Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Archman Investor  

View Archman Investor's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • A Buyback Or Biotech Bubble? [View article]
    Hi Leo:

    "And by the way, beating the S&P 15 years in a row isn't being lucky. I don't know many portfolio managers with such luck!"

    I know you were discussing portfolio performance & Bill Miller with another commentator.

    I find Bill Miller to be disgusting. He is a millionaire many times over NOT because he was a great steward of investors money. He is a multi millionaire thanks to the absurd management fees he received. It is one of the major problems with Mutual Funds which do not pay their managers bases on performance but a percentage of the amount of assets they manage.

    Bill Miller's 15 year S&P 500 beating run can be summarized as follows:

    From the early 90's to the year 2000 he simply rode what was a bull market that almost any monkey throwing darts at a board made money in. He did better than the S&P 500 by making over sized bets in certain companies which magnified his returns thus helping him beat the S&P 500 during those years. He was simply gambling with investors money and the bull market simply made him "look" right. He was lucky, just like everyone else. Nothing more.

    The year 2000 and beyond showed the true nature of how people like Bill Miller are just salespeople aided by the media and their propaganda machine. But I have to tell you: He may have kept "beating" the S&P 500 for those first few years of the 2000's however when the S&P 500 loses 40% and he "only" loses 38% and the media rationalizes and glorifies him as "beating" the S&P 500, I think that is disgusting and so should you. That is not money management. He still lost 38% of investors money while he still got paid millions of dollars for that job.

    Bill Miller showed once again in 2007-2009 how all his prior performance was just luck and a bull market but this time losing so much of his investors money from 2007-2009 that he had to change the name of the fund and his role in order to perform the usual deception that fund companies use to disassociate themselves from these failed managers and their performance.

    Bill Miller should be returning millions of asset managing fees to investors who lost money in his funds, not once, but twice in a decade. He would still have millions of dollars left over I'm sure so he take his bloated carcass and retire. Thank goodness there is a special place in hell for Bill "the market expert" Miller awaiting him.

    No positions ever in anything Miller managed. Just someone here who is sickened by the money these salespeople make as they lose tons of investors money.

    Thank you.
    Mar 28, 2015. 10:33 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Buyback Or Biotech Bubble? [View article]
    Interesting. Cause for concern??
    Mar 27, 2015. 05:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Value Investing: No Time For Suspension Of Disbelief - Part 3 [View article]
    "For a more comprehensive analysis, please see the Insights titled Dividend Value Investing: No Time for Suspension of Disbelief. You may also be interested in information about the Invesco Diversified Dividend Fund (MUTF:LCEAX) and the Invesco Dividend Income Fund (MUTF:IAUTX)."

    The above statements are all you need to know about this "article"

    If there is one thing I cannot stand is a asset gathering company wasting space on SA and putting out advertisements masquerading as investing articles.

    Dear Invesco:

    GET LOST!!
    Mar 27, 2015. 05:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Building A Better (Balanced) Dividend Growth Portfolio [View article]
    Interesting article and nice charts. Always makes it easier for the younger less experienced investor to understand things.

    Alas like most dividend investing articles, the stocks focused on typically mirror the same ole S&P 500 stocks that 98% of American investors already own.
    Mar 27, 2015. 09:41 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investing In High Dividend Yield Stocks: A Sucker Bet? [View article]
    You wrote:
    "Now that I think about it ---- what is the purpose of dividends anyway?
    Isn't the whole point of investing ---- to make more money? capital appreciation?
    if you want income --- you don't need a dividend.........just click the "sell" button on your brokerage account."

    I think investing is a bit more complicated than that though I see where your coming from.
    Yes, you invest your money because sometime in the future you do want to have more money than you started with. That however can be achieved more than one way. I have been investing for about 20 years now. Yep I do like seeing the capital appreciation for sure. Who doesn't? But what have studies shown about most investors? They are horrible traders & investors. As a matter of fact not so many people really end up with more money than they started with in the end and quite a few end up with nothing.

    I personally invest for income creation. I want to work for about 14 more years. My portfolio yields about 10% right now. Now I can already hear the gasps from the choir about that 10% yield. I am not a passive investor. I pay attention to the portfolio, the economy, etc. and will act as required to keep the portfolio on the right track. While some of my positions are mean to be passive there are positions that must be managed.

    I own stocks such as $PBA $IPPLF $BEP $STAG, etc. as the long term foundation of the portfolio.
    These companies are small enough to keep exponentially growing and expanding their market caps and offer rising dividends each year.

    I use ETN's such as $MORL $CEFL $BDCL as the nitro dividend boosters to bring the portfolio yield and monthly dividend reinvestment possibilities way up. Those previous examples of my portfolio are just some of the companies I invest in.
    And no you will not see me investing in the "most widely held" companies that 95% of American investors all own (and will all go down together on).

    My point is this: I like to reference how my portfolio is doing say compared to the average American out there:

    Average American:
    Net worth of about $20K
    Pretty much is forced to gamble with whatever investing money they have in the hopes that are going to "hit the lottery" and that will save them from their bleak future.
    Average American earns about $48K / year pretax. Probably about $800/ week after tax.

    For me:
    I still work, etc. and have the various responsibilities that are required to maintain a family, kids, etc. You know all the fun stuff.

    My portfolio throws off a few thousand bucks per month in reinvestable dividend income. Yes that word is "month" not year. That is money I do not need. It is reinvested month after month. Month after month the income is rising. By the time the next 14 years is up I may or may not even need to touch that portion of the retirement but you can imagine the income I will be receiving. Oh and did I mention it will all be 100% tax free. (Roth Ira)

    Wouldn't the average American out there love to be in the same situation? I think so.

    My point is as it pertains to your initial question: The whole point of investing means different things to different people. For me: My portfolio could have zero capital appreciation over the next 14 years yet by the time I am ready to retire I will have more money and income generation that 99% of all investors out there. I will never need to sell a share if I do not have to.
    It can be done through capital appreciation and it can be done through dividends alone.

    Thanks for the comment Kyle and I was just commenting for illustrative purposes.

    Best to you.
    Mar 25, 2015. 09:06 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investing In High Dividend Yield Stocks: A Sucker Bet? [View article]
    I think the article would be 1000 times more credible if individual stock names where used as examples.
    Mar 25, 2015. 08:26 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Merck adds $10B to buyback [View news story]
    You are correct.
    Buybacks are a favorite brainwashing tool of the media and companies. Gives them something to yell about.

    There is little evidence that buybacks increase stock price. They are great for "managing" EPS. Helps with all the "beat by a penny nonsense" and keep the media happy.

    The majority of buybacks are done by the 2/3 largest S&P 500 companies and many times they are done because the companies know they no longer are true growth machines and need every advantage they can get to manage their earnings.

    What is comical: Investors (and again the media) plead with and get all worked up over stock splits (another brainwashing tool) by companies. So what does the company do? Waste money buying back the very shares they created out of thin air by doing those previous stock splits. It is hilarious.

    If a company wants to reduce the share count: They should do a reverse stock split, which costs investors NOTHING and then use that money they were going to waste on buying back shares for further R &D or give directly to shareholders increased dividends or even special dividends.

    I don't know many shareholders who would prefer stock buybacks (in some cases they do nothing because they are simply offsetting insider share allotments & options) over outright dividends that an investor can see going right into their brokerage account.

    But then again you are dealing with the average American investor who is as clueless as a deer in the headlights when it comes to seeing what is best for them.

    No position in $MRK.
    Mar 25, 2015. 08:23 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Exxon Mobil: Grow Income Now As The Sector Takes A Beating [View article]
    I may not have an interest in $XOM but the thesis here is a simple, time tested one that believe it or not most Americans do not follow.

    Buy low, sell high (if you want to sell I mean).

    What do most American investors do? They buy high, then sell low.

    I do not know where oil, $XOM or any other stock related to energy is going. I have been adding to positions in my pipeline stocks ($IPPLF & $PBA) and want these to stay down for much longer so I can reinvest again and again the monthly dividends.
    Mar 24, 2015. 12:59 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An Undiscovered Canadian Gem That Pays 6% [View article]

    Still my long term favorite holdings.
    Mar 23, 2015. 12:57 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An Undiscovered Canadian Gem That Pays 6% [View article]
    I am some what an authority on this issue as I have been investing in Canadian securities of all types for many years now.

    Canadian REITS & the few remaining Candian Income Trusts are subject to 15% with holding when held in IRA & taxable US accounts. If held in the taxable accounts the 15% is recoverable by filing the correct IRS form. (You of course have to deal with other tax issues when using a taxable account for investing or trading)
    There is no recovering the 15% tax on those Reits or trusts held in the IRA's.

    Canadian Corporations held in IRA accounts are not subject to any 15% taxation.
    Mar 23, 2015. 12:13 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • OPEC governor: oil at $100-$120 again a long shot [View news story]

    My 2 largest holdings are

    I used to invest in individual US MLP's. However now I favor $MLPL for a more diversified, yet magnified (risky) higher yielding position.

    Best to you.
    Mar 23, 2015. 09:43 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An Undiscovered Canadian Gem That Pays 6% [View article]
    Just some general information:

    I have owned Canadian Reits for years now.

    If Canadian Reits are held in an IRA, dividends are subject to the 15% tax and is NOT recoverable.

    If the Canadian Reits are held in a standard taxable account, dividends are subject to the 15% tax however you file the appropriate IRS form to recover the 15% at tax time.

    Typically the dividends are paid in Canadian dollars so the currency conversion (as of right now) means you are receiving less that the stated dividend.

    Still there are some Canadian Reits (even after the 15% tax & weak Canadian dollar) that offer some really good values & dividends as compared to US Reits.

    Best to all.
    Mar 23, 2015. 09:26 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • OPEC governor: oil at $100-$120 again a long shot [View news story]
    Most of my energy investments are in the pipes. Energy products have to get transported somehow. They get paid. Weekdays, Weekends, 24/7.
    Thus I get paid.
    Mar 22, 2015. 11:48 AM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Higher Interest Rates Will Be Bad News Even For Some Stalwarts [View article]
    "ZEro interest rate policy in my opinion is permanent as rest of world does QEs or lowers interest rates. No need to worry about interest rates going up for many years to come. Deflation deflation."

    Exactly, thank you.

    Zero "Economic Expansion" here in the US, where the quality of jobs created for years already look great as long as you like serving other people their dinner.

    Everything about so called rising rates is just noise...period. It makes for nice TV soundbites to try and increase ratings.

    Rates going from .00001% to .00002% are meaningless.

    If interest rates of all types truly begin to rise worrying about GIS, KO, PM, etc is going to be the least of everyone's problems. The government will be defaulting left and right on it's debt and no one will be worry about these companies when that happens.
    Mar 20, 2015. 12:03 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Most Unlikely Stock To Build A Retirement Portfolio Upon At Any Age [View article]

    I don't own GE stock. No interest in it, so I just wanted to make sure everyone knew that before my comment.

    $GE is a "Wall Street" stock. It is "sales" stock. It is categorized under the term "Most widely held". You know all those made up Wall Street phrases that are used as sales techniques by Wall Street to keep average Americans owning all the same top 50 stocks by market cap.

    The kind of stock that gets sold to mom & pop investors because it is a well know name, and exists as inventory in every Wall St investment bank. High liquidity allows for Wall St to profit from investors buying and selling.

    To my point: I don't know much about Immelt nor do I really care to. Based on what you wrote it does seem he promised a few things and did not deliver.
    However like most stocks the share price in the end probably does not have much to do with Immelt himself. He cannot control the emotions of investors or the moving of the share price.

    You couple that with the fact that GE is a former bull market winner who had its day when it's bull market ended in 2000, there is not much that can be done. $GE is essentially a stock that will mirror the market direction. Bull market it goes up, bear market it goes does. As a high liquidity stock (like most mega cap stocks) they are used by institutions to provide liquidity to weather all market conditions, so they essentially mirror the market in both the short and long term.

    RS is correct in his article about $GE. $GE should be a small part of an investors portfolio mixed in with the other mega cap stocks that are featured 24/7. Maybe 20% of an investors portfolio should be these companies. Or one could just purchase any related S&P 500 ETF as the performance is essentially going to match that. The other 80% of one's portfolio should be stocks that are less than 10 billion in market cap (dividend payers of course as that is my thing).
    Mar 19, 2015. 10:22 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment