Sunrider

Hmmm .. i defer to the experts but the arguments about inability to amend terms for classes of shares under Delaware law in combination with Treasury/FHA's assertion that it was just that (p. 19) seems new to me and would be yet another angle of attack in a Delaware case?

Agreed ,, off hand comment to what I saw as an off hand comment lol there are people here who actually think the wall is a good idea? amazing. The wall is a high ROE project. The illegals are costing the country a few billion dollars a year for the social benefits, in addition to crimes they bring in. Thought you didn’t get any benefits if you’re illegal? As to crime ... when has a wall ever stopped that? lets not go off topic on that. I noticed for most political views, either people believe that from the start or never. Spending countless hours debating never changes a person’s political view.

lol there are people here who actually think the wall is a good idea? amazing. The wall is a high ROE project. The illegals are costing the country a few billion dollars a year for the social benefits, in addition to crimes they bring in. Thought you didn’t get any benefits if you’re illegal? As to crime ... when has a wall ever stopped that?

Haha - dude, just because someone has a podcast doesn’t mean that they are impressive, successful, etc. etc. ... that’d be a pretty one-dimensional way of measuring the worth of a man. To your core question - it’s a business! (And as such it’s as much about marketing the business to get attention as it is about content - otherwise those listeners can’t be monetized for much.)

First thing that came up googling is them granting options to an IR firm .... classic stock pump scheme?

Indeed! Happy holidays :)

Chris, Merkhet, Rros - perhaps a moot point, but is there not a different angle here? This case argued (at least that’s what the judge writes) that the agency exceeded its authority because it did something that is not permitted under Delaware law and it assumed all responsibilities, etc. when it stepped in as conservator/liquidator. The judge dismisses this with reference to some other case that says that contravention of other legal schemes is not grounds for equitable relief. Is there not a more basic point that, i.e. could plaintiffs not simply argue that Delaware law was violated, independent of HERA/agency powers? I presume that would lead into a debate of primacy of federal vs. State law but it seems to me that this question can be settled without getting entangled with HERA, which seems all judges try to do their best to avoid (really odd for me as an outsider that they pretzel themselves to defer to congress, when they are meant to be a third leg of government). Thanks.

Only reading this quickly, but I think you’re mixing value assigned with price when you say after spin one share will be at $8 and one at $2, but your ratio was 1:10. OCC - it depends on the size and nature of what’s spun/Dividenden out.

Admittedly accounting was my worst subject (ever, I think).... however, if memory serves, if you buy back debt at a discount, you realise a gain on extinguishing the debt, this flows through the P&L (probably somewhere below the line), and thus into retained earnings (which in turn is part of capital). Am I wrong? Thanks. C.

Hi everyone Thank you all for your input - very valuable. It definitely would be a VC type investment, but I think for the risk, the return profile just isn’t there, even after the tax incentives here. Anyway, thank you all for your input. C.

Start by stopping gerrymandering - I read somewhere that some states apparently have gotten rid of that practice, so it can be done. The pendulum is simply swinging from one extreme to the other. When Obama crossed the lines to do all these controversial things, it takes Trump to go to the other extreme to correct it. It's not the opposite extreme - it's the same extreme by an opposing party. I tend to agree with Cherzeca. I hated it when Obama did it. I hate it when Trump does it. I hate 90% of the members of Congress, but I also don't know what can be done to fix the system. Congress is simply a reflection of the population - ultimately, the responsibility rests with the people since we're the ones who put these chumps in power.

Thank you all for your feedback - very useful!

Hi all I’m hoping to tap into the wisdom of this board. I’ve been offered a minority investment in a private fast food restaurant that was taken over from the original owners by two guys who have now nurtured it to just above break even, with a clear path to reasonable profitability (call it a 20% return on my investment over the next 12 - 18 months if they hit their numbers). The real pay-off would be by getting another funding round in the future for the next location(s) or starting a franchise. The valuation they want is basically about 2x sales and I was wondering if anyone here is able to share whether this is reasonable in a private market transaction and what it might look like in a public company setting. They say they can get the shop to 10% net margins (it’s largely take-away and delivery but also some limited seating). I have no idea how realistic that is in a food business, but if they were to run at 10% then 2x sales would be about 20x earnings, perhaps not too bad for a growing business. Note that I’m deliberately not talking about the kind of food, concept, etc. as I’m looking for input on valuation .. whether or not I’m comfortable with the rest is a separate matter. Oh, and this is in a large English speaking European city. Many thanks!

Prepackaged deal approved. I tendered my position, bought a few extra shares today. From the disclosure statement: Buy now at $1.87 and you should receive $2 in a few weeks (assuming your broker doesn't fuck things up). Looks decent. Ang idea what the "shareholder release form" entails? Is this simply like a corporate action (eg gender) where you tell your brokerage to tender? And, moreover, if I buy PERF.TEN today, will they automatically get swapped for $2.00 shortly?

Is that a serious question that you expect anyone on this board to have an answer to (an answer with some actual predictive value)?

Simple. If you’re working from the assumption that you own all of the GSE (or at least all of the profit already), then it’s a left pocket/right pocket argument. Rather than moving some from your right pocket to the left today, you decide to not do that so that tomorrow you don’t have to move it from left to right because you found the right pocket (GSEs) are empty. Of course, if you don’t believe in the premise, then you can see what’s going on. C.

I guess another way to look at this would be to put it as a proportion of the overall fund (ex. Cash) ... that should give a better view of conviction (albeit the figures will be influenced by price swings). I suspect conviction may have actually gone up, given shrinking fund size? C.

Definitely the fake media! There is no market drop, it's all fake news! Don't listen to your broker, he's lying, too!

Well a large cash position is a position to take advantage of convexity ... if you pull the trigger when the time comes! Big US banks? That may well be - with rising rates, prices near BV and ROEs ticking up, but it sort of feels like that's a play for another a few percent against a market backdrop where everything may be sold indiscriminately again (as I said up top, just not sure when). i've looked at long puts and vix vixens, and i dont like the pricing. i am more than 50% cash and waiting in my "conservative/wealth preservation" portfolio. i think we are in a shoe store, just dont know when they will start dropping.

Go long convexity. It's going to blow (just font know when) ... so long vol and long bets that pay on major drops. Interested: what do people here see as cheap ways to go long vol? Vxx calls seem expensive to me, even at strikes twice current prices on short maturities. C.

Thank you!

Given the Blackrock document - is there a case anywhere/has there been one/can there be one (i.e. not barred by some rubbish law somewhere) that challenges the entities being 'put' into conservatorship in the first place, given that the board was effectively bullied into this? Thanks!

Does motive not matter? Why didn't the guy point them to the newly released documents - he had a prime opportunity to rebut the guy going on about the death spiral - or do I have my dates wrong?

For those wondering where Sessions is - that's why I asked if anyone was worried about the Donald's volatility. AG is on the way out the door, Trump laying groundwork with his base in this respect on recent tweets - as too afraid of/annoyed with/whatever the Russia probe and wants to shut down Mueller. So bottom line, I think both the Donald and the AG have other things on their mind.

Hi All In light of the stimulating debate over in the other thread, where it appears that most agree that valuations are high (although not necessarily in a bubble), it strikes me that perhaps the more pertinent question is what will trigger the next correction? (Note: Whether that trigger then leads to a feedback loop with passives having to sell out, money leaving markets, more forced selling by ETFs due to withdrawals, etc. is a separate question. Same with the potential pressure from low-vol funds having to sell.) Thank you.