Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Value Investing -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Paul Senior who wrote (42148)	4/4/2011 10:33:35 PM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78516

Paul, these are some very nice gains you are realizing. I only own BK from the lot and I agree that it should have performed better. I think the ruminations about Banking have held the stock back. The dividend increase is a positive. I think this is very solid bank that sells significantly below historic averages at 12x Y2011 earnings. Earnings would rise substantially if interest rates were to rise, since in this case they could earn a nice NIM on their low cost deposits. Anyways, i am giving this one more time.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (42148)	4/5/2011 3:49:20 PM
From: Madharry	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78516

you did really well holding on to your fly as long as you did. i sold one of its competitors a long time ago for a much smaller profit.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (42148)	6/13/2011 2:51:13 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78516

Reit GOV: Adding to my small position as stock nearly touches 12-mo low. I might assume a reit that leases primarily to government entities would be fairly safe. Not so sure about GOV though, because GOV's initial dividend that I see, was cut: finance.yahoo.com For a small bet though, for the 6.8% annualized yield, I'll take on a few more shares.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (42148)	9/12/2011 4:04:26 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78516

Small fill for me for Alcoa (AA) today. Low p/sales, low p/stated bk. Reversion-to-mean play. finance.yahoo.com

To: Paul Senior who wrote (42148)	12/18/2012 3:51:14 PM
From: Paul Senior	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78516

PLPC. Decided I like company's prospects and the stock's numbers. Added a bit today my small position. finance.yahoo.com ycharts.com Low d/e, generally rising stated bv, relatively low p/sales, generally low roe though. Profitable (past nine years) slow-grower. Okay for me (small position); for others- maybe not.

To: Paul Senior who wrote (42148)	5/26/2013 6:07:30 PM
From: Spekulatius	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78516

WLFC almost down to 13$/ share. Book value is ~22.5$, so it is trading at a considerable discount. Not that many book value bargains available, so I looked into this business a bit more. 1) Leverage is huge (5:1 nominally) but WLFC has securitized some assets in a WEST entity with Mitsumi. Mitsum also provided financing for WEST II. 2) WLFC is much smaller than most competitors and does not pay a dividend. WLFC is apparently controlled by it's founder. 3) deprecation of 52M$ for ~1B$ in assets implies a 20 year economic life of their assets (mostly aircraft engines). This seems high but there is no evidence, that they overvalue their assets. They did make some gains on asset sales, but most of those were to related parties. 4) credit risk - they mention in their 10-k that they have a 4.5:1 leverage ratio in their loan covenants.That translates into a 186M$ net worth requirements. Current net worth is 199M$. Not a whole lot of buffer in my opinion. In addition, any deterioration in the financial condition of our customers may adversely affect future lease revenues. As of December 31, 2012, all but one of our leases are accounted for as operating leases. Under an operating lease, we retain title to the leased equipment, thereby retaining the potential benefit and assuming the risk of the residual value of the leased equipment. . We generally depreciate engines on a straight-line basis over 15 years to a 55% residual value. Spare parts packages are generally depreciated on a straight-line basis over 15 years to a 25% residual value I'll pass on this.I think the upside is book value (22.5$) but that is only likely if they sell out. Since WLFC is controlled by the owner, it would be up to him to make a deal. The downside is that loan covenants are violated and the banks demand a very dilutive capital raise. I think shareholders would loose 50% in this case with some chance of recovery, since the owner would loose control of the company most likely