HomeFed issued $150 million in senior notes that mature in three years, with a coupon of 6.50%. The company chose not to pay for a rating. The money was used to buy a 1,400 acre property known as Otay Ranch, which according to Sherman was “contiguous to property HomeFed already owned.
That would be a tad over $107,000 / acre. It must be a Wall St. property !!!! ??? (California)5300 acre development.
Derf

I've had a terrible craving for a really good hot dog all week. This story will have to suffice (for now), but is in keeping with David's August commentary theme: The Dog Days of Summer. :)
David Sherman of Cohanzick Management, and his RiverPark Strategic Income fund (RSIVX), are featured herein:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/hot-dogs-can-help-offset-the-federal-reserves-interest-rate-increases-2015-07-20?link=MW_home_latest_news

Thesis for Continuation of Those and Other Current Trends
By Tom Stevenson4:44PM BST 01 Aug 2015
Tom Stevenson is an investment director at Fidelity Worldwide Investment. The views expressed are his own. He tweets at @tomstevenson63.
Excerpts from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11778011/Commodities-rout-brings-global-winners-and-losers.html
Commodities rout brings global winners and losers
The sell-off in commodities is terrible news for emerging market countries which depend on high resource prices
The commodity slump is important because, unlike the Greek debt negotiations and Shanghai’s bursting equity bubble, its impact is felt throughout the global economy. Greece is a rounding error in worldwide terms while the Chinese stock market remains largely sealed off from the rest of the world. Last month’s slide in oil, industrial metals and agriculture speaks to a broader concern – that the long slow recovery from the financial crisis is far from secure.
Although the past month has seen an acceleration of the slide in commodity prices, it is actually part of a secular shift that may have barely begun. Commodities boomed for a decade from 2001. It is unrealistic to expect the correction to be over in just four years. This is good for some countries, sectors and asset classes and catastrophic for others. No wonder Janet Yellen is leaving her options open.
Companies are belatedly acknowledging that they face a prolonged downturn in prices and they are finally facing up to the consequences.
That’s bad news for commodity producers and companies dependent on investment in the sector. It’s also terrible news for emerging market countries whose economies and current accounts depend on high resource prices. Between the mid-1970s and the mid-1990s, inflation-adjusted earnings for basic resources, industrials, chemicals, oil services and machinery companies went nowhere. It is hard to see why this pattern should not be repeated.
But for the commodity consuming parts of the economy, a slide in the cost of resources is just another tail-wind to add to falling unemployment, rising wages and persistently low inflation. This is why the US stock market trades at a premium to the rest of the world and why resource-hungry Japan continues to look so interesting.
For many companies and individuals, reduced input prices and lower transport and heating costs are a positive that will keep a lid on inflation and give the central banks on both sides of the Atlantic pause for thought. It’s not too late to get on the right side of this trade.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11778011/Commodities-rout-brings-global-winners-and-losers.html

>>> By my posting a small cynical comment, I learned something. Thanks for responding.<<<
And I too should not be so cynical in my dislike for gold and silver - at least on this board (there I go again!) Just I recall $800 gold in January 80 (was it) and $5 to $6 silver around 1974. I just can't see how these can ever be considered viable long term investments, at least compared to equities. But seriously, will try and refrain from posting anymore negativity on the subject here.

It's a done deal:
https://www.tcw.com/Funds/TCW_Alternative_Funds/TCW_Gargoyle_Hedged_Value.aspx
And if one wants the I share rate of 1.25%, one will need a cool $1M to open:
https://www.tcw.com/~/media/Downloads/TCW_Alt_Funds/TCW-AltFundsPro.ashx
Looks like the AUM for the fund is currently down to circa 75M.
@Edmond Given what it invests in, probably more accurate to compare its returns to the Russell 1000. I have no idea why they've chosen the S&P500 as their bench. And, since they don't short stocks (just their call options), it seems off the mark to me that M* puts the fund in its L/S category. New arrangement kinda moves it off my watch list anyway, so I'm not gonna worry my head about it anymore.

@msf - I am speechless ! Except M* had already started saying bad things about this fund in 2001. It was not doing well you see, like many other funds. Janus and Legg Mason were still still M* darlings but not this fund or this company.
However, I believe you have guessed the fund and are keeping the conversation going. Respect.
Now admittedly I don't know if M* had a report out on the fund, but they sure talked about it a lot, because it was THE thing at the turn of the millennium. That is a big fat clue right there. No way anyone was around that time and has not heard about this fund.
Come on guys! Don't give up so fast :-P

The urgency and high drama have been there from the getgo, 49y ago;
check 3:24ff:

or 26:50ff of the whole album (highly recommended):

The playing prior is also high-emotion, of course.
The chief thing EC developed after this, or refined anyway, is that absolutely unequaled phrasing, long-line, creamy, like a professional's big singing breath. All with tremendous, relaxed facility and technique.

"M* don't like. It will never admit it, while it keeps currying favor with other managers whose funds never "recovered" (sic)."
M* didn't like this fund when it covered it (aside from one later report, it stopped covering the fund in the mid 2000s, just like its "spinoff" and probably its other peers).
This fund has recovered its losses from its 2000 peak, but M* never praised this fund. Rather, M* continues to praise other funds (not necessarily its peers) that didn't recover from the bust at the turn of the millennium.
"Investors who listened to M* would have generally fared badly."
The vast majority of this fund's peers have vanished. M* continually panned the group of funds as a whole, so generally one would have done well by heeding M*'s advice.
But this fund fared moderately well, so one would have done better holding on and ignoring M* for this specific fund.
"10K at inception, VFINX : 41K, FUND : 137 K"
See graph for growth of $10K. VF set chart at "maximum", and moused over to get the final (current) values of VFINX and this fund as of the posting date.
"M* would start dissing the fund at end of 2000"
M* started coverage in 1999, and never wrote a positive report (though some were nuanced). The mid 2000 report said that one could do better by purchasing a peer fund.
The late 2000 report (apparently the one VF is using as the first "dissing") said that the fund was positioning itself somewhat defensively (not a bad idea for late 2000), while acknowledging that the fund still lost as much as its average peer. Being defensively positioned, it should have fared better.
"At this time [late 2001] M* is all over this fund."
The late 2001 report said that the fund had blown away its peers by virtue of its defensive positioning (losing a lot less), but if the market turned up, that could reverse. M* advised avoiding the fund - it was no longer focused on its objective (hard to fit into a portfolio), heavily concentrated (high risk), and had recently changed management (favorable short term performance may not be meaningful).
"Last 5 Years, VFINX marginally higher than fund
Last 3 Years, VFINX marginally lower than fund"
Over the past five years, this unnamed fund has slightly underperformed the S&P 500; over the last three, it has done a smidge better than the S&P 500. (Didn't I just write this before?)

@Maurice
OSMAX is no load, NTF at Schwab. $2500 min in brokerage acct., $1000 min in IRA.
P.S. I love Eric Clapton!

Since we're cherry picking data, holding PRPFX since 2000 would have yielded 7.7% CAGR vs 4.3% for SPY. Better sharpe, half the volatility and draw down as well.
Holding GLD since its inception has a slightly better return than SPY with roughly the same draw down and volatility.
So it can and does diversify, IMO.

clacy, but it wasn't until PRPFX had such a great run that it became a board favorite. It's five year annualized return isn't anything to crow about either. I would wager most here succumbed to all the incessant articulate ramblings about the fund in the past five years. Just go back to 2011 in the MFO board archives on PRPFX.

Well Maurice, I am one of those posters. I don't feel a need to do weekly posts to promote holding AU. Nor do I ponder/fret what to do about it day-to-day. So you needn't fret about why you haven't seen such posts...
I continue to hold my position in AU bullion (all of which I self-custody). And it makes a wonderful diversifier. --- A diversifier does not mean "go up all the time". AU had a VERY LONG up-market; several down-years is nothing too unusual. -- After all, equities, after topping in 2000, took a decade to reach new highs. Assets come/go out of favor. AU excelled when stocks did nothing. AU has foundered the past few years as stocks have climbed. Definitionally,that IS diversification. Breaks in the price of AU below $1K would commence my accumulating. (If I had NO AU position, I'd probably commence SLOW accumulation here --- as the GDX/GDXJ suggests possible capitulation in those securities).
I do find from time-to-time, what I will call "gold haters" post on investment message boards, why, I do not know. Energy stocks are down sharply since Nov. EM-stocks too. Is it your contention that asset are only attractive for purchase/holding if they are at/near all-time highs..? --- I generally go about deploying capital the other way: buy/accumulate when prices are down. Maybe different strokes for different folks...?
In the past month I have initiated and expanded new positions in MLPs and EM, as those have encountered price weakness, but IMO represent real longer-term value. Will probably commence accumulating shares in Aug-Nov in quality energy producers -- my thesis being the quality producers (XOM, CVX, COP, OXY, EOG) will recover -- primarily because I suspect circumstances will eventually drive WTI higher. I don't claim to know when, but $45/WTI is not conducive to producers -- so producers will (voluntarily or otherwise) curtail production, and that will "solve" the problem of low WTI (just as happened in earlier cycles).

Interesting to me is that in the past some posters recommended gold, as a long term investment. They called gold and precious metals a diversifier to one's portfolio. A holding of 5-10% was considered a necessary weight to impact the portfolio to reduce volatility. Funny that I don't read about this strategy any longer from MFO/FundAlarm members, now that gold has entered a bear market. It leads me to believe the talk was just bull market hype. Of course those who sell gold or gold investments continue to recommend gold bullion and funds at 5%-10% of one's portfolio. No surprise there.

Are you referring to PRPFX which was said "must" be a core holding in everyone's portfolio till death due us part and some went so far as to say may just be the best fund for all time?? But alas, it now has a negative 3 year annualized return. Not exactly my idea of creating wealth.

UPDATE......
I don't hold this fund (new ticker TFHVX), as I have never been impressed with the fund's performance on "down" stock market days --- it always struck me that the hedge benefit which fundholders were being asked to pay did not work -- at least not enough to justify my dollars.
That said, if M* and Google-Finance trailing returns are to be believed, this fund is really SUCKING WIND since TCW took the reins. M* is reporting trailing 3-month returns for TFHVX of (4.08%) vs S&P +1.41%. IF those returns are correct, it would be a stunning indictment of the fund's new managers.
I continue to maintain that most of the "alternative" products avail to retail investors are marketing gimmicks -- marketed to rationalize charging excessive E/Rs, and excessively complex in their strategy -- making them prone to execution errors and, ultimately inconsistent and disappointing returns.
Comments? Any explanation for apparent stinker-performance since TCW took the reins?

I've made many dumb moves. Probably selling a couple beautiful 1-oz K-Rands for about $285 each in 2001 ranks as dumbest. Picked absolute low in the market to unload. "Disinvestment" is a better word in this case.
Question's not about good investments. But I'd list buying a home, investing with T. Rowe Price and doing a Roth conversion in March 2009 as among the better moves.

This is easy. M* don't like. It will never admit it, while it keeps currying favor with other managers whose funds never "recovered" (sic). Investors who listened to M* would have generally fared badly. The performance numbers are from M* as of right now.
10K at inception, VFINX : 41K, FUND : 137 K
M* would start dissing the fund at end of 2000
10K on 12/31/2000, VFINX : 20.8K, FUND : 28.4K
10K on 12/31/2001, VFINX : 23,4K, FUND : 31K
At this time M* is all over this fund.
10K on 12/31/2002, VFINX : 30.4K, FUND : 41K
Need I go on?
Last 10 years, VFINX : 20K, FUND : 28 K
Last 5 Years, VFINX marginally higher than fund
Last 3 Years, VFINX marginally lower than fund

FYI: (Click On Article Title At Top Of Google Search)
There are currently more than 1,000 ETFs in registration with the SEC. As soon as specific sectors get hot, ETF launches will quickly follow.
Regards,
Ted
https://www.google.com/#q=Are+ETF+Launches+a+Contrarian+Indicator?+barron's

Went from 70% equities (MFs, ETFs, and individual stocks) down to 55% equities at today's market open with remainder of portfolio in cash, i.e., no bond holdings. Market breadth is lousy, good earnings reports are not being rewarded sufficiently and stocks with earnings misses are tanking. More importantly, most of my individual stock holdings have either traded sideways or declined slightly in value since April with few stocks gaining more than 10% over the past 4 months.
Something doesn't feel right and August/September are usually weak months. I have sold all individual stocks that have high(er) betas than the S&P 500 and locked in gains in my few winners.

Bruce Fund (BRUFX) near top of all funds for past 15 years.
http://www.marketwatch.com/tools/mutual-fund/screener?FundType=0&FundValue=0&ReturnFundPeriod=11
New holdings include 3 utilities /21% cash
http://quicktake.morningstar.com/syndication/holdings.aspx?cn=GLG117&symbol=BRUFX
http://portfolios.morningstar.com/fund/summary?t=BRUFX&region=usa&culture=en_US

Market breath peaked in April 1998 before the major decline began in March 2000. And back then it was just a handful of tech stocks that accounted for the big gains in late 98 to the final top. Not sure when breath peaked this time around. The next large decline could be led by the biotechs even if there is no similarity between them in this cycle vs tech stocks in the late 90s cycle. Anyone looked at the chart of Biogen (BIIB) lately?

Poor quarter/guidance. AMGN, GILD and CELG all had good/very good quarters. Considerable discussion that AGN may bid for BIIB, ABBV or AMGN.

+1