Anyone on here outright disagree with the thesis they outlined in the memo? They also really went after Jefferies in the note as well. Finding it hard to go against the Ponzi scheme nature of the dividend new share issuance/ATM take.
| +189 | Americas M&A League Table Q2 Updated | 75 | 15h |
| +142 | New Article: Dramatic Slide as UBS #22 (US) & New Leadership Desperately Needed | 36 | 8h |
| +118 | Restructuring: Anti-climactic Experience | 31 | 10h |
| +87 | IB Net Worth / Savings Check | 41 | 4m |
| +75 | A COMPLETE GUIDE TO SUMMER INTERNSHIP RECRUITING | 12 | 2d |
| +57 | Woman who emptied Knicks trashcan on street then stole it was DEI exec, worked at JPMorgan Chase | 12 | 13h |
| +51 | Boutique firm wants access to my LinkedIn? | 40 | 1d |
| +40 | Investment Banking is Hard | 17 | 1d |
| +31 | PWP vs BofA | 24 | 6h |
| +30 | AI + Financial Modelling | 8 | 1m |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
I think a few of the minor arguments were a little thin, but it is probably fair to ask why does IEP deserve to trade at such a big premium to NAV when other CEFs trade at lower premiums or even discounts? Theoretically, there could be embedded value in private assets (Hindenburg made the opposite argument) or a call option on Icahn’s investing acumen (maybe you could use Berkshire/Buffet premium to book as a comp), but the argument that made the most sense is that investors were just addicted to the high distribution yield. If you believe that is unsustainable, it seems there is a chance some of the investor base could sell if the distribution was cut, which might narrow the premium to NAV. The margin loans are an interesting wrinkle, but I didn’t see enough disclosure on terms to develop a view on materiality. I will note the bond market reacted less sharply than the equity market today.
Hindenburg tends to be right and there’s some irony in Icahn whining about activism 🤪
The report was very interesting. It made two major contentions, which are somewhat discussed above.
1. Icahn Ent. is a holding company which should trade roughly at NAV, but does not because of various shady financial disclosures and propping up by Jefferies, as well AS…
2. Icahn Ent. is a de facto Ponzi scheme because its 15% dividend yield, which props up the stock’s value, is only sustained by getting new investor’s money, which is facilitated by Jefferies’ perma-bull ER coverage and ECM raises.
I thought the thesis seemed largely correct. A few of the arguments on NAV were a bit opaque, and I doubt they can estimate what Icahn’s exposure to gas prices nearly as accurately as they were pretending to.
The report is not the end-all, be-all, but Icahn’s margin loans are a bit of an X-factor. Any forced liquidation on Icahn is probably going to bring down the house. I think Jefferies will prop him up before that would happen though.
Any publicly traded security that derives it's value from self-reported, non market based NAV scares the absolute shit out of me. That said, some of their logic seemed purposely obtuse / disingenuous.
For example, saying it'll take Icahn 2,000 years to sell his stake in the thinly traded public stock he owns. In all reality if he exits that business he's going to sell the entire company in a take-private or something, hopefully at a premium to publicly traded share price. So is the premium assumed pretty sus and likely overvalued? I think so, but to insinuate that Icahn's method of monetizing that asset is to sell like $134 of stock a day in the open market for 2,000 years straight is disingenuous. .
Along the same lines, PE fund marks should also scare the shit out of people as those assets are grossly overinflated - those assets are NOT going to trade at the multiples they bought them for. PE's only hope (esp. in stupid high multiple deals) is that they can hold on long enough to their PortCo's to outwait the Fed and interest rates go back to near zero (without a significant recession) --- good luck!
Ullam et aut nesciunt qui fugit possimus. Dolorum porro ut voluptas soluta id id nam. Accusantium possimus est error recusandae et illo neque cupiditate. Incidunt quos aut et aperiam unde ut sit.
Qui incidunt quia dolorem nam. Deleniti aut ipsum perferendis laboriosam at consectetur. Eaque et ab vel voluptatibus earum in. Unde omnis velit libero sint consectetur consectetur.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...