Breeders’ Cup officials have decided to suspend the entire Breeders’ Cup stakes program for 2009

[sighthound]

Today Paterson said he wants a casino at Belmont.

[TGJB]

We were not the data provider I was talking about, we\'re fine unless the industry as a whole goes under, in which case you won\'t be needing figures. My guess is a couple of others may be in trouble. Not directly related, but Bloodhorse just cut staff, budget, and advertising rates.

By the way, how exactly is Magna supposed to survive this credit crunch with all that debt?

[Silver Charm]

They will not.

[shanahan]

One avenue is one that they have worked for several years...screwing the sponsors of racing/big race days.  Promise, promise,promise...day of the race?  \"we forgot\"...
Then what happens?  No more sponsors...no more purses...no more racing.  He can\'t go down fast enough for me.  Sorry, but I speak from first-hand experience for several years regarding the second leg of the triple crown.


TGJB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We were not the data provider I was talking about,
> we\'re fine unless the industry as a whole goes
> under, in which case you won\'t be needing figures.
> My guess is a couple of others may be in trouble.
> Not directly related, but Bloodhorse just cut
> staff, budget, and advertising rates.
>
> By the way, how exactly is Magna supposed to
> survive this credit crunch with all that debt?

[Silver Charm]

Shanahan, he overpaid, he overlevered and overpromised.

Am I talking about Frank Stronach or the following:

Jeff Immelt-GE
Lloyd Blankfein-Goldman Sachs
Chuck Prince-Citigroup
Stan O\'Neil-Merrill Lynch

This disease was everywhere. Those looking for it easily caught it.

[RICH]

....well lets see, if I can get figs, get used to watching them run in reverse, make a bet, and watch on TV, I wouldn\'t mind jumping into the hong kong pools

[HP]

Jerry I looked at their balance sheet and their income statement for the third quarter of \'08.  It looks to me like Stronach is not facing insurmountable problems at this time (unless things have changed RADICALLY for them in the fourth quarter).  

The main issue...to this observer...is that he is not generating any revenue to pay his debt service (the interest on his debt).  They are losing money, and I see this looks like it\'s because he had a very high level of \"general and admin expenses\" in third quarter.  This may have been a one time thing...it sticks out like a sore thumb on the sheet...

But the level of LONG TERM debt vs. assets is not that bad...especially when you see that the total assets exceed the total liabilities.  It doesn\'t look like he is in over his head...at least financially.  The \"credit crunch\" is only going to hurt him if he needs to borrow A LOT more money.  

You can see for yourself via Yahoo! Finance.  

HP

[HP]

The comparison of Frank Stronach to these financial guys is...to put it mildly...ridiculous.  Look at the bottom line for yourself...

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=MECA

Even given the amount he\'s losing every quarter...if you think he\'s going bust anytime soon I think you\'re way off...  

Comparing Stronach to Stanley O\'Neal is like comparing a tugboat to the Titanic.  Nowhere near it...  

HP

[Silver Charm]

You were saying........

Re: Stronachs Trial Balloon
Posted by: HP (IP Logged)
Date: August 16, 2004 03:54PM


Silver,

To own a billion dollars in assets with only $137 million in long term debt is pretty good! Even if you look at it from the short-term side (the way you have it figured, where you are counting ALL his debt) - the asset/debt ratio is about 2:1.

As for \"write downs\", everybody does what they\'re allowed to do. I can\'t imagine too many analysts getting bent out of shape by a $26 million charge.

One way to look at Stronach\'s financial picture here is - if he dumped a few properties, he could pay most his debt and have a few tracks left over as \"profit.\"

It looks to me like increasing operating expenses are what\'s really eating away at his bottom line. Even without knowing about the offer referred to in this thread ($6.50 per share), I don\'t see this as a slam dunk short.

Now Donald Trump, there\'s a guy you can short without hesitation! I wonder what he will have to sell to stay afloat? Could be the end of the Trump era in ACity coming up. Good riddance. HP

[magicnight]

HP -

Look at the cash. He\'s losing $20 to $30 million a quarter and they\'ve only got $30-odd million in cash left. They\'ve been pushing off debt obligations and there is no way they can get any financing that wouldn\'t make things even worse. Unless they can sell off properties at a decent price - A BIG IF - they are screwed. And, even if they do that, they are screwed by the loss of cash flow. Put a fork in it.

[HP]

This is odd.  I did not post this.  I do agree with most of it though...

The REAL HP

[HP]

I don\'t agree.  We\'ll see how the next few quarters go.  I think he\'s got options and some room.

[Silver Charm]

People can look it up. I said then this guy was a short if there ever was one and you said his Balance Sheet looked good.

Stronach is no different than those other guys I mentioned. As a matter of fact he may be better. He built his own auto parts company from scratch and destroyed a race track holding company. Those other guys took over companys others had built and put them on the ropes.

The same ropes the shareholders will eventually hang them with......

[HP]

I\'m sorry Silver...now I see what you are talking about.  This is from

Re: Stronachs Trial Balloon
Posted by: HP (IP Logged)
Date: August 16, 2004 03:54PM

So it\'s my post from 4 years ago.  

Here\'s what I see buddy.  If you had shorted the stock in Aug. 16, 2004 - according to this chart

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=MECA#chart1:symbol=meca;range=20031029,20081029;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=on

it was 120.00 a share

a year later in Aug. 2005

it was 128.00 a share

BOY IS MY FACE RED.  It looks to me like...I wrote this post in 2004...and what I said was...absolutely right for the entire YEAR.  The stock went up.  Which would have made you...wrong...for the first YEAR after I posted this.  

What happened next?

In Aug. 2006 it was 93.00 a share.

So if you had shorted the stock and held that position for TWO YEARS you made 27.00 a share.  

But still...I would say my post holds up pretty well for TWO YEARS after I wrote it.  The stock went down about 20%...that is not crash and burn...and you would\'ve had to have had some guts to hold that postion when the stock went up.  

So here it is...2008...and you are pulling out this post and CROWING about this...like I was wrong...as if my 2004 post could have contemplated every move Stronach has made since...including things I would have to be Nostradamus to predict.  

Wow.  I don\'t suppose you will admit that for a very reasonable amount of time after I wrote this post (from 2004 to 2006) my analysis was dead on and you were wrong?  Even though everybody can click on that chart and see the facts?  

I stand by what I wrote.  We\'ll see if Stronach goes broke.  He has real assets.  It\'s not just bad paper.  Have it your way.  He\'s just like the Wall St. guys.  

HP

[HP]

Silver,

I can\'t stop laughing.

How come you didn\'t write a post in 2005 that talked about how right I was?  \"Gee, HP wrote that the balance sheet was okay and stock went up this year.  I guess I was wrong.  Silver.\"  Maybe you can use your archive searching talents to come up with that missing post.  

I didn\'t realize what I was writing in 2004 was something you would take me to task for...FOUR YEARS LATER!  My opinions have a shelf life man!  I wish I had the talent to look at a balance sheet and know where a company would be in four years, after innumerable business decisions and company acquisitions.  I wish I had known the real issue (in 2004!) was where the stock would be this week.  I should have been able to predict this whole subprime thing back then...  Too much.  

I\'ll be waiting for you to acknowledge that my post was correct, the balance sheet was fine, and the stock went up.  I\'m sure your spin on this is that you were right...and in 2004...you meant you thought the stock would go up...but then plummet over a four year period...  You the man!  

HP