Parsad

Well, Moynihan will have his chance. For now, I'm happy for him to build up to a fortress balance sheet. I just wish he were a bit more charismatic -- more Dimon-like. But that's a very small criticism. I think it was that lack of charisma that caused so many to miss the boat on BAC. They were all on the Pandit Love Boat! ;D Cheers!

Terrific article by Andy Xie! I couldn't agree more with his analysis, and I believe that at some point, this will be the trigger. Incidentally, doesn't Michael Burry have a huge bet on Japan's yen weakening as well, or am I mistaken on that? Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/46863460

Bloomberg discusses Netjet's China expansion. Cheers! http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-03-26/buffett-s-netjets-forms-china-venture-on-business-jet-demand.html

Peter emailed me and said while he appreciates the sentiment, please do not post about him. I told him to take a break for a few days and reconsider coming back. Cheers!

General information for anyone wondering: Peter Burke messaged me and said that he did not feel this forum was the right venue to express himself, and if I can terminate his account and delete all his posts. I did not boot him out, but obliged his request. Cheers!

CNBC article on housing. Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/46855457

I've changed the title, but why are you being an ass now?

I understand what Peter was trying to say. My point was that he didn't have to say it the way he did. He could have easily said "Sanj, I think the title may be misleading, because he actually didn't lose any money on the sale." I would not have uttered a word. Cheers!

How is that my definition? Icahn owned the stock...owned a ton of it...and then sold it because he lost the proxy fight. Now the company is making a fortune. Where exactly in that do you think your facetious comment fits in? where exactly did he "lose" money? he sold last year at about break even to his cost basis. now the stock is up. when you sell a stock and it later goes up, did you lose "big"? He probably took the proceeds of that sale and made money with it. I know that CI is part of the Cabal that is "out to get" Ostck and Fairfax, but I think the headline is something that would fit on Business Insider and not an investor board which aspires to big ideas. Well that's your problem. I've never said Icahn is part of any cabal. That's your paranoia! A few weeks ago, I posted an article on how John Paulsen sold all of his BAC stock before the recent rise. Do I have an axe to grind with Paulsen? No. I put the article on there because I thought it was interesting how a small movie studio is now making such a killing, and he was driving a proxy to remove management because he thought they were incompetent and incapable of increasing shareholder value. Now let me ask you since you seem so damn defensive of Icahn...was he wrong on management? Cheers!

How is that my definition? Icahn owned the stock...owned a ton of it...and then sold it because he lost the proxy fight. Now the company is making a fortune. Where exactly in that do you think your facetious comment fits in?

I would think that is pretty accurate Peter. Not too many well-known female analysts, and she was pretty smart and had a very good idea how to value Berkshire. Cheers!

That being said, I guess that means he made some money for his shareholders as well. Of course. And it won't be long before he is by far the largest shareholder. At that point, the name change would actually be suitable. ;D Maybe the compensation agreement should have come before the name change. Cheers!

Interesting NY Times article on Goldman, Copper River and Overstock.com. Cheers! http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/business/goldman-sachs-denies-claims-it-led-to-copper-rivers-demise.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&partner=yahoofinance

After the weekend debut of "The Hunger Games", Icahn missed out on huge profits - present and future! Cheers! http://www.cnbc.com/id/46848714

Prem brought Bill to our dinner last year, as well as the vice-chairman of KW, Mary Ricks! They met with shareholders and answered questions. Cheers!

Nope, I was right the first time. The bulk of the distributed gains in the previous years were mostly short-term. Still pretty darn good! Cheers!

Actually another correction...I took a look at the notes in the 2011 annual report, and the bulk of the distributed gains were long-term, not short-term. This guy gets better and better. Haven't looked at the other annual report notes yet. Stay tuned! Cheers!

Actually, I take part of that back. I just looked at his annual report again, and his unit value is after the distribution, so he actually did incredibly well. I think the article takes into account the distributions, thus the 40.5% annualized. But a good chunk of that would probably be short-term gains and the annualized return would be significantly lower than the reported 40.5%, but much higher than the 22.7% I calculated. They are very good returns, and as I said...definitely worth watching! Cheers!

It can make a huge difference depending on how much realized gains are passed onto the investors. On a pre-tax basis, the numbers will look very good, but on an after-tax basis the investor may end up paying alot of the gains in tax. It looks like they paid out a shitload of gains in 2010, 2011 and 1st half 2012...over 40% of the gains in 2010, over 35% in 2011 and nearly $4 a unit in just the 1st half of 2012. Compare that to someone who just bought and held FFH during the same period. On an after-tax basis, I don't think his investors did enormously better than in our U.S. fund during the same period since inception. Almost certain they did not do better than Allan Meecham's investors as well. Still, his numbers are good and he deserves to be watched. Cheers!

Am I mis-reading something between the article and annual reports? I actually get his annual return ending December 31, 2011 to be about 22.7% annualized since inception. Which is fantastic nonetheless, but markedly different than the 40.5% annualized the article states. His unit value ending December 31, 2011 was 28.74 and his opening unit value was 10.00 on November 9, 2006, so over roughly 5.15 years that works out to 22.7% annualized. Cheers!

Yup! There is a best manager every year in the media. Cheers! Those kind of returns in one of the most brutal 5 years in decades are impressive. Micheal Burry had similar returns after 5 years. I don't know how long one has to be a manager before he or she is officially good and not lucky but what would worry me as an investor in his fund is his Madoff-like secrecy. I wasn't picking on him. I was picking on the title of your thread! ;D Cheers!

Yup! There is a best manager every year in the media. Cheers!

Yes, this is something that I really need. I read so much on my iPhone. Apparently it will have a 4.6" retina screen and will be available in the 2nd quarter...I'm guessing 3rd, but that's what this article says. Cheers! http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/technology/mobile-technology/apple-orders-bigger-46-inch-screens-for-next-iphone-report/article2377639/

Hardincap, there is your answer. Bac has 12 per share of TBV and over 20 BV, once goodwill can be assumed ok. Rather than waiting for BAC to buy back shares, you can buy as many as you want at a price cheaper than BAC will ever get. you're missing my point. I WANT bac to buy back shares at these valuations alongside me. Would you rather they blow through capital to buy back shares or actually strengthen the business? Unless you plan on selling your shares shortly after, I would think you would prefer the latter if you are a long-term shareholder. It's a leveraged business that had serious issues just a year and a half ago. Everything is not ok. They are recovering and it will take another year to truly have a business that can compete head on with JPM and WFC. They are not in the same league right now, but will be if they continue to build capital. If they do what you are asking, then they are risking a step back if economic conditions deteriorate or litigation and losses are higher than provisioned. Cheers!

JPM does not have billions in litigation coming up, and their business is not going through a complete restructuring. BAC's turnaround is more than half-way done, but they need to drive earnings forward while dealing with the overhang of litigation and loan loss provisions from the previous leadership group. The more solid the balance sheet, the more confidence the markets have. Look at what one stress test did for them! Can you imagine if they plow right through 11% in Tier 1 Common before their main competitors? They added over one whole percent in the 4th quarter, so the cash flow and assets are there to get the job done. Once they hit that, the stock will move up and then they can spend their cash flows growing their business. Cheers!