About mell


Befriend (8)
284 threads
San Francisco, CA
Followed by 4
Following 0
Ignored by 5
Ignoring 2
Ignore mell
In United States
Registered May 09, 2012

mell's most recent comments:

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    bob2356 says

    What exactly was BRK's direct cds exposure?

    They did have direct exposure, not just through positions, Buffett detailed them as roughly 5 billion. Here's another opinion point with some data if you're interested:


    Nobody can know for sure one way or the other, but the hedgies I am friends/acquainted with were afraid to touch BRK with a 10ft pole back then, and I consider them centainly pro's compared to myself posting on patnet ;) Another interesting question is also what liabilities they could have simply walked away from, which also doesn't seem to have a clear answer to this day.

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    bob2356 says

    I don't understand this post at all. The blog was about the cost of buying cds on BRK bonds. What does that have anything to do with cds owned by BRK. Go read the comments. You and indeginous both seem to randomly shift between writers of cds, holders of cds, and the objects of cds.

    It was about both, cds owned and their own cds spread. It was a discussion of traders at that time referring to the fact that the market was betting against BRK (as witnessed by the spreads). Regarding the numbers, they are fairly accurate as reported by Buffett himself as net cds exposure in billions (~5 vs ~20 gross). Sure you can say they were irrationally priced, but they are priced as what they are, the market doesn't care whether you think it's rational or irrational and companies have blown up simply from the credit pressure on them and the sell-off of their stock (as debt was called in by concerned parties). It was not meant to prove any financials, which didn't help Bear Stearns as mentioned earlier.

    DavidCayJohnston says

    mell --yet again -- indicates mell does not understand what mell reads. The link mell offers at 2:08 provides no support for his baseless assertions.

    Read the above, you haven't provided any numbers at all, and you are making a lot of assertions yourself ("haven't read xyz...", "I am pretty sure..."). I have to put you on ignore, which I haven't done since that binary guy, good luck riding that FCIC report ;)

  • On 23 Oct 2014 in Cronyism from the left going to Hollywood, mell said:

    DavidCayJohnston says

    @mell - what you wrote its not hyperbole; it is false. World of difference, especially after you doubled down. Facts matter.

    Tell that to the market which though so otherwise back then, and since you believe it to the market. Oh and tell that to Buffett (spelled right this time?) as well who himself said he would/could have crumbled, albeit as one of the last. I didn't know we have another Iwog here. Here, I found something:


See other users near mell

Home   Tips and Tricks   Questions or suggestions? Mail p@patrick.net   Thank you for your kind donations

Page took 136 milliseconds to create.