IceCreamMan

You provided a good answer in your question: See's wants to protect its brand. Letters from Buffett to See's president to this effect are on the 'net.

Thanks for the response. I see what you mean, but it still looks to me like finding technical loopholes to evade securities regulation. Agree on continuing in a crypto thread.

Maybe the Securities Act only applies to businesses, not Ponzi schemes. One possible explanation.

Is anyone else surprised that the SEC hasn't enforced the Securities Act? (You had ONE job...)

Mr. Munger, is that you?

THRY At 6-15x SaaS revenue, THRY is worth $30-76 today, and SaaS revenue is growing fast. If growth continues and the stock re-rates, $50/sh seems reasonable. Posted more detail on the THRY thread.

What's the problem with the user base?

And your portfolio would still be 30% cash.

You mean on top of 100% long portfolio, right? i.e. 100% long + 30% notional long calls funded by 30% notional short puts = 130% effective exposure?

Makes sense, however, what would we have predicted in January 2020 would happen to asset prices had we known about the upcoming lockdowns, etc?

You might find some closed-end funds doing this. Some of them target a particular distribution yield. If the securities portfolio doesn't yield enough, the excess distribution is a return of capital. You could look at a closed-end fund database and sort by highest yield as a place to look.

Something like this has happened to me with options at TD recently... something like: no fill at 1.13, no fill at 1.14, and then I bid 1.15 and it fills at 1.13.

It seems like you could compare the returns of your actual portfolio to the returns of a hypothetical portfolio in which cash is replaced by your actual stock holdings at proportional weights (or replaced with the previous portfolio when cash is 100%). An easier calculation might be to compare the S&P 500 to a hypothetical portfolio in which cash allocation is identical to your actual portfolio, but your stocks are replaced by the S&P 500. The difference would be attributable to market timing. However, unlike the first method, this wouldn't measure the timing of your specific investment decisions, e.g. selling a particular stock at an opportune time.

Interesting. It sounds like the speculative contagion was part of the original vision. "users"

I was just pointing out how it is not the same as putting in a limit order.