Seeking Alpha

Akram's Razor

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Akram's Razor's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Are Netflix CEO Reed Hastings And CFO David Wells Serious? [View article]
    yea...i disregarded that one....another nut job.
    Jan 29, 2012. 11:28 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Netflix On A Suicide Mission? [View article]
    I disagree Rocco this is where you step in again if you are a bear. There has been absolutely no compelling reason to stake a short position in the name since the q3 implosion. It's actually been frustrating because it makes the stock useless other than tactically trading it for short squeezes and what not. Personally, I have been waiting for nflx, opentable, and a few other momos to have a move like this to make them compelling short candidates again. You can simply wait and hope the market provides you with another great opportunity to levg any accumulated knowledge you have on a stock or group of stocks. Nflx is officially there.
    Jan 28, 2012. 02:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Netflix On A Suicide Mission? [View article]
    "It is also possible that the much over-ballyhooed success of the company, had it not been overly hyped, might not have scared the bejesus out of the studious and caused the backlash that turned partners in the industry into rivals."

    Now that is a brilliant observation that I completely agree with.
    Jan 28, 2012. 09:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Netflix On A Suicide Mission? [View article]
    Look dangdang is up 100% and Renn 70% this month, and as far as I am concerned those are not even businesses. So, Don't bother with the analysis of this nflx nonsense. You are better off attributing this move the facebook ipo anticipation than earnings.
    Jan 27, 2012. 05:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Netflix On A Suicide Mission? [View article]
    solar stocks, shld, european banks, and all the china net stocks have had similar run in Jan. It was a good month to buy the dogs of 2011. Add in sentiment at one extreme and a ceo like hastings who is definitely watching the streets numbers and thanks to accounting flexibility when it comes to content recognition can beat them no problem once he gets to reset the base and you have a perfect short squeeze. Nothing else cooking here. I found the quarterly report to be pretty much what you would expect. In fact, I was surprised they are still losing paying subs in streaming at this point.

    Seems way too many bulls just think this will be bought out, but I don't see how the problems with that have changed. Anyone buying netflix with deep pockets will need to expect to immediately be squeezed by content owners for even more money. You get users but you also get greedy paranoid hollywood which is being very smart about how it let's global tech platforms access their content.


    I really think the only story here is that as far as nflx is concerned streaming vs everything else will never be what dvd mail in was to dvd rental. There is no arbitrage for them to exploit.
    Jan 27, 2012. 12:20 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Here Come Netflix's Angry Shareholders [View article]
    "You didn’t lose any money unless you were dumb enough to sell your shares at the bottom."

    Umm, Netflix shares were 150-300 for 11 straight months. Plenty of people lost money and are still losing money that did not sell at the bottom.

    As for your assessment of NFLX management, I would argue you are completely missing the point. People shorting the stock had focused on the inherent flaws in the model. One of those flaws was the price point of the service relative to the rising cost structure. Criticism had focused on how nflx mgmt intended too offset this. One key point was that they would need to raise avg rev per subscriber which would likely signficantly impact sub growth. Yet, mr hastings argued in his blog post that they simply could pass on content, and that no piece of content was a must have. I for one think you can make a convincing argument that nflx senior management had planned to take a price increase from the start of the year(i'm sure there are emails on the matter), and just decided to delay the announcement to coincide more in line with future higher cost content deals. When you guide margins for the year you must be accounting for this, and thats were you can pick a bone with them. You could also argue that the dvd spinoff had more to do with content negotiations as it is literally the only practical explanation for why you'd cause your customers the inconvenience of needing two accounts. You do it so when you license content you are billed on the streaming only subs and not the total subs many of which may or may not use streaming. That is material business model type stuff that mr hastings was shrugging off in dec/jan of last year. So, if he is selling stock while mgmt is internally discussing these issues yet not externally disclosing or worse downplaying them only to spring them later on; i think the class of investors has a right to know.
    Jan 20, 2012. 12:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dangdang: Like Rolling Back Time To Buy Amazon At $6 [View article]
    Ceo and his wife are completely out to lunch. When I saw them on tv I ran from this stock. It's no amazon, and never will be. As for renren, it's another joke copycat company with no future. The only difference is that they are sitting on so much cash thanks to all the generous fools on the planet willing to fund hype that they can literally do whatever they want. In china, the only internet play I'd buy for growth is sina and even they have issues when it comes to mgmt destroying shareholder value. But at least they demonstrate innovation when it comes to copying as well as execution. After that, the big boys of alibaba, baidu, and tencent should continue to rule.
    Jan 18, 2012. 12:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tebowing The S&P 500 [View article]
    The author was simply having some fun with Tebow mania, and the fact that it coincided with a bottom in the market. He really didn't give much thought to who would be reading this and whether or not they have heard of the NFL, Tebow, or the Broncos.

    But I agree, it is utter nonsense. Then again so is astrology, triangles, rulers, waves, and a whole host of other nonsensical things used to explain the movement of stocks.
    Jan 17, 2012. 07:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking Altucher's Bull: 'I Could See, But Now Am Blind' [View article]
    here is a place that has been estimating m3 data since 2006 largely based on the still reported component data

    http://bit.ly/aurejV
    Jan 9, 2012. 09:02 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking Altucher's Bull: 'I Could See, But Now Am Blind' [View article]
    'anonymous kid from Dubai'

    First, it was my anonymity. Then my anonymity with my current geographic location. Then you made me a kid. What's your problem with Dubai? And do you not like kids? Adults who lash out at kids online are a danger to society. Maybe we should start monitoring you. Why did you pick 14? Is it a special number? Are you a registered party member? Is that why you invested everything you had in RINO?

    ...see it really is easy to play your game

    And what track record do you have? Don't remember ever seeing your hedge fund's performance data released anywhere. Your track record is what you say in the press which is always bullish and focused on equities. To say anything conclusive can be drawn from it is ridiculous. You have been abysmal on the macro since i have seen you talking about it since 2007. You are on the other hand a much more prudent stock picker when you are not busy looking for pure spec which seems to be your hobby off choice. However, when you seem to be really thinking it through your picks are usually more risk/reward balanced.That being said i will always view you in a different light from now and on. You are immature and exhibit the type of behavior i have the least respect for in any facet of life. Changed my whole opinion of you and it took no more than a couple of comments.
    Jan 9, 2012. 08:37 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking Altucher's Bull: 'I Could See, But Now Am Blind' [View article]
    Lol Of course James would agree with this. Luckily for you this is an area of expertise for me.

    1) Take a look at the M1/M2 year over year data. Ever wonder why the sharp disparity? It was the first thing that struck me earlier this summer. Demand deposits exploded in august.....why? Money is moving out of short term deposit accounts into transaction accounts ..ie...checking accounts paying nothing. This is ongoing evidence of continued disintermediation of credit. See, you should be writing the FED and asking them to publish M3 data again. Then you would understand the story better. So, what you are seeing is nothing more then people getting more liquid. That is about the economy, employment, and most likely demographics. It is not good news for stocks. Actually, it is a reason for long-term multiple compression. Now take this a step further and look at the money multiplier. M2/ monetary base. It is 38% of where it was in the peak in late 2007 early 2008. Again clear sign of that the monetary aggregates you are tracking are not capturing the story. For 30 years credit intermediation was a runaway train. Have you looked at outstanding securitized credit lately? The collapse of intermediation is like taking a $1bill that was being sliced into 1000 pieces and circulated and then putting it back together while printing another 2 bills. You will cite money supply growth of 200% while scratching your head as to why credit creation is non-existent. The rising m1 number relative to m2 is actually a bad sign. It is more about money moving to the most liquid and least risky form. Add in broader money like m3 and we come down a lot more.

    2) Japan 10 yr 2000- 1.75%
    Japan 10 yr 2012- 1%
    Why everyone ignores Japan is still beyond me. Like the perfectionist on that island were too stupid to think of the idea of printing money in the morning to fix all their problems.

    I think any person following markets is very aware of the low returns treasuries offer and the seemingly alarming risk profile. But you need to ask yourself this. What will take precedence in America when push comes to shove? State and federal finances and everyone they employ or the sp500? Effective taxes will rise, and rates could fall to 1% and allow the US to borrow another trillion without increasing debt service to revenue. Now there is an endpoint and the question is how we get there.(still us us at less than 10% vs 40% for japan) But one thing is for certain rates can't rise much or else you will see real problems. Bottom line is the US has more time to deal with de-levg than most people realize even with their external creditors. And odds are the baby boomer generation will do them a favor and start to shift more to direct treasury holdings as appears to be the case. Remember at 2% allocation they are very underweight historical norm of closer 5%. Up that allocation against household assets of just under 50 trillion and you have another 1.5 trillion. You want to pick on a bond market....go after japan...or at least the yen from here on out.
    Jan 9, 2012. 04:49 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking Altucher's Bull: 'I Could See, But Now Am Blind' [View article]
    James is putting on an Argumentum Ad Hominem epic display.

    1)Nobody attacked you. The article seeked to debunk a bull case you put out there. The title in my opinion was catchy and fresh considering I was disagreeing with almost every point you laid out as well as your regular uber bullish conclusions. I was not questioning whether the markets might be flat or up 5-10%. I was disagreeing with someones case that has them soaring for years to come when I still see major challenges. That to me is a fitting play on 'i was blind but now i see'.

    2)The back and forth started once you began behaving like an internet troll.

    3)You consistently seem to behave as if you are 'always right' on markets whether it is when you are on tv or writing anything. It is not a realistic or admirable quality. I have yet to see you issue a mea culpa for your summer of 2008 buy with both hands recommendations or your serious failure to understand the subprime/housing/finan... crisis etc. You talk a lot about being humble and your own personal life lessons, but that doesn't seem to carry over into your financial personality.

    4)You demonstrate almost zero ability to take criticism. Ideas or views have nothing to do with the individual unless the individual feels they define him. You seem to define yourself by always having to be more bullish than anyone else so that the media pays attention. If the debate is on whether apple is a buy, you turn it into whether its a 3trillion company. If we are discussing the risks in the economy right before the crisis, you turn the conversation into everything out there is cheap and the next bull market is starting tomorrow.

    5)Your understanding of valuation is limited to one market and one era, and that is the US market from the late 90's on. You don't seem to be interested in studying what causes valuations to compress.

    6)You make so many predictions on so many stocks with such a short term traders memory that it is impossible to really have a constructive debate with you on the matter.

    7) You put yourself out there as a carefree willing to have some fun with yourself and others type of guy when it comes to what you do. Yet, you have behaved in the exact opposite manner here. I actually was hoping you'd turn this into a constructive and fun debate. Wit, substance, and spirit. You have contributed Zero.

    8)Most smart individuals focus on process and not outcome when trying to figure out what works. An outcome approach touts INHX and nothing else today. A process approach would ask what about CPSL, RINO, and countless other chinese stocks that went to almost nothing. Are you telling me your entire approach to investing is about optionality and getting the big hit that covers for all the 90% losers, well if so lay that out there. But if that is the case, how dare you pick a bone over netflix. A process approach would look to see how well this person was at avoiding major hits in the economy and markets or minimizing damages when those hits arrive. I'd like to say I have no respect for your ideas, but i don't feel that way. Some of what you have to say about stocks is very interesting and makes sense, but I will tell you point blank your process has little appeal to me. You rarely are backing stuff in the way you should, and you spread yourself thin as far as topics you cover.

    Anyway, keep insulting, making stuff up, shifting the conversation, and every other trick in the book used to irritate and frustrate someone into losing their temper or giving up on an the prospect of debating the merits.
    Jan 9, 2012. 11:08 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Iran Is Enjoying Oil's Risk Premium, But It Won't Last [View article]
    If you have nukes you have bargaining power. If you don't have nukes you don't. Should we be surprised that a country geographically situated where Iran is and with the largest population in the region would seek to assert itself? Personally, I am not surprised. Now, i wish they'd just ally up with someone with nukes and put an end to this, but it seems the russians and chinese are happy to let america and maybe europe stumble into another costly mess in the region before they really make some noise. I think nobody wants an America vs. Iran conflict more than those two countries at this point in time. Geopolitically it makes sense if you think about it. That being said, I don't really understand what iran's goals are here. They are an enigma. Why they have not pursued a regional economic domination approach to power is beyond me. That would seem to be the efficient path to get what they want.
    Jan 8, 2012. 01:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking Altucher's Bull: 'I Could See, But Now Am Blind' [View article]
    btw-Please explain what helping people has to do with whether or not your analysis of the economy and bullish stance on the markets makes sense or is at least supported by some sort of compelling well reasoned argument?

    You chose to change the topic of conversation. You chose to cite roubini and mish as people who have 'been wrong' arguing with you which I think is just a blatant misrepresentation. You chose to only cite picks that worked. You have chosen to ignore your failure to see the financial crisis coming when it was staring you in the face. It's not like your buy everything irrespective calls were dated years before the crisis. They were weeks before the collapse began and after the mess in the system had become obvious to almost everyone involved. Caution would have been prudent, but that is not what you are about.
    Jan 8, 2012. 01:12 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Debunking Altucher's Bull: 'I Could See, But Now Am Blind' [View article]
    I really have litte respect for people who can't engage in a spirited debate on the merits and think they can get buy with a collateral attack strategy that focuses on marginalizing the source. My age, ethnicity, present geographic location, education, title, amount of followers, website ownership or lack there of, and forecasting track record or stock picking ability are all irrelevant. What is relevant is the bull case you presented for markets and the economy, and my fact supported and well cited response. You could have taken the time to counter my points and move on, but that clearly requires too much effort on your part. Instead you continually skirt and attack even when I made a great effort to remain even handed by complementing a lot of the things you do well.

    If I recommend buying 200 different Biotechs because they might be bought out having one actually bought out is not a major accomplishment.

    As for your repeated penny stock comments, I don't get them. This is a SA published article. I am selling no ad space. Furthermore, I think the hypocrisy here borders on the surreal. You have gloated about how you initially set up stockpickr.com as a hype job, and had Cramer via thestreet.com invest and then promote it on cnbc with the intention of flipping it immediately. You celebrate how you were putting out 5-6 articles a day in a financial spam like manner to drive traffic and sell as much ad inventory as possible. Your "five chinese stocks that could double" article is a perfect example of this type of content. It's the tabloid world of financial information. The content is not designed with actual investment advice in mind. The sole focus is on generating as many clicks as possible, and accomplishing this by mining information in anyway you can. Hence, the inferior quality, and ultimately poor overall performance. A monkey could have thrown a dart at board and probably done better picking five names that might double.

    Furthermore, who cares about one or a hundred good picks out of a guy that makes thousands. Your problem is you dilute yourself. Focusing on the fact that you were as bullish as ever as the global economy and markets approached a devastating once in a lifetime crash is entirely acceptable. Dodging the iceberg that sinks the whole ship is kind of important in this game.

    Oh, it would be pretty cool if I was 14. So, I will not outright deny that accusation.

    btw- How did netflix go from -200% to -250% in a few hours?
    Jan 8, 2012. 11:45 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
987 Comments
1,087 Likes