Kevin Hollins's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/211738/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/178992/comments?source=feed#comment-815130 815130
I'm writing this from Disney World, where I've been using my Verizon Blackberry and leaving the iPhone at the hotel---if my kids become separated I am not comfortable risking a lack of signal.

I may really like my iPhone (the apps are fantastic), but in an emergency I still don't feel I can rely on AT&T's network. The experience people had with signal problems came before the VZW ads, and hiring David Arquette (really--who signed off on THAT decision?!) to say otherwise just isn't too persuasive.]]> Sun, 20 Dec 2009 20:50:11 -0500
I'm writing this from Disney World, where I've been using my Verizon Blackberry and leaving the iPhone at the hotel---if my kids become separated I am not comfortable risking a lack of signal.

I may really like my iPhone (the apps are fantastic), but in an emergency I still don't feel I can rely on AT&T's network. The experience people had with signal problems came before the VZW ads, and hiring David Arquette (really--who signed off on THAT decision?!) to say otherwise just isn't too persuasive.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/177908/comments?source=feed#comment-803586 803586 Sun, 13 Dec 2009 08:37:16 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159886/comments?source=feed#comment-664185 664185 Sun, 06 Sep 2009 13:35:34 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/155667/comments?source=feed#comment-629953 629953
I agree that at cheap prices there are plenty of buyers. Where I respectfully disagree is with the notion that there are willing lenders ready to make loans at terms that make economic sense. That is why we continue to see REITs tap the bond market rather than using the private loan market, which is where over 80% of the (still overwhelmingly private) CRE market sources debt.

Perhaps I was unclear. I don't believe there is no market for toxic assets; quite the contrary. We have better opportunities than we have seen in years, but a lack of financing means that we have fewer *actionable* opportunities in the absence of even very conservative underwriting and leverage. When acquisitions must be financed with 100% equity, simply fewer are possible.

I would rather not prop up artificial prices either; I'm just trying to be realistic about the politics involved. At the moment, banks are disincentivized to move assets. To face the ugly truth and arrive at true market values requires, in the absence of some other form of regulatory relief, allowing a string of bank failures that exceeds the political will available today.

So, in the absence of political will, it seems worthwhile to at least explore a means by which banks can move the assets and lend by another means without, as you duly note, having their equity wiped out. It does not solve the problem fictitious accounting, as you note. Maybe if more politicians and regulators were investors...

Thanks for reading!


On Aug 13 08:33 AM CBTeas wrote:

> You are missing the biggest difference between today's real estate
> crisis and the one that created the RTC: in the prior crisis, real
> estate prices were allowed to fall to their logical bottom without
> any artificial government interference to prop up pricing.
>
> Right now, TALF, PPIP, etc... is actually making the problem worse
> by avoiding getting assets marked to TRUE market. The mistake you
> and every government official are making is to say there is no market
> or financing for assets. Nothing could be further from the truth!
> At cheap prices there are both plenty of buyers and willing lenders.
>
>
> But the problem: the equity in most of the top tier banks would be
> wiped out. So we have a banking system in denial. Don't believe
> it when you read that "there is no market for toxic assets." The
> problem is the banks just don't like the prices they are offered.
> There is a market for every real estate asset out there--just as
> there was in the RTC days.
>
> Even what you are proposing is to prop up artificial prices. Let's
> do what was done in RTC days: get to the bottom, and encourage buyers
> into the market, not discourage buyers from stepping up.]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:39:46 -0400
I agree that at cheap prices there are plenty of buyers. Where I respectfully disagree is with the notion that there are willing lenders ready to make loans at terms that make economic sense. That is why we continue to see REITs tap the bond market rather than using the private loan market, which is where over 80% of the (still overwhelmingly private) CRE market sources debt.

Perhaps I was unclear. I don't believe there is no market for toxic assets; quite the contrary. We have better opportunities than we have seen in years, but a lack of financing means that we have fewer *actionable* opportunities in the absence of even very conservative underwriting and leverage. When acquisitions must be financed with 100% equity, simply fewer are possible.

I would rather not prop up artificial prices either; I'm just trying to be realistic about the politics involved. At the moment, banks are disincentivized to move assets. To face the ugly truth and arrive at true market values requires, in the absence of some other form of regulatory relief, allowing a string of bank failures that exceeds the political will available today.

So, in the absence of political will, it seems worthwhile to at least explore a means by which banks can move the assets and lend by another means without, as you duly note, having their equity wiped out. It does not solve the problem fictitious accounting, as you note. Maybe if more politicians and regulators were investors...

Thanks for reading!


On Aug 13 08:33 AM CBTeas wrote:

> You are missing the biggest difference between today's real estate
> crisis and the one that created the RTC: in the prior crisis, real
> estate prices were allowed to fall to their logical bottom without
> any artificial government interference to prop up pricing.
>
> Right now, TALF, PPIP, etc... is actually making the problem worse
> by avoiding getting assets marked to TRUE market. The mistake you
> and every government official are making is to say there is no market
> or financing for assets. Nothing could be further from the truth!
> At cheap prices there are both plenty of buyers and willing lenders.
>
>
> But the problem: the equity in most of the top tier banks would be
> wiped out. So we have a banking system in denial. Don't believe
> it when you read that "there is no market for toxic assets." The
> problem is the banks just don't like the prices they are offered.
> There is a market for every real estate asset out there--just as
> there was in the RTC days.
>
> Even what you are proposing is to prop up artificial prices. Let's
> do what was done in RTC days: get to the bottom, and encourage buyers
> into the market, not discourage buyers from stepping up.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136695/comments?source=feed#comment-497835 497835 Sun, 10 May 2009 13:25:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/73522-michael-riley/3489-berkshire-hathaway-meeting-and-derivatives-some-ideas?source=feed#comment-497834 497834 Sun, 10 May 2009 13:22:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130591/comments?source=feed#comment-461392 461392 Mon, 13 Apr 2009 09:27:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/124092/comments?source=feed#comment-413871 413871 Thu, 05 Mar 2009 08:25:41 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/90539/comments?source=feed#comment-229537 229537
For a value investor, determining whether to buy or sell is necessarily preceeded by an analysis which, as JasonC notes, usually includes a discounted estimate of future cash flows. How any investor can confidently make that calculation at this point in time is what has me stumped.

What are the actual assets and liabilities worth, with one being written down and the other being accrued for each quarter in such meaningful amounts?

I have due respect for Mr. Miller, but I wonder if perhaps he is using a different calculator on this one.]]> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:59:20 -0400
For a value investor, determining whether to buy or sell is necessarily preceeded by an analysis which, as JasonC notes, usually includes a discounted estimate of future cash flows. How any investor can confidently make that calculation at this point in time is what has me stumped.

What are the actual assets and liabilities worth, with one being written down and the other being accrued for each quarter in such meaningful amounts?

I have due respect for Mr. Miller, but I wonder if perhaps he is using a different calculator on this one.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80314/comments?source=feed#comment-187109 187109 Tue, 17 Jun 2008 12:02:07 -0400