Jump to content

Palantir

Member
  • Posts

    2,628
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Palantir

  1. You are laying out cash to buy a business to get more cash from business in future.

     

     

    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

  2. You are laying out cash to buy a business to get more cash from business in future.

     

     

    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...

  3.  

    The awkwardness of being rich and cash pouring in has a second order problem. Especially for the next guy. Buffett cares deeply about the attitude of shareholders towards that guy. It’s a tough job and Buffett would much rather take the brickbats now so that the next guy can be placed in a likable situation. For that to happen, the price has to stay below IV for a long enough time. Buffett is unlikely to do or say anything to not allow low prices. The shareholder friendly culture depends quite on a lot on the buyback runway to be long.

     

    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.

  4. For the entire duration since the intention of buying back was announced, the market had denied the opportunity to buyback by pricing the stock just about the threshold. That changed in 2018 and now the market is watching what Omaha does during the most recent 30-45 days. It is plausible that it would take another $5 B buyback quarter or two for the market pricing mechanism to gel. It makes a lot of sense to leave the market guessing by not showing clear or predictable intention. Buffett and his junior can always say that they were looking at an elephant when stepping off the gas. They need to buy for 10-20 years. It’s a high class problem and not any calamity at all. Few others have this problem.

     

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

  5. 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?

  6. 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?

  7. http://www.wsj.com/articles/democrats-deplorable-emails-1473981664

     

    How much to buy an ambassadorship? The answer is in the latest hacked messages.

     

    "Of the top 57 cash cows 18 ended up with ambassadorships. The largest fundraiser listed, Matthew Barzun, who drummed up $3.5 million for Mr. Obama’s first campaign, was named ambassador to Sweden and then ambassador to the United Kingdom. "

     

    Guys, this is an investing board, so let's put politics aside and discuss the return on investments of these donations. I can't seem to find the salary and other monetary benefits being a Sweden ambassador. But if i expect a 20% annual return and I put down $3.5 million, I'd have to get back 7-8 million after 4 years to justify it.

     

    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)

  8. 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".

  9. You guys should read Sharyl Aktisonn's book "Stone Walled". She got an award reporting Benghazi.

     

    1. Stevens asked the state department multiple times to increase security. Instead his security team was pulled.

    2. There is a 24/7 on call security team in the US. When this attack happened, they wrapped up and sat in their planes for many hours, waiting for the president's order to take off. But they never got the order.

    3. There is a team in Italy who could have flown to Benghazi in 2 hours. They never got the order.

    4. After the attack, Obama refused to call it terrorist attack until 14 days later. However in the 2012 presidential debate Obama insisted that he started calling it terrorist attack on the next day of the attack.

    5. Hillary blamed Stevens for being reckless and not reporting all his travel plans. That's another lie.

     

    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

  10. Hate to defend Hillary but she is a known commodity. No matter what you guys think, nothing has come out of Benghazi.

     

    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.

  11. Hate to defend Hillary but she is a known commodity. No matter what you guys think, nothing has come out of Benghazi.

     

    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.

  12. The award winning reporter Sharyl Akitsonn wrote a book "stone walled" and it mentioned Benghazi many times. It is a appalling how it was mishandled.

     

    When I see how Obama is busy on the golf course while LA was heavily flooded this year, I know he is incapable of handling Benghazi.

     

    Obama and Clinton did nothing wrong in handling Benghazi, apart from blaming it on the video (that I admit they screwed up). Both were FAR removed from the situation. That's why multiple congressional investigations found nothing, and nobody outside of Fox News takes it seriously.

  13.  

    I don't think you should be very reassured by 538's analysis. Over the years he has become increasingly lazy with his work. Even when he's at his best his statistical methods aren't exactly top-notch.

     

    Clinton being replaced ASAP is the best thing that could happen to this country. Almost anybody that would be acceptable to the major factions in the Democratic party should do far better in the election than her. She's the Democrat's Jeb Bush, only the Democrat's actually had the power to push her through to the nomination despite nobody outside of the party's core really wanting her.

     

    I don't disagree that HRC is a weak candidate the base is unenthusiastic about. She should have been very beatable. IMO any prominent Democrat would have been good. Then again, when it's between her and Trump...

  14. Clinton is going to release more medical information this week.

     

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/clinton-aide-says-we-could-have-done-better-amid-criticism-over-health-disclosures/2016/09/12/58883a50-78f2-11e6-bd86-b7bbd53d2b5d_story.html

     

    Compare that to the lying traitor who hasn't released his tax returns. I'll bet there is a lot of incriminating stuff in those returns.

     

    I mean, objectively she has trapped herself badly. Which fence-sitters are going to actually believe that release at this point? Since they opted for cover-up on multiple occasions now, there is ample reason to actually believe that what is eventually released is just new political spin. They have no leg to stand on against the conspiracy theories and it's all their own fault.

     

    She really is in dire straits. This week could feature a trickle of progressively more important democrats voicing the possibility of a replacement. If the first trial balloons take off she could be done for. They really need to get in front of that, but it's hard to see how they will be able to do so effectively. The longer they wait, the harder it will be to promote a replacement too, so some alerted people may panic and undermine her publically in order to force her hand.

     

    Interesting times.

     

    http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo

  15. This thread is brutally funny. She deserves to go to prison.

     

    Why? It's better to be optimistic about these things than pessimistic; even if you get a lot of zeroes you also hit crazy multibaggers part of the time. Obviously Theranos isn't public, but the same principle applies.

     

    Doubters and minor-league thinkers don't really accomplish anything. People like Elizabeth Holmes are the ones who move the world forward, for better or worse.

     

    These comments are why this thread is funny. Committing fraud, lying, and endangering people's health along is how we move the world forward? She is a psychopath with delusions of grandeur who fooled millions of people, and looks like she is still doing it. The Bernie Madoff of startups.

     

    How did she endanger people's health? It sounds like she was using competitors tests for the vast majority of her company's results.

     

    You're probably one of those guys who think of Martin Shkreli and Valeant as bad guys as opposed to the national heroes they are. Typical liberals!

     

    Now I'm very confused.

  16. This thread is brutally funny. She deserves to go to prison.

     

    Why? It's better to be optimistic about these things than pessimistic; even if you get a lot of zeroes you also hit crazy multibaggers part of the time. Obviously Theranos isn't public, but the same principle applies.

     

    Doubters and minor-league thinkers don't really accomplish anything. People like Elizabeth Holmes are the ones who move the world forward, for better or worse.

     

    These comments are why this thread is funny. Committing fraud, lying, and endangering people's health along is how we move the world forward? She is a psychopath with delusions of grandeur who fooled millions of people, and looks like she is still doing it. The Bernie Madoff of startups.

×
×
  • Create New...