Mephistopheles

I think it's crazy to think Berkowitz could sell his holdings at current prices without moving the share price. He's got a massive position and others would figure out quickly if he tried to move his position in the public market. If he move his positions in a privately negotiated position deal off market (assuming it doesn't have to be publicly reported in the daily ticker) that would be different. Touche. I meant since he wouldn't have to file if he sold, cloners wouldn't follow, but you're right.

Thanks. I looked into it and it's a great platform but doesn't seem to offer otc securities. I need my fnma/fmcc common&preferreds :(

I agree with everything you said. I'm not holding just because Berkowitz is in. I've read most of the court transcripts and filings and at this price it seems like an obvious bet for a small portion of my portfolio. What I'm worried about is that Discovery means that Fairholme and Perry have access to material non-public information (or lack their of) and have a huge advantage over everyone else; and given that he doesn't have to report his holdings, he can sell without causing a massive price drop.

This is exactly my concern. Not only is there technically no "information", but he also doesn't have to disclose anything if he does sell. Seems to be a huge advantage for those involved in discovery. I guess it's the price we have to pay for having the fund managers put up millions of dollars in order to fight for all investors.

Hey all, Can anyone recommend a good stock market simulator in which a group of people can compete against each other? I used VSE Marketwatch in the past but it was terrible, and didn't even account for dividends or spinoffs. Thanks

Thanks race!

I posted this question earlier, but I'll just repost here. Would he even be allowed to sell, given that he presumably has access to material non-public information from the Discovery process?

Berkowitz wouldn't be able to sell (or buy) based on material non-public information that he obtains via the discovery process, right? Let's say though that the discovery process doesn't present any useful information for the Plaintiffs, much less so than expected by the market. Would he be able to use this lack of information in a decision to sell?

Impressive! How did you end up in his office, if you don't mind me asking?

Did Klarman reduce his position in Boyd Gaming after realizing that's not the symbol for BYD, the Chinese electric car maker? LOL HAHA

So he doesn't have to disclose the preferred because he no longer owns the common? Anyone know the reason? Also, I don't get why Ackman doesn't have to disclose his common holdings. http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1336528/000117266114001862/xslForm13F_X01/infotable.xml Or is it because they are not listed on an exchange?

Yes, and that's your cost basis (.2). The $1 what it should be worth in a year. You are double counting the .2 by also subtracting it from the $1. This is just like calculating the return for a stock; what's it worth now, what's it worth when you sell, and how much time has passed.

Why would the strike price increase?

Mid-afternoon naps, according to Pabrai, increase productivity. I know, I know, it's not Buffett. But I remember reading somewhere that Pabrai mentioned this style to Buffett and the latter approved.

So I know these are non-cumulative preferreds. But if there was a takings, can preferred holders demand payment for missed dividends? It's not like the companies weren't profitable enough to pay dividends, it was that the government came in and took the money.

I don't have any models of my own. But check out the ones by Damodaran, which he offers for free. You can use these as a guide. http://pages.stern.nyu.edu/~adamodar/New_Home_Page/home.htm

Depends on the accounting standard used. For instance, Canadian REITs (and hotel companies) usually mark their real estate to fair value every year, as we switched over to IFRS from GAAP a few years ago. Did not know that. So when U.S. corporations finally adopt, a company like SHLD will have to mark their RE at FV? Interesting.

I had a similar experience with Bank of America. Although they took my side, I wasn't very satisfied. It was over a $50 bill at Pizza Hut on the other side of the country. I told them I haven't been in that region in years. They refunded me and investigated. I thought that was the end of it but then they mailed me a picture of the receipt, which clearly wasn't my signature, and said I need to sign the accompanying page saying it's not my signature and get it back to them the very NEXT DAY. Luckily they let me fax it, but it was annoying. I would think that they can a) see for themselves that it's not my signature by comparing w/their records and b) see that the purchase was on the other side of the country, with no other purchase in that area years before or after; and trust me based on that. I've disputed a bill with AMEX as well and it's much smoother. They make it clear that they trust you and want to be on your side. My dispute was only over $100, but that was what made it insane to spend $80 on cab rides there and back to get my card credited. It is ridiculous that they wouldn't credit me over the phone. I told this to CitiBank, the only thing the tour company did was send Citi a picture of the original receipt with my real signature on it and that was that. The charge was determined to be legitimate and reappeared on my account. It isn't much money, but I'm glad to find this out now before some issue ever comes up that involves something more substantial. Yea, makes sense. Amex would have heard your argument and realized it was ridiculous of the tour company to expect you to show up in person to cancel. My dispute for Amex was that I had purchased tickets to a college football alumni "event" at a bar in NYC, for my college team. But when we got there, there wasn't anything special going on, there was no reserved table, no special food or drinks, nothing. Nobody even checked our tickets. In other words, anybody could have just gone to the bar and sat down, which was mostly empty anyway. I explained this to Amex and they agreed that it was silly and credited me right away.

Incidentally, my respect for AMEX went up tremendously a couple of weeks ago. I had signed up for a credit card a few YEARS ago which had a minimum purchase of a few thousand in a few months, for which I would be awarded 30,000 miles. Unfortunately, I missed the deadline for the purchase because I was under the assumption that the time period begins from when I receive the card, not from when I signed up, which was two weeks prior to receiving it in the mail. So at the time I called them and tried to get them to give me a break and extend my deadline. They wouldn't bend, they said a deal is a deal. The other day, nearly 3 years later, I got a $300 check from them with a letter explaining that this it was for the missed miles. I couldn't believe it; they certainly won me over all over again.

I had a similar experience with Bank of America. Although they took my side, I wasn't very satisfied. It was over a $50 bill at Pizza Hut on the other side of the country. I told them I haven't been in that region in years. They refunded me and investigated. I thought that was the end of it but then they mailed me a picture of the receipt, which clearly wasn't my signature, and said I need to sign the accompanying page saying it's not my signature and get it back to them the very NEXT DAY. Luckily they let me fax it, but it was annoying. I would think that they can a) see for themselves that it's not my signature by comparing w/their records and b) see that the purchase was on the other side of the country, with no other purchase in that area years before or after; and trust me based on that. I've disputed a bill with AMEX as well and it's much smoother. They make it clear that they trust you and want to be on your side.

But they have not produced any documents either, right? What will happen next if they just delay the requests for production of documents forever? Maybe there is no document at all. If that's true, they cannot produce any documents unless they fake the documents. Will they eventually admit that there were no documents produced at that time? If they do, the defendants will surely lose the case, right? The case in the Federal Claims Court is currently in the discovery phase in which documents are being handed over.

;D :P

Guys, we are getting carried away. When I open this thread I want to find a good joke without having to sift through stuff like this. Please post all serious matters in the SHLD Investments thread, which can be found here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/shld-sears/.

This is a beginner law, perhaps naive, question; why would it end so quickly? Don't complicated cases that involve serious matters and tons of money last much longer? Like for example, didn't the BP case(s) last like 3-4 years? I know the Exxon Valdez one went on for well over a decade. I cite these two because I had invested in BP when the spill happened, so they're the first that come to mind.

LMAO. So you just stood there doing it over and over again??? I would have thought that they would pull the plug on you after say, the first couple of transactions.