Gregmal

After big concentrated investments in RFP, SD, BBRY, and SHLD, I can't believe he's still in business.

Gotta love Ackman, blind and ballsy. Examples, page 5... ouch. Then 10 pages of self touting. Page 15 Smaller investments with higher risk - adjusted returns but smaller portfolio allocations in light of the investments’ added risks: Fannie & Freddie- OK, yes, the above makes sense. Valeant- LOL. The position is small now, yes, but that was not always the case. I would be insulted if I was an LP reading that. At least have the respect not to feed me a sales script Bill

I don't think there is any question that voter fraud is occurring. The question is HOW MUCH of it is going on. How is that? A). A "bigwig" (Alan Schulkin, Commissioner of Board of Elections NYC) is caught on tape discussing how they bus people into certain districts to vote, he also goes on to discuss other types of fraud and that massive fraud is going on: http://www.dailywire.com/news/9876/watch-nyc-dem-election-official-caught-video-there-amanda-prestigiacomo Why did this not get more attention? Absolutely shocking.... B). Here in Michigan almost half of the voting districts in Detroit did not have their votes recounted as there were problems with the ballot box (being unlocked), the number of people showing up to vote didn't match the number of ballots cast, and on & on. Mind you, not all of this is due to voter fraud. Sometimes there was 1 more ballot cast than recorded, so that is more likely a clerical error than a scam going on....but there certainly were goofy things going on. Simply the fact that there is so much sloppiness & error is a scandal in of itself. C). Many, many states are embroiled in litigation in regards to voter ID. I have to show ID to enter federal buildings, courts, libraries, casinos, etc. How do so many people go through life without any ID? Are poor minority people of such destitution that they can't afford the $5 to get a state ID? How do they drive? They can't figure this out? Just pondering this out loud. Q: Why would you NOT want ID's to be checked when voting? A: In order to enable wide scale voter fraud. D). When I was living in Houston Texas, there were millions of illegal immigrants. Most of them were hard working, decent people. HOWEVER, you can't tell me that some of them aren't voting. Is it 10, 100, 1,000, 10,000, more? Nobody really knows. E). In the last election, there were districts in OH & PA where Mitt Romney (and others) received 0,1,2 votes. These were almost all in minority districts. No doubt, Obama was going to win these districts and win them heavily....but the Republican wouldn't get 1% of the vote? The Green party wouldn't get 1%? Obama got 100% or 99.9%? This wasn't 1 or 2 districts...this went on in many districts. If that happened in more than 1 or 2 districts, I would think alone would be evidence of fraud going on... This is just what I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure that there are other things going on. So yes, there is voter fraud going on, just a question of how much, and how much an effect it has on the outcome. I've stayed out of this mainly because most people can't seem to have a rational conversation on the subject of Trump, but this sentiment is spot on. Who cares who won the election; shouldn't something that undermines the entire election process such as voter fraud be investigated and taken seriously? It seems that with certain crowds, they are just set on being petty. Prior to the election, I dubbed it the "forest for the trees" crowd. Now they are just sour whiners. For instance, Trump comes in and immediately starts doing what he promised he'd do, and people find new hairs to split to call him a hypocrite. For God's sake, he came in and said we were getting ripped off on F-35 and AF1 deals and people complained!!! How dare he try to get better deals. This is partially what I think is needed. A politician has no clue what to do when negotiating a deal with a business. He says "I want this!", and goes and buys it regardless of cost because its not coming out of his pocket, it is coming out of ours. Whereas a business man first and foremost determines whether the item in question is a want or a need(big difference), and then sits down at the table and negotiates a deal on terms he finds acceptable because generally he has to justify what he is spending. Its about time we have someone in office who will at least attempt to justify where he's sending our money. I for one found it appalling we're actually funding abortions in foreign countries. Cuz yea, that's totally why I drive to work in the morning(on highways with pot holes the size of basketballs nonetheless/woo hoo infrastructure!)... To have my money taken by the government and wired out of the country to aid abortions in foreign countries. Its not like we could use the money elsewhere...

For a while he was touting short Chinese Banks and short certain pharmas on some obscure patent litigation basis. From afar, it seems he is always talking up a massive trade he's about to make a fortune on. I've spoke to a couple people who have invested with him and the consensus is that he's a bright guy who comes up with some oddball stuff that sounds great but like everyone else, when it comes time to turn ideas into dollars, he sometimes leaves a bit to be desired.

QCOM-1999 Tesla-2013

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?