Palantir

Not true. You are laying out cash to buy a business in the hopes that someone else will be willing to buy it from you at a much higher value. If the second part doesn’t happen then it didn’t work. You do not actually get the cash a business produces... Some one else will eventually buy it higher from you 100% of times if value of owner's earnings are higher than price you paid. Not necessarily, stocks can remain undervalued and under appreciated for a long time. If your stock reprices to IV in 6 months or 6 years makes a big difference. There are multiple variables at play

Not true. You are laying out cash to buy a business in the hopes that someone else will be willing to buy it from you at a much higher value. If the second part doesn’t happen then it didn’t work. You do not actually get the cash a business produces...

Larceny Wheated Bourbon

But why? If they wanted the gap between intrinsic value and prove to be realized, which they should, why would they want a long runway? They should close it as soon as possible.

But why play all these mindgames with the market when instead they can just simply announce and execute a massive buyback?

While I understand that WEB is focused on getting through this crisis instead of repurchasing shares, if they are unwilling to support the prices at these levels through a repurchase, doesn't that also imply that the premium to book value isn't that big? Either that or if he wants to hold additional liquidity, maybe book value may actually come down?

My question is - if there's diminishing institutional investor interest in these names, how can you have a position that's going to rerate upwards in terms of valuation? I don't dispute that these names are quantitatively cheap. But I would think that for good returns, you would want to be in a name that sees the potential for multiple expansion. What is the case for multiple expansion in energy?

What's the issue? Ambassadors have always been prominent donors or supporters regardless of who POTUS is or what party he belongs to. (Especially to the nice places or those that don't have important strategic value)

I was going to use my dry powder in this downturn, but Hillary gave me a stand down order.

A soldier is not just a "profession". A soldier is a member of his nation's military. Their status changes, not because they are on contract, but because they left the military, which makes them not soldiers. I don't know why this is so hard to grasp. Regardless of whether you carry a rifle, grenades, or operate predator drones, you are not a soldier if you are not in the military. The reality is you're trying to spin the story and lying. "Dead contractors" isn't as sexy to you as "Dead soldiers".

Muscleman - take a break from Fox News and Infowars pls.

Investor20, I'll read your whole post later. But as for your first sentence, no matter how you spin it, inconvenience, or whatever. The simple fact is that they were not soldiers period. They were civilian employees and contractors. Your statement was verifiably false and instead of accepting it you keep going on. That means there is no reasoning with you.

None of these claims are new yet you keep pushing them as revelations. But it's useful to get them consolidated in one place, so thanks for that. 1) This was not HRCs decision. 2) This is not quite accurate as O did order rescue teams. The air assets needed to be prepared and refueled before launching. From the US they wouldn't have arrived in time. (You can't park a C-17 in front of the embassy, you need to land at an airport and drive or fly there by helo). Same goes for assets based in Europe, need to be refueled and prepared. Remember, many air assets are tied up in the wars we are fighting. 3) Not true. 4) Regardless of what he called it. This came after the attack and would have no impact on saving lives. 5) See above

Nothing came out of Benghazi? a) An Ambassador got killed b) Several American soldiers got killed (Interesting you accuse HRC of lying, while you are either lying here, or simply aren't sure of the facts) c) American govt thought it is smart to leave their Embassy open when every other country knew it is a dangerous place and NOT one government kept their consulate open - yes they may have some people come and go, but not like US. Talk about judgement right there. Yes, he's right nothing came out of Benghazi. a) Hillary is not responsible for the death of Mr Stevens b) No soldiers were killed in Benghazi c) This was a security failure of the State Department, not a personal mistake made by HRC. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and while a tragedy, it doesn't mean the GOTUS is responsible. Shall we get into 9/11 and the failures of the administration to take AQ's activity seriously? No of course, not, because that is all hindsight, just like the Benghazi witch hunt. a) I guess, they are too higher ups, not responsible for anything that happens under them b) CIA operatives and former Navy seals are not soldiers? c) Not just a security failure, a terrible misjudgement. Every government knew to pull off. Even Red Cross knew to pull off. What made them stay? Is it not a decision at the highest level? Secretary of state not responsible? Funny, you conveniently redact evidence I provide so I have to repeat again: References: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/08/with-2-a-m-state-department-email-trove-82-percent-of-clinton-emails-now-released/ “Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an Al Queda-like group: .....” written on same night of attack by Hillary. Libya: Red Cross pulls out of Benghazi fearing attack; March 2011; Yet our government with tens of billions of dollars in intelligence budget does not know what Red Cross knows! http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-12767759 http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/world/article24738700.html "In contrast to the Americans, who remained in Benghazi, the British determined that the city was too dangerous and closed their offices." http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/16/trey-gowdy/trey-gowdy-says-we-were-last-flag-flying-benghazi/ "the United States wasn’t literally the last western entity in Benghazi -- though it was one of the last, operating a higher-profile and more permanent facility than the other nations that remained on the ground."" "For instance, Wood said he recalls Turkey having a presence in Benghazi -- "Amb. Stevens went to meet with Turkish diplomats there," he said — but he said the Turks tended to put people on the ground periodically and "for a specific reason." France, for its part, would "rent a villa and send their diplomats, then wrap it all up and leave no trace."" 1) Correct, Hillary and Obama were far removed from the situation on the ground on Benghazi. 2) Again, correct. The personnel killed were not soldiers but defense contractors and civilian security employees. 3) Everybody knew Libya was a dangerous place. However, the US had important objectives to accomplish and felt that required a presence. Even mr Stevens knew the risks. The strategic decision to stay in Libya is Clintons, not the tactical decisions about security.

Nothing came out of Benghazi? a) An Ambassador got killed b) Several American soldiers got killed (Interesting you accuse HRC of lying, while you are either lying here, or simply aren't sure of the facts) c) American govt thought it is smart to leave their Embassy open when every other country knew it is a dangerous place and NOT one government kept their consulate open - yes they may have some people come and go, but not like US. Talk about judgement right there. Yes, he's right nothing came out of Benghazi. a) Hillary is not responsible for the death of Mr Stevens b) No soldiers were killed in Benghazi c) This was a security failure of the State Department, not a personal mistake made by HRC. Benghazi was a terrorist attack, and while a tragedy, it doesn't mean the GOTUS is responsible. Shall we get into 9/11 and the failures of the administration to take AQ's activity seriously? No of course, not, because that is all hindsight, just like the Benghazi witch hunt.