Seeking Alpha

Brett Buckley

View as an RSS Feed
View Brett Buckley's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Frightening Reserve [View article]
    Thanks.
    Sep 18 01:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Frightening Reserve [View article]
    Yeah, I remember 2007 vividly. For me, noticing the "problem" came in April that year, when Bear threw the walls up and wouldn't release funds to Merrill that had invested in one of Bear's mortgage-related funds. The rest, I guess is academic.

    Speaking of 2007, Mr. Borenstein, can you send me a link to the 2007 interview? I would like to watch it. I can only find the 2009 one - after of course everything hit the fan and the whole world knew the world was blowing up. And Asiel... we used to do a TON of business with them...
    Sep 17 08:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Frightening Reserve [View article]
    Got it. Thank you.
    Sep 16 06:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Frightening Reserve [View article]
    There's no doubt in my view the Fed was complicit in causing the stock market crash with their tight policy of 1928-29. The economy was weak then, commodity prices were deflating, farming - 1/4 of the US economy then - was already in a years-long depression by then, as competing European crops came back into market after WW I. And they screwed up again in 1931 by raising rates to defend the run on exchange of dollars into gold - resulting in ~30% contraction of the money supply, exacerbating deflation.

    I get all that. Thanks so much. That is one, of several factors that caused and accentuated the 1928-33 downfall.

    Also in my view another big piece of it was the over-extension of credit to farms that started failing, and bank exposure to that. The actions of the Fed helped to catalyze all that for sure. The extensive exposure to large bad debts prolonged it. As did the fear. As did the absence of social safety nets.

    So yes. I spoke to only one aspect of what can define a depression. And you are right that I did not also enumerate every other one. But SA tries to keep it below 1,500, so I can't write an entire essay about the Great Depression. But I could have written that one sentence better, I suppose.

    Beyond that, I'm really not sure what is erroneous or ridiculous about my assertions. Nor am I sure what your point is. Most of your points I believe are in the zone of factual accuracy and I would agree with many of your assertions.

    I think the results of the Fed's actions are unclear, yet I believe positive and absolutely necessary. At least someone's doing something about this mess.

    So happy to hear your thoughts that might better define your point.
    Sep 15 07:26 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook Valuation Update: Still Expensive [View article]
    Maybe read my report about FB on the day after its IPO.
    Aug 18 01:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook Valuation Update: Still Expensive [View article]
    I believe the insiders own the B shares. The A shares were what was IPO'd. The B shares have a super-vote - 10 votes for each share. The A shares have one vote. That's what gives the insiders 95.9 (Zuckerberg personally 55.8%) of the combined vote.

    Which is why I referred to the shares, from the minority public shareholders' point of view, as really a commodity - something with intrinsic value that may go up or down. But they are not public owners of the company, like what stocks are supposed to be about, if they can't remove their board members for bad performance and such.

    I wouldn't use the bond analogy, as you suggest to deviate from. Bonds offer fixed returns - a contractual obligation to pay interest and principal. Commodities don't. That's why I used the commodity analogy. Thank you for your thoughts.
    Aug 18 07:12 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook Valuation Update: Still Expensive [View article]
    Total Enterprise Value - the metric I use in stock valuations - accounts for cash (and debt). To your point, paying attention to large cash balances is important. And PE ratios don't do that. Many colleagues of mine, when using PEs, subtract the cash per share value from its market price to account for that. It it helps.
    Aug 17 06:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Glad it was in some way useful.
    May 31 01:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Yeah. Nothing wrong with buying 20-30x revenues, if you live to be 115, I suppose.
    May 22 12:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Thank you.
    May 22 11:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Sorry, I can get wordy. SA tells me to keep it to 1,000-1,500 words. This one I think is more like 1,700-1,800.
    May 22 11:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    As soon as you can locate a borrow.
    May 22 09:37 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Welcome. I feared that if FB went to mid $40s, I would have been lambasted. But this just my perspective - who really knows at the end of the day.
    May 22 09:36 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Welcome. I hope it came out in my writing that I do think it is a good business, and formidable with one billion users. Companies are living organisms. Their one goal is to survive. So when threatened, they adapt, or die. It would far harder to kill off Facebook with all those users than it ever would be AOL, or MySpace as I alluded to. What if, e.g., FB just one day decides to be the Huffington Post as well, if you will, delivering news media content all of a sudden to a billion people? More clicking, more ad revenue. It's still grossly overvalued, despite its many prospects.
    May 22 09:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook: The New High [View article]
    Much of the buying was retail. However there are institutional investors that don't care about valuation - they trade momentum. Perhaps those types were just hoping to ride a run into the $50s after its primary issuance. I've been an institutional "trigger-puller" for approaching 20 years. One thing I've learned, when the valuation is already trading at absurd levels, there's no explanation or rationale anymore. If it can be trading $38-42, an absurd valuation, then why not $52?
    May 22 09:32 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
38 Comments
11 Likes