount of time on. I used 14 million new car sales and a 70% penetration ratio with a 42% conversion rate. Assuming 1.8% churn, and no net new adds from used cars which is still in its infancy as it contributed 1 million sub adds in 2013. I arrive at 1.95 billion at 2016. It will easily surpass 2 billion by 2018. Cars enabled with SIRIUS XM will grow to approximately 107 million by 2018.

 

 

 

In general I agree with your statements but there are some inaccuracies in there.

 

The reason its called lower frequency spectrum is because frequency refers to the frequency of oscillation of the electromagnetic radiation, when you transmit at lower frequencies you oscillate at a lower rate than when you transmit on higher frequencies. All other things being equal (transmit power, antenna gain etc…) transmissions on lower frequencies will travel farther than transmissions on higher frequencies.

 

  While it is true that on lower frequencies you can generally carry less information in aggregate, this is to the best of my understanding not a function of the frequency itself. Bandwidth does not change. For example a 10 kilohertz channel  (typical AM broadcast channel bandwidth) can carry the same amount of information regardless of the spectrum you are transmitting in. A channel of X bandwidth size can carry Y amount of data in 700mhz or 2.4Ghz. The difference is in the total amount of channels available in the slice of spectrum you are talking about. 

 

For example Broadcast AM is between somewhere around 500kHz and 1600kHz with channel size/bandwidth of 10kHz, you can have a little over 100 AM stations in that band even though it is very tiny (measured in kilohertz, not megahertz or gigahertz). Look at the broadcast FM band which ranges from 88Mhz to 108Mhz and you have about 100 channels but with a bandwidth of 200hz, twenty times the bandwidth per channel. You could use that channel size (200hz) in the AM broadcast band but you would only be able to fit 5 channels in it. This is more confused by the fact that AM and FM are actually types of modulation and not bands but because these bands in particular are generally referred to by the type modulation used on them. You could broadcast an FM signal in the AM broadcast band or vice versa if it was legal to do so.

 

One major issue with this as well is that the lower you go in the spectrum the more you have deal with noise on the spectrum. Due to the better propagation characteristics, the lower you go you the more you have to do deal with signals from other transmitters farther away and signals bouncing off various parts of the atmosphere. This was a big problem for broadcast AM radio, stations in other states far away could interfere with a local station you are trying to listen to.

 

This is why ultra high frequency and microwave bands are great for mobile line of sight applications. Because they don’t propagate as well you can have fine grain control over coverage area of the signal to have “cells” and reuse the same spectrum multiple times as long as you have architected your system and frequency allocation properly. Also because of the smaller wavelengths you can have much smaller high gain antennas.

 

The rub and the point you were making is this, more people listening to streaming music in their cars equates to either much more bandwidth or an increase in the amount of cell towers (more towers operating at a lower power) or a combination of both. Both of these are expensive.

 

Now lets think about this another way. Let’s say for a moment that every car on the road at any given time in the United States listens to some form broadcasted music in their car. If every car on the road in the US were doing this over the cellular network (lets say using pandora) then it would require a massive investment from the carriers to support this. Part of the reason is that when using things like pandora or streaming a radio station over the internet each individual listener is consuming bandwidth (both RF and Internet)  for their connection. In the Satellite radio model each listener is *listening* to a broadcast on a given frequency just like AM or FM radio. Sirius can support an infinite number of subscribers as long they scale their customer support and back end systems IT/IS systems to handle this huge amount of listeners at minimum additional cost. The satellite does not have a limit on the number of receivers that can listen to it. I suspect that if every car on the road in coverage of a cell tower streamed pandora at the same time that cell tower would quickly become useless, there is a lot that would need to happen to support this.

 

On top of that as satellite radio subs go up they can reduce prices, hell they could even offer a “free” package with a free device that only has advertising driven channels. They could even partner with pandora and offer some of the most popular pandora channels on satellite radio. I believe a 2GB data plan will give you around 15 hours of pandora, if that was all you did. That gets expensive quickly.

 

Thanks for the correction and elaborating further.

 

Conclusion: streaming music cost way too much.

[Liberty]

Lots of good points made above.

 

Here's another thing: Sirius XM can also go into on-demand streaming. They already have a streaming app for people who want to listen on their phone or at work, but they could add something closer to spotify for those who want to hear a certain track or artist right now, and either charge extra for it or roll it in their already very profitable package to make it stickier and give its subs fewer reasons to switch to something else.

[ItsAValueTrap]

Lots of good points made above.

 

Here's another thing: Sirius XM can also go into on-demand streaming. They already have a streaming app for people who want to listen on their phone or at work, but they could add something closer to spotify for those who want to hear a certain track or artist right now, and either charge extra for it or roll it in their already very profitable package to make it stickier and give its subs fewer reasons to switch to something else.

 

They already have an app.

 

http://www.siriusxm.ca/what-is-siriusxm/on-the-go/

[Wilson-TPC]

I suspect that the question of choosing LMCA versus Sirius has more to do with expected returns than expected tax liabilities.

 

Sirius might compound its value by some CAGR higher than the mix of assets at LMCA before being bought into the fold by Liberty Media (likely stock-for-stock so no trigger of tax liabilities). Alternatively, Liberty Media has a lot of optionality, such as the Vivendi verdict, to use in terms of generating value. That's the real question facing an investor -- not tax liabilities.

 

Also, as others have pointed out, I put a big fat zero on the value of a lot of the non-publicly traded assets, so the 10% discount is likely understating things.

 

I think a lot of people aren't factoring in a LMCA buyback.

 

Do the math here.

 

If sirius is dedicated to using all of its fcf to buyback. And LMCA buys back 10% of its shares over the next 2 years. You just got "more" of sirius, because buying back your own comp reduces the overall float, which means you "technically" own more of Sirius.

[merkhet]

I suspect that the question of choosing LMCA versus Sirius has more to do with expected returns than expected tax liabilities.

 

Sirius might compound its value by some CAGR higher than the mix of assets at LMCA before being bought into the fold by Liberty Media (likely stock-for-stock so no trigger of tax liabilities). Alternatively, Liberty Media has a lot of optionality, such as the Vivendi verdict, to use in terms of generating value. That's the real question facing an investor -- not tax liabilities.

 

Also, as others have pointed out, I put a big fat zero on the value of a lot of the non-publicly traded assets, so the 10% discount is likely understating things.

 

I think a lot of people aren't factoring in a LMCA buyback.

 

Do the math here.

 

If sirius is dedicated to using all of its fcf to buyback. And LMCA buys back 10% of its shares over the next 2 years. You just got "more" of sirius, because buying back your own comp reduces the overall float, which means you "technically" own more of Sirius.

 

Agreed. That's what I meant in terms of the optionality of the Vivendi judgment. They can use those proceeds for a buyback at the LMCA level.

 

That said, post-spinoff, Sirius will still only be about 80% of LMCA. That means that whatever boost you get from the LMCA buyback has to outpace the delta between having "another 20%" of Sirius vs. the performance of Live Nation and the possible drag of the other entities in the asset mix.

[Picasso]

Thanks for the commentary Wilson, it was helpful in better understanding SIRI.  My takeaway is that potentially higher churn rates are still a few years a way which gives an investor some comfort to monitor the situation.

 

It is also a bit unusual to still find a company growing double digits for several more years with good capital allocation.  Has anyone taken a closer look at the Canadian counterpart XSR?  There is a different capital allocation through dividends, but if the thesis is correct then you're looking at a very, very attractive dividend growth stock which can get a lot of attention in a low interest rate environment.  Perhaps I should start a separate thread on XSR so as to not derail LMCA.

[compoundinglife]

 

Thanks for the correction and elaborating further.

 

Conclusion: streaming music cost way too much.

 

Yes although I don't have a model to illustrate how much it will cost them but I think its safe to say whatever that cost is Sirius can compete with similar products/services at a big price advantage.

 

On a side note, I have sirius in my truck and this year we bought a new Mazda with integrated Sirius for my fiance. I enabled the Sirius free trial period that come with the car to see if she would use it. She does not use it so I did not add it to our plan. They have been very persistent about calling me to convert to a full time subscription. I ignored the calls/voicemails for a couple of weeks and finally answered the call to ask them to stop calling me. 

[Picasso]

 

Thanks for the correction and elaborating further.

 

Conclusion: streaming music cost way too much.

 

Yes although I don't have a model to illustrate how much it will cost them but I think its safe to say whatever that cost is Sirius can compete with similar products/services at a big price advantage.

 

On a side note, I have sirius in my truck and this year we bought a new Mazda with integrated Sirius for my fiance. I enabled the Sirius free trial period that come with the car to see if she would use it. She does not use it so I did not add it to our plan. They have been very persistent about calling me to convert to a full time subscription. I ignored the calls/voicemails for a couple of weeks and finally answered the call to ask them to stop calling me.

 

Same thing happened to me.  They offer a 6 month basic plan for $20 dollars if you ignore them enough.

[merkhet]

I'm rather amazed at how wide the discount has blown on LMCA.

[giofranchi]

I'm rather amazed at how wide the discount has blown on LMCA.

 

Actually, I am not “amazed”… rather, I am quite “annoyed”… For once that I have tried to time the market, I am getting immediately punished… I invested heavily in Liberty Media hoping the market would hold tight at least until the spin-off event… it was a matter of a few months, after the market had steadily climbed for more than 5 years… Of course, the market was destined to become fearful just before the spin-off! It would be hilarious, if not so vexing!!

 

Gio