valuecfa

King, being that you are a Thai native and invest in its markets, i was curious of your perception of fraud in Thai companies. I find so many Thai companies that trade for incredible valuations, yet i feel that the i can't trust the majority of the numbers coming out of Thailand. In total I've spent about a month in the country, and while i love it, it is immediately noticeable that there are cons everywhere. And i mean everywhere. Even in front of the Grand Palace there were an insane amount of openly played directly in sight of authorities, which accept it. The government seems to not care about cons/fraud even in its most respected locations/circumstances. I was curious if you thought that this accepted behavior extends to corporate circumstances.

Just found this (hilarious to those that have followed this joker's story):

Bond Buyers eye Illinois: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730704576066300865833180.html - http://finance.yahoo.com/news/House-Budget-Chief-Ryan-Says-bloomberg-1592501534.html?x=0&sec=topStories&pos=9&asset=&ccode=

Knowing the history and chest pumping between the two, it is likely the board will either outright reject the offer (saying it undervalues the company) or counter with a much higher offer. Even though the CEO doesn't want to give up the job, he does own a few shares and might not mind a quick payday.

If he is willing to pay $31, then he must be willing to pay... Darn. I was only able to pick up 500 shares at a reasonable price.

Merry Christmas everyone! Have a wonderful Holiday

As Buffett suggested, How would I rate states and major municipalities? I mean, if the federal government will step in to help them, they’re triple A. If the federal government won’t step in to help them, who knows what they are?

I guarantee you the federal government will bail them out. It has already begun with the BAB bonds, and it will continue in a more direct way eventually. If the government bailed out GM, AIG, Fannie, Freddie, and others they will certainly bailout the states. It may take a major default before the politicians become aware of the gravity of the situation, but the bailouts have already begun.

How is a $160 to $420 in two-three years a single. What kind of returns do you expect? I hate to belabor the point, but many of you are over sensitive. Many even got larger returns depending on the entry point. Again, I am not intending to be the lone defender but some of the comments don't seem to stand on logic, facts, and history. He is certainly not perfect and neither are we. Here is one bit of logic, fact, history. Recall: Feb. 11, 2008, "I have made a personal commitment to you that I will spend all the time necessary to rehabilitate The Steak n Shake Company. Not only will I refuse extra remuneration for the time I intend to commit, but I also will not accept any stock options. The reason is simple: We are one of the largest shareholders; thus, we plan to make money with you, not off you. Our conviction is that now is the time to make Steak n Shake’s culture one of ownership — all the way from the board level to the store level. Because we have made a commitment to own the stock of Steak n Shake for the long haul, our allegiance is to the long-term shareholders of the company. Our aim is to join the board and explore all avenues to maximize shareholder value." And just a short time later (after he gets on the board) he pretty much does the exact opposite. http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/wolf-in-sheeps-clothing1.jpg He is not a dumb guy. However, i don't know that i would want to invest with a guy who lies to shareholders right off the bat.

You can always spot a Westerner in Tokyo from far away. He is the only one not wearing a suit. But you're right very, very few Westerners there. I think a large part of the reason for that (aside from its geography relative to USA/Europe) is that it is too expensive!

Has anyone done any research into which companies are exposed to the asset backed debt of for profit education companies? Besides the government of course.

Van Hoisington December update: http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/InterQuarterUpdate20101209.pdf

I'm interested in seeing the new smaller opportunity fund open soon. Though, given their reputation, I have a feeling it won't be all that small. Interesting to think that his favorite idea at the moment is bond insurer, MBIA (or so he said in a recent interview). At odds with Greenlight Capital's opinion.

Yes. The big question is what will they do with the cash that they earn over time. They are a cash flow machine. Since the business model is so asset light they don't require a large reinvestment to earn incremental cash returns. Once you take out the excess cash & investments the ROE is even more impressive, than it already is with excess cash & investments on the balance sheet. They have a goal to grow the dividend every year, so don't expect the dividends to stop. They will continue minuscule share repurchase each year as well, which have historically ranged from 1 to 3 percent of shares per year. They have been investing excess cash (that is not paid in dividends) in a limited partnership, treasuries, and common stocks. The company has a good little investor kit you can request, that includes audited financials. One page of the presentation shows 57.9% compounded annual growth rate in operating income from Q4 2004 through Q2 2009 (the presentation was done in November 2009). The company's plan with respect to cash flow is to return cash to shareholders over time through increasing dividends every year. Shareholders would be better off if they did this more rapidly via paying a larger special dividend instead of investing excess cash flow in other investments. They have a fantastic business, so i see no reason they need to reach for additional returns by investing in other common stocks. Just return the cash to shareholders and let them choose where they want to invest the excess cash.

You guys guessed it right, MAAL.PK Hat tip to Matt for bringing up the idea. Well...talks with this sMAAL company's mgmt. yielded little in persuading larger buybacks (or a special dividend) so i am through accumulating shares, and don't mind mentioning it now. They seem intent on doing things slowly. I don't think that it has as large a moat as i would like, but it has some pretty incredible underlying investment characteristics. Very illiquid though. Cheers

To what degree are the studying materials clear and comprehensible? Does it require a great deal of foreknowledge in finance in general and mathematics? Clear and comprehensible, yes. Not a great deal, but a math and/or business background will certainly help you learn concepts quicker. The majority of the math is basic math, until you get into the Quantitative Methods section of the studies. There it gets a bit more complicated discussing concepts and formulas involving stuff like covariance, correlation, sample correlation coefficients, outliers, hypothesis testing within confidence levels, linear regression, R2 and adjusted R2 in multiple regression, etc.. But all the Quant stuff makes up a small portion of the overall curriculum, so don't let it scare you if you aren't great at math. The majority is basic math stuff. Much of the Quant stuff i don't subscribe to anyway, but i learned it out of necessity (lots of greek symbol stuff in the quant section). Is the program focused on theory, mathematics, implementation/practice or is it just one big mix? I have also read that some people felt that there was to much focus on "complicated, far-fetched bs topics" that turned out to be useless. To what extent is this true? It is one big mix. The program is very, very broad too. It covers nearly every aspect of investing you could think of (discusses nearly everything from fixed income, to derivatives, to economics, accounting, corporate finance, Equities, alternative asset valuation, portfolio mgmt, ethics, etc). In my opinion, about 15% of the program teaches "BS" methods, formulas, or theories, that while i am glad i know them, i know i will never ever consider using them, b/c while they look good on paper, they make little practical sense in the real world. It doesn't tell you they are the right theories it just teaches you them, and teaches you others that might contradict them as well. The other 85% of the stuff you learn i think is very valuable and comprehensive. I have both an MBA and CFA, but i feel i learned 5 times more from the CFA curriculum. What is the percent of "drop-outs" for the program? Would it be wise to start with the program as soon as possible or would a couple of years of pratical experience (in finance in general) be a better choice for a bachelor like myself before even starting studying? It changes every year. Exams are challenging, with only 42% passing the Level I, 39% passing Level II, and 46% passing Level III exam in June 2010. Many just give up after passing 1 or 2 levels, so it tends to have a high drop out rate. I would start as early as possible, but it think you have to have a bachelors degree to even begin taking the test now, but i could be mistaken. It'll take up a fair amount of your time. I think most spend around 300 hours of study preparing for each level, and given the pass rates, it may not be enough time. It takes up a lot of your free time. What actual value does an employer give to a CFA in comparison with an MBA focused on this specific subject? Of course, in Europe this might be valued differently but I would like to hear more insights about this if possible. The major advantage of the MBA is that it is highly desired for nearly all career fields, whereas the CFA is a more narrow focused career path. Most people outside of the finance world have never even heard of it. I don't know how accurate they are, but they often do surveys every year comparing compensation levels. If i remember correctly, CFA vs MBA usually makes about 20% more, and CFA vs no CFA the difference was around 50%. Combined obviously makes the most. But who knows how accurate these surveys are.

Yes. Both would help immensely. In fact, some firms require you to get one or the other to move into an analyst role, from the associate role. One firm i worked at required you to take the exams as long as you were an associate. Of course, they paid for the material and exams. CPA would also most definitely help, though perhaps not as much as the other two for an analyst position. If you want to break into corporate finance (not I-Banking), but working for a corporation's finance department, then CPA would be more useful perhaps than a CFA for entry level positions. Connections are obviously very important in this field as well.

Difficult, but doable if you have a good GPA and attended a good school, especially for only a junior analyst position. Helps if you know a few people in the industry already. Would likely improve your chances greatly after you have received your MBA, or have completed at least a year into it. In your cover letter, explain the strengths your diverse background would bring to the firm, but that your really interest is in applying it to a business career. The trend lately, in the investment world, is that it is better to have a different undergraduate degree (say in engineering or programming) combined with either an MBA or CFA. The job outlook is not too great at the moment for investment professionals, though it has been ever so slowly improving as the firms begin to make money again. For a junior analyst, in particular, it is very beneficial if you have passed at least level 1 of the CFA as it shows your new dedication to the business aspect, as opposed to the horticulture aspect of your education. Something that i always looked for before hiring a fresh undergrad as a research associate/junior analyst is if they have passed level 1 of the CFA, as a kind of gauge to show how seriously they might take the job once hired. There is a lot of competition right now given all the layoffs in the financial world, so not having any current business background may hurt your chances at even an entry level position. Get 1 level of the CFA under your belt (doable by this summer) and that will help you immensely since you lack any business background right now. But truth is that it will be a bit tough in this economy until you get at least some business background. Edit: Another tip for you is to provide a writing sample with your Resume. It will show that you know your accounting and investing, and are able to communicate it in a clear fashion. This, combined with 1 CFA level, will likely be enough to at least land you an interview.

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/sac-tells-investors-it-got-government-subpoena-2010-11-23

I recently rolled over into the 2013 $7.50's

Looks like Prem and team aren't done accumulating: http://sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/915191/000120919110055341/xslF345X03/c08370_4x0.xml ~Long SD LEAPS

Anyone who held the former FFH shares on the NYSE automatically got converted to the pinks instead of the Canadian exchange shares. At least all my US based accounts auto converted into pinks.

Ah, yes. The market value (as well as the share count) is based on the underlying in the put contract, and not based on the premium value for the contract. Thanks for catching that.

It doesn't sound like their style, but that's what is in the filing. Will keep an eye out for an Amendment