Myth465

I received no notification or rights yet. I just got my FBK pink sheet shares yesterday, so only time will tell.

I think they wanted to give us a chance to buy more. I expect a similar pop with ATSG and FBK on Q2 release, would prefer it now though. I just about have all I want in both.

Its funny, either you are against something or for it. We can debate the merits of either system, but once one is selected you have to continually make tweaks to make it viable. Private enterprise / systems go bankrupt all the time unless tweaks are made to business plans. The systems are not going bankrupt because they are inherently flawed. They are going bankrupt because of the reason everything goes bankrupt. Its underfunded. SSI should probably be means tested and the retirement age raised. Medicare - people should either bite the bullet and pay for it, or parts of it should be cut. This is pretty funny though. Lol

This is true. Honestly this is the best argument I have heard against health-care. It drops all the ideology and gets to the root of the issue. I was talking to a more liberal friend, and he thought that the death panels would be real and that care would be rationed. I told him you don't really have a choice and would have to put some limits on what people get done or the whole system would go bankrupt. He was livid and he is pro socialized medicine. I think you have a good point and this will be the biggest problem for the government.

Very good, question which sums things up. I think we all agree on the answer for this considering the share price over the last few years.

I agree. I consider Bill Miller and Dreman contrarian investors. Alot of average retail investors mistake contrarian investing with value investing wheras I believe they are completely different. Yep, also what happened to the Blog. You run Top Down right, havent seen any updates in a while.

The Economist had an article about this and also talked about the convergence with IFRS. One wants mark to model, one mark to market. They touched on the banking issue, and noted it was stupid to have 1 set of accounting because you have 2 different interests. Investors want a liquidation value, and perhaps historical info. Regulators want to know what your capital situation looks like. They thought the 2 should be unlinked, Regulators should do their thing, and investors should get the info they want. Basically provide both. Big Business and Congress both dont like MTM, so I dont think it will stick. Basically only the bean counters (me being one of them), want it because it makes our lives much easier and reduces liabilities and estimates.

I think FFH just wants to clean up their capital structure and push out maturities. They have the C&F and Odyssey Preferreds which are a bit expensive. Also I think they could, be trying to minimize some of the required reporting by calling some of the stuff from the subs. FFH seems to be awash with cash right now, so it is interesting. I think Prem cant turn down 10 year cash at 7.75% with inflation predictions in 5 or 6 years.

I like Ken, and remember when he was the talk of the town. Heavy into energy and was the flavor of the month for a while. Bill Miller just rubs me the wrong way for some reason. He seems to be so sure about things he clearly didn't understand and seems more contarian then value focused.

Sea Island Thats why I am so bearish on BP, I think we can all agree that the Government excels at spending money, and that their is no one better at spending other peoples money. BP has the Local, Federal, and State government writing blank checks on their behalf. Want man made islands, sure send BP the bill, get 5400 boats down here and give BP the bill. They are financing direct and indirect people harmed by this, every museum, hotel, fisherman, gas station, pretty much any business which experienced a slow down is looking to be compensated. The government doesn't want these people nickle and dimed, and is bringing in outside claims people. Fishermen would have made $5000 in 2 days during busy season. BP gave them $5000 a month, what do you think the Feds will give these people. BP cant be expected to handle the claims, but the Government has no incentive to really hold costs down. Its a horrible situation for BP. This is just a down payment, and they will likely be paying to restore the gulf (including prior damage, they didnt cause). BP is like GM, it will be run for the people of the gulf. The Government will try to suck them try without breaking them, and then will likely discard them if its politically expedite (not allowing them to drill their leases due to safety record). A horrible position for a company to be in, but one BP deserves. I wouldn't want to be an owner of such a business. Think about when the investigations show that this was a man made screw up to shave off a few millions / drilling days. The uproar will reignite again and again, beach after beach, after every major company closure, or hearing. Sucks to be them. Sucks to be their owners, might be ok to be their bond holders. People looking at a BS are getting the wrong idea, and have been wrong at every turn. Strong company, strong balancesheet, will hold the dividend, blah blah blah. 5k barrels, to 20k barrels, to 60k barrels, to XX. All surprises negative so far. What happens if Simmons is even half right and the casing is blown off? What happens if the relief well doesn't work? What happens if the spill rate is 100k barrels a day (with full clean up costs, EPA fines by the barrel, and the Feds spending your CF). I am guessing the Gov agreed to allow them to drill in the future, and thats why the got the $20 billion, but too many known unknowns.

We are 1 or 2 more bad days away. This is why I didn't really understand the discount. The market sees it as you value your company at XX, so that's what we will pay. They should have done the rights offering at par and shortened the window. I think we may see 1.01.

I said it was a flawed compromise by flawed men. Do you really think I care who did what, or which side wanted what? Would it have been better to have still been a slave, but be counted as a full person? Either way both sides agreed for purely selfish reasons that humans were only 3/5th of a person and wrote it down in 1787, so when I hear people acting as if what was written then is the end all be all in political debates / modern current events, my ears start to perk up and I put them in that crazy unable to think clearly about things box. Quoting a 200+ year old document and clinging to it for the sake of just doesn't make sense to me. You aren't responding to what anyone is saying, about actual risks / situations. You are just saying Government sucks, and has made errors in the past, and I love freedom.

As am I, it was deeply flawed, an imperfect living document which has gotten better overtime. You can cling to a series of compromises written by men in 1787 all you want. I was actually counted as three-fifths of a whole a person under it, so I am a bit biased, and a bit weary of those who dream of the good old days. Government screws up. Big / Little Business screws up. Primarily because people screw up, and both of the prior are collections of people. People who hate 1 of those groups, and think the other can do no wrong have missed the boat in my opinion.

And because they dont pay the fully burdened cost of energy. The cost of protection (war), clean up / environmental, and climate change aren't included. In a true free market gas would costs $12 and people would switch very quickly.

ERICOPOLY and Parker your posts speak to the quality of the board, and the variety of intelligent opinion that can be found here. Sea Island - I think you been reading too much Murray Rothbard and Ron Paul. You seem to have a deep hatred / distrust for government. Eric - I agree with you and may take up business as a wild catter, one could really game the system unless they make serious changes to tackle this issue. I love how free market types simply want to entrust other people's lives and lively hood to the market. I think its ok because they dont live off the gulf or near the nuke plant. Parker - The Government shouldnt set the price (or pick the energy winner as with ethanol), they should put a floor on oil, then let the magic of the markets work (with funding from the floor tax to the major engine of innovation (universities)). There is no free market, with oil. When alternatives become interesting OPEC simply floods the oil or says they will with oil. Saudi pulls oil out at $6 and says they want to keep it around $80 specifically to avoid being expensive and spurring alternatives. Anyone trying to find a solution needs a BTU target to beat. He may be able to beat oil and gas at $100 and $14, but cant compete with $45 and $4 (we have seen all these prices over the last 1.5 years). The Government needs to say oil prices will trade feely, but we are going to tax them under XX dollars. That way there is a floor and people have a target to beat, otherwise you are especially waiting for peak oil to cause dramatic price rises and crisis innovation. Look at the world wide market for oil. Either you spend your life trying to convince every economy / government in the world to try your free market solution or you come to an understanding that its not a text book free market. Its stupid for us to have a free market when our supplier is a cartel. I dont think there is a fuel source that can compete with oil and gas at $40, but there is likely one that is more efficient and renewable at $100. Right now an inventor / oil company would go bankrupt. Better for Big Oil to let the chips fall where they may and buy up whatever is the winner.

http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/11063

Here is Gary Shilling's view concerning housing. http://www.gurufocus.com/news.php?id=97720

You guys have known Management a bit more then me, but I am willing to give them so rope. They seemed to have gotten through a very difficult time without selling the company for peanuts, going bankrupt, or raising capital. I would prefer great Management, but having seen average / bad. I will settle for this (looks like good, non communicative Management) and see what pops off after the Q2 release. Great communication though would do wonders for the share price, but the same could be said about ATSG.

Irrationally? Im guessing someone will say that people know they will lose, but are paying for the entertainment.

He said similar things about the UK Market. Should be interesting to watch what sets it all off.

LOL. Thats hilarious. Good point, I have peanuts so everything is material, but ya Prem probably hasnt lost too much sleep over this one.

This is what happened to FUR, they announced a rights offering which dragged on the price. The stock traded down to where the rights offering was and FUR was trapped in that price range. All other REITs rallied 20%. Its why I think we may see $1.09 share price. I think the market thinks if Management is selling shares at $1.09 why should we pay more. I think SFK will be repriced when the new balance sheet comes out and they show Profits and CF. I think we will get great CF, but dont know about profits (not sure how they will revalue the assets). I think we are stuck but with Pulp prices above $900 we will eventually get that revaluation. I plan on buying / holding. Either via rights or right at $1.09 if we get that low. In 1.5 months, I think this will turn out to be very profitable. Low Debt, Low Interest Payments, Great Cash Flow, and maybe even profits. ---- I have been investing for 3 years and I know rights offerings basically kill any short term price increases in your stock. FFH has probably 100 - 150 years of experience so they have to know that, as well. They also know you dont chop off a commodity company when its commodity is experiencing a bull market run. I have to think Management has some sort of plan. They have FFH backing them. FFH wants more shares, but there has to be another reason. I dont think they have much plans for CF so they could have just paid down the debt overtime. Now they will pay down the debt, and then will start to build cash which makes no sense. A rights offering creates issues with how to allocate the new found cash flow. That tells me they want to buy something now or have some sort of use for the cash but need it upfront. Even if they pay down the debt, which wouldnt be the best reason to raise funds, I think we will still get the revaluations because SFK Pulp will look pretty good based on CF.

I think some people would do a good job, and some would not (kinda like now). I think alot would fail and someone else would pickup the tab. Similar to what happened before insurance / banking regulation. AIG obviously failed to properly reserve for CDS which were unregulated, it obviously didnt work out that well. I think it works well in theory / fairy tale land but its been tried and doesn't work well for society. With things such as Oil Spills Offshore and Nuclear Energy who cares about personal responsibility. The goal is prevention. Some people are long term greedy, you are assuming that everyone else. I know quite a bit of short term greedy people though, who don't work for the benefit of society. They cut corners and gamble. When it doesn't work Government has to step in, so great for them but bad for everyone else who picks up the tab. BP cut corners, the markets are punishing them, but that doesn't help make people whole. ----- Im surprised BPs stock is holding up so well with the cut. Interesting. http://www.streetinsider.com/Corporate+News/BP+%28BP%29+Establishes+$20+Billion+Fund,+Suspends+Dividend/5736244.html While the fund is building, BP's commitments will be assured by the setting aside of U.S. assets with a value of $20bn. The intention is that this level of assets will decline as cash contributions are made to the fund. Looks like Sharper was right, concerning assets. I bet when this is said and done, BP loses leases / right to drill in US waters.

Sometimes its beneficial for areas to be used for other purposes. Cali and Florida may lose if drilling is allowed depending on the numbers, relating to tourism and what not. Also 20% of the demand, 2% of reserves, you cant drill your way out. The numbers dont add up. Are you seriously arguing for no / De regulations? Seriously? So because regulation fail, no regulation is the solution. Show me an example of successful no regulation. Regulation minimizes - you cant prevent things from happening in my opinion. Seems like a false choice / faulty logic. What you saw is what self regulation / bad regulation / and bad incentives tend to deliver. Regulation should be reduced, improved, and incentives reshaped. I think we need smart efficient regulation - tough to get when some want no regulation and industry wants profitable regulation. If everyone agreed, we needed an efficient watchdog then we would get that. But a good bit of the populations thinks anything associated with Government / Regulation = Bad. I think we also need criminal prosecution, to drive better decisions.

Sugar and Corn have powerful lobbies.