Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10
1
Investment Ideas / Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Last post by Investmentacct on Today at 08:57:02 PM »
Tesla is an amazing company that created cars that greatly appealed to an overlapping cross-section of market demand. Their cars are appealing to:
1. luxury car buyers
2. premium performance car buyers
3. Early Tech adoptors
4. Environmentally conscious car buyers

They were building for themselves a very nice niche within these markets and I could see them having a long-term success if they stayed in this area.

I think they could have even pulled off the Model 3 as a lower priced option for those 4 markets broadening their markets, it would have been a stretch but I think they might have been able to. They miss marketed it as a mass market car.

But they decided to get into other areas, primarily Solar City and took on the debt associated with that business. also to a lesser extent, they got distracted with solar roofing, power walls, and other cool things.

I don't think I would have had the guts to buy Puts if it weren't for the Solar City debt.

Add category 5). Economical . Once you realize that you are no longer dependent on Oil; and figure out to charge with free solar options ; your daily/yearly/life time driving is free of cost to no cost. So-Cal has several charging spots complete free. So, adding this category may help since luxury and economical may not have heard or experienced. But that's what is driving sales.
2
Investment Ideas / Re: GE - General Electric
« Last post by rb on Today at 08:56:29 PM »
Sad, but true GEmisntneven cheap after losing so much of its market cap.  You can buy a fairly comparable company SIEGY for basically the same valuation, but without any of the headaches.
Not quite. Siemens lacks an incredibly good aviation division.

I know  . they don’t have an aviation unit, but they do have. power unit (struggling too), a health care unit (partly spun off) and a very good automation and software business with annuity like attributes. While the engine aviation is a good business, it does have a significant drawback of undergoing multiyear ebbs and flows in FCF, which right for GE is inconviently is in an ebb cycle.
Sure, ebbs and flows and all that but jet engines are an incredibly profitable business. On top of that GE happens to be really good at it.
3
Investment Ideas / Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Last post by Investmentacct on Today at 08:35:49 PM »
I wrote a long-winded post that was lost.

Spek - CAO, not CFO.  CFO is only guy left in finance. ;-)

Eric - everyone loves to tell me about what Tesla / Musk says in Con calls, interviews, or view 3rd party PR like Elektek / IE, etc.  The best info is in their SEC filings.  Just like Valeant... when they present something / leak something / say something, and don't file an 8-K, you can bet you know why.  If you believe Musk's mis-truths, than I'm sure Tesla is an appealing investment.  I have found him to be someone who I believe nothing he says, so I look for other data to form my opinion for right or wrong.

Grant - I feel similarly.

I always wonder by those who are bullish, how do they keep these things in their mind:
1) Pedo comment
2) Comment yesterday about building car carriers
3) Battery swap offer
4) Solar roof announced out of whole cloth with <5 installations 2 years later
5) Lying about SCTY acquisition (many lies, you can pick one)... they have been shuttering it and killing volume ever since
6) Recent note that they are going to do repairs in house and throwing (by implication) their service providers under the bus (even though, immediately after the tweet Musk admitted) that spare parts from Tesla are the primary delays?
7) Claim in June last year about 20k M3's in 2017... they did a few less than that
8) Executive departures en mass (>100% turnover) -- we think the best and brightest are left?  Or maybe the ones willing to push... boundaries?
9) $420 buyout... hahahah... amazing.
X) I could go on... it's comical.  why does anyone believe anything Musk says?  It is like a preacher or a leader of a identity group which people believe because it feels good and reinforces their pre-conceived notions?  I can think of no other reason to believe this man than that we want to believe that someone exists who will "save" us.  I grew up in a religious house and this whole Musk thing feels the same.  People who are rational in the rest of their life have somehow grabbed onto this charlatan.

I'm not saying you can't be a terrible person and a liar and still be a great business person and make investors money... that is definitely possible.  But what seems to be the case is that in part of Musk's life people seem very clear that he is a liar... but just not when it matters to them (their cars safety, their quarterly deliveries, the reservation # that they don't update regularly, etc).  it's like he's only lying to save humanity...

BTW's, for those of you who are in it for the climate change, how do we justify that Musk likely has the highest carbon footprint of any human being on earth?  The cognitive dissonance must be amazing.

Yes, I have driven one. :)

Sorry, a little lunch rant. :-)

Enjoy guys, I've said my piece.  For those who don't feel like I feel here, I'd only ask that for the next week... every time you hear Musk tweet or talk, or you see an article written in praise... just ask why... use your skepticism.

It may surprise you.


 (their cars safety, their quarterly deliveries, the reservation # that they don't update regularly, etc)

For Car Safety data:
May want to check out some safety data about all 3 existing Tesla Models. Conspiracy theory may find nhtsa data to be faulty, so take with grain of salt. Review all type of safety ratings and then compare to all stated other existing and non-existing cars/SUVs.


https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2018/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/4%252520DR/RWD

4
Investment Ideas / Re: GE - General Electric
« Last post by Viking on Today at 08:21:58 PM »
The lesson for me continues to be buy quality companies when they are out of favour. And stay way from bad managment or businesses that are in decline.
5
Investment Ideas / Re: BAM - Brookfield Asset Management
« Last post by John Hjorth on Today at 08:15:11 PM »
Behind every great company there is a great story. [I.e. for Investor AB, I have access to 100 years of financials on the company website.]

[If one has studied Berkshire, perhaps combined with the Buffett Partnership Letters, also perhaps combined with the information in "Snowball", one get a clear line of the whole evolution in Mr. Buffett's wealth].

I have been struggling now for months with "a missing link" about Mr. Flatt & Co's takeover of control of Brascan [now BAM] back then. Found out a bit about it last weekend - the whole thing still appears opaque to me.

I have posted about my findings in the PVF.UN topic here: http://www.cornerofberkshireandfairfax.ca/forum/investment-ideas/pvf-partners-value-investments-inc/msg346184/#msg346184 .
6
General Discussion / Re: What are you buying today?
« Last post by Lance on Today at 07:31:48 PM »
KHC

Thanks
Lance
7
Investment Ideas / Re: PVF - Partners Value Investments LP
« Last post by John Hjorth on Today at 07:30:00 PM »
This will be a long post, so feel free to skip ... - however I have placed the long part - the source - in the lower end of this post.

As already mentioned by me earlier, I'm still interested in this partnership. I haven't come to a final conclusion yet, if this is even feasible for me, or not. It's about taxation, according to Danish legislation. However, I haven't given up on it yet. [I think I can hold it in tax deferred accounts, but still not sure of that as of now yet.]

- - - o 0 o - - -

The problem I've struggling with - now for months - has been: "How did Mr. Flatt and his team actually gain control of Brookfield [back then: Brascan]?" -  If you look at the financials for the predecessor legal entity for PVF.UN, I speculate it must have involved taking on a lot of personal leverage, ref. the financials presented in Joel's BAM monster compilation for the predecessor entity.

It turns out, that perhaps this was not the case, because PVF.UN is actually dominated by a private corporation called "Partners Limited", which is again controlled by a private corporation called "Partners Holding" - with three shareholders [only]: Mr. Flatt, Mr. Cockwell & Mr. Price. [As I understand things, Mr. Cockwell was back then the CEO and controlling owner of the whole system before Mr. Flatt took over as CEO, so I speculate he's still [a lot] involved with capital - thereby today being some kind of "BAM grey eminence" [and on the board of BAM, if I remember correctly].

- - - o 0 o - - -

Source:

BAM Information Circular 2018, p. 5:

Quote
About Partners Limited

Partners Limited is an Ontario corporation that was formed in 1995 and whose principal business mandate is to hold shares of the Corporation, directly or indirectly, for the long term. As at May 1, 2018, there were 38 Partners, and they collectively own, directly or indirectly, the common shares of Partners Limited. The following individuals, who are each direct or indirect shareholders of Partners Limited, are also current directors of the Corporation or named executive officers, as defined by applicable securities laws (“Named Executive Officers”), of the Corporation for 2017: Jeffrey M. Blidner, Jack L. Cockwell, J. Bruce Flatt, David W. Kerr, Brian D. Lawson, Brian W. Kingston, Cyrus Madon and Samuel J.B. Pollock (see “Compensation Discussion and Analysis” on page 43 of this Circular for further information on “Named Executive Officers”). Additionally, Messrs. Cockwell, Kerr and Lawson are directors of Partners Limited.

Partners Limited’s operations are governed by a shareholders’ agreement (the “Partners Shareholders Agreement”) to which each shareholder of Partners Limited (each, a “Partners Shareholder”), and each Partner, is a party. Certain decisions of Partners Limited require the approval of a majority of the Partners (irrespective of shares held) and other decisions require the approval of a majority or supermajority of shares held by the Partners Shareholders. Specifically, Partners Shareholders holding two-thirds of the shares of Partners Limited can at any time require a Partners Shareholder to sell his, her or its shares. The Partners Shareholders Agreement also provides that: (i) unless otherwise approved by holders of at least two-thirds of the common shares of Partners Limited, any sale of an interest in Partners Limited will only be made to other Partners Shareholders; (ii) any changes to Partners Limited’s by-laws, election of directors, dividend policy, principal investments, the issue or redemption of shares or admission of other individuals as Partners Shareholders require the approval of those holding at least two-thirds of Partners Limited’s common shares; and (iii) Partners Limited will offer to purchase 5% of its outstanding shares annually based on the stock market price of the Class A Shares, subject to Partners Limited’s financial capability at the time. An important business objective of Partners Limited, as expressed through the Partners Shareholders Agreement, is to ensure orderly succession of ownership, including Partners Limited’s direct and indirect ownership in shares of the Corporation.

For estate planning and other reasons, many of the Partners hold their interests in Partners Limited through holding entities on an individual or joint basis. One such holding entity (“Partners Holdings”) was the original sponsor of Partners Limited and is owned, directly and indirectly, by Jack L. Cockwell, J. Bruce Flatt and Timothy G. Price, all long-serving executives or former executives of the Corporation. Although Partners Holdings itself owns a majority interest in Partners Limited, none of the shareholders of Partners Holdings nor any other Partners own, on a look-through, proportionate basis, more than 40% of Partners Limited. The shareholders of Partners Holdings, as well as Partners Holdings itself, are signatories to the Partners Shareholders Agreement and are all therefore bound by its terms. The shareholders of Partners Holdings have agreed that they will vote all Class A Shares owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by them in favour of the election of directors of the Corporation that have been endorsed by Partners Limited. However, irrespective of Partners Holdings’ ownership percentage in Partners Limited and any arrangements between the shareholders of Partners Holdings, the Partners have the contractual ability to exercise control over material decisions of Partners Limited.

Partners Limited is a party to a Trust Agreement with Montreal Trust Company of Canada (now operating as Computershare Trust Company of Canada) as trustee for the holders of Class A Shares, dated August 1, 1997 (the “Trust Agreement”). The Trust Agreement provides, among other things, that Partners Limited has agreed not to sell any Class B Shares, directly or indirectly, pursuant to a takeover bid at a price per share in excess of 115% of the market price of the Class A Shares or as part of a transaction involving purchases made from more than five persons or companies in the aggregate, unless a concurrent offer is made to all holders of Class A Shares. The concurrent offer must be: (i) for the same percentage of Class A Shares as the percentage of Class B Shares offered to be purchased from Partners Limited; (ii) at a price per share at least as high as the highest price per share paid pursuant to the takeover bid for the Class B Shares; and (iii) on the same terms in all material respects as the offer for the Class B Shares. These provisions in the Trust Agreement also apply to any sale of shares in Partners Limited if such a sale would be deemed an indirect offer for the Class B Shares under the takeover bid provisions of the Securities Act (Ontario). Additionally, Partners Limited has agreed to prevent any person or company, including a Partners Shareholder, from carrying out a direct or indirect sale of Class B Shares in contravention of the Trust Agreement.
8
Investment Ideas / Re: ALSN - Allison Transmission Holdings
« Last post by Saluki on Today at 07:27:39 PM »
any reason to think this is still fairly cheap here?  mcap/fcf could be around 10x?

EV/Ebit is below 10, so it still looks okay, but not ridiculously cheap. I own a small amount of it , about 1% of my portfolio (I started builiding a position, but it started climbing as soon as I bought it and I waited for it to come down, but it's up about 30% in the past couple of months.  I didn't want to pay 5% more, so the jokes on me now). 

At this point I'll just sit on it until Jan 1 so I don't have to pay taxes on it if I sell.  If it dipped I would buy more but a couple of other things I like (TPHS and SSW) have come down in the past few weeks so I'm nibbling on those in the meantime. 
9
Investment Ideas / Re: BAM - Brookfield Asset Management
« Last post by villainx on Today at 07:15:02 PM »
anyone going to the investor day tomorrow?

I'll be there.

I plan to be there for some of the presentations.  In the middle of move and renovation, so ... I'll be the one who will look most out of place.
10
Investment Ideas / Re: TSLA - Tesla Motors
« Last post by Spekulatius on Today at 06:46:35 PM »
I don't believe anything Musk says, but it is notable Deepak Ahuja also claimed they'd be able to pay off their debts and maintain a healthy cash balance. I might be inclined to believe him if someone could demonstrate exactly how this could happen, using math.

I saw that too.  Deepak is the guy that someone recently said was meant to be resigning right before it implodes to keep the bankruptcy off of his resume.

So which is it?

Spek misspoke about the C level exec he meant. The CAO (not CFO) resigned after one month on the job walking - away from $10m in equity. CFO (deepak) is still there.

Thanks for the correction. You are correct. It’s still a bad sign  since the same logic applies.
Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 10