Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
Politics / Re: This is the Left
« Last post by Jurgis on Today at 08:37:00 AM »

There are plenty of places to argue about politics on the internet.  Why, oh why, does CoBF have to be one of them?  No one is convincing anyone else to change their mind and, instead, we're now sowing division among board members.

Sanjeev - It's completely up to you, but if I had a vote I'd vote to get rid of all of the political stuff on this board.

I'd go a little further and say if politics isn't banned from the forum, except where it's narrowly being discussed as it relates to a specific investment case, it'll probably end up destroying the board.
I think Sanjeev needs to decide what COBF's business is, then stick to it.

I have said these things couple years ago.
I think that it's already too late.
Strategies / Re: The case for Europe
« Last post by Spekulatius on Today at 08:34:46 AM »
I'm not disliking Europe. But i find myself asking: Is this true value or is it relative value given that the US is so expensive right now?

The article looks at the relative discount between Europe and the US stocks and suggests that it is as large as it has ever been. So, that’s a relative valuation call. The sticks that I brought up seem cheap in absolute terms especially the finacials. There are reasons why finacials in Europe are cheap , but both LYG and UBS are real franchises too.
Just to tie off the sequester discussion.
Valid point re feedstock volume and reliability.

The alternative to a nearby single C02 source (gasification, coal-powered power plant) is a collector network; a first mile tie-up from source to network, and a last mile tie-up from network to injection facility. Refurbish and reuse the existing collection network in spent fields, and 1) capital costs come down quite a bit, 2) proximity favours CO2 from a local basin returning to the same basin, and 3) CO2 emission has economic incentive to feed into the network versus simply vent. Collector networks become environmental ‘assets’ enabling physical tracking of CO2 processing, digital tracking via blockchain, fully transparent reporting of ‘net’ versus ‘gross’ environmental CO2 emission, and robust carbon-trading. If both source and injection facility are in the same province - it is also a much easier political ‘sell’.

There are really ‘two’ carbon cost recovery prices. A high cost to extract diluted carbon from the atmosphere (energy, diluted concentration, minimum scale, etc.), and a much lower cost to extract carbon from a much more concentrated and reliable source (injector facility cost structure resembling a refinery). Pay more to dispose via venting, or less to dispose via the collector facility (plus a cost of $X per km transported). Then add to it that the injection facility is both a monopoly AND a clean air refinery, and that the existing collection facilities of o/g producing provinces gives them a competitive advantage.

Sequestment is ‘social enterprise’ investing; and very strongly resonates with both Gen Z (born >1995) and Millennials (born 1981-1995). Furthermore, recent surveys indicate that on average ‘consumers would spend 17% more for products that came with social or environmental benefits; 58% of responders also wanted to understand the impact they’re having when they buy a product linked to a social cause' (WEconomy; Keilburger, Branson, Keilburger, p129). Us ‘older’ generations, arguing against carbon-tax because it will both disrupt and raise prices, just don’t get it. Yes, we may win battles in the near-term, but we aren’t going to stop the flow of the river.

Hence new attitudes, and new approaches.

... that the US has fallen deeper and deeper into a financial corporatocracy wherein the banks are the ones really pulling all the strings...
Is this a quote from Henry Clews book "50 years in Wall Street" from 1850's?

“There is nothing new in Wall Street. There can’t be because speculation is as old as the hills. Whatever happens in the stock market today has happened before and will happen again.”
— Jesse Lauriston Livermore
Fairfax Financial / Re: Fairfax India new issue
« Last post by lessthaniv on Today at 08:23:30 AM »
I’m a buyer for the long term here..

I think some volatility, in addition to the financial firms as previously mentioned, is being caused by the upcoming election next April...

Investment Ideas / Re: NVR - NVR Inc.
« Last post by reader on Today at 08:19:38 AM »
Investment Ideas / Re: IDWM - IDW Media Holdings Inc.
« Last post by KJP on Today at 08:11:16 AM »
to the 1st question:

I dont think NFLX owns them forever. Im sure they have some renewal rights but IDW can take them elsewhere I believe at some point.

That's my suspicion also, but has IDWM said that?

You might not capitalize those shows forever but what about the value of the content portfolio and shows in pipeline and show that can be made from owned IP. this is how it works I think....

I agree.   My point is that you can't do a valuation that's a multiple of 2020 expected EBITDA and also say you're assigning no value to incremental shows.  But using a multiple of EBITDA, you're implicitly saying there's a lot more to come than just these three shows and you are putting value on the future pipeline now.  I'm not suggesting it's wrong to put value on that pipeline, I'm only suggesting it's double-counting to suggest an EBITDA multiple valuation and say that such an approach puts no value on the future pipeline.
General Discussion / Re: The Fed and interest rates
« Last post by globalfinancepartners on Today at 08:02:24 AM »
If you don't normalize interest rates when the economy is going gangbusters, you don't have any room to ease when the cycle turns.  I won't get into the debate on whether we should even be trying to soften the extremes of the cycle - but the rate environment many people got used to was not 'normal.'
re: blackcoffee's statement: "Now to be fair, the reason those losses didn't materialize is mostly because of the massive intervention by the FED"
You cited Adam Spittler's forensic accounting. Well I wonder if you and others listened to his interview on Quoth the Raven's podcast recently? He doesn't just say that FnF didn't need the bailout; he takes it one step further that conservatorship actually hurt the companies because after conservatorship they were used as a vehicle to by toxic mortgages from the failing banks. It's tantamount to administering poison to cure the patient. And then, he goes even further than that. According to him, once the value of securities in FnF plummeted, the small banks holding preferred stock as tier 1 capital went under, largely because of the write-downs of this capital. When those banks failed they were taken over by the government and their assets -including the now virtually worthless FnF preferred shares- were auctioned off. And one of the major auction buyers was J. Paulson. So, it makes you wonder if this was all planned since if anyone was hooked into the economic and political chicanery it would be JP. I suspect that it was, and that the plan is to implement an MBA-type plan while paying off investors such as Paulson who bought preferred shares. The whole thing is disgusting, but it all seems to be playing out.

Howard speaks to what should happen if we had an honest dialogue, but I suspect the darker view of his politically savvy friend Maloni describes the future more accurately. Probably the only thing that could prevent this ultimate theft is proper discovery in the courts and subsequent media attention. And that fact would explain the bare-knuckle court tactics of Treasury. But the plaintiffs are likely more focused on getting paid rather than saving FnF, so ultimately when offered a deal they'll break off before trying to save the GSEs. It makes me wonder why they haven't just paid the preferred shareholders off and get on with the plan. I think that's where we are now, and that's what Mnuchin and Phillips have in store after the elections.

As far as the details of the MBA-type plan for FnF being economically unsound, as discussed here and by Howard in his blog and book, my dark view is that this is more of a long-term problem to be addressed when the next recession occurs. And these engineers will cross that bridge when they come to it with their new "tool kit."

I did listen to the QTR podcast and Howard's book seems me to have guided ASPIT and not the other way around but that is neither here nor there. I was a little disappointed by the podcast actually but that is on Chris more than ASPIT. Don't get me wrong it was fine, it just wasn't good enough.

Some people say that the HP's heads hitting the floor move on the GSEs is what sparked the entire crisis in the first place. As their regulator at the time said, the GSEs would have had enough capital to weather any storm and their exposures at the time were limited. However if you have a Goldman led consortium move in that controls the treasury... well they don't really care how many bodies they create - they want it all.. and to your point about small banks getting crushed because of their GSE pref holdings... well that's all the better for them now isn't it?

And yes it doesn't seem to matter what's best or right anymore - the courts have been an absolute disgrace in this regard. It really hammers home the fact that the US has fallen deeper and deeper into a financial corporatocracy wherein the banks are the ones really pulling all the strings, the corporations are simply herded in the right direction and if they get out of line... well guess who can pull their funding?

You'd have to be asleep to believe it.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10