Categories
Articles

Today’s Upgrades / Downgrades

Here are today’s early analyst calls.

UPGRADES:

National Financial Partners NFP Lehman Brothers Underweight » Overweight

Regal-Beloit RBC KeyBanc Capital Mkts / McDonald Buy » Aggressive Buy

Walgreen WAG Matrix Research Buy » Strong Buy

ScanSource SCSC Matrix Research Hold » Buy

Virage Logic VIRL Needham & Co Hold » Buy

ISIS Pharm ISIS Needham & Co Buy » Strong Buy

Terex TEX Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform

Astec Industries ASTE Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform

Powerwave PWAV Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform

Central Garden CENT Sun Trust Rbsn Humphrey Neutral » Buy

Silgan Holdings SLGN Lehman Brothers Equal-weight » Overweight

Quality Systems QSII Jefferies & Co Hold » Buy

Rush Enterprises RUSHA Bear Stearns Peer Perform » Outperform

Cummins CMI Bear Stearns Peer Perform » Outperform

PACCAR PCAR Bear Stearns Peer Perform » Outperform

Xilinx XLNX Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform $30 » $37

Expeditors Intl EXPD Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform

Harley-Davidson HOG Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform

Regal-Beloit RBC Deutsche Securities Hold » Buy

Weatherford WFT JP Morgan Underweight » Neutra

DOWNGRADES:

Komag KOMG Citigroup Buy » Hold

Watsco WSO KeyBanc Capital Mkts / McDonald Aggressive Buy » Buy

IMPAC Mortgage IMH Roth Capital Buy » Hold

Hilton Hotels HLT Matrix Research Buy » Hold

Baidu.com BIDU Citigroup Buy » Hold

McDermott MDR Calyon Securities Buy » Add

Commerce Bancorp CBH Sun Trust Robinson Humphrey Buy » Neutral

Tyco TYC Citigroup Hold » Sell

Ensco ESV Credit Suisse Neutral » Underperform

Eldorado Gold EGO UBS Buy » Neutral

Allied World Assurance AWH Lehman Brothers Overweight » Equal-weight

Ball Corp BLL Banc of America Sec Buy » Neutral

Visicu EICU Jefferies & Co Buy » Hold

Cablevision CVC Deutsche Securities Buy » Hold

Categories
Articles

Another Dow Joint Venture

I do not have may details yet but Dow Chemical’s (DOW) European unit has signed a joint venture agreement with India’s Gujarat Alkalies and Chemicals Ltd to manufacture chlorine-based products at the Gujarat’s Dahej project site in the western state of Gujarat, The Economic Times reported.

A government source refused to divulge any information on the investment and size of the proposed plant, The Economic Times said.

GACL’s managing director Guruprasad Mohapatra announced “Both Dow and GACL have a lot of synergies. We will benefit from Dow’s proven technologies and presence in the globe”

The companies are working on the details of the 50-50 joint venture, which is expected to sell products in India and overseas. Dow will provide the technology for the joint venture.

Again, perfectly in keeping with CEO Andrew Liveris’s “asset light” strategy. He continues to delivery on his stated goals for shareholders as it seems a new joint venture is being announced at least once a month as he move Dow from it’s cyclical commodities business into the specialty chemical area that will giver shareholder steadier returns and diversify earnings.

Categories
Articles

Retails Sales Preview: Yawn

On Thursday this week retailers are expected to announce June numbers and economists project sales to fall 0.3%, with weaker spending on vehicles, gasoline, building materials and clothing.

In their weekly preview, Brian Bethune and Nigel Gault, U.S. economists for Global Insight wrote, “Consumer spending will conclude the second quarter with a whimper” and Leslie Preston, an economist for CIBC World Markets, said “Consumption is looking anemic”

Macy’s (M), J.C. Penney (JCP), Kohl’s (KSS) and Saks (SKS) all have forecast a decline in June same-store sales. Sears Holdings (SHLD) does not announce numbers.

The assumption seems to be that consumer spending, which jumped at a 4.2% pace in the first quarter, slowed to about a third of that rate in Q2. Excepting the quarter that followed hurricane’s Katrina and Rita, it would be the weakest quarterly spending in more than four years.

The past weeks reports on retail chain store sales were weak and the results showed the slowest growth since the recession ended in late 2001. Further, The International Council of Shopping Centers expects year-over-year growth of 1.5% to 2% for same store sales in June, 1/2 the growth rate seen earlier in the expansion.

Let’s also not forget that last year had the Memorial Day shopping weekend in June and it was in May this year. What we will really need to do is average the two months together to get a more accurate number.

So, what happens? Who cares. Expectations are low so if they do not do well, we expected that. If they surprise to the upside, shares run up on the news. If they completely disappoint, because expectations are not that hight to begin with, the downside is not that far. The perverse reality is that any further downside will only stoke already simmering merger and buyout rumors which will buoy shares, the old “bad news is good news scenario”.

Just sit tight, a lot of people have lost a lot of money over the years betting against the consumer. Will there be a blip sooner or later? Sure, there has to be, but long term, the trend is up.

Categories
Articles

Top Stories at Value Investing News

Here are this weeks top picks at VIN


1- Martin Whitmans 3rd Avenue Letter
Tickers TM, BAM, BRK.A, FCE-A, NBR, JOE

2- Value Creation or Destruction Tickers AGL

3- On Disney, Pixar and Ratatouille Tickers DIS

4- DNA Of A Superinvestor

5- On Dangers of Homogeneity

Categories
Articles

Buffett and Johnson & Johnson

Here is a post that was emailed to me about Buffett and Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). It is well worth the read. Here is the first paragraph:

“As of March 31, 2007, Warren Buffett’s company, Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), reportedly increased its holding in Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) to 48.7 million shares-an increase of 24 million shares in three months. And it’s no surprise. Forget Wall Street’s earnings, JNJ knows how to generate cash!

Buffett tells us we should look at 4- and 5-year histories to judge the performance of a company and that we should look primarily at the intrinsic value of a company and pay a fair or bargain price. Let’s follow the lead of this investing genius:”

You can read the wholepost here.

Categories
Articles

Sprint Admits They Are "Unable Meet Your Current Wireless Needs"

I have posted in the past about the customer service at Sprint Nextel (S) since the merger. Here is another shining example of what has turned from incompetence to what can only be described as self flagulation? If I was a shareholder, I would be seething. Since I am not, I am still laughing.

The site Blackberry Cool has posted a letter from Sprint “cutting the cord” with a customer and this apparently is something Sprint is doing more regularly. Here is the line that made me laugh out loud “the number of inquiries you have made to us during this time has led us to determine we are unable to meet your current wireless needs.”

Like what? Connecting their calls and billing them properly?

Just in case I was not laughing hard enough they then informed the customer that they would generously “not require you to pay an early termination fee”. Honestly, you cannot make this up!!

To put the icing on the cake, they then told the customer if they had any questions they should….. you guessed it….. “call the customer care department”. Isn’t that why they jettisoned them in the first place? AT&T (T) and Verizon (VZ) must be smiling watching this implosion.

This is a stunning admission from a company bleeding customers on a quarterly basis. I think they have the whole “customer service” thing backwards, it is not us who is supposed to serve them…

Categories
Articles

Macy’s Into Sears Holdings?

Sears Holdings (SHLD) shares jumped over $5.68 Friday as rumors bounced around that Lampert may be getting ready to use some of the $4 billion plus he has sitting around in Sears coffers. Analysts said Macy’s (M) investors seemed to be positioning for a possible merger, reflected by a sharp rise in the department store’s options call volume as rumors of a deal percolated.

“There is some renewed takeover speculation in Macy’s heading into the weekend. Therefore, investors are buying shares and some options in case something happens,” said William Lefkowitz, options strategist at brokerage firm vFinance Investments in New York.

“The latest chatter today in dealing rooms is that super-investor Eddie Lampert may be looking to tie Macy’s and Sears Holdings together,” said Andrew Wilkinson, senior market analyst at Interactive Brokers Group, in an e-mailed report.

Shares of Macy’s, that had been trading 15% below their YTD high have jumped on the rumors. Does the deal make sense? Hell yes. With a value of about 1/2 Sears Holdings, Macy’s would fit perfectly under the Sears umbrella. Not only that, the folks currently running things at Macy’s, who have have done a wonderful job the last 4 years with the Macy’s brand, could offer Lampert’s team assistance in revitalizing both Sears and Kmart. Macy’s has had problems with it’s May’s chain acquired in 2005 and I would be willing to bet if Lampert bought Macy’s, May’s would be gutted and sold to provide operating cash. How much? Consider Macy’s converted more than 400 former May’s locations to its namesake chain in September, about a year after buying the rival for $11 billion. The retailer owns more than half of its 858 Macy’s and Bloomingdale’s stores. The rest the company leases or owns on leased land. That would give Lampert a plethora of options the finance the deal and make it accredive to earnings almost immediately.

But, this is not the true “valueplay” Lampert has become known for and Macy’s is not currently selling at a bargain. Consider also that it only sits on only $500 million in cash and over $9 billion in debt. This alone would force Lampert to sell huge chunks of real estate to pay down existing debt and any debt added in the acquisition. Macy’s has repurchased over $3 billion in stock the last 28 weeks but has added $1.5 billion in debt doing so. Losing the dividend would save Lampert another $275 million a year and help reduce debt.

Should we root for this? Yes. If Lampert goes for it, he is seeing value in the assets and name far in excess of the current price. The plus of having Lampert buy it? He will have the ability to quickly extract that value for shareholders, of which, we must always remember, he will be the largest one.

If he doesn’t and this is all just another baseless rumor, oh well, the exercise was fun in an otherwise painfully monotonous news summer to date.

Did anyone hear anything about some new phone?

Categories
Articles

This Weeks Notable Insider buys

As Peter Lynch said “There are a multitude of reasons insiders sell shares, but only one reason they buy, they think the stock price is going up”. With that in minds, here is this weeks list. You’ll notice a reoccurring name.

1- Chesapeake Energy (CHK)= $3,500,000- Third week in a row in top 3.

2- Chelsea Therapeutics (CHTP)= $2,800,000

3- Titanium Metals (TIE)= $1,500,000

4- Intrusion Corp (INTZ)= $500,000

5- Capital Lease Funding (LSE)= $217,000

Categories
Articles

Another Mystifying Analyst Call: Starbucks

A Bear Stearns (BSC) analyst cut his price target on gourmet coffee retailer Starbucks (SBUX) Monday, saying it’s still a good time to buy the stock, but the shares may not rise as quickly as he previously thought.

The analyst, Joseph Buckley lowered his price target to $35 from $47 and said recent cautious statements by company management indicate sales may be lower than the company’s own expectations with higher dairy costs pressuring margins. Where have we heard that one before? Another thing, how can you drop your “price target” 25% and still go out and tell people to buy shares? Isn’t there some Hippocratic oath these guy have to take? Something like “don’t blow smoke up people’s a**” or is it more like “stick some lipstick on that pig”?

Investors, he added, may focus on those negative aspects rather than sales growth, lowering the chance that its Aug. 1 earnings release will serve as a catalyst for the stock. That and the fact they may actually miss those estimates and, when can I ask did sales growth become more important than earnings? Are we flashing back to 1999?

“Overall market sentiment seems very focused on the near-term negatives and ill-focused on this company’s strengths and growth prospects,” he said. “This, in our view, is a more appropriate time to buy than sell.” But just do not expect to make very much. The very fact they do this “price target” game is a joke. Nobody knows what shares will trade at a year from now, why bother telling people?

Really you just cannot make this stuff up..

Are Starbucks shares a “value” now? No, but they are getting close. If they miss earnings this quarter or guide lower for the future, shares will get creamed and they just may hit the $22 price I would be willing to pay…. just might.

Categories
Articles

Today’s Upgrades / Downgrades

Here are the late Thursday and early Friday calls

UPGRADES:

BP BP Deutsche Securities Hold » Buy

Union Drilling UDRL Bear Stearns Underperform » Peer Perform
Raymond James RJF Wachovia Mkt Perform » Outperform

Overseas Shipholding OSG JP Morgan Neutral » Overweight

Royal Dutch Shell RDS.A Deutsche Securities Hold » Buy

Magna MGA JMP Securities MktPerform » Mkt Outperform

Parker Drilling PKD Morgan Keegan Mkt Perform » Outperform

Tecumseh Prods TECUA Robert W. Baird Neutral » Outperform

Microsemi MSCC Caris & Company Above Average » Buy

Steel Dynamics STLD Longbow Neutral » Buy

DOWNGRADES:

Hilton Hotels HLT Calyon Securities Buy » Neutral

Hilton Hotels HLT Bear Stearns Outperform » Peer Perform

Hilton Hotels HLT\ Susquehanna Financial Positive » Neutral

Hilton Hotels HLT Jefferies & Co Buy » Hold

Hilton Hotels HLT Citigroup Buy » Hold

Sierra Wireless SWIR Avondale Partners Mkt Outperform » Mkt Perform

Hilton Hotels HLT AG Edwards Buy » SelL

Categories
Articles

"Fast Money" Picks for Friday

In tonight’s Final Trade the guys recommend the best US companies exposed to global growth. These are not really “tomorrows trades” so I will not included toiday’s results in the tracking. Based on the show, these are more investments.

Jeff Macke recommends Intel (INTC) because the world needs computers.

Pete Najarian likes Peabody Energy (BTU) as a coal play.

Guy Adami prefers Caterpillar (CAT) because heavy equipment is needed to get commodities out of the ground.

Eric Bolling says Hewlett-Packard (HPQ) because 70% of the company’s exposure is international.

Thursday’s results from Tuesday’s show:

Jeff Macke recommends Disney (DIS) going into the holiday weekend because of its theme parks and that rat movie. Open $34.54 Close $34.63, Gain $.09

Pete Najarian says watch Hilton (HLT) this weekend because “someone is looking” at the hotel chain. Open $36.05 Close $45.39, Gain $9.34

Guy Adami reiterates his bullishness on Freeport-McMoRan (FCX) Open $85.10 Close $85.66, Gain $.56

Eric Bolling calls Chevron (CVX), the “best energy name on the board.” Open $86.33 Close $86.57 Gain $.24

Records:

Since my tracking began on 6/21 (1-1 means one up pick and one down pick)

Adami= 6-4 Gain $30.28
Bolling= 6-3 Loss $6.44
John Najarian= 7-3 Gain $11.61
Macke= 10-5 Gain $6.83
Pete Najarian=3-0 Gain $20.20
Seymore= 1-0 Gain $.35
Finerman= 0-1 Loss $.18

Categories
Articles

Kiplingers Interview With Bill Miller

Like fellow Baltimorean Cal Ripken, Bill Miller will forever be defined by the streak. Miller’s streak — beating the return of Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index for 15 straight years — ended with a thud in 2006. His Legg Mason Value Trust trailed the index by ten percentage points. His newer, more-flexible fund, Legg Mason Opportunity Trust, a member of the Kiplinger 25, also lagged, but by only two percentage points.

So is Miller, at age 57, past his prime? Did the pressure of continuing his remarkable run drain him of the zeal to deliver the kind of returns that made him the most famous mutual fund manager on the planet?

Hardly. The streak was overblown to start with. It was partly an accident of the January-through-December calendar year — Legg Mason trailed the market during a number of other 12-month periods. Still, Miller remains one of the sharpest, most innovative thinkers in the investing game, as we were reminded during a recent interview at Legg Mason’s headquarters, next to Baltimore’s striking Inner Harbor.

Miller is particularly impressive when he argues about the foibles of most value investors and defends his own approach. In the late 1990s, he was criticized for being a value investor in name only because he owned shares of AOL, Dell and Amazon.com. Today, his big stake in Google once again leads some to question his credentials as a bargain hunter. But Miller turns the tables on his critics.

KIPLINGER’S:
How does it feel now that you no longer have to defend your streak?

MILLER: Unfortunately, I still have to bear the burden of competing against the S&P 500. I just have to bear it now without the advantage of the streak.

You’ve said that you like to take advantage of errors that others make. What are today’s big errors?
At the broadest level, the big error is in how mega-cap stocks in the U.S. are being valued. I’m talking about companies like General Electric (GE), Microsoft (MSFT), AIG (AIG).

You’re not the only one saying this. What will it take to get the mega caps to move?
Time. My guess is that they will move this year because they’ve been cheap for several years, and they haven’t done anything in all that time. I expect the economy to slow this year, and historically, that kind of environment has been good for mega caps. In a slowing economy, they’re perceived to be safer. And they are safer. The top 50 names in the S&P 500 have lower price-earnings ratios, higher dividend yields, higher returns on equity and capital, better balance sheets, and more-balanced earnings than the bottom 450 names.

Do you make portfolio decisions based on this big-picture analysis?
No. We don’t have a forecast-and-trend approach — meaning we don’t make a forecast of what we think is likely to happen, or what trends are likely to occur, and then adjust our portfolio to conform to the forecasts. We estimate the intrinsic value of our companies and invest where we can get the greatest discount to intrinsic value. Then we try to understand the environment we’re operating in. But we start with valuation — that’s always number one. We’re saying that large-cap stocks are cheap historically. Then the questions are: Why are they cheap? What does the environment look like? What’s happened in the past? What’s caused things to change? We invest where we think we can get the best risk-adjusted rate of return. So we’re adding to GE and AIG in Value Trust, establishing a position in GM, and cutting back on stocks with smaller market caps. Opportunity is different because its mandate is so broad.

You’ll consider stocks that most value investors won’t touch. How do you justify owning a Google? This is what I call the value conundrum. Look at what have been the biggest wealth-creating companies: Microsoft, Wal-Mart (WMT), GE, Johnson & Johnson (JNJ). You could have bought Microsoft in 1991 at 35 times earnings and made 40 times your money over the next ten years. If you had bought Wal-Mart when it went public, you would have paid 20 times earnings and you would have made 10,000%. If a stock goes up 30 or 40 times in ten years, it has to have been grossly underpriced to begin with. So Microsoft was not expensive at 35 times earnings. It was one of the best bargains out there.

In retrospect.
Yes, in retrospect. So was Cisco Systems (csco). So were a lot of companies. What are value investors supposed to do? They’re supposed to be able to find the bargains. The conundrum is, why do the greatest value-creating companies almost never find their way into value investors’ portfolios? And the answer is that value investors won’t look at those companies when they’re actual bargains because it’s hard to tell the difference between them and companies that are valued similarly that aren’t going to do that well. So value investors have systematically ignored companies that could have made them huge amounts of money over time because the companies looked expensive on the surface, even though they weren’t.

Getting back to Google (GOOG), what is its P/E?
The consensus earnings estimate for 2007 is nearly $15, so the P/E is in the low 30s.

But you think its growth potential and its future cash flow make it cheap today?
Yes. It trades at 24 times next year’s earnings estimates. We can’t find any other company in the market with a faster revenue growth rate and higher profit margins, and that dominates its business like Google but has a lower P/E multiple. MasterCard now has a higher 2008 P/E than Google!

It’s that unique? Google trades at a lower multiple than Starbucks (SBUX). Now, Starbucks is a great company, but Starbucks is growing at half Google’s rate. On next year’s estimated earnings, Google’s P/E is six points higher than Coca-Cola’s, but Coke long term is only an 8% grower.

At the other extreme, you have a huge stake in Eastman Kodak (EK). That seems to be a value trap.
It has been.

Why do you have faith in it?
We don’t have faith; we have beliefs based on evidence. Kodak has been a value trap because the time required to make the transition from where it was to where it will be at the end of this year was a lot longer than we thought it would be. And we underestimated the cultural change that was required of the company. It had a 100-year history of dominating a super-profitable business with almost no technological change. When Antonio Perez became CEO a couple of years ago, he pointed out that there’s a certain mind-set that goes with that: complacency, and a tendency to move slowly because decisions don’t have to be made quickly.

Is your case based on Kodak’s entry into the inkjet-printer business? The new printer business is part of the thesis, which is that Kodak has introduced a technology that has the potential to disrupt the entire industry because it will be able to charge a lot less for ink cartridges — about half the current price.

What’s the rest of the thesis?
It’s simple. Throughout this entire transition, during which sales from film have dropped by almost two-thirds, Kodak has continued to generate about $1 billion in free cash flow before restructuring charges. That’s because as film sales have dropped, its graphic-communications and digital businesses have improved. Investors today are valuing $1 billion of free cash flow at $14 billion to $15 billion in the marketplace. But Kodak’s market value is just $6 billion. Why is it so low? Because for each of the past four or five years, Kodak had cash restructuring costs — for environmental-cleanup liabilities, for the costs of closing plants, for severance when there were layoffs — that have totaled roughly $600 million to $700 million per year at the peak. There will be $500 million to $600 million in additional restructuring charges this year related to closing film plants and the sale of Kodak’s health-care business. Next year, there will be no restructuring charges. Unless the business gets a lot worse in the next year or so, Kodak will do $1 billion to $1.2 billion of free cash flow in 2008. And if that happens, the stock should be up 50% to 100% in that period of time.

How much of Kodak do you own? Legg Mason owns 24%. We and three other firms own half the company.

Which stock in Opportunity has the greatest potential? Over the next three years, MannKind. It is a biotechnology company started by a guy named Al Mann. Mann is eightysomething years old and is worth a couple of billion dollars. He’s made all of his money starting and selling medical companies of one sort or another. One of my analysts came to me a year ago and said there’s a little biotech company and there’s insider buying of its shares by the CEO. I said, “That can’t be right because there’s never any insider buying at biotech companies, only insider selling.” I looked, and sure enough, the CEO was buying stock. MannKind is developing an inhalable version of insulin for diabetes, which is a rapidly growing disease of affluence. The drug is now in stage-III trials. Pfizer already has a product out called Exubera, but it looks like a mini saxophone. The MannKind product looks like a little asthma inhaler. You pop it out, take a hit and put it back in your pocket. So far, there are no side effects whatsoever. If it in fact goes through these trials and wins approval, it could be as big as Lipitor, which is a $13-billion-a-year drug. That’s worth $50 billion or $60 billion in market capitalization, and MannKind’s market cap is just $1.5 billion. So that’s a pretty good risk-reward situation.

Is it true you require members of your team to participate in a book club? Yes.

What’s the theory behind this requirement?
There are important things that we, as investors, need to understand. And it’s valuable to have everyone on the same page by reading the same book, then have authors come in and talk about their ideas. For example, we’ve had Peter Bernstein, who wrote Against the Gods: The Remarkable Story of Risk, come in and talk about notions of risk and return.

What are you reading now? A book by Katrina Firlik called Another Day in the Frontal Lobe: A Brain Surgeon Exposes Life on the Inside. It’s basically an inside look at what it’s like to be a neurosurgeon and a little bit about the brain. Upcoming books are The Halo Effect, by Phil Rosenzweig, and The Difference, by University of Michigan professor Scott Page. It’s about diversity theory.

Categories
Articles

Today’s 52 Week Lows

Here are today’s new lows, look familiar?

Meritage Homes (MTH)

KB Homes (KBH)

Beazer Homes (BZH)

Providant Financial Services (PFS)

New Century Bancorp (NCBC)

Everyday we have 2 or 3 homebuilders hitting new lows. sooner or later they have to bottom. I think folks are betting on later… much later

Categories
Articles

Today’s Upgrades / Downgrades

Here late Tuesday’s and this mornings early analyst calls

UPGRADES:

Huntsman HUN BB&T Capital Mkts Hold » Buy

Albemarle ALB KeyBanc Capital Mkts / McDonald Buy » Aggressive Buy

DSW DSW Matrix Research Sell » Hold

Lawson Software LWSN Matrix Research Strong Sell » Sell

Trump Entertainment TRMP Brean Murray Hold » Buy

Avon Products AVP Bernstein Underperform » Mkt Perform

Siemens AG SI Lehman Brothers Equal-weight » Overweight

DOWNGRADES:

Monsanto MON Matrix Research Strong Buy » Buy

Arris ARRS UBS Buy » Neutral

Greenbrier Comp GBX Bear Stearns Outperform » Peer Perform

General Motors GM Bear Stearns Outperform » Peer Perform

Dobson Comm DCEL RBC Capital Mkts Outperform » Sector Perform

CNH Global CNH UBS Neutral » Reduce

MRV Comms MRVC Needham & Co Buy » Hold

Brown-Forman BF.B Matrix Research Buy » Hold

Movie Gallery MOVI Soleil Hold » Sell

Categories
Articles

Martin Whitman On Investment Risk

This is a great letter from Martin Whitman on avoiding investment risk. It is long and well worth the read.

AVOIDING INVESTMENT RISK

During the quarter, I read an interesting book, The Great Risk Shift, by Jacob S. Hacker, a Political Science Professor at Yale University. The gravamen of the book is that in recent years – the George Bush years – various risks, i.e., job risk, family stability risk, retirement risk and healthcare risk, have been shifted increasingly from corporations and governments onto the backs of individuals. The raison d’etre for The Great Risk Shift is to foster the creation of an ownership society where the beneficiaries of say, pension plans and health plans, take the risks that go with ownership by being responsible for investing funds with no guarantees of minimum returns.

What the proponents of this type of ownership risk fail to recognize is that the most successful owners do not take risks. They lay off the risks onto someone else. Professor Hacker’s thesis got me to thinking about investment risk in the financial community and in American business in general. Put simply, the vast majority of great individual fortunes built in this country, especially by Wall Streeters and corporate executives, were not built by people who took investment risks. Rather, the secret to building a great fortune is to avoid, as completely as possible, the taking of any investment risk. Investment risk consists of factors peculiar to a business itself, or the securities issued by that business. Investment risk is a risk separate and apart from market risk. Market risk involves fluctuations in the prices of securities and other readily tradable assets.

A directory of those in the financial community who build great fortunes by avoiding risk include the following:

• Corporate executives who receive stock options or restricted stock. If the common stock appreciates, the executive builds a substantial net worth. If the common stock does not appreciate, the executive loses nothing. Indeed, he may obtain new options at the lower strike price, or new restricted common stock.

• Members of the Plaintiffs’ Bar who bring class action lawsuits in order to earn contingency fees. The expenses involved in financing such lawsuits are minimal, and it is remote that Plaintiffs’ attorneys ever incur costs for sanctions or for paying defendant’s costs and fees. The fee awards obtained tend to be huge upon settlement of such lawsuits, or less frequently, obtaining a favorable verdict for the plaintiffs after trial.

• Initial Public Offering (“IPO”) underwriters and sales personnel. If you run a promising private company and desire to go public, you will find that many potential underwriters will compete for your business. However, as a general rule they will not compete on price. The price will be a 7% gross spread plus expenses. Thus, on a $10 IPO, the gross spread will be $0.70 per share. In contrast, to buy a $10 stock in a secondary market like the New York Stock Exchange, a customer can negotiate a commission rate of, say, $0.02 to $0.05 per share.

• Bankruptcy Professionals; Lawyers and Investment Bankers. Chapter 11 is now set up so that bankruptcy professionals have to be paid in cash, on a pay as you go basis (with only minor holdbacks), where such payments are given a super priority so that these professionals very rarely have any credit risk at all. Attorneys’ fees billed at up to $900 per hour, and investment banking fees of over $300,000 per month (plus success fees) are not uncommon.

• Money Managers, Mutual Fund Managers, Private Equity and Hedge Fund Managers. Normal fees might range from 1% of Assets Under Management (“AUM”) to 2% of AUM plus 20% of annual realized or unrealized capital gains (after a bogey, of say 6%, paid or accrued to limited partners). These fees are paid to entities which receive the cash fees without incurring any credit risk in business entities which have few physical assets and very little necessary overhead. Most hedge funds are Limited Partnerships (“LPs”) where the money manager is the General Partner (“GP”) and Outside Passive Minority Investors (“OPMIs”) are the LPs. An LP has been waggishly described as a business association where at the beginning the GP brings experience and the LPs bring money. At the end of the business association, the GP has the money and the LP has the experience.

• Venture Capitalists. These people finance a portfolio of start-ups, and then are able to realize astronomic prices on some of the portfolio companies when they occur, as they always seem to do from time to time, IPO speculative booms.

• Real Estate Entrepreneurs, especially investment builders. Two keys to making fortunes in large scale real estate projects are the availability of long-term, fixed interest rates, non-recourse financing, and income tax shelters. In terms of understanding corporate finance, economists have it all wrong when they say “there is no free lunch”. Rather, the more appropriate comment ought to be “somebody has to pay for lunch – and it isn’t going to be me.” Third Avenue is basically an OPMI. As such, it seems impossible to avoid investment risk. The methods by which TAVF attempts to alleviate investment risk are described in the remainder of this letter.

1. Buy Cheap. Warren Buffett, the Chairman of Berkshire Hathaway (BRK.A), describes his investment technique as trying to buy good companies at reasonable prices. Warren, however, is a control investor, and while a reasonable price standard has worked remarkably well for Berkshire Hathaway, that standard is not good enough for TAVF, an OPMI. The Fund has to try to buy at bargain prices, i.e., cheap. The definition of “cheap” for TAVF in acquiring common stocks in the vast majority of cases is acquiring issues at prices that reflect substantial discounts from readily ascertainable NAVs. Further, the Fund acquires such NAV common stocks only when Fund management believes that the prospects are reasonable that over the long term such NAVs will increase by not less than 10% per year compounded.

Common stock holdings which met these standards when acquired by the Fund include Toyota Industries (TM), Forest City Enterprises (FCE-A), Brookfield Asset Management (BAM), Cheung Kong Holdings, Posco and Wheelock. I doubt very much if those discount prices would have existed if any of those issues were likely to be subject to a change of control. That type of cheapness is one of the advantages of being an OPMI. Readily ascertainable NAVs means that the Third Avenue common stock portfolio is, to a large extent, concentrated in financial institutions and companies involved with income-producing real estate. Third Avenue’s portfolio contains almost no common stocks of companies engaged in old-line manufacturing.

Control investors can afford to pay up versus TAVF because control investors are in a position to undertake financial engineering, and to cause management changes. Third Avenue leaves companies as-is, and places particular efforts into buying into well-managed businesses with stable, but clearly superior, managements. This seems to have been achieved in establishing relatively large positions in the companies mentioned in the previous paragraph, as well as in acquiring large positions in Nabors Industries (NBR), Power Corp., St. Joe (JOE) and Mellon Financial. “In terms of understanding corporate finance, economists have it all wrong when they say ‘there is no free lunch’. Rather, the more appropriate comment ought to be ‘somebody has to pay for lunch – and it isn’t going to be me.’”

2. Buy Equity Interests Only in High Quality Businesses. The Fund does not knowingly acquire the common stock of any company unless that company enjoys a super strong financial position. TAVF tries to buy into reasonably well-managed companies. Fund management appreciates the fact that any relationship between al statements. OPMIs and corporate managements combine communities of interests and conflicts of interest; Third Avenue Management tries to restrict itself to situations where the communities of interest seem to outweigh the conflicts of interest. Third Avenue restricts its common stock investments to companies whose businesses are understandable to Fund management and where there exists full documentary disclosure, including audited financing

3. TAVF tries to operate on a low cost basis for its shareholders. The fiscal 2006 expense ratio was 1.08%. Third Avenue has no 12-b(1) charges, is a no-load fund and imposes no redemption fees on long-term shareholders. Since portfolio turnover is low, transaction, i.e., trading, costs, too, are low.

4. The Fund ignores market risk. Fluctuations in market prices are mostly a random walk with changes in market prices not in any way a measure of long-term investment risk, or investment potential. It is as Ben Graham used to say, “In the short run the market is a voting machine. In the long run the market is a weighing machine.” Most competent control investors, again like Warren Buffett, pretty much ignore market risk also in that little, or no, weight is given to daily, or even annual, marks to market for portfolio holdings.

5. Buy growth, but don’t pay for it. In the financial community, growth is a misused word. Most market participants don’t mean growth, but rather, mean generally recognized growth. In so far as growth receives general recognition, a market participant has to pay up. To my mind, Cheung Kong Holdings, Forest City Enterprises, Covanta and Toyota Industries are growth companies. When the common stocks were acquired, none of these issues enjoyed general recognition as having growth potential.

6. TAVF is a buy-and-hold investor. Although our entry point into a common stock is a bargain price, the Fund will continue to hold a security where Fund management believes that the business has reasonable prospects that it can, over the long run, increase annual NAV by a double digit number; and where Fund management does not
believe it made a mistake. Mistakes are measured by beliefs that there has occurred a permanent impairment in underlying value or financial position. The Fund will also sell if there is a belief that the security is grossly overpriced. Finally, the Fund will sell for portfolio considerations; i.e., where there are massive enough redemptions of Fund shares so that the liquidity of the Fund is threatened. As one can see by our sales activity during the quarter, most of our sales occur when a company is taken over.

7. The Fund does not borrow money and, thus, invests without financial leverage. Furthermore, the TAVF portfolio has a cash cushion. Usually 10% to 20% of Fund assets are in cash or credit instruments without credit risk. Obviously, an investment by you in TAVF does entail investment risk. Fund management, however, is doing the best it can to try to minimize investment risk. Toward this end, and as our business continues to grow, we thought it would be prudent to charge a senior member of our investment team with the responsibility of preserving the integrity of our research process. I am pleased to inform you that portfolio manager, Yang Lie, has been named Director of Research for Third Avenue Management. Yang has been with Third Avenue more than ten years, as both an analyst and portfolio manager, and is extremely well qualified to assist Curtis Jensen and me, as co-Chief Investment Officers, in leading the team. Research has always been at the core of what we do here at Third Avenue. Each of the 21 members of our research team is an analyst first and foremost, whether or not he or she also manages portfolios. In this new role, Yang will add structure to the organization, enabling us to manage the assets you have entrusted to us even more effectively.

I will write to you again when the report for the period to end July 31, 2007 is published.

Marin J. Whitman