Gregmal

Any help on where to set the liquidation preference. Their customer service is probably the worst I've ever encountered, and they are still telling me it is impossible because the computer selects this... Here is how to do it in TWS - not sure if it can be set in WebTrader. https://www.interactivebrokers.com/en/software/tws/usersguidebook/realtimeactivitymonitoring/portfolio.htm I hope you're also planning to reduce your leverage to give you more breathing room. Thanks. Its a small account and was more exploratory in regards to getting familiarized with IB so I'm just going to add funds and leave it for a while. They've also told me I am not able to buy anything unless all the securities are 100% paid for(even though I have an approved margin account). So much for a useful margin account...

Tell me about it. The online customer service is outrageously slow, and 30% of the time it is "undergoing maintenance and will be back up any minute" only to be down for hours. Don't know about broker, but Cor Clearing is notorious for letting you do whatever you want with pink sheeters and low priced securities.

Any help on where to set the liquidation preference. Their customer service is probably the worst I've ever encountered, and they are still telling me it is impossible because the computer selects this...

The saga continues. I add funds to get my account transferred in, and upon the account settling I find out that if my account falls less than 2% they will just randomly start selling(yes this is what the rep told me in regards to how they decide what to do when below the margin maintenance, Its completely random!). My account currently sits at 79% equity. It was also odd being told that despite oddly high margin maintenance requirements, IB "does not have margin calls. Your account is vulnerable to being liquidated the second it goes below maintenance". Are these guys for real?

Was going to start a thread asking this question, but decided against it. Now just saw this so I'll raise the topic. Is their entire super low margin rate thing a bait and switch game? I figured I'd give them a shot and tried ACATing over a small account. The account was about 70% equity so by no means a crazily margined account. I get notified that IBKR has rejected my transfer, and that I need to send additional money in order for them to accept the account. I then follow up, and just about every stock I own in this account requires 100% margin, so in other words, their really cheap margin rates are useless to me because they have obscenely high margin requirements for individuals stocks. Is this something others have seen too? I'll admit I have some weirdo stuff, but it surprised me they require 100% for stocks that are frankly pretty boring and conservative.

As someone else mentioned, I'm generally not a huge fan of Tilson. But this is laughable. First, Tilson of all people is the last guy I'd ever call out as a "Wall Street Billionaire". He's piggybacked the big time hedge funder rep of his college buddies Einhorn and Ackman while pretending to have the success of his peers when clearly he doesn't. I'm not even sure he'd wants to, but nevertheless he's oddly outspoken and sometimes seems to try too hard to be like the two aforementioned fellows. His LL crusade was so outrageous it overshadowed a tremendous call. Warren though, is a complete clown. A one Indian traveling circus using any sort of populist rhetoric she can grasp at to try to position herself for a future White House run. "Oh big banks are evil", "oh Wall Street ruins the world", "Oh drug prices are too high", etc. Classic loud mouth complaining who's constantly looking to stir up a storm rather than try to solve anything.

Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right? I for one think it's great and I hope it keeps going on for another 4 years It will, no doubt about it. Every cycle needs a spark for the circus cannon to light. Banker bashing was cool the past 8 years, now its transitioning into healthcare/obamacare and pharma/drug pricing. The forest for the trees crowd gets easily distracted, but the rest of us see that Trump is more or less a life long Democrat who played the game and won. His policies are going to be much more populist than many expect. His biggest opponent will still likely be hardcore conservative yawkers

Ugh. Way to drag the conversation even lower and invalidate anything useful you had to say. These types of comments are now fair game since your guy won the election, is that right? Missing the forest for the trees. Seems like a common trait amongst many of you. If you choose to cover your eyes and ears because I choose a humorous name for a circus spectacle character, be my guest. If you'd like to sit at the big boy table and discuss my point that DC(both traditional Dems and Republicans) is a circus show, well then step right up. Thanks

Yes

So much for that: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/n-kkk-group-hold-victory-parade-donald-trump-article-1.2868491 I know this week has been dragging on slowly, but four years has yet to pass. The trailer community may be better for the country than the filth that currently inhabits DC. Want a microcosm of why Trump received twice as many electoral votes as pretty much every one of these folks predicted? Look at how DC voted. 93% for Clinton. Then look at the break down for the rest of the country. Yup, just another example of how out of touch these folks are. DC is and pretty much always has been a circus. Adding Palin to the mix just gives another act to complement the Paul Ryan, Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell, and Pochahontas shows.

Agree to disagree on this one? For one, simply making the decision to invest the money, into an index fund or real estate or whatever, is a much harder decision to make than one gives credit for with the blind and naive "index fund would have done better" argument. Secondarily, as many here should be intimately familiar, outperforming an index is no easy task either. And lastly, I dont care what people say, but being in a position where you own or are associated on a high level basis with 400+ companies is all the proof you need of his business success. The "oh but he had 4 that went bankrupt" argument is pretty hilarious as by my count that still means 99% of his businesses are still around. And when you're comparing that to someone like HRC whose most daring business venture was getting paid $250,000 an hour to give speeches, the whole conversation seems utterly preposterous. Bottom line is that Trump may be a bit of a whacko with questionable judgment and character, but he is unequivocally, at the very least, a capable businessman. Considering this, as well as the fact that being a morally grounded person has never been necessary to be POTUS, and its clear that the bickering by many is largely founded in subjective and personal biases rather than any sort of legitimate reasoning.

Looks like those that saw the forest despite the trees are well prepared. Meanwhile those posting pictures of a guy wearing a shirt, making utterly ridiculous yet hilariously empty comparisons to Nazi Germany, and blanketing this as symbolic of the entire election lose their shirts. As I said, the pea brains didn't and probably never will "get it". To the rest of us, we didn't get caught up in the nonsense; we weren't mindlessly manipulated by the likes of the Huffington Post, Washington Post, and the likes, and ultimately everyone will get what they deserve.

Is there really an argument here that a career politician may not have the same skills/experience negotiating deals as an accomplished businessman? This was one of the most shocking aspects of the 2012 election; that there were people who held it against Romney that he was successful and claimed Obama would be better for the economy. For one, somebody who has made their living taking other people's money(through taxation and donation) can't possibly have the same respect for details as someone looking out for their own dollar/investors/business.

I agree and Lampert is the new Buffett. No, Berkowitz is. No, Pabrai is. No, Fairfax is the new Berkshire and Prem is the new Buffett. No, Biglari is pretty clearly the new Buffett. And Dubya is the new Hitler. Wait no, Trump is the new Hitler. "History is a great teacher" -Adolf Hitler There is a troubling trend of guys hitting it big, either on one investment (hello John Paulson) or having a decent enough period of performance to blow up AUM (Lampert, Ackman) and then going completely rogue. I guess when you are wealthy enough you can do whatever you want.

IDK, I learned in like third grade the pretty much anything the president does is reactionary to other avenues of the political spectrum. In fact, pretty much anything he does is subject to the veto power of congress. Many within the conservative circles hoped Bernie Sanders would win knowing that his views were so extreme nothing would ever get done because of this. And approval rating? Polling results from asking regular people. Yea that controls public policy... My goodness People fight hard to become president because of the status and wealth that come with it. Duh...

Except that there isn't even a malpractice suit, just a bunch of doctors from a rival hospital talking shit. Yes but too many people that would generally be viewed as intelligent and capable are revealing themselves as pea brained and sheepish in regards to their following/understanding of the election. First, the president, is basically just a talking head. A character who by himself doesnt really do much. So its hilarious on several levels seeing people waste so much time nitpicking and scrupulously foaming at the mouth over the many flaws of Trump/Clinton. Especially so with the media thinking they have all this "gotcha" type fodder that seemingly backfires when the next poll results are released. The president is basically a hood ornament. The system is the rest of the car. Essentially, both candidates are massively flawed. But this isnt about an individual candidate. Anyone who thinks so is missing the forest for the trees. I love reading these "Hey look! Clinton/Trump did this". Its a great form of entertainment actually. Tells you a lot about someones ability(or lack thereof) to see the bigger picture. What its come down to is that voting for Hillary is a vote for the status quo which is entirely corrupt, broken, and systematically skewed against 99.5% of the population.

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes. And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect. Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers". So basically screw that democracy thing. Well now that we're disfranchising folks let take a closer look at that. Technically the president is not elected by the people but by the electoral college. Now let's go ahead and disfranchise the takers. Ok now the president is elected by the following states: California, Massachusetts, Wyoming, Oklahoma, New Jersey, Utah, Colorado, New York, Kansas, Ohio, Nebraska, Illinois, Minnesota, and Delaware. Election night headline: Welcome Madame President!: Hillary Clinton makes history by becoming the first female president in a 151-43 electoral college landslide! Btw, i gave Ohio to Trump in that EV count. People who do not contribute should not be dictating the rules(which are a derivative of those elected to office) of the land and especially not be influencing the implementation of hardships upon those who are net creators or contributors. So its great and all that the Buffetts and Zuckerbergs of the world think "giving" more is a grand old idea. Its also not shocking that the have nots will support anything in which they "get" more. The ones getting royally effed are the middle class in between. Who are now consistently squeezed out of more and more; with the end game being the greater divide and ensuing class warfare in which those chasing the American Dream are cannibalized by those living "their" own versions of it.

This is not an idea that should be done in an absolute sense, but theres definitely merit to it. Truth is that there are people who simply shouldn't be able to vote, or at the least not have a vote count as much as other folks. Its, cute, warm, and fuzzy to some that everything goes around thinking they are equal. But there is something inherently flawed with a system in which some drug addict who relies on entitlements casts a vote that has the same power as Mark Cuban's vote. Because of the system, the vast majority of lower income folks only care about their entitlements and will cast misguided votes if they think it will result in getting something for nothing. How many of the "Obama iz gunna pay my gas billz!!" videos were out there? Or this gem.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SeJbOU4nmHQ Then on the other end you have those highfalutin, wannabe philanthropist types in the upper middle class neighborhoods who mean well but are misguided as they preach about "giving back" based ideologies while driving 5 series BMWs and living in 800k homes. And like Trump, they're all for giving back but conveniently abuse the system when it benefits them. Sandwiched in between are the middle class that is perpetually getting squeezed by real inflation, stagnant wages, and ever increases taxes, both direct and indirect. Bottom line, is the people contributing should have more say than those that don't. There needs to be a balance of "creators" and "takers".

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet? Dude, seriously? I mean I'm down with everyone to nail the media to the wall. Ever since they decided to move news from a loss leader to a profit center it has gone to shit. It no longer news. It's entertainment. It's reality TV Washington edition. There is no more Walter Cronkite. That era is is over. But the whole thing begin slanted against Trump really? How did he even get to this point? Why didn't the media nail his ass to the wall for the million outrageous and ridiculous things he said and did. Which reporter stepped up and put him in his place the way he deserves to be? None. Why was he allowed to call into shows of the can or wherever? Cause they're not doing their job. Everyone is blowing up about Donna Brazile being a partisan. The former chairwoman of the DNC is a partisan. What a shock! CNN also hired Corey Lewandowski. I'm guessing he's gonna be fair, balanced, and full of journalistic integrity. He'll never leak anything to Trump. What a joke! And the leaked emails? I've looked at a lot of them. They're actually a pretty boring depiction of a highly motivated high powered organization that is proceeding is a deliberated and highly calculated way towards a goal. Since when is that a bad thing? I'd like my leaders when faced with big and complex problems to move in a calculated and deliberated way, not shoot from the hip. Trump's entire rise was because he completely played the media for free attention largely because they are too stupid, biased, and ratings hungry to notice. Every outrageous or deplorable thing DT has said has been spam blasted ad nauseam because these clowns think they are successfully bashing him, getting tons of clicks/views, and bringing him down when all its done is drive his campaign without him actually having to spend. The HRC campaign has sat by and at best encouraged this, or at worst, been working with the media to manipulate the narrative(something now being substantiated by emails). The fact that her campaign is now throwing the FBI under the bus because they are doing their jobs does nothing more than highlight what an act it all is; mainly because they sat there and praised these same people 2 months ago when they got what they wanted from them.

Isn't this typically how the media has worked? Only difference is, how up until last week, its all been heavily slanted and one sided reporting. The same camp that lauded the FBI's handling in July now throws a complete hissy fit when new information comes to light that needs to be investigated. A lady who was gone so far out of her way to hide things she's even feigned a concussion, now "demands" full transparency. Oh the irony. Emails released show evidence of collusion between campaign staff and media outlets. Even to the chagrin on folks less popular, but nonetheless within the same party. And this is really what the Dems thought was their best bet?

The problem is that this has been true for a long time and for whatever reason, Bauer has just never worked out for anyone. Hockey is growing, especially in the US. The margins shouldn't be terrible. Yet with Bauer, my outside perspective is that they've made too many poor acquisitions that weren't really necessary and if anything diminished their brand. Nike couldn't even make them work.

Say what you will but this is what I like about Trump. Most politicians would have coughed up the money because 1) Its not theirs 2) They don't want a bad publicity. Not Donald. He saw the charge he didn't like and now this guy has to explain. Very powerful message and these idiots at WaPo think they landed a scoop. If you've agreed to pay x amount for a product or service provided and then reneg on that obligation, what does that say about you? If the product is defective only a fool(or someone using money that isnt theirs) would pay for it.

I've never owned FFH for an extended period of time mainly because I disagree with his macro outlook, and when I've agreed there just seem to be better bets out there. Had nothing to with his investing acumen. Watsa seems to suffer from the same thing a lot of fund managers do, and thats an inability to reverse course when they're clearly on the wrong one. It's what makes somebody like Tepper head and shoulders above everyone else. Guy isn't afraid to do an immediate reversal if his gut tells him thats where the trend is. How somebody like Watsa, Chanos or Faber have been making bearish bets now for over half a decade is at this point just plain stubborn. That said, his current strategy isn't unheard of. Quite a few PMs I know do the same thing when overwhelmingly bearish with their macro outlook. Diversify, hold big portions of cash, and then make smaller bets on real long shots figuring if you're wrong(on a macro basis) they tend to do extremely well in a bull market, if your bearish inclination is correct, the bulk of your portfolio is already adequately positioned.

Maybe its different in Detroit but I've actually seen and used this kind of a strategy as leverage in transactions like the one you described. You simply argue that the tax rate is too high and are bearing substantial risk in taking on the property. You also point out that every month that goes by thats another "x amount" of carry cost being eaten by the seller so his best bet is to get it taken off his hands asap, even if it s at a great discount. If he holds these another year his $42k ask is now equivalent to 34k. The key however is to know the local real estate market and what the process is for appeals, which obviously includes the likelihood of getting it adjusted in your favor. Where I am, you generally just have to show the market value contradicts the assessment, in which case a contract of sale will do the trick. That should then theoretically take your assessed value down from 42k per, to 42k for both, likely cutting the tax bill in half.

Still wouldn't make me vote for him... Which is grand and all, however I'm not sure what that has to do with the post you referenced or the title of the thread. The thread topic is "How would you hedge a Trump win on Nov 8". To which, perhaps going long the one sector that has been slammed at every turn by Clinton and the Dems would make sense given the high correlation between the two.