Buffetteer

How exactly would Buffet profit from the spike in the share price of a company he plans to buy outright? He'll ultimately have to pay that price to buy the company anyways. They are completely different things.

LOL S2S...that's funny stuff!

I don't think it has anything to do with how much he made on the deal, it has to do with how he made it

I completely agree with Ballinvarosig. If someone from Citi that spoke to Sokol about LZ did what Sokol did, it would definitely be considered insider trading. They would be trading on information that others did not have, ie. that a possible acquisition would be pitched to Berkshire. How is it any different if Sokol does it?

I thought the same thing. A couple of times during the interview he mentioned that he told Warren about the shares, almost as though he was shirking responsibility for what he did. The timing is too coincidental. He resigns right after this is made public and Mr. Buffett doesn't try to talk him out of it this time. I'm very surprised at how this is being handled.

Are you guys watching this? I'm very disappointed. Can't believe Mr. Sokol didn't for a second think that buying almost 100K shares before pitching the company to Mr. Buffett would be a concern.

Oh, valuecarl, I really don't think BRK shareholders are "starving". I continue to trust that Mr. Buffett will be able to invest earnings more effectively than I can. As long as he can do that I'd rather not receive a dividend and would prefer for him to invest Berkshire's earnings. But look at the bright side, as long as he doesn't pay a dividend, you and Ms. Shroeder can have something to complain about. But I guess you're right, a 20%+ ROI for the past 45 years is not good enough. Maybe you & alice could teach him a thing or two.

She feels there should be more disclosure on Berkshire's succession plan. Won't she just go away already...sheesh...somebody tell her her fifteen minutes are up! Here's what Bruce Berkowitz had to say about Berkshire's succession plan: “He is so good at what he does, it’s almost insulting to think that he doesn’t have a reasonable succession plan. And I frankly don’t see why he should tell anyone.” — Bruce Berkowitz, quoted in January 2011

Yes but was announced before the market even opened.

Phew!!!!! Does look like a meaningless trade...only 200 shares right at the end. Thanks alertmeipp

Anyone know why...can't find any news on the company. Hope it's just a fat finger trade!

I agree, the board must go and go now. Berkowitz makes a great point in saying their resistance will only cost the shareholders money. It's inevitable, BB will win the proxy fight, the board should just accept it and resign.

This is from a news report on a local Panama City NBC affiliate. It is in regards to a possible hostile takeover bid by BB: "Although Fairholme holds only 29% of St. Joe's stock, insiders believe Berkowtiz can convince financial investors T. Rowe Price and Janus to pledge their 24% holdings to support him, giving Berkowitz majority control. Berkowitz hinted at the possibility Monday, telling Bloomberg News "It was clear to us we weren't going to be able to achieve anything further as directors. The only way we can be effective is as shareholders."

In case anyone is interested in reading a JOE company letter sent to its employees this morning: http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/745308/000129993311000494/exhibit1.htm

There may now be a proxy fight for the company. I am long on JOE, but man, this thing is becoming a real mess. http://www.cnbc.com/id/41579053?__source=yahoo|headline|quote|text|&par=yahoo

Not often you see a company down almost 5% on takeover talks...what a roller coaster!

Definitely see a lot of similarities between BB & WB. both long term value investors who eat their own cooking. They share the same risks as their shareholders and charge reasonable fees. Big fan of both, but I'm long on Joe and other BB investments, so I may be a little biased :)

Thanks BVH. I'm sure all the shorts rushing to cover doesn't hurt the price either.

Anyone know why. Is it simply because B. Berkowitz will probably become the new chairman of the board? That's the only news I could dig up on the company this morning.

Just got the notice today. Apparently they are splitting 5 for 1 as of Dec. 2.

If you're capable of understanding the world, you have a moral obligation to become rational. And I don't see how you become rational hoarding gold. Even if it works, you're a jerk. Charile Munger ps. great post shalab.

Thanks Parsad. Gotta love Bruce, very smart guy. Tried to find the story on Reuters but couldn't.

Thank cayale. I'm very surprised that the stock continues to slide after this vote of confidence by Berkowitz. Just finished listening to Einhorn's presentation and going through his slideshows. He gives a very persuasive argument against JOE, but it is one sided and he does have an interest in the stock going down. We'll see who is right, my money is on Bruce. Here's the link: http://www.marketfolly.com/

Thanks for your response gfp. I was looking at Exhibit B near the bottom of file. It lists two purchases on 10/13/2010. One for 35,600 shares @ $22.01 and one for 100,000 shares @ $22.21. Am I right in thinking that he added to his position yesterday? Judging by the continued slide of the stock, I may be wrong.

Hi all, I know there are a lot of people in this forum more knowledgeable than me when it comes to reading company filings. What I see from reading the 13-D filing (link listed below) is that Fairholme purchased over 100,000 shares of JOE yesterday just after the stock tanked 10%. Is this correct? Please let me know if I am missing something. Checking the stock this morning, it seems like it's still getting an 8% haircut, despite the Fairholme purchase. To me this looks like Bruce Berkowitz's answer to Einhorn's presentation at the Value Investor Congress. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/745308/000091957410005860/d1138270_13-d.htm Thanks for any help.