Gregmal

1810.HK

Could be a few regulatory hurdles to that. At a certain point, anti-combines becomes an issue. I would think the better way to do that would be to get in the ear of a portfolio company and play activist. Get them to make a bid or try to acquire another airline you like. Then give it a little and see how they integrate. Then make a bid for the combined entity.

He owns just under 10% of DAL, AAL, LUV. If I recall during the CNBC interview this week, part of his answer to why he wasn't buying in Q4 was that in the (unnamed) stocks he was interested in adding, he didn't want to trigger 10% I dont think I believe the rumor on LUV, but yes, I'd prefer he just stick with owning those than do something drastic.

Yea I definitely wouldn't be thrilled if he blew half the cash hoard on an airline. A business he once deemed uninvestable he is now going to foray into, making one of BRK's largest investments ever? Sounds like an unnecessary risk. I mean as it stands, airlines are currently so cheap that I dont see how buying one outright is a better choice than simply investing across the board in a few different ones. If his new found bullishness is correct, there will be tons of money to be made going forward given the single digit pe multiples these trade at. And if not, being in the public markets gives you the liquidity to get out if things go sour. Not the case with owning an entire company...

Lol now he’s on tv saying he s not a buyer of AAPL here, but would be if it got cheaper!!! First, it was cheaper, much cheaper not too long ago, and he did nothing. Second, wasn’t he buying like a drunken sailor a couple quarters ago? At much higher prices? WTF happened to Warren Buffett?

I am hardly a BRK expert, but these where also kind of my feelings as well. IMO the Buffett we've seen the last half decade is hardly the man we all admire. We've seen a lot of high profile investors get eaten alive by what's occurred with the markets since the GFC, so maybe WEB is no different. It's just odd seeing it from him. Especially since he more or less shot the lights out and was vintage Buffett during the GFC. IDK, the dude is nearly 90, beat cancer, and probably has others areas of his life he neglected over the decades that maybe he feels deserve more of his time now. But to me, despite all of his wisdom, he is no longer a must follow investor and he is making obvious mistakes, not to mention, as you stated, doing things he never used to.

I think if this is the case its even more troubling. Translated, this essentially means he is putting his legacy and the "exclamation mark" on his career ahead of easy and obvious, not to mention more traditional method of creating per share value. On one hand he thinks valuations are excessive(which could also just be an excuse for making some mistakes), yet if this is the case what is the need for all the cash if you think your own equity is cheap? Further, I saw a comment here or maybe in the annual letter thread about "he's shouldn't just buy the dip on every 15% correction". Well, first off, if you know the value of what you are buying, this is irrelevant, and second, how many 15% corrections have we had in the past two decades? And where would one be had they bought BRK or any other number of market proxies during those drawdowns? Just seems like an awful lot of excuse making. Are shareholders really comfortable with this guy, and his track record of late, spending $50B-$75B on an acquisition???

Yea I initiated a small position in BRK in early January but the more closely I follow, the less impressed I am, within the context of ignoring that it's Warren F**** Buffett's company. Not only has the equity performance been suspect, but many, with KHC being the most recent example, fall victim to the same type of mistakes. Now, to me, the lack of real buybacks is kind of icing on top. The only justification people seemed to have for Warren's lack of a spending spree in December was that maybe he was binging on buybacks... Now it's confirmed he basically just froze up and did nothing, moreso resembling an inexperienced retail investor rather than the old school Oracle of Omaha.

The above is pretty much what the founding fathers had envisioned. Federal government has gotten WAYYY too powerful. States should be able to control their own "stuff". At the end of the day we'd probably have more harmony because people would move to regions and areas that suite their interests.

Anyone else find it amusing how the same people(generally speaking) who refuse to be fully invested, or who hold huge portions of cash, are the first ones to quip about how easy everything would have been to just take all ones money and "buy the index"?

These are always cool and all, and I certainly don't mind the reading, but I've yet to see a real one that the average Joe can look at and dream about. Beating the odds would be having a $10M income, regardless of what he does with it. Show me a guy would turned a $50-$100K salary into mid 7 or 8 figures. Thats impressive. Its like all those "Guy With 200K In Student Loans Got Debt Free" stories. Then you find out he and his wife made $15K a month a lived in a 600 sq ft house in Pennsylvania or with their parents...

UNIT is likely to be a good value investment at some point. WIN is a doughnut. No position in either ATM.

https://reorg-research.com//pdf/1862178.pdf I'd imagine there are at least a few on these boards who were following this. Fascinating stuff. Knowing the law well enough to find value discrepancies in linked securities. Someone just made a fortune

Bernie wants to steal from the owners of these corporations??? Nah, you dont say. I'm shocked. Perhaps Bernie should start paying his fair(not 11%) share on his $200k+ income and tell his wife to stop defrauding universities.

You have peaked my interest with this. Any quick insights you have about this company? Nothing worthy of praise as far as info goes. 90% of my short term bullishness is for technical reasons. More or less this is a classic in favor, to out of favor, let the pendulum swing story. So as we all know, it's highly levered. Minor improvements in the business and or debt reduction greatly enhance the equity value. I give some weight to the fact Joe Papa came over when the stock was trading at higher levels($35 or so IIRC), and a lot of his compensation is tied to stock options north of $60. Its been quiet of the VRX/BHC front for a while now. It seems after the name change and some time passing that the shackles of negativity are slowly moving away from the company. So on a fundamental basis, I dont see the same overhangs I did a few years ago. Now look at the chart. This thing has run up to $25 or so several times, and then fallen back. But again, like the broader market, it is resilient and knocking on the door again. It's purgatory trading range has basically been $12-25 and I think having done its time in the penalty box and shown sustainability at the core business, it's ready to make a big move if we see one more solid earnings report(Feb20). I looked at the options and having the above outlook, the March options look quite cheap. You can go long a $24 or $25 call for $2. That strike gives you a built in stop loss should earnings suck or the shares pull back down from the high end of the current trading range. Whereas if this runs you got IMO at least $4-6 per share in upside. Given the setup I think the options are very mispriced, and as such, am willing to take a swing with a small spec position.(For me defined as .5% of portfolio or less. In this case it is less)

BHC calls. This one looks like it's ready for a breakout. small spec position....

Yea not an NFL fan, but awesome to see greatness. So funny too how bandwagon LA/celebrityville is. This isn't even their team and all of a sudden they were all Ram fans... tools.

A current, or TTM PE is irrelevant and IMO shouldn't even factor into one's analysis. Forward PE can be important but again, I've never found it useful buying just on next year's earnings. Essentially one needs to be able to objectively analyze the business prospects going forward in order to get comfortable with an investment. So in the event that I expect a NTM PE of 10, and the following few earnings are off, there's only two culprits; 1) ME. I misjudged the business or environment, or 2) Management is either dishonest or incompetent. And even in the event of number 2, it is the investors job to make sure you are comfortable investing with the current management. So if you do the work, there are safeguards.

The only thing resembling value investing here is the name of the site. The majority just follow consensus. The "daring" ones, when courageous enough to go out on a limb, deviate from just buying Berkshire(or what IMO are index fund proxies), to buying an individual name Berkshire owns.... There is so much value and opportunity in the markets these days. Its not all in one place or another but hidden under various rocks and part of what makes investing truly what I've heard called a "global treasure hunt".

Yes we touched on it in that thread. I had familiarity with it then and further began looking into this over the following months and after doing some work, and hearing people in the field rave about this, began looking for ways to express this optimism through an investment. I have yet to find a specific one. And FWIW CRISPR can target both RNA and DNA. Its primary delivery mechanism however is a guide RNA with an endonuclease that then splices the DNA. The mole removal analogy to me is easier than doing a biology walkthrough just to make this coherent to the average investor. https://phys.org/news/2018-02-crispr-cas9-tool-rna-dna-precisely.html The idiot Jiankul not only committed a highly unethical violation, but potentially set things back in terms of public acceptance. One of the big things Jennifer Doudna(more or less the one who discovered this) has been a major advocate of responsible introduction of CRISPR to the public. This way, it is understood rather than feared like GMO's.

AKA CRISPR I haven't seen anything here on this so I thought I'd do everyone the favor of floating what is described by scientists as a "once in a generation breakthrough". Yes I know this idea is not for everyone, but thats OK, it can only be for those that want to make money or have the ability to see where the puck is going...If you require a single digit PE and low P/B in order to make an investment you can stop reading now. If you are open minded and wish to continue, I introduce you to the breakthrough technology... That is CRISPR and the variants Cas9/12/cpf1/3. What CRISPR does is effectively target specific genes within an organism by activating proteins naturally occurring within the immune system and directing via RNA an attack on a specified areas. In layman's terms think of going to the dermatologist and having a mole removed. CRISPR more or less removes a malignant mole from your genome. It is that simple and this is why it is going to change modern medicine. Up until now, the majority of treatments for any sort of ailment involved putting together a concoction of, lets call them, "things" and then seeing how they reacted with the body. CRISPR entirely removes this aspect of risk. It is as simple taking a taking a scissor to an undesired or harmful trait. A good piece is found here, https://www.technologyreview.com/s/604126/edible-crispr-could-replace-antibiotics/ So far, CRISPR has been effective on every complex organism it has been attempted on. It is able to target just about any disease, and on a scientific level, is so easy to apply high school students are messing around with it in AP classes. CRISPR itself is not really that controversial, however the aspect that is controversial stems from the optionality. When programming the RNA so to speak, you have two options. One is to cut out the genome, and the other is to cut out and replace. Cutting out and replacing is where you can take an undesired aspect and flip it into a desirable one. There is a fortune that will be made from this and there are a bunch of different avenues where one can look to invest. Rather than follow specific companies I have found it helpful to follow specific doctors whom have developed and patented this "technology". These names are Jennifer Doudna, Feng Zhang, Emmanuelle Charpentier and George Church. The various fundraising rounds have been loaded with the biggest names out there. Bill Gates specifically has described this as "one of the most powerful technologies of the 21st century". There are a handful of public companies with holds on the patents, as well as a good few private companies with shares occasionally available which offer an opportunity to play this space. The names I think are worth following are Caribou Biosciences, Editas Medicine, Crispr Therapeutics, Synthego, and Beam Therapeutics. I have found Nature.com, Pubmed, and Researchgate to be sites with ample resources on this and database access to current events. Curious if others have studied this, and/or made investments or have ways to play this. Be forewarned that yes, these companies will not likely to make money for years and that yes, this whole theme is not even in the first inning yet; it's just batting practice, maybe pregame warm ups. But the opportunity is so massive and the patents even today IMO are severely undervalued mainly because people fail to fully understand or appreciate the potential and have all sorts of misnomers floating around because of stigmas attached to boogeyman words and phrases like "GMO" and "playing god".

Yes you can, as long as the shareholders you screwed and the new shareholders are different. It happens all the time. Yea, it happens all the time. Just wipe it out and then re-issue it with a favorable valuation. Will be oversubscribed as well.

I think it’s important to remember that the high majority of the time, material changes in asset prices can be caused by things that in hindsite are rather immaterial. Multiples can expand and contract on nothing other than sentiment. So doing ones best to understand all the different puzzle pieces and how they fit into the bigger picture is just as important, if not more so, than simply waiting for a material change. More often than not, material changes, once obvious, are already priced in. Real world examples would be obvious from looking at any number of story stocks. WPRT was one of the biggest examples I can think of. The company was a dud, but had a great story. For years the market ignored poor results and a management team that over promised and underdelivered, consistently. Returns were quite impressive. Then, out of nowhere really, market participants lost confidence in management, and then the company could do no right. It plummeted like 90% inside of a year without any real “material change”. Tesla IMO could be another one real soon. My point, WPRT was a shit company. The US economy is quite healthy. Fluctuations can occur, that are quite material in terms of impacting the value of ones investment, and driven by nothing but sentiment. It’s easier to swim with the current, rather than against it. One just needs to find the current. Who cares how long Jerome Powell needs to chase his own tail...

Thanks. I have been following Greenhaven for a while and they are top notch. Very under the radar firm with some outstanding ideas.

1211.HK a few minutes ago