Rohan's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/117302/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/118144/comments?source=feed#comment-374834 374834 Tue, 03 Feb 2009 16:53:08 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/118144/comments?source=feed#comment-374678 374678 Tue, 03 Feb 2009 14:16:32 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/107153/comments?source=feed#comment-311260 311260
I'm sorry but did you even bother to read the article? Specifically the author's SECOND posting of the language from the 10-Q (just in case you missed it the first time), after which he notes:

"Today, Berkshire spokesperson Jackie Wilson confirmed to Reuters that the company has “nominal” collateral requirements that would take effect were credit rating agencies to reconsider its triple-A rating, and said that collateral requirements would total “far below 1 percent of assets”. Assets were $282 billion as of Q3, so we now know that Berkshire’s total collateral requirements, in a worst-case scenario, are “far below” $2.8 billion."

I don't really understand how this could be any more clear. I guess you could argue that Warren has instructed Jackie to lie about it, which would be in keeping with Warren's horrible, horrible reputation over the past five decades.

And Terry, as for the derivatives coming back to bite him in the ass and Warren being right in the thick of things, did you even get to the part discussing Warren's having shut down Gen Re's derivatives business years ago? He's taken plenty of precautions with the contracts he's entered into this year, and perhaps you should check back in with Berkshire in 2019, when the first payments on the equity puts would have to be made. In the meantime, we'll watch with eager eyes for you to perhaps be proven right as every high yield company he's written CDS on defaults. Buffett says it's unlikely that happens, but who cares, for LO the mighty bum from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan hath rendered his judgement!

For the love of God, people. Work on your reading comprehension. ]]> Thu, 20 Nov 2008 19:49:27 -0500
I'm sorry but did you even bother to read the article? Specifically the author's SECOND posting of the language from the 10-Q (just in case you missed it the first time), after which he notes:

"Today, Berkshire spokesperson Jackie Wilson confirmed to Reuters that the company has “nominal” collateral requirements that would take effect were credit rating agencies to reconsider its triple-A rating, and said that collateral requirements would total “far below 1 percent of assets”. Assets were $282 billion as of Q3, so we now know that Berkshire’s total collateral requirements, in a worst-case scenario, are “far below” $2.8 billion."

I don't really understand how this could be any more clear. I guess you could argue that Warren has instructed Jackie to lie about it, which would be in keeping with Warren's horrible, horrible reputation over the past five decades.

And Terry, as for the derivatives coming back to bite him in the ass and Warren being right in the thick of things, did you even get to the part discussing Warren's having shut down Gen Re's derivatives business years ago? He's taken plenty of precautions with the contracts he's entered into this year, and perhaps you should check back in with Berkshire in 2019, when the first payments on the equity puts would have to be made. In the meantime, we'll watch with eager eyes for you to perhaps be proven right as every high yield company he's written CDS on defaults. Buffett says it's unlikely that happens, but who cares, for LO the mighty bum from Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan hath rendered his judgement!

For the love of God, people. Work on your reading comprehension. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/101409/comments?source=feed#comment-288837 288837
You are saying Warren Buffett is unethical. Garbage.]]> Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:29:42 -0400
You are saying Warren Buffett is unethical. Garbage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/101409/comments?source=feed#comment-288830 288830 Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:22:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/82802/comments?source=feed#comment-200973 200973
While the subprime fiasco was foreseen by many, an all-out stoppage of the securitization markets was even still in the midst of it all a rather low-probability event that took down DFC. Who knows...lots of heretofore unprecedented events taking portfolios down these days, perhaps there is indeed more to come.]]> Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:12:46 -0400
While the subprime fiasco was foreseen by many, an all-out stoppage of the securitization markets was even still in the midst of it all a rather low-probability event that took down DFC. Who knows...lots of heretofore unprecedented events taking portfolios down these days, perhaps there is indeed more to come.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83121/comments?source=feed#comment-196794 196794
So Ken Heebner's numbers, for instance, appear to track relatively closely to what he's actually turned in. That makes sense since he turns over his portfolio 3-4x a year, so recent purchases are actually indicative of his overall fund.

Still, though, position sizing matters. Joel Greenblatt's number above is entirely based on a tiny purchase of ODP.]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:48:14 -0400
So Ken Heebner's numbers, for instance, appear to track relatively closely to what he's actually turned in. That makes sense since he turns over his portfolio 3-4x a year, so recent purchases are actually indicative of his overall fund.

Still, though, position sizing matters. Joel Greenblatt's number above is entirely based on a tiny purchase of ODP.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83121/comments?source=feed#comment-196671 196671
Further, Marty Whitman's had a pretty well publicized bad bet against Ackman on the bond insurers, but his Third Avenue Value Fund is only down 17% or so YTD. Not sure where the -40%-esque numbers are coming from.

Makes me question most of the data on this list.

Lastly, those of you who expect a fund manager to outperform in every market are just short sighted. Judging a manager based on short term performance, which is exactly what you're doing in criticizing year-to-date numbers, is hogwash. What are you going to take, Greenblatt's 40% annualized for 15-20 years, or a 6-month figure heavily weighted by an AXP holding that may well double in the next 2 years? I'm not arguing that every one of these managers is beyond reproach, but it seems like there isn't a single commenter on this list who comprehends an ounce of Benjamin Graham's teachings.]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 13:32:16 -0400
Further, Marty Whitman's had a pretty well publicized bad bet against Ackman on the bond insurers, but his Third Avenue Value Fund is only down 17% or so YTD. Not sure where the -40%-esque numbers are coming from.

Makes me question most of the data on this list.

Lastly, those of you who expect a fund manager to outperform in every market are just short sighted. Judging a manager based on short term performance, which is exactly what you're doing in criticizing year-to-date numbers, is hogwash. What are you going to take, Greenblatt's 40% annualized for 15-20 years, or a 6-month figure heavily weighted by an AXP holding that may well double in the next 2 years? I'm not arguing that every one of these managers is beyond reproach, but it seems like there isn't a single commenter on this list who comprehends an ounce of Benjamin Graham's teachings.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82802/comments?source=feed#comment-194316 194316
That said, I think Buffett et al's main thrust is to suggest to the individual investor that over the long haul, making oneself a bottom-up analyst will pay far more dividends than spending too much time on macro; engaging in the latter risks missing the forest for the trees.

Meanwhile, by the way, I think it's very premature to say Mohnish is wrong about PNCL. Their original NW contract resulted in a big claim during bankruptcy. Not that they'd get 80c on the dollar for it this time, but it seems like it would take an extremely low-odds chain of events from here for PNCL to ultimately have less than $3 equity value (even in BK).

Seeing as you've read MP's books, you must be familiar with his rollercoaster ride in TSO (from $7 to $1 and back), and I think Frontline followed a similar path. We'll see if this one goes the way of those or the way of DFC.]]> Fri, 27 Jun 2008 12:49:59 -0400
That said, I think Buffett et al's main thrust is to suggest to the individual investor that over the long haul, making oneself a bottom-up analyst will pay far more dividends than spending too much time on macro; engaging in the latter risks missing the forest for the trees.

Meanwhile, by the way, I think it's very premature to say Mohnish is wrong about PNCL. Their original NW contract resulted in a big claim during bankruptcy. Not that they'd get 80c on the dollar for it this time, but it seems like it would take an extremely low-odds chain of events from here for PNCL to ultimately have less than $3 equity value (even in BK).

Seeing as you've read MP's books, you must be familiar with his rollercoaster ride in TSO (from $7 to $1 and back), and I think Frontline followed a similar path. We'll see if this one goes the way of those or the way of DFC.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81488/comments?source=feed#comment-187177 187177
Did you even read the article? Here's one data point Mark provided for you, if you actually take the time to scroll up the page:
"The company has completed 54 store remodels and those completed locations have shown a 12% weighted average sales lift. "

Same store sales ARE increasing year over year. It's not exactly buried information, bud. Let me make it easy for you, at the end of the first full paragraph of their most recent earnings release:

Gross margin was 28.0%, an increase of approximately 10 basis points compared to the year ago period, and identical store sales increased 2.2%.

I guess I'd be intrigued by your argument if you actually had any facts, but you're clearly dead wrong on the one numbers-based assertion you bothered to make. ]]> Tue, 17 Jun 2008 13:29:30 -0400
Did you even read the article? Here's one data point Mark provided for you, if you actually take the time to scroll up the page:
"The company has completed 54 store remodels and those completed locations have shown a 12% weighted average sales lift. "

Same store sales ARE increasing year over year. It's not exactly buried information, bud. Let me make it easy for you, at the end of the first full paragraph of their most recent earnings release:

Gross margin was 28.0%, an increase of approximately 10 basis points compared to the year ago period, and identical store sales increased 2.2%.

I guess I'd be intrigued by your argument if you actually had any facts, but you're clearly dead wrong on the one numbers-based assertion you bothered to make. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81488/comments?source=feed#comment-186737 186737
Wait, I mean the exact opposite of that.

WMT was supposed to be the end of grocers several years ago. Last I checked, KR and SWY are doing just fine (the former's stock has roughly doubled in the past three years, while the latter's up 50%). Revenues continue to grow and earnings have magically been delivered as well.

WINN is valued at a ridiculously low multiple of sales (0.1x) compared to its peers at about 4x that, and its EBITDA margins of around 1% are about a fifth those it earned ON ITS CURRENT STORE BASE just a few years ago. It's still comping positive same store sales numbers year over year, exceeding its own goals on almost every front (EBITDA, remodel performance, penetration of private label, etc.), though it does need to get its transaction counts into growth territory. Competition is no idle threat, to be sure - Publix too is formidable - but anyone who still believes the grocery business is a commodity one rather than a convenience one ought to do more research. WINN's stores are decently located, the management team appears fully competent, and there's no reason the company can't get back to decent operating metrics in a few years time. If so, and that seems at least a decent proposition given performance of late, these shares will be dramatically higher.

Mark is right, WINN is cheap.]]> Mon, 16 Jun 2008 19:24:34 -0400
Wait, I mean the exact opposite of that.

WMT was supposed to be the end of grocers several years ago. Last I checked, KR and SWY are doing just fine (the former's stock has roughly doubled in the past three years, while the latter's up 50%). Revenues continue to grow and earnings have magically been delivered as well.

WINN is valued at a ridiculously low multiple of sales (0.1x) compared to its peers at about 4x that, and its EBITDA margins of around 1% are about a fifth those it earned ON ITS CURRENT STORE BASE just a few years ago. It's still comping positive same store sales numbers year over year, exceeding its own goals on almost every front (EBITDA, remodel performance, penetration of private label, etc.), though it does need to get its transaction counts into growth territory. Competition is no idle threat, to be sure - Publix too is formidable - but anyone who still believes the grocery business is a commodity one rather than a convenience one ought to do more research. WINN's stores are decently located, the management team appears fully competent, and there's no reason the company can't get back to decent operating metrics in a few years time. If so, and that seems at least a decent proposition given performance of late, these shares will be dramatically higher.

Mark is right, WINN is cheap.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/51422/comments?source=feed#comment-99972 99972
Al Rob says definitively that Sears is not the next Berkshire. Marty Whitman has expressed the opposite opinion in the past (hopefully that HTML link came through, it's the 2004 Business Week article on Lampert that you can Google): "There is no question [Lampert] will turn Kmart into an investment vehicle like Warren Buffett's...that's what I am valuing into the stock." Marty made a boatload of money and got out, which he explained in the 2005 3Q letter as follows: "At the prices Sears Common is now selling, the company has to succeed in a big way in order to justify these prices." So it was a valuation call.

Al, regarding the fact that you've made money shorting SHLD, if you actually read Todd's article you'll see he notes quite clearly that even BRK has declined significantly over certain stretches. So what? You want a cookie?

Regarding AZO and AN not becoming mini-Berkshires, I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that was his goal with either of those.

As for FIG trader, you aren't particularly imaginative, either. Saying Todd's missing the point of Buffettology is idiotic. Once again Todd clearly pointed out BRK's purchase of Nat'l Indemnity in the spring of '67 in order to get access to the float.

Perhaps your opinion is that Lampert simply cannot accomplish anything resembling a float within Sears (buying an insurer himself with the cash once he's revitalized SHLD a bit?), and sure, that's debatable. But the argument isn't remotely a checkmate in your favor. There remain avenues for Lampert to generate cash through SHLD, so it's not like this story is over, which you guys seem to think.]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:37:48 -0400
Al Rob says definitively that Sears is not the next Berkshire. Marty Whitman has expressed the opposite opinion in the past (hopefully that HTML link came through, it's the 2004 Business Week article on Lampert that you can Google): "There is no question [Lampert] will turn Kmart into an investment vehicle like Warren Buffett's...that's what I am valuing into the stock." Marty made a boatload of money and got out, which he explained in the 2005 3Q letter as follows: "At the prices Sears Common is now selling, the company has to succeed in a big way in order to justify these prices." So it was a valuation call.

Al, regarding the fact that you've made money shorting SHLD, if you actually read Todd's article you'll see he notes quite clearly that even BRK has declined significantly over certain stretches. So what? You want a cookie?

Regarding AZO and AN not becoming mini-Berkshires, I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that was his goal with either of those.

As for FIG trader, you aren't particularly imaginative, either. Saying Todd's missing the point of Buffettology is idiotic. Once again Todd clearly pointed out BRK's purchase of Nat'l Indemnity in the spring of '67 in order to get access to the float.

Perhaps your opinion is that Lampert simply cannot accomplish anything resembling a float within Sears (buying an insurer himself with the cash once he's revitalized SHLD a bit?), and sure, that's debatable. But the argument isn't remotely a checkmate in your favor. There remain avenues for Lampert to generate cash through SHLD, so it's not like this story is over, which you guys seem to think.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/51422/comments?source=feed#comment-99971 99971
Al Rob says definitively that Sears is not the next Berkshire. Marty Whitman has expressed the opposite opinion in the past (hopefully that HTML link came through, it's the 2004 Business Week article on Lampert that you can Google): "There is no question [Lampert] will turn Kmart into an investment vehicle like Warren Buffett's...that's what I am valuing into the stock." Marty made a boatload of money and got out, which he explained in the 2005 3Q letter as follows: "At the prices Sears Common is now selling, the company has to succeed in a big way in order to justify these prices." So it was a valuation call.

Al, regarding the fact that you've made money shorting SHLD, if you actually read Todd's article you'll see he notes quite clearly that even BRK has declined significantly over certain stretches. So what? You want a cookie?

Regarding AZO and AN not becoming mini-Berkshires, I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that was his goal with either of those.

As for FIG trader, you aren't particularly imaginative, either. Saying Todd's missing the point of Buffettology is idiotic. Once again Todd clearly pointed out BRK's purchase of Nat'l Indemnity in the spring of '67 in order to get access to the float.

Perhaps your opinion is that Lampert simply cannot accomplish anything resembling a float within Sears (buying an insurer himself with the cash once he's revitalized SHLD a bit?), and sure, that's debatable. But the argument isn't remotely a checkmate in your favor. There remain avenues for Lampert to generate cash through SHLD, so it's not like this story is over, which you guys seem to think.]]> Fri, 26 Oct 2007 16:37:43 -0400
Al Rob says definitively that Sears is not the next Berkshire. Marty Whitman has expressed the opposite opinion in the past (hopefully that HTML link came through, it's the 2004 Business Week article on Lampert that you can Google): "There is no question [Lampert] will turn Kmart into an investment vehicle like Warren Buffett's...that's what I am valuing into the stock." Marty made a boatload of money and got out, which he explained in the 2005 3Q letter as follows: "At the prices Sears Common is now selling, the company has to succeed in a big way in order to justify these prices." So it was a valuation call.

Al, regarding the fact that you've made money shorting SHLD, if you actually read Todd's article you'll see he notes quite clearly that even BRK has declined significantly over certain stretches. So what? You want a cookie?

Regarding AZO and AN not becoming mini-Berkshires, I don't think I've ever heard anyone suggest that was his goal with either of those.

As for FIG trader, you aren't particularly imaginative, either. Saying Todd's missing the point of Buffettology is idiotic. Once again Todd clearly pointed out BRK's purchase of Nat'l Indemnity in the spring of '67 in order to get access to the float.

Perhaps your opinion is that Lampert simply cannot accomplish anything resembling a float within Sears (buying an insurer himself with the cash once he's revitalized SHLD a bit?), and sure, that's debatable. But the argument isn't remotely a checkmate in your favor. There remain avenues for Lampert to generate cash through SHLD, so it's not like this story is over, which you guys seem to think.]]>