Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Adam Sharp  

View Adam Sharp's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Which Green Stocks Will Be the Last Standing? [View article]
    ENOC is interesting (smart power grid), but has run a LOT at this point.

    ITC is also interesting, high-voltage transmission and grid-upgrade play.

    Too bad Nanosolar is private.
    Dec 17, 2009. 08:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Want to Know What Those Things Are Worth Ben? Let the Market Tell You [View article]
    Great charts, thanks. Bernanke is such a boob.
    Dec 9, 2009. 12:45 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Short Lesson in Finance and Banking for Paul La Monica [View article]
    I saw that too, D. Mchattie. Sounds like most of it will be tax-deductible, and the other portion interest-earning loans. Not that charitable, considering.
    Nov 20, 2009. 01:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • AIG Counterparties: The SIGTARP Report [View article]
    "The issue of "systemic risk" is one of counterparty failures that create cascading failures in other firms. When one allows "insurance" to be written without the ability to pay, one has effectively allowed the wide-scale commission of fraud and circumvention of regulatory capital and leverage limits."

    Well said. Thanks Karl.
    Nov 17, 2009. 12:49 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Government Not Allowing Finance to Heal Itself [View article]
    If TARP was forced down their throats, why did they have to raise capital to pay it back?

    And most couldn't even raise capital until the government deemed them to big to fail, and gave them implicit backstops. IF they could have, it would have been much more expensive.

    Goldman's deal with Buffet, for example - 10% preferred stock plus warrants.

    On Oct 26 10:30 AM greedcanbgood wrote:

    > I'm getting terribly tired of these discussions. TARP was forced
    > down the throats of many financial institutions and the government
    > is WAY overstepping its authority in an egregious display of ex post
    > facto.
    > In addition, all you people who say, "Good, let the talent go!" don't
    > realize that all of these banks have other business lines that are
    > profitable and had NOTHING do do with the demise of thier organizations.
    > If you loose them, you loose leadership in profitable parts of the
    > bank and end up throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
    Oct 26, 2009. 11:30 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Hands Off Goldman Bonuses [View article]
    Ed, you said "The position that government can just arbitrarily reach into some private enterprise’s internal affairs and make individual decisions on its behalf is indefensible."

    I think these bonuses and bailouts are what's really indefensible. They have benefited in countless ways - loose money, direct bailouts, debt guarantees, FHA loans and other mortgage initiatives which pad profits and transfer risk to the taxpayer, being able to sell crap securities to the Fed.

    How you can call that a "private enterprise's internal affairs" is beyond me.
    Oct 21, 2009. 01:33 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • David Rosenberg Weighs in on Valuation [View article]
    David, the only reason Q1 wasn't equally bad was because of accounting-rule changes. Check out FASB 157-4. It allows mark-to-imagination accounting and was enacted just in time to pretty-up Q1 bank earnings.

    On Oct 12 09:31 AM David Van Knapp wrote:

    > All of the trailing P/E ratios will go way down when Q4 2008 drops
    > out of the calculation. That quarter--when earnings went negative
    > because of all the fiancial write-downs--was an unprecedented phenomenon,
    > and it has distorted traling P/E's ever since.
    Oct 12, 2009. 08:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Greenspan Still Clueless on Moral Hazard [View article]
    Thanks... But I think Bernanke is making even more extreme mistakes than Greenspan. So we need to learn from the past, and correct future actions.

    On Oct 02 09:15 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

    > Mr. Sharp. You're too sharp to linger in the past.
    Oct 2, 2009. 05:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Get Ready for the Next Round of Bailouts [View article]
    My view that "more bailouts are inevitable" is based our country and policymakers' philosophy. On the whole, we are apparently willing to take a short-term gain in exchange for long-term pain. Until that changes, and the majority realizes this is bad for them and good for the powerful few, I think the pattern will continue.

    On Oct 01 07:21 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

    > Mr. Sharp has written: "more bailouts are inevitable."
    > Why?
    > The passing of Saturn is interesting to me. I recall the days when
    > the Japanese economy was the envy of the world (now it's the Chinese)
    > and they were going to take over everything American. I had to sit
    > through a "total quality" lecture and learned the Japanese word "kaizen."
    > Saturn was launched by GM largely on the theory that the new brand
    > would connect with customers in the same way that the Japanese brands
    > did and the factories would be run Japanese-style.
    > It didn't work.
    Oct 1, 2009. 09:18 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Curbing Bank Pay Socialist or Capitalist? [View article]
    Price controls suck, I agree. But if we're not going to let big-banks fail, and continue to subsidize their profits with low interest rates, then we need to cap them somehow.

    It's far from perfect, but better than nothing. ALL banks benefit from being able to borrow at below-market interest rates. How could you not?

    On Sep 28 07:51 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

    > Mr. Smith. Let me make the case for not regulating the salaries
    > and bonuses of bankers:
    > 1) Price controls don't work.
    > 2) Price controls require regulators, auditors and controllers thereby
    > adding a layer of bureaucrats to an already bloated bureaucracy.
    > 3) The G-20 likes it. If so many Citizens of the World are in favor,
    > it can't be good for Americans. It will pave the way for international
    > boards of regulators plaguing the planet with their make-work.<br/>
    > 4) If we accept your premise that the banks are currently arms of
    > the government, then your capitalist case leads very rapidly to "socialism"
    > or socialism, whichever you are prepared to accept. Government running
    > auto companies, banks, the entire health-care industry, health insurers,
    > mortgage banking, railroads, green industries, 90% of "education,
    > pension funds, whatever else Obama's Tzars can gobble up, leads to
    > socialism or another term yet to be invented to spare the feelings
    > of the socialists.
    > Why not call for less government involvement in the economy, not
    > the omnipresent Obama crowd running and regulating everything? After
    > all, that's what Americans do, associate with whom they want, bank
    > where they want, and pay employees and partners what they want.
    > It's called freedom.
    Sep 28, 2009. 09:55 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Do Fundamentals Still Matter? [View article]
    Should we use the forward P/Es, which are also hopelessly optimistic?

    Also, are you familiar with FASB rule 157-4? It allows banks to mark their assets to imagination. It went into effect in time for Q1 earnings this year. I linked to it in the article, read up on it.

    On Sep 24 08:42 PM TLassen wrote:

    > sorry, here is Thiazole's comments.....
    > t is funny - every time I see someone say the market is WAY ahead
    > of fundamentals, I see a mention of the S&amp;P TRAILING P/E. How
    > many times does this have to be debunked? Not only the simple fact
    > that you using data from up to a year ago to determine the value
    > of a market that based on the future, but S&amp;P P/E ratios are
    > meaningless if any companies in the index have a negative earnings.
    > You do realize that once the 4th quarter 2008 data falls off the
    > trailing P/E, that the P/E ratio will drop a bunch, right? Are we
    > all supposed to pretend that it won't and be surprised next spring
    > when it happens?
    Sep 25, 2009. 04:53 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We Need to Shrink America's Bloated Finance Sector [View article]
    Thofler - Does Bill Gates regularly get bailed out and receive free loans, like banks do? It's really not that complicated.

    On Sep 23 11:43 PM THofler wrote:

    > >Bank activity is currently a net-negative on US growth.
    > Why? Because Simon says so? Because bankers make too much money?
    > By this logic we should eliminate tech companies because Bill Gates
    > and Steve Jobs made billions. This article is just unsubstantiated
    > garbage.
    Sep 24, 2009. 10:02 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Simon Hobbes Talks Valuation and Money Printing on CNBC [View article]
    "Where's the inflation"

    The dollar is down 95% since 1913. Do you really think that the Fed is gonna stop this now? Patience, my friend. Printing is just getting started IMO. Further CMBS buys, FDIC bailouts, FHA bailout, pension bailouts, etc will play out over the next 24 months.

    A lot of this money will find its way into the system, much already has. If you think Bernanke will contract in time, I think you're in for a surprise.

    On Sep 24 08:53 AM VennData wrote:

    > The Fed's balance sheet is smaller than it was at the start of this
    > year
    > Half of the Fed increase in money supply sits in their accounts as
    > reserves from the banking system.
    > There's no inflation in the current numbers.
    > Long term interest rates hover at record lows.
    > And we have capacity utilization of just over 60%.
    > Where's the "inflation?"
    Sep 24, 2009. 10:00 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • FOMC Announcement: Watch That Thesis [View article]
    Karl, did you notice the adjective they removed prior to "economic recovery", compared to August? It's "sustainable".
    Sep 23, 2009. 05:10 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We Need to Shrink America's Bloated Finance Sector [View article]
    chap08 - I don't think you understood my argument (I may have garbled it, judging by some of the responses).

    In a free market, these banks would fail. And the industry would shrink itself. I am advocating letting the market work, stopping bailouts and artificially low interest-rates. They distort the market.

    My views are anything but anti-capitalist. What we have now is anything but free-market. I did a whole post about this issue last week:

    On Sep 23 10:27 AM chap08 wrote:

    > It's an interesting one for many of us who believe in capitalism.
    > Articles such as this are, in a profound sense, anti-capitalist.
    > Yet, at the same time, I believe them to hold some truth.
    > Ultimately, I don't believe in totally free markets. I believe that
    > every market needs some form of regulation and I support the first
    > comment above, that this was in many ways a problem of under regulation.
    > But I realize that in saying this, I am putting my faith in governments
    > rather than markets, and that makes me profoundly uneasy.
    Sep 23, 2009. 03:49 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment