Seeking Alpha

David Crosetti

View as an RSS Feed
View David Crosetti's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • What Exactly Is Risk? [View article]
    Risk is walking into a biker bar in a tweed coat and buttoned down shirt and asking the bartender to make you a "cosmopolitan."

    Just Saying
    Apr 17 01:59 PM | 10 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is Total Return? [View article]
    As I recall, his wife was smoking hot.

    Dave
    Apr 17 07:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is Total Return? [View article]
    Larry:

    The comment was not about the article, but in response to what Lamarius said.

    Maybe you are confused again?

    Dave
    Apr 16 09:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is Total Return? [View article]
    "As I read it, the author thinks all investors should be total return investors at the core, and let their personal risk tolerance drive their chosen style, and I couldn't agree more!"

    Well, he does, sometimes.

    Do you think that ALL investors should be total return investors? If total return is not a strategy then ALL investors would not necessarily participate in this strategy.

    On the other hand, if total return is "only a metric" then it is as useful or not, as other metrics like unrealized gain, etc. etc.

    Which is it?

    Dave
    Apr 16 08:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is Total Return? [View article]
    Varan:

    So what do you invest in? CD's?

    Just Sayin
    Apr 16 08:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is Total Return? [View article]
    Dale:

    Is Mr. Trudeau the Canadian version of George Bush?

    Hard to believe that the Canadians have the blame game going on in Canada like we have here in the states.

    Sometimes I wish for a politician who would just shut up and fix things, rather than compound the errors of the past. Unfortunately we have the best politicians that money can buy and they could give a rip about the people they supposedly serve.

    Dave

    Dave
    Apr 16 08:19 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My KISS Dividend Portfolio: 1st Quarter 2014 Update [View article]
    That is probably the best quarterly report that I've ever read from another author. Absolutely fantastic. I love the way you broke down each of your activities and the completeness of your report.

    Very well done!

    Dave
    Apr 15 07:09 AM | 28 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Warren Buffett, Berkshire Hathaway, And Dividend Growth Investing [View article]
    Eddie:

    Very nicely done.

    Like you I believe that DGI is a whole lot more involved than finding a stock that pays a dividend and grows that dividend every year. In my opinion, investors that do that are shortchanging themselves and their potential returns.

    Without fundamental analysis (PE, PEG, ROI, revenue and earnings growth etc. etc.) you can be buying stock in a company that has little or no wiggle room.

    I think it is a misconception that one can rank stocks by dividend and then purchase the top 25 on the list, without regard for fundamentals.

    But, hey, that's just me.

    Dave
    Apr 14 06:23 PM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Reinvestment Revisited: The Coca-Cola Millionaires [View article]
    Duane:

    Value has little or nothing to do with the past. It has everything to do with the future. That's the hard part.

    Dave
    Apr 14 06:47 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Reinvestment Revisited: The Coca-Cola Millionaires [View article]
    BIH:

    One of the issues with comparing KO to the SP 500 is that there are 499 additional stocks in the index. How many of them did not exceed the performance of the Index? Does that mean that those stocks that did not beat the overall index should not have been in your portfolio?

    Interesting take on portfolio management.

    Dave
    Apr 13 04:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Reinvestment Revisited: The Coca-Cola Millionaires [View article]
    Birder:

    Your comment has been posted many times, by many different people. It would seem that, like any other "fallacy" the more times that this one is used, the more it becomes "fact."

    Your argument about these three stocks just isn't "fact." Let me explain why.

    In January of 1982 (haven't been able to source 1962 data) JCP was selling for $7.00 a share. In August 1987, it was selling for $32 a share. Nice time to take some significant profit, wouldn't you think?

    JCP had little or no growth from late 1987-1991. I think any thinking person would have sold it and moved onto another retailer like Walmart?

    But in 1998, JCP was selling for $75 a share. Vs. the $32 price back in 1987. Not fantastic, but hey a double in 7 years? I'll take that all day.

    The JCP stock, alas, dropped to $10 a share in November of 2000. Investors who bought there were rewarded with a ride to $82 by March 2007. Golly. Kind of a nice run, don't you think? Time to sell some JCP? Not a bad idea. Nice return.

    Every stock that an investor purchases, must be monitored, not only for gains made, but for changes to the business model. Look at it this way. If your wife was cheating on you and you found out about it, what would you do? How about the second time you catch her cheating on you? The third? The fifth?

    At what point do you finally say, "I've had enough. Time to move on."

    Same thing with stocks. Your argument is that any delisted stock or any bankrupt stock killed investors. Yeah, investors who didn't say, "time to move on, here."

    The changes with mergers and acquisitions in Sear's history should have made anyone say, "time to move on here."

    The introduction of digital cameras and Kodak's refusal to get involved should have signaled a prudent investor to say, "time to move on here."

    So, please, stop it already with the Sears, JCP, Kodak campfire story. It's getting old and it's been told before over and over. It didn't make sense then and it makes no sense now.

    Dave

    PS: Folks said the same thing about BAC when I bought shares under $5. They said the same thing about GE when I bought shares at $12. They said the same thing about JPM and WFC; MSFT, INTC, DD and a host of others.

    It all comes down to revenue growth and earnings growth. If there's not revenue growth or earnings growth, then you are buying a stock with "wishful thinking" and not logical thinking.

    Dave
    Apr 13 11:05 AM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Growth Investing: Is Total Return A Useful Metric? [View article]
    Paul:

    I think from reading this comment, you and I are on the same page.

    I think if we were sitting at a table and speaking to one another, we would not have any confusion as to the issue with NFLX.

    Dave
    Apr 13 10:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Growth Investing: Is Total Return A Useful Metric? [View article]
    Paul:

    Not making any implications about your investment decisions at all. Instead, I am pointing out that there is a lot more risk involved in these kind of stocks. If your risk tolerance is higher than mine, good for you.

    Netflix has taken investors on an interesting and exciting ride up, down, back up, and perhaps down again.

    That's not my type of stock. It might be a great investment for someone else and my opinion is "more power to you."

    I think that there were some people out there (my kids for example) who could not believe that anyone would want to go to a Blockbuster store when they could get movies in the mail. Then movies by streaming on the computer.

    Having bought NFLX back in 2008 and holding it through this week would have been a profitable move. However, it would have been a gut wrenching one as opposed to a lot of other stocks out there.

    That was my original point and the same point in my second comment.

    Dave
    Apr 12 09:35 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Growth Investing: Is Total Return A Useful Metric? [View article]
    Larry:

    Sorry. I do not know who you are referring to, me or Fish. I think Fish made some very concise comments and not anything that should upset you at all.

    But then again, perhaps you are hearing something in Fish's comment that I'm not picking up on?

    Dave
    Apr 11 05:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Growth Investing: Is Total Return A Useful Metric? [View article]
    Paul:

    Maybe we are looking at different stocks. When I look at Netflix, it went from the low 20's in 2008 and reached a fantastic $280 a share in July of 2011. Excellent.

    Then the bottom fell out and the stock went to $70 in December of 2011.

    Now, before 2008, most people thought that Blockbuster would be around forever. Weren't a whole lot of people buying NFLX. Then the tide shifted. People realized that video rental stores were a thing of the past (not a lot of them around anymore).

    Now, the stock rallied after December 2011 and recently was trading as high as $445 a share in March of this year. It's dropped to $337 recently.

    This is not a company that I consider a buy and hold, in any way, shape or form. There are a lot of stocks selling under $10 a share with the same lack of revenue and earnings that NFLX had back in 2000. You could buy a handful of them if you wanted to and do it very cheaply.

    Had you traded Netflix you would have done a lot better than buying and holding it. Besides, if DG investors are going to panic and sell after a crash, how many NFLX investors did the same?

    Let's face it, for the stock to go from $400 to $70, there were an awful lot of sellers. Not many buyers.

    Dave
    Apr 11 05:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
9,497 Comments
30,283 Likes