Gregmal

The problem with the strategy is that if the stock goes straight up, you just get 10c/ share. Plus you have to pay short term capital gain tax, and tie up the cash in the account until put is expired. Like Warren said, if you like the stock, just buy it. Eating like a chicken yet shitting like an elephant... Not my cup of tea.

There seemed to be plenty of optimism about new ad units being released. Could that explain the price jump? I was going to buy more this morning but decided to buy something else once GOOG jumped. Yea I had an order ready to go right before the close yesterday as 1120 seemed excessive. I ultimately convinced myself to hold off because I'd deployed a fair amount of cash elsewhere recently and todays move is what I get for being a pussy. Google I find tends to overreact often. More times than not it is to the downside but there is no reason to be buying a stock like this on a +4% day.

MPC is quite interesting from a value POV. Their cash flows that can be used for buybacks or dividends exceed their earnings due to the cash stream from the MLPs. Twas the toast of the town, best of breed, sector champion maybe a year ago...now its poo poo. I don't see much that has changed to warrant such sentiment shift.

I can't figure out how to make money with CRSP and EDIT but found the following useful as it covers (the basics) the playing field. https://www.cbinsights.com/research/what-is-crispr/ Thanks. Its tough, and really nobody knows for certain with anything in these fields, but its also something very unique and for me at least, a worthwhile speculative allocation. There are winner take all elements to this and of the three public options, I've only really been able to determine a couple things for sure. CRSP will be first to market, EDIT has the strongest and most diverse patent portfolio and will be second to market, and NTLA is basically behind everyone in both cases.

More CLF, CRSP, EDIT, AAL, started MPC, bid in for CTO

CLF calls

Part of the key to the first part is who you do business with. Most people have no shot to get the IPOs you want. This is why taking the placement and selling at the open works. Typically the stuff you do have access to, speaking in terms of the normal retail investor, is the crap passed over by all the bigger boys, and stuff you dont want to touch. This strategy, unless you have an in, will purely come down to judgment calls.

You sound like a Jehovah's Witness spreading the Value Investing word, with the caps and all. Such dogmatic thinking won't do you any good. I'd advise you to get off your high horse. And if you don't approve making money one way or another, how about you leave this thread alone instead of bitching about us being sinners? I enjoy making money very much and approve of it. Good luck with your strategy of getting long term wealthy, by speculatively participating in "hot ipos" at the top of a ten year bull market. What could possibly go wrong :) Buying the IPO and selling at the open? What could go wrong? Probably very little. I mean even if this goes down immediately, lets say 10%... if capital is properly allocated, is that really such a big deal? Thats probably the worst case scenario and highly unlikely. But the beauty of the market is that very soon we will see who is right and who is wrong, and if there really is so much to be scared of out there.

Some people look to find opportunities to make money in the markets. Others look to show off their "value investor" badge. I consider my strategy to have a value approach, but take the first 100 times out of 100. Finding "value" is just as much about identifying mispricings or instances where there is a mathematical edge, as it is about buying some shitty business below intrinsic value and then waiting 5 years for it to do something. I don't gamble. But I know someone who on occasion bets sports. They guy's logic is "this line makes zero sense"... and to my knowledge, the games he bets, which is probably just a handful a year, he nails. Not my cup of tea, but if one can make it work, that's great for them. To each their own. Same as merger plays. If you run it 100 times, and you come out net positive, you may be on to something.. Re: IPO's Ive never seen or gotten notification at IB despite being signed up for a while. Would imagine if they do have availability it is for good reason, and not likely something worth getting into.

Good show. I liked it but yes, very dark and almost satirical. Was surprised to see Will Ferrell's team did this.

Little bit of CWH. Purely a bounce trade. The business can be fixed and there is definitely enough hedgefund bagholders in this that I would not at all be surprised to see someone file a 13D on Lemonis; if nothing else, but for the free publicity.

Can't do that if you don't have any! ;) Going to school with Bill Ackman was his best call...

Awhile ago I recall him touting HHC as one of his "retirement" stocks. Can see why he isn't touting that anymore...

Tilson has effectively monetized the concept of "value investing". He has made a pretty penny selling it to others, despite not really having made much money using it. Ironic.

CLF Goncalves asked the operator if there was someone waiting in the question queue named Matthew Korn, "he calls himself an analyst and he works for Goldman Sachs." The operator replied that Matthew Korn was not waiting to ask a question, which prompted Goncalves to call out Korn. "If you're on the call it is still 10:42. Why don't you ask a freaking question? I'll be happy to answer." Once the Q&A portion concluded, Goncalves called out Korn once more, "Mathew Korn from Goldman Sachs, you can run but you can't hide. I will see you at the Goldman Sachs conference soon." Goncalves instructed Korn to "bring the guy from the commodities desk" with him. "It's going to be bad, but its going to be worse if you're by yourself," Goncalves concluded. This is just one. The guy is a bull in a China shop.

IDK guys, but Bruce and Sears has to take the cake. Others lost more dollars, some read it more wrong, but the sheer combination of surface confidence coupled with utterly outlandish price targets and conviction that great escaped a reality that many simpler folks had no trouble seeing... hard to top that. Then add doing that for a fucking decade and even at $5 per share still putting up triple digit price targets....

Here's the million dollar question... Is it a million free and clear of taxes owed? In other words, the liquidation value net of tax? Either way, congrats.

Bass regularly makes wild and spectacular claims(in dramatic fashion) that when they play out leave everyone thinking "wow, this guy is a genius", and when they dont are quickly forgotten. Its a unique marketing strategy but as has been alluded to, I am not sure how much money he is actually making.

Thank goodness.

Rumor out that Warren is trying to buy PG&E... totally worth the wait....NOT. I dont have a meaningful enough BRK position to be mad, but this just continues to fit in with what I've now thought about for the past few years.

As has been discussed a million times, I think these things just become excuses for certain "types" of value investors. I know several value investors, just amongst my circle of friends and contacts who are not having these issues. Carl Icahn is a value guy, amongst many of his strategies, and he had the fore site to see Netflix was mispriced. I think Bill Ackman is an example of a value investor who finds a few value traps, but typically employs a value strategy; look at what he is doing this year. Value doesn't work to me is a bullshit excuse/ quasi mea culpa from people who just aren't able to generate alpha. Some self proclaimed value investors I know would rather generate crap returns and keep their "value investor badge" than be flexible and generate respectable returns. It's crazy. I mean who says just because you buy a low PE name in a troubled industry you are entitled to outsized returns? More often than not, when I find people claiming value doesnt work, it is because they have in their head this mold of what "value investing" is and refuse to deviate from it. As such they continue to find themselves in the same type of investments and plagued by the same type of problems. The biggest value investment payoff I've seen in the past half decade was Straight Path. How many "traditional" value models did that fit into? Successful value investing is often a product of understanding the times. Buying yesterdays textbook "value" investments has never really worked, but this past cycle people seem to think it should be different.

This is a personal view, but the 15% is now being expressed as 95% CR and 7% return on investments. I see no issue in targeting those metrics over the long term. What they've achieved in the past doesn't have to be a guide to what they aspire to in the future, especially when they've sworn not to repeat the biggest mistake of all (the huge naked hedge). That said, I couldn't care less that they target 15% and I find it surprising that people on here focus so hard on it. That's not a criticism, it's just that I have never had the sense that they manage towards the 15% goal in a bad way. Their mistakes are plenty, but they are so long term in approach that personally I don't think the mistakes stem from stretching to get to 15% - and that's the main negative of having a public goal. So I just ignore it, and focus on whether I think 95% and 7% are achievable (probably and probably not, respectively) and whether I'd be happy owning Fairfax at the current price if the ROE was say 10% over the long haul (yes with bells on). I regard the 15% ROE as an aspirational goal at this point. What irks me more than FFH not even close to reaching this goal is the increasing share count (by 2.4M shares last year) that shalab pointed out. It’s even more irritating with all the talk about Singleton and quite frankly, it looks like he is talking one thing and doing just the opposite. Did someone ask a question regarding the share dilution and how it squares with the talk about buybacks? There might be a good explanation for this, but it’s odd that it’s not addressed in the annual report or in the shareholders meeting. There is a certain personality/salesmanship type that follows the below playbook; Tout positive events Spin mid spectrum events in your favor Ignore bad events There is an even more unique type that can take that last one and without guilt say it is actually something different and wholly positive. There is no tolerance it seems, from many when a certain businessman, now politician does this sort of mind trickery, but it appears there is still tolerance for it on the investment front. It is my belief that no profitable business trading below IV should ever be issuing shares. Period. Maybe, and only maybe in very minimal amounts, to certain key employees, but thats it. There is no excuse here.

I also think the concern listed in the thread title is mainly relevant for those that just want to be lazy and index everything. If you own high quality, cash flow generating companies that buyback their own stock, supply and demand by itself will create your returns. If not, you are afforded the opportunity to buy shares at a depressed valuation. win/win. This obviously assumes nothing macro happens that effects said company's ability to generate fcf, or on a fundamental basis that causes the company's prospects to deteriorate. But as always those that do the work should continue to get rewarded.

Greg, I agree completely. People shouldn't be thin skinned. But censorship wasn't the purpose. It was more to protect the sanctity and purpose of the forum to keep it from getting overrun like every other forum that has fallen due to this exact thing. But you're right, it's probably best to just ignore and move along. Regards, I agree with you and have also said I wouldn't care if politics was removed entirely. But it's here, so for the time being I think people should just learn to deal with it rather than bitch and moan every couple weeks/months... It would be one thing if people were completely turned away, but realistically, are high quality investing minds really allergic to even the sight of a politics topic? I think not. I mean aren't Buffett, Gates, Soros, Zuckerberg, Tepper, etc, usually front and center quite frequently on the subject of politics? Yet we're worried about people who are clearly lesser than the aforementioned names running away from here scared? Please...