Packer16

I sit on a non-profit board & these numbers are incredible. For every $1 they raise 85% goes to non-program activities? Included in the program activities is the Clinton Library & Park (3rd largest cause). Packer

I do wonder whether these relationships break down at interest rate extremes. If not, then 50x earnings with rates at 2% is the equivalent of 33x earnings with rates at 3%, which seems a little crazy to me! And we all know that stocks wouldn't stay where they are if earnings dropped, say, a mere 30%. If you apply a 30% decline to current earnings you get an expected return on stocks of 5%, or an ERP of 3.6% pretty close to the average ERP of 4% over time. So the 30% is already factored into prices with no interest rate decline. IMO to reach an overvalued breaking point (ERP = 2% ala 2000) you we need both a 30% permanent decline in earnings and a 1.6% permanent increase in interest rates.

Where does the money go at 0% rates? Most of the stock declines in the past occurred when the earnings yield approached or was less than bond rates. We still have a long way to go if rates stay where they are. If it takes higher rates to cause declines then IMO we will be waiting a long time. The other way is for earnings to decline. How much will earnings have to decline? Now the 20 yr. treasury is at 2% & Damodaran's ERP is 5 - 6% so you have an equity expected return of 7 to 8%. So to equate these two yields, earnings would have to decline by over 70%. Do we think this is going to happen going forward? Packer

IMO the real question is where are long-term rates going. If they are what they are today, the stock market is undervalued, Buffett has said as much. If rates increase, then a nasty bear market is in store. If we look at history I am in the camp of lower for longer so I am not as concerned with a large bear market due to the fact that where is the money going to go and there is a good amount of fear in the market already based upon the relative value of stocks versus bonds. For example, the 20 yr TIPS are at rate of 0.5% and the ERP is close to 5 - 6% per Damodaran's data. This implies a P/E in the upper teens, where it is today. We will see. Packer

The markets are more efficient than in the past. This board itself is leading to a portion of that efficiency. It is tough to tell prospectively if some one is just having a dry spell or missed the target of outperformance. All I can say for my style of investing the past 6 months has been brutal. I have not underperformed the US averages in such a favorable environment for stocks since I started in 2000. I do have a large portion invested in non-US assets however. Packer

I think the fact set here is pretty sparce. "Chicago cop told me he can fix the crime situation in a month" -- Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues I am no expert here but what is being done is apparently not working & a cop had a suggestion to fix the situation & Trump listened and re-stated what he heard. How does this show Trump has Zero understanding of any policy, simplistic views on complex issues? I am not saying he does but there is not enough information here to say one or the other. Hiring Manafort without checking background and then letting him go --- Lack of judgement,easy to dupe Here again do we have enough information to make a call? When he was hired he was suppose to moderate Trump's rhetoric & that did not work. Trump's action was a good one once he saw Manafort was not improving Trump's prospects. His recent change of approach at least gives him a fighting chance. Insulting Khan's family, attacking Paul Ryan, McCain anyone who criticize him -- small ,can't take criticism. I agree these were mistakes & Trump said as much a few days ago in NC. He has been humbled by this & we will see if he will change. My question about Clinton is will she say she has made a mistake about having a server in her house rather than continue to blame Colin Powell and state the FBI said I did not do anything wrong. The question her IMO is who is willing to take responsibility and show humility vs. blame others when you make a mistake, this is playing out in real time. Tax returns ( This is the guy who asked Romney to release his) - Zero integrity,tell me there is something very damaging in the returns. I agree he should release them but again the data is not here to say if there is or is not damaging info in the returns. Comfortable with bigots, racists (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/28/us/politics/donald-trump-housing-race.html?_r=0) To use data from 1970s when times were different is a stretch. How many of his friends are racist now? Has his view changed? How many Hillary's friends from the 1970s were racist? Does that make her a racist? Does she call out the Black Panthers who support her? I think my main point is the lack of information to make these conclusions is large. This is a persuational game being played by both candidates with few facts supporting the implications. Scott Adams has documented this quite well in his blog if you are interested. Packer

My focus is actions not words. Words can change easily actions do not. As seen by Trumps changes in his words on issues like the Muslim ban do change over time. Actions have a tendency not to. Also, no one is looking at Clinton's words & actions which IMO are much more dangerous. Talk about no apology for statements by Trump to Khan about Khan's misunderstanding of Trump's words is one thing vs. denial of not doing anything wrong with classified information when that is clearly false. The impact on the US is minimal for the first but not the second. The triumph of the word manipulators over the actions of the candidates. Packer

I am surprised by the extrapolation some are making about Trump without evidence and even when contrary evidence is available ignoring it. For example, has anyone thought of his statements as conversation starting points which can be changed over time versus actual ending points. The focus is on words not actions. The train of thought is what someone says not what they do should disqualify them. They key assumption here is what they say they will do. However, as we all know with Mr. Trump, this in many case may not be the truth. I feel bad that the Khan's have been duped by Clinton et. al. into this. He appears to have jumped to the conclusion that Mr. Trump is a racist and hates Muslims, baited in part by the DNC. What I fund puzzling is that the original issue (temporary ban on Muslims entering the US has been changed to those from areas with high high terrorist activities) was changed to not specifically ban Muslims (the original issue) but the manipulators continue with their Crusade. This is the same thing the DNC has done with other groups to win there favor so it should be no surprise. He is a patriotic man as his son gave the ultimate price but the Clinton's think folks will give him a "free pass" on his political views because of his sacrifice. Similar to the "free pass" that they use based upon past abuses of minorities and women in the US to gain support. If you look at this and other situations as Clinton and the DNC being the manipulators you can see that the danger is not with Trump and his mouth (everyone can see this) but with Clinton and her manipulation (which appears covert). The Russia situation is another case in point. Do you seriously think the Russians are more likely to hack because of Mr. Trump's statements? Do his statements about having fair negotiations with our allies make it worse? In the manipulative mind of the Clinton's it does. I would rather deal with the loud mouth I can see (and who has changed his positions favorably, like the temporary Muslim ban to temporary regional ban) versus the manipulator I cannot and who has not changed but manipulates the situation. One question I have about all the list items folks have as negative about Trump, what evidence do you have that any action was taken back up the offensive statements? This is where the Nazi comparison falls apart. Do not others use these words in a similar fashion that you would not call racist? folks like comedians? The other missing piece is a comparison and contrast between Mr. Trump & Clinton which is what IMO should be done. Rather just a test with the criteria manipulated by Clinton to disqualify Trump. This is just shades of the democratic nomination all over again. You can not approve of Trump's comments and still find the weight of evidence of him versus Mrs. Clinton tipping in his favor. Packer

I agree on an absolute basis both of the candidates would be disqualified. What in your mind makes Clinton more fit be POTUS than Trump? I see her as bad as Trump but worse as she has rigged the Democratic primary (Trump at least did not do that) and then spread false statements (which the press ran with) that somehow Putin supported Trump. I got the distinct feeling she is deflecting the examining of her record by making stuff up and stooping to Trumps level when it comes to inuendo. I am more concerned about her actions than her words which have real consequences versus Trump whose words appear strange but his actions are more reasoned. Packer

Once again there are other possibilities that folks are not thinking through. You need to know the context. Could not Trump have a letter stating what he said that was not sent to him? So again there is speculation. I know Trump has POd the press so maybe they are giving him a hard time and the Clinton campaign is stirring the pot with allegations that Trump is supported by Putin with no facts. Lets see where the facts go versus speculating about the story the press is feeding us. My major point is if you look at some of the press allegations about Trump they are based upon speculation and a narrative they are trying to weave not facts. I am pointing out cases where it is based upon speculation. As to taking Trump's side versus the press, I am taking no one's side just not rushing to judgement without the facts and context. If the group said they did not send Trump an invitation you would be correct but there is no data stating that is the case so why even say that it appears that no invitation was sent if you are an objective facts only reporter? Packer

This is why I am skeptical of the press reporting anything. If you read the article is says it appears that the group did not provide an invitation but later said the group would not respond to the direct question of whether an invitation was given. No direct facts but speculation. Call me from Missouri but I see there is as much possibility of Trump being right versus what the article appears to imply. Packer

I do agree that Trump is probably one of the most narcissistic candidates we have but the question what is worse a narcissist or some one whose words or actions cannot be trusted? It is truly a choice between the two worse candidates from either party. Packer

I have a contrarian streak so I try perform second level thinking in my decision making and look for third-party evidence versus what I am spoon fed by each of the campaigns. Also, BTW other good second level thinkers like Wilbur Ross and Carl Icahn also have the same opinion. Not that they are the reason I would vote for Trump but just like any good value investor cloner, when one of these guys expresses an opinion it is worth listening to. I would ask the question in reverse, what makes you think you know what Clinton would do versus Trump? With Trump you know the where he stands. You also know he is doing this as a part of a negotiating position (again similar to Reagan with the USSR). With Clinton you have no idea and you know that her and Obama's record on negotiation on anything is really poor. Look at the TPP, S.Korean trade deal and Iran. We lost in all those deals. IMO their whole perception of the GOP being a larger enemy than Iran and other foreign hostile countries baffles me. I pretty sure most politicians are narcissists. The question is to what degree. One of the key signs I look for is how personal does someone take an insult. Obama had was pretty hurt and lashed out quite bit early on. Remember the quote "we won the election and elections have consequences" that he retorted to Paul Ryan. Shortly thereafter there was an election and he did not want to live with the consequences so he tried to go around Congress with executive actions. Also if you remember early in his Presidency he surrounded himself with historians to see if he could make himself a great President. That is the evidence I have about Obama. I also watch their actions versus their words, as words are cheap but actions tell you where their hearts are. Mrs. Clinton was paid pretty well for her "public service". The choice we have before us is not optimal and there is alot of first level thinking going on in the press. An example is the whole Russian breaking into the DNC and the reaction by Trump. Who thinks because Trump said what he said the probability of a break-in is higher. The Russians are going to this independent of what Trump says. I think there is logic to both sides of the support for Trump so each person has to examine the independent data and make their decision as we do for each of the stocks we own. Packer

You are correct in that the approach of Reagan is different than Trump and Trump is more of a narcissist than Reagan but the strategy which worked is the same. I see Trump closer to Obama in narcissism but I think like Wilbur Ross that his strategy will work versus the alternative. I would have preferred Marco Rubio or John Kasich to message this strategy. I dislike Trumps approach but for three of the major issues it appears he has the best strategy. So my alternative is to let the status quo prevail (do not vote) or vote for his approach on these three key issues. Since I am typical American (our genius is compromise), I will vote for his approach on these key areas and rely on our de centralization of political power in the US system to neutralize the negatives he brings to table. Packer

I never said and not many think Trump is the answer to societies problems but there are few important areas where his approach (like Ronald Reagan in the cold war) can make a difference. The results of the trade deals is one & the terrorist threat is another & immigration the third. Each of these areas has a common thread poor negotiating tactics by the US. That is Trump's strength. The first stage is developing a credible position so your opponent will believe you will do something damaging then use that as negotiating leverage. You appear to think the rest of the world runs the show and can dictate terms (just like the Dems thought about the USSR in the Carter era) but the truth is the opposite. Access to the US market is very valuable and some have given access away as though it has little value. Given the job loss data we have been hosed by other countries (treated like a chump) and have done nothing to stop it. So the alternatives are to try something new or keep the status quo. The status quo will kills over time & IMO is one reason for slow growth from the great recession. As for immigration, the US is only country in the world that allows immigration based upon family relationships versus how much money/skills you are bringing to the country. This is another negotiating point that we need to use. If we want to keep the family based system, then we need add some conditions to make it more competitive the other parts of the world and add rules to prevent the free loader problem with such as system. You may not like Trump's suggestions but there are no alternative suggestions to deal with the freeloader issue. The other view is let the free loaders in as long as the net effect is still positive which does nothing to address the issue. One additional item I think is cultural differences. Many Americans are skeptics and rebels by nature. Being different is looked upon as a positive attribute in most of America and not in many parts of the rest of the world. So when you get a guy like Trump or Reagan, many non-Americans think the guy is nuts because there approach is unconventional. Also, folks outside the US accept for the most part what the press reports but in large portions of the US this is not true. An example is the impression that Trump is racist, sexist and anti-immigrant. If you look at his actions you can clearly see this is not true. He is married to an immigrant and has had women in high-level roles in his organization way before others. You can make the case he is against the freeloaders who take advantage of the system and wants portray an image of enforcing US immigration laws but what is wring with that? He also is willing to attack the press when they distort what he says where others will manipulate the press versus directly attacking. Packer

An interesting perspective on trade deals and negotiations: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/29/we-need-a-tough-negotiator-like-trump-to-fix-us-trade-policy-commentary.html This IMO is the tangible reason I support Trump despite his numerous flaws as a candidate. No one else has a reasonable strategy to deal with trade. He is using Ronald Reagan cold war strategies (walk softly but carry a big stick) in trade that others are afraid to use. Packer

The only other flow you need to account for is the hold co expenses. If these are significant, then this leakage can have an impact on valuation if the management cannot be changed. Packer

Part of the branch demand is where you operate. In small to mid-sized communities, branches are key to developing and keeping relationships but in large metros they are more folks used to using on-line options and real estate is more expensive. In Upstate NY, the more rural banks are expanding branches. Packer

Happy Birthday to the one who began the CoBF odyssey. Packer

I think if you examine the wealth created not re-distributed by Trump vs Clinton you will see Trump wins by a country mile. What some seemed to be focused on is the re-distribution part which is fine if you have wealth to be re-distributed. But IMO the government is focused on re-distribution as opposed to growing the pie to re-distribute. Now both Gates/Buffett have done both created and re-distributed wealth. Trump has done some re-distribution but not as much as Gates/Buffett. However, to have 2 presidents in a row that are light on business experience and big on activist government can lead to consequences which hurt growth. An example is the gov't decision to remove coal from our energy mix. If they make that decision that is fine but they then they have no relief for the folks hurt by the decision. This IMO is more of what you will get under Clinton. The trade/illegal immigration deals are the same train of thought & if you are against any of these policies you are considered any enemy worse than ISIS (based upon the amount of rhetoric that is spent on attacking you versus ISIS. This approach will not change under Clinton & only get worse. With Trump you have a chance to change this endless blame game as he is focused on getting things done versus being right. His business experience is invaluable here as if he insisted on being right versus getting things done his business would be a failure. To say that Bush and Hoover were businessmen is a stretch. They were pols just like most other presidents, just look at the jobs they held throughout their lives. I am just surprised at how some have opinions based upon what is fed to them by the press versus examining the facts. What the NY Times article forgets to mention is that AC casinos have all had problems and I do not think Trumps are any different. It also compared Trump's AC only casino company to more broadly diversified casino firms & said his firm failed while others did not. This is like comparing apples & oranges but not mentioned by the reporter. He put alot of debt on them and I am sure he lost alot in these bankruptcies also. What the article appears to imply is that Trump took advantage of investors who invested in Trump casinos. The investors knew who he was and also what can happen in bankruptcy. The article also shows a lack of understanding of bankruptcy in that the process is not do what is "right" but to do what needs to be done re-organize the company. Packer

How many hate mongering things are coming out of his mouth versus a liberals press' view that what he says has "code words" and they will interpret these words for you. This PC reached its climax when Clinton stated that make America great again was code for taking people's rights away. From what I see there is more anti-Trump demonstrations creating violence than pro-Trump supporters. I hold the press and progressive groups as much if not more responsible for the violence than pro-Trump groups. Trump is the first politician since Reagan to stand-up to the Progressive mafia & they do not like it. Packer

As to suits many can sue but it sounds like only one of the three suits resulted in a fine. Also cherry picking advisors and going after there weaknesses is pretty weak also. I have no doubt Hillary has advisors who similarly dubious backgrounds. She herself, not one of her advisors, is being investigated over the classified e-mails. One real test is who has created more jobs & wealth. Trump has done this in spades. If it was up to me I would not have chosen Trump I voted for Kasich but given the choice between Clinton & Trump, I would take Trump hands down. The more fear mongering the Dems the more desperate they appear. The other question you need to ask yourself do you want the status quo or do you want the government to provide a service and get something done. Who do you think would get the most deals done, the guy who does it for a living or the gal whose worked in the government and uses identity politics to get elected? We have tried the later and the only time he could get things done was when his party controlled Congress. As to trusting what Trump vs. what Clinton says I think you can trust neither. So, in my mind it is not a absolute standard that I measure Trump against (he would be very lacking & I chose Kasich over him in that contest) but a relative one against Clinton. Packer

I think most folks who are fearful of Trump do not understand how he uses his rhetoric. He is using it as an initial negotiating position (knowing the result will end up somewhere away from his position) and starting point for action versus talk. They also buy into the media's echo chamber and listen to what the media & Dems say about Trump versus looking at the man's actions. If you look at Trump's actions you will see that many of the accusations against him are false the actions of a desperate party that has little else to run on. For example, Trump is a racist. What actions not rhetoric used a starting point for negotiations do you have to prove this? He makes some statements that are negotiating positions to his opposition on the issues of illegal immigration and better border enforcement and better screening of folks from a region of the world where there are known terrorist who are trying to enter the US. These statements will get action going on these issues versus the status quo. Is there proof that Donald Trump discriminates against black, Mexicans or any other race in his business? If there was you would certainly hear about it. To be a good businessman and get things done you need to compromise and he has done that in business versus most pols who just talk about compromise. Why would he change to be a racist as president if he is not that way in business or his personal life? What about Hillary? I think she more of a demagogue than Trump in that the main rationale she gives to vote for her is she is a woman, what a joke. Talk about a sexist attitude. What about her cold and heartless attitude to those in Coal country? Her program (supposedly her specialty) is provide them clean energy job? With trillions the government spends & this is the base she can come up with? Could you not make a case that she is discriminating against those country folk? I think the biggest type of acceptable -ism is elitism of city folk for county folk and guess who has largest block of anti-elitist voters (Mr. Trump). Packer

LEO satellites are not a good business IMO due to the large number of satellites and expenses associated with keeping these constellations aloft. The main communications competitors are the terrestrial cell phone firms who cover the densely populated areas (where the highest returns can be found). IMO the satellite solutions are solution looking for a problem to solve and thus all of these firms have gone BK at least once in the past. Even ORBC (who is best of the bunch) has an EBITDA margin less than 20% which IMO shows how disadvantaged these firms are versus wireless competitors. Packer

I agree to growth potential may have declined but just as terrestrial technology has increased, satellites will also. The Intelsat 20-F describes some of the changes in the new satellites. IMO they key to a good business versus an average one is lack of competition. I see this in satellites and not with terrestrial communications. Although satellite communications will not grow as the same speed as terrestrial communications services, the lack of competition will provide much higher margins, 70s to 80s versus 20s or lower for faster growing terrestrial players in competitive markets. Packer