Hawk4value

Sanjeev, thanks for getting the site back up, I was getting intense withdrawal symtoms.

I own L at very cheap prices. Bought at the right price I view it as a cash substitute because of its very strong balance sheet, ability to withstand macro headwinds, and the conservative hands at the helm. My read on Tisch is that he really does not have to do anything. His family has control, I am sure they get generous salaries and benefits and 401Ks. They get some dividend income, and they own shares which increase their ownership % as the outstanding shares are purchased and retired. What a gig!!! I think his first preference is to sleep really well at nite. He will do an investment when in his mind its very close to a sure thing. ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ. But it seems to work, the company has been around in one shape or form since the 60's I believe.

Had been watching Loews for years, then pulled the trigger a couple of years ago in the middle of the crisis. The company has a rock solid balance sheet. Is built to withstand any financial crisis the world can throw at it. Except for the insurance & hotel divisions, the other loews subsidiaries are focused on energy: gas, pipeline, drilling, or things the world cannot do without. They run the company as a family enterprize for the long, long term. Personally, I never intend to sell any shares, and will look to add in a downdraft.

All they're thinking about is how to have the upper hand on the other party in the next elections. They're politicians, that's what they do. The only way to stop this behavior is Term Limits. Politics should not be a career. Our founding fathers never intended it to be. Two terms and you are out!! Or to put it more clearly: Go get a real job!!

Just recently bought Bac "A" warrants. At a recent $4.65/warrant the leverage factor vs. the equity was over 2x. In addition strike price is reduced by any dividend payment over $.01.

Am I wrong in thinking that everyone in the government agrees that we must spend less, but that the primary hang up is whether there should be tax increases incorporated into any deal? I am sorry to say that I think you are wrong. Everyone in the gov't does not agree that we must spend less. The only reason that we are now having this debate in Congress is because of the outcome of the 2010 elections. If the Democrats still had control of both houses of Congress and the Presidency there would be no debate about spending less. There would have been no extension of the tax cuts in December, taxes would have increased. Unchallenged, the 2011 budget deficits would be between $1.5 to $2 trillion, and taxes would have been raised yet again in an attempt to cover the shortfall. Does anyone out there doubt this???

I think Warren's point is that it doesn't make sense to threaten not to pay your bills and default every time there's an internal debate about the proper level of spending. Can you imagine if every country did things like that, potentially defaulting every time politicians are split? I understand your point and under different circunstances I would agree. But, because our Congress is so dysfunctional, irresponsible, and conflicted, the only way to have a functional debate about the proper level of spending is under imminent threat of default. Its to bad its gotten to this point but how do you stop $1 to $2 trillion deficits into the future. As far as other countries that do not have a debt limit, lets talk about Greece, Italy, Spain, Ireland, Portugal, etc.....and the list goes on.

Zarley, Ok, understood. In that case why not have expenditures at 50%, 70% or 100% of GDP, then we can have government take 100% of our income. My point is that a man of Warren's statue needs to have an opinion about what is the appropriate size of government. The fact that Warren says revenues should be equivalent to expenditures is not enough. As far as I am concerned as government grows larger I retain less of my wealth, my options diminish, I am less free. Unfortunately Warren has abdicated his moral responsibility on this score.

“The way to limit debt is by taking in revenues that are appropriate in relation to your expenditures,” I love Warren but this quote is beyond the pale. "...take in revenues that are appropriate in relation to your expenditures...", yes true, but the key thought here is "what are appropriate expenditures". If your expenditures are out of wack and growing expotentially, tax revenue increases will evantually stifle economic growth and make serfs of us all. As smart as Warren is I simply don't understand why he refuses to acknowledge that spending needs to be controlled before you can have a rational discussion about revenue increases.

How can you apply "rationality" to Congress. A politician overspends to "bribe" voters in order to get re-elected. This has nothing to do with being rational, its about survival. A politician will continue to overspend as long as he can get away with it. When did Congress ever have a rational discussion about overspending???? The only reasons we are having any discussion at all presently is because of the 2010 elections and the debt limit.

I think the income will be retained in HOA Holdings. I don't think any of it will be trickling down, but they will benefit from their ownership in HOA. It seems that CCLR is a holding company/conglomerate for several businesses. With HOA buried in this structure it seems like the only way to realize its value, and get it reflected in CCLR's stock price, is an IPO??

The following passage was in the recent CCLR 10K for 3/31/2011. I am trying to figure out what % of HOA, LLC. CCLR owns. I calculated it to be .49%. Also I did not read about any money flowing down to CCLR from HOA operations. Can anyone shed some light?? "...On January 24, 2011, Investors LLC and its three partners combined to form HOA Holdings, LLC ("HOA LLC") and completed the acquisition of Hooters of America, Inc. ("HOA") and Texas Wings, Inc. ("TW"). Together HOA LLC has created an operating company with 161 company-owned locations across sixteen states, or nearly half of all domestic Hooters restaurants and over one-third of the locations worldwide. The Company received $400,000 in January 2011 for services provided in completion of the purchase of HOA and TW by HOA LLC. The Company has a consulting agreement with HOA LLC and is scheduled to receive $100,000 in January of each year for director and other services provided by Mr. Pruitt. We have accrued two months of the consulting fee in the amount of $16,667 at March 31, 2011. Investors, LLC had a note receivable in the amount of $5,000,000 from HOA that was repaid at closing. Investors LLC then invested $3,550,000 in HOA LLC (approximately 3.1%) ($500,000 of which is the Company's share). One of the investors in Investors LLC that owned a $1,750,000 share is a direct investor in HOA LLC and now carries its ownership in HOA LLC directly. The Company now owns approximately 14% of Investors LLC...."

I was disappointed in Warren's response and now feel that he is a biased partisan. Does not seem to be very concerned with the US mounting debt on the one hand, but then said that it should be addressed but not at the point of a gun. Well how does anything ever get done in this country with regards spending if it is not at the point of a gun??? Seems to be critical of any Republican inspired solution. If I remember correctly, when the massive healthcare bill was shoved down everyone's throat by Obama and not even read by anyone in Congress, there was not a word from Warren. Very disappointing.

It's driving with your head in the clouds. I would like to be a little more forceful: "Its driving with your head up your ass." The video is as fine an example of hype as there is.

"...people who hold bonds might not get 100% back on the dollar. notice that everybody wants a bailout? they bought greek debt. let me say it again. they bought greek debt...." These European politicians do not give a dam about the people or the banks or anyone else. They want to get re-elected and hold on to power. In order to do this they cannot allow the system to clean itself out in one shot and create what would be a chaotic situation for maybe 12 to 18 months. So they print money, bail idiots out, create enormous deficits, destroy the value of the currency and everyone's wealth, drag the whole mess out for the last 4 years and counting, and systemically weaken the system in the process. People like Sakoszy and Merkel, etc. would be much more helpful if they simply put a gun to their heads and pulled the trigger.

Hmm.. why wait? Why wonder? Range bound volatile market is perfect for selling options premium! Just sold some puts on WFC, BRK, EBIX, and SHLD. It's a good way to earn while you wait... I am not too familiar with puts and calls. When you sell puts, is there a chance that you have to give up your shares if the price goes down past a certain level??? If not, what is the downside if any??

Reserve redundancies 2002-2009 nearly at 10% for the active companys. Sorry I am not up on the jargon, but when you say "10% reserve redundancies" do you mean they were able to release 10% of there reserves per year for the 2002-2009 period??? I assume this was because they were very conservative with there loss projections.

Since we are discussing Big Tech, has anyone considered Cisco. It has net cash of about $26.5bil, or $4.82/shs. At $16.53/shs you are buying the business for $11.71/shs. Earnings are about $1.28/shs, or a PE about 9.15. I am by no means a lover of Tech but this seems rediculous for a fortress balance sheet and a solid cash generator.

I'd much rather take the debt side of housing, particularly of the hard money variety. There is an active market for people looking for short-term, high-interest money and there are investors willing to pay for it. I'd much rather broker a $100K loan to a group of high net worth investors and take my commission. I totally agree with you. I believe in this market HMLs are the way to go. As long as you lend at 60 to 70% loan to value and have a 1st mortgage on the property. If the borrower defaults then you can foreclose at a cheap price. Great way to "buy" real estate.

There are some jurisdictions where frivolous lawsuits are made rare simply by adopting a commonsensical rule of law: loser pays all legal bills and court costs. Unfortunately our political system values campaign contributions above common sense and the fiduciary responsibility to the electorate. Make no mistake this is a real Banana Republic mentality. Our politicians should be ashamed of themselves.

So I try to be generous. I remember what it was like being young and hungry and wanting to learn from pros who didn't have time to teach me (and the one or two that did gave me the medicine straight, not sugared down. I wouldn't have it any other way, so neither should you. I didn't ask people to be diplomatic when they were teaching me lessons that saved my ass). I've been there, so I try to give back. Harry, for my part I want you to know that I consider your insights invaluable. I have not copied your investments thus far but I have studied them and have learned much about your process. I have a peculiar affinity for insurance companies because of the attraction of investing and earning a return on Float (OPM), money that is not your own. But your statement about the real possibility of getting wiped out with insurance investments is sooooooooooo true. You have confirmed my initial thoughts that insurance management and the process they use is the key. I am extremely fearful of management and am still not quite confident in distingushing excellent from bad management. But with your assistance I am learning. I appreciate your continuing desire to pass along your valuable experience. I hope one day soon to reciprocate and offer some worthwhile ideas.

Prem brought about ten people to our dinner this year! Not only Francis, Sam Mitchell, Brian Bradstreet, Paul Rivett, and Peter Furlan, but also the CEO's of Megablocks, Sandridge, Abitibi-Bowater, Kennedy-Wilson & The Brick! It was nuts and the shareholders at our dinner loved every moment. Having reviewed the pics there is only one thing to say: WOW!! I will make every effort to attend next year.

The line about savers getting short-changed by Fed inflation policy amuses me. It's the most misunderstood cliche.... Well I think you might agree that the US has a large and quickly growing senior citizen class that is retried, or will shortly be retired. These people have no desire to "play" the stock market with their Principle. They want to invest it "safely" for income, particularly after what happened during the last Crash. That principally means Treasuries, CDs, etc. This large and growing segment of the population is getting killed by Fed induced low interest rates, the collapse in the value of the dollar, and the resultant increase in the cost of living, i.e. food, fuel, gas, etc. If you know anything about economic history when you have a crisis and collapse due to risky behavior the price (interest rates) of capital is supposed to go up not down. Capital becomes scarse not plentiful. Companies that engaged in risky behavior go bankrupt and get sold to the smart people that still have the scarse Capital. The Fed has corrupted the natural healing process. Make no mistake there will be severe consequences.

People say don't fight the Fed. I say don't fight the election cycle. Mr. Obama wants to get re-elected at all costs. Nothing else matters: not the deficit; not inflation; not the devaluation of the $; not the fact that seniors get nothing on their savings because interest rates are kept artificially low....... We will have QE-3, the debt cieling will be raised, the stock market will be propped up. The public will be made to "feel" good. Isn't it great to live in a centrally planned economy. I don't believe there is anything to worry about until after November 2012.

That's interesting that they are doing this. Finally!! But what about the big Kahunas like Jamie Dimon, Paul Prince, Robert Rubin, etc., the investment bank heads, and the people that ran Fannie & Freddie. These institutions were all grease spots, bankrupt, GONE. The taxpayers bailed all of them out. Why are these people getting a pass? Probably because they do a good job of kissing Obama's ass, and giving money to his reelection campaign.