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: James Clarke who wrote (3413)	3/3/1998 6:56:00 AM
From: Madharry	Respond to of 78652

James, it isn't play money, and I haven't done as much homework as I would have liked. But usually I find that when something comes into the public view like this, by the time I have analyzed it to my satisfaction the price has gotten away from me and I do better to look at what I can quickly, make a preliminary decision and then reassess. Especially here, the float is less than 300,000 and the spread is large. And there are many reasons an inefficiency here could exist. In this case I reviewed the 9/30/97 10-K. Verified the interest rate and face value of preferred and assets on the balance sheet. In my review I did not see anything that conflicted with the article. Of course I may have overlooked something, which is why I asked whether anyone else had looked at this. I am far from from infallible. It would be nice to know the current market price of the real estate assets but that might take weeks and by that time the price of the issue could soar. Leasing income for nine months was $19MM. I will try to get more info on this and report back. With respect to the small amount of money he manages don't forget he runs a hedge fund not a mutual fund and that his returns have probably not been that great on his "shorts".

To: James Clarke who wrote (3413)	3/23/1998 3:18:00 PM
From: Andrew	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 78652

deep deep value = too good to be true!; your comments disappoint me. The payments are accrued because this company is controlled by ben lebow. He is the "hidden liability" as he wants to keep all the money in the company to invest, presumably at a return higher than the 55% internal accretion rate that retiring the pfd at current prices would garner. the russian investment is returning a higher return but it certainly is not as risk-free as buyback would be. Maybe he'll continue his buyback in the near future. As for your assumption that the manager does not have a track record deserve more than $15 million, you fail to do your own homework to see what that manager started with. (see Forbes, 4/22/96). Maybe he is as undiscovered as his stocks. Check out is 13-D filings and you may see some consistency and real "deep deep value" discipline.