Blogger, Self-Made Analyst, Trader, Investor, Crowdfunder and Critical Thinker. Currently, I am looking for a job in the investment space. Job offers are always welcome. The name "Dutch Trader" refers to The Golden Age. This was a period in Dutch history, roughly spanning the 17th century, in which Dutch trade, science, military and art were among the most acclaimed in the world.Dutch ships hunted whales off Svalbard, traded spices in India and Indonesia (via the Dutch East India Company) and founded colonies in New Amsterdam (now New York), South Africa and the West Indies. In addition some Portuguese colonies were conquered, namely in Northeastern Brazil, Angola, Indonesia and Ceylon. This new nation flourished culturally and economically, creating what historian Simon Schama has called an "embarrassment of riches". Speculation in the tulip trade led to a first stock market crash in 1637, but the economic crisis was soon overcome.In 1602 the Dutch East India Company was founded. It was the first-ever multinational corporation, financed by shares that established the first modern stock exchange. This company received a Dutch monopoly on Asian trade and would keep this for two centuries. It became the world's largest commercial enterprise of the 17th century. Spices were imported in bulk and brought huge profits, due to the efforts and risks involved and seemingly insatiable demand. To finance the growing trade within the region, the Bank of Amsterdam was established in 1609, the precursor to, if not the first true central bank.My background is Management, Economics and Law. This I studied at Fontys Business School in the Netherlands, with specialization in Banking and Insurance. My passion is investing, writing, travelling, history, swimming, playing chess and enjoying my family. I love to analyze companies and sectors and write about it. Main points of interests: China, Biotechnology, Consumer, Energy, Mining, Dividend, OTC Market, Food, Robotics and some other themes.As an investor I have a bias towards value investing and the markets. All opinions are my own and do not represent the views of my employer.Valuation metrics play an important part of my investment strategies. My investment philosophy is Unloved, Underowned and Undervalued.One of the best investment quotes is: The key to making money in stocks is not to get scared out of them from Peter Lynch.Do you have any other business proposals or questions, just write an email to firstname.lastname@example.org Good Luck!Dutch Trader, The Netherlands================For the Securities Disclaimer & Disclosure, read: http://seekingalpha.com/instablog/169406-dutch-trader/4899478-securities-disclaimer-disclosure
I have been a software development professional for over 15 years in the areas of real-time embedded systems, mobile device management, and mobile internet security. I enjoy trading stocks as my hobby and (this will come as no surprise), I am mainly focused on TMT stocks. I am a believer in value investing and trust that it will prevail in the long run. The word "Wadi" in my pen name is 洼地 in Chinese, and means "marsh" in English.
Daniel is currently the manager of Avaring Capital Advisors, LLC, a registered investment advisor that oversees one hedge fund. His primary focus is on finding businesses that are trading at a significant discount to their intrinsic value by employing a combination of Benjamin Graham's investment philosophy and a contrarian approach to the market and the securities therein.
Ph.D. economics and Finance MBA finance
Globe Institute of Technology
Professor – Economics and Finance, Chair of Business Department
Colorado Technical University
Adjunct Professor – courses: Applied Managerial Finance (Graduate Level), Microeconomics, International Finance
European School Of Economics (New York Campus)
Adjunct Professor – Economics (Graduate Level) Courses taught: Microeconomics
Metropolitan College of New York
Adjunct Professor – Economics, Banking and Finance
Courses taught: History of Economic Thought, Macroeconomics, Money and Financial Institutions
World Gold Council
New York, NY
• Constructed econometric models relating to gold's role as a portfolio diversifier primarily aimed at institutional investors.
• Focused on models of the embedded optionality of gold in terms of its relation to other investment assets and economic fundamentals such as inflation and business conditions.
Founder and President, Internet Startup company with polling and investment advice websites.
Fundamental Portfolio Advisors, Inc.
Chief Portfolio Strategist – President
• At the predecessor company I started the New York Muni Fund, the first single state triple tax-free municipal bond fund.
• I took the fund from a one-employee start-up where I performed every function to a family of mutual funds which had five funds with total assets above $300 million and which did all of its distribution, accounting and transfer in-house.
• I wrote the initial prospectus and was responsible for managing the portfolios of what eventually grew to be a family of 5 mutual funds.
• Was chief economist for parent company’s brokerage affiliate.
• Involved on the buy-side in the development and monitoring of various structured municipal finance products. Worked with major issuers such as New York City and major investment banks such as Merrill Lynch and Goldman Sachs.
• Designed and submitted a U.S. Patent Application for a portfolio management system for mutual funds involving derivatives.
Note: In 1996 Fundamental Portfolio Advisors and myself were subject to civil litigation by the SEC which resulted in deregistration and a permanent bar from the securities industry.
A. Gary Shilling & Co.
Senior Economist – Vice President
Economic consulting, modeling and forecasting. Both macro and micro.
• Clients included: Emerson Electric, Bethlehem Steel, Castle & Cooke, Cooper Industries and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
• I was the author of the 1979 study commissioned by the U.S. Government Interstate Commerce Commission, which calculated the expected economic impact of trucking deregulation.
White, Weld & Co, Inc.
• White, Weld was the sixth largest investment banking and brokerage firm when Merrill Lynch bought it.
• Extensive work was done on the All-American Pipeline Proposal to tap the Alaskan Gas Reserves.
• The economics department of White, Weld formed A. Gary Shilling & Co. at the time of the Merrill Lynch merger.
American Stock Exchange
New York University
June 1978 Ph.D.
• Ph.D. dual field, economics and finance.
• Doctoral dissertation was in contingency claims (options) theory
June 1973 MBA with concentration in economics and finance
NYU Engineering School
June 1971 Bachelor of Science - Nuclear Engineering Tau Beta Pi
Analysis of the Embedded Inflation Optionality in Gold Prices. World Gold Council, 2000. New York, N.Y.
The Economic Impact of Trucking Deregulation. Interstate Commerce Commission, 1979, Washington D.C.
Tortoise Capital Advisors, L.L.C. is an investment manager specializing in listed energy investments. As of July 31 2016, the adviser had approximately $14.9 billion of assets under management in NYSE-listed closed-end funds, open end funds and other accounts. For more information, visit www.tortoiseadvisors.com
James has degrees in both Economics and Political Science. He is a small business owner with several years of past political experience and 17 years of active investing.
You can get a 48-72 hour advantage on all his work through Value Investor's Edge as well as exclusive research and analysis by J. Mintzmyer.
Our Company is engaged in a number of diverse business activities. The Company adheres to strict value investing principles and adopts a long-term, fundamentals based, investment model.
I am a Certified Public Accountant (CPA) and a Certified Financial Planner (CFP) (currently do not have a private practice). I have also been a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA) for 17 years (CFF as well). I am currently employed with a global accounting firm in the Northeast area (partner). I have a masters degree in accounting + legal studies. I have audit, tax, and consulting experience with entities in the following sectors: closed-end funds, energy, financials, healthcare, homebuilders, pharmaceuticals, private equity, REITs, and telecoms. I've also have experience with C-corps., estates, high net worth individuals, LLCs, LLPs, S-corps., and trusts. I am a casual individual investor. My investing fundamentals are based on both qualitative and quantitative information. By using my analytical skills, I create specific investing ideas/strategies. I am more of a longer-term investor as opposed to day-trading.
Previous Quarterly Projection Article’s Performance vs. Actual Results:
# of Projections Stated Within All Articles: 174
# of Projections PENDING: 0
# of Projections 100% Accurate or Within Range: 161
# of Projections Inaccurate or Outside of Range: 13
Projection “Within Range” Success Rate: 161 / 174 = 92.5%
Please see the list at the bottom of this profile for the details of my past projections.
Disclaimer: I cannot own and will not give an opinion on any investments my current employer has any direct or indirect professional services with (accounting, audit, tax, consulting, etc.). This mainly consists of various mutual funds and exchange traded funds (ETF's). This includes all stocks held within these particular investment vehicles. This specified list is updated monthly. As such, most large-cap stocks are "off the table" regarding my articles. All accounting insight, analysis, and opinions stated within any articles I write (in regards to a specified stock) are entirely from my own personal research and analysis. I believe my articles are both informative and in some cases educational.
NOTE: A growing number of readers/investors, analysts, and representatives of firms have requested to be provided with my "spreadsheets/models" to help better understand certain companies/sectors. My researched data is several files of 100+ spreadsheets/models containing both stocks I write about on S.A. and stocks I choose to not write about on S.A. To reduce the repeated requests to provide such data, these spreadsheets/models are ALL linked together. As such, all current and future requests to "share" my data/models will be politely declined. Thanks for your understanding regarding this subject.
I appreciate my loyal readers and I’ll continue to try to provide high quality, in-depth articles.
NOTE: Below are the stocks I currently cover as of July 2016:
Stocks Covered In Great Detail (10 mREITs; 11 BDCs; 11 Other Sectors): ACAP (Proposed Spin-Off), ACAS, ACSF, AGNC, AINV, ANH, ARCC, ARR, CMO, CYS, FSAM, FSC, FSFR, GBDC, GOOG, GPRO, MAIN, MCC, MO, MTGE, NEWT, NLY, NVS, NYMT, ORC, PFAM (Proposed Spin-Off) PSEC, PM, PRIT (Proposed Spin-Off) PYLD (Proposed Spin-Off), SLRC TRP, and WMC.
Stocks Covered In Modest Detail (9 mREITs; 3 Other Sectors): AI, AMTG, BABA, EFC, IVR, MFA, MITT, NRZ (New), PHM, PMT, SLRC, TOL, TWO
Commonly Asked Questions:
Question 1): If you are only paid per article, why make your articles so long / detailed?
- I like to provide the “nuts and bolts” of a company. As such, I strive for my articles to have some sort of “hard to obtain” facts / figures. From this data, I like to fully discuss / analyze specific topics within a particular stock. This mainly consists of a quarterly projection article and a series of articles on a company’s dividend sustainability. In certain instances, I also write articles in regards to specific, material events that occur during a quarter.
- I believe a company’s quarterly results and upcoming dividend declarations are two of the most important topics readers are requesting information on. My analysis takes the “average” article several steps further to allow readers to have access to information that is rare to public viewership. In doing so, I believe my articles are both beneficial and educational for most readers.
Question 2): How come you only write 1-2 articles a week (would like to see more)?
- As stated in my profile above, I have a full-time professional career. I write / analyze stocks in my “free time”. To provide these types of high quality / in-depth articles, I can’t see writing more than 2 articles a week. I believe “quality” should always be a higher priority versus “quantity”.
- As many readers should know by now (if you’ve followed me for a while), I not here for the monetary rewards. If that was the case, I’d write 5+ weekly articles and provide little to no engagement in each article’s comment section. I believe the comments section is as important as the article themselves b/c readers have a wide range of questions in relation to each article or the sector in general.
Question 3): What do you personally gain from writing these articles?
- I am not here trying to promote a company, book, or website. There’s nothing wrong with that. However, that’s just not what I’m about. I’m here for the “average Joe”.
- When I decided to write these articles, I based it on the notion I am filling a “special niche” per se. Using skills that have been built up over my professional career, my articles usually provide unique information that most writers either a) don’t have the technical expertise to provide or b) don’t bother providing due to the time it takes to compile such data. As such, I believe the S.A. community benefits from my articles. I solely do this b/c it’s a passion of mine and I like helping readers have accurate, reliable data that is not readily available. Yes, I understand this may seem “hard to believe” in this day and age. However, I believe some of my more “seasoned” followers know this aspect of my generosity / personality. Also, in the past there were numerous misstated “facts / notions” in various articles I saw being written by the stocks I currently cover. Since I began to write my articles here, these misstatements / misnomers have decreased which is good for this forum.
Question 4): How come you do not write about more stocks?
- To give readers the level of detail that I provide in my articles, I amass large amounts of data every quarter (or even weekly). As a direct result, a large amount of time is consumed by obtaining / analyzing this data. This would only increase if I expanded my researched portfolio of stocks.
- If I expanded the stocks I research, it would most likely take away the quality of other articles I currently am writing about. Again, this gets back to the “quality vs. quantity” metric.
- There is a fairly large range of stocks / investment vehicles I cannot write about / provide an opinion on due to various conflicts of interests (regarding my professional career). This is a topic I take VERY seriously. As such, I take all necessary precautions to avoid any remote possibility of a conflict of interest occurring.
Detailed Past Projection List:
NAV as of 3/31/2014: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($10.67 projected vs. $10.68 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2014: $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($10.56 projected vs. $10.56 actual)
NAV as of 9/30/2014: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($10.48 projected vs. $10.47 actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2014: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($10.34 projected vs. $10.35 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2015: $0.03 per share variance; within range ($10.27 projected vs. $10.30 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2015: $0.06 per share variance; within range ($10.25 projected vs. $10.31 actual)
NAV as of 9/30/2015: $0.17 per share variance; within range but at the higher end ($10.00 projected vs. $10.17 actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2015: $0.25 per share variance; slightly outside range; lower end ($9.90 projected vs. $9.65 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2016: $0.11 per share variance; within range ($9.50 projected vs. $9.61 actual)
Fiscal Q3 2016 NII: $0.00 per share variance; within range ($0.25 projected vs. $0.25 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q4 2014: Stated dividend was currently safe (no specific dividend declarations) which turned out to be correct for April 2014 – June 2014 dividends declared
Dividends for Fiscal Q1 2015: 100% accuracy (July. 2014 $0.110475 projected vs. $0.110475 actual) (Aug. 2014 $0.110500 projected vs. $0.110500 actual) (Sept. 2014 $0.110525 projected vs. $0.110525 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q2 2015: 100% accuracy (Oct. 2014 $0.110550 projected vs. $0.110550 actual) (Nov. 2014 $0.110575 projected vs. $0.110575 actual) (Dec. 2014 $0.110600 projected vs. $0.110600 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q3 2015^: (Jan. 2015 $0.110625 projected vs. $0.110625 actual) (Feb. 2015 $0.110650 projected vs. $0.0833 actual OUTSIDE RANGE) (Mar. 2015 $0.110675 projected vs. $0.0833 actual OUTSIDE RANGE)
^ = Correctly stated dividend would be cut. However, PSEC reduced dividends beginning in February 2015 and I projected the dividend decrease would occur in April 2015 (2 months earlier than projected)
Dividends for Fiscal Q4 2015: (April. 2015 was declared in December 2014 prior to my analysis for this quarter) 100% accuracy (May 2015 - June 2015 $0.0833 projected vs. $0.0833 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q1 2016: 100% accuracy (July 2015 - September 2015 $0.0833 projected vs. $0.0833 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q2 2016: 100% accuracy (October 2015 - December 2015 $0.0833 projected vs. $0.0833 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q3 2016: 100% accuracy (January 2016 - March 2016 $0.0833 projected vs. $0.0833 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q4 2016: 100% accuracy (April 2016 - June 2016 $0.0833 projected vs. $0.0833 actual)
Dividends for Fiscal Q1 2017: 100% accuracy (July 2016 - August 2016 $0.0833 projected vs. $0.0833 actual) (September 2016 = PENDING)
BV as of 6/30/2013: $0.11 per share variance; within range ($25.40 projected vs. $25.51 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2013: $1.36 per share variance; MATERIALLY OUTSIDE RANGE ($26.63 projected vs. $25.27 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2013: $0.58 per share variance; within range lower end ($24.51 projected vs. $23.93 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2014: $0.04 per share variance; within range ($24.45 projected vs. $24.49 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2014: $0.66 per share variance; within range higher end ($25.60 projected vs. $26.26 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2014: $0.35 per share variance; within range ($25.19 projected vs. $25.54 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2014: $0.29 per share variance; within range ($25.45 projected vs. $25.74 actual)
Comprehensive Income for Q1 2015: $0.02 per share variance; within range ($0.48 per share projected vs. $0.46 per share actual)
BV as of 3/31/2015: $0.11 per share variance; within range ($25.64 projected vs. $25.53 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2015: $0.24 per share variance; within range ($24.24 projected vs. $24.00 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2015: $0.44 per share variance; within range lower end ($23.44 projected vs. $23.00 actual)
BV as of 10/31/2015: $0.06 per share variance; within my monthly $0.30 per share range ($22.98 projected vs. $23.04 actual)
BV as of 11/30/2015: $0.27 per share variance; within my monthly $0.30 per share range ($22.25 projected vs. $22.52 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2015: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($22.60 projected vs. $22.59 actual)
BV as of 1/31/2016: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($22.39 projected vs. $22.40 actual)
BV as of 2/29/2016: $0.09 per share variance; within range ($22.82 projected vs. $22.73 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2016: $0.16 per share variance; within range ($22.25 projected vs. $22.09 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2016: $0.12 per share variance; within range ($22.10 projected vs. $22.22 actual)
Dividend for Q1 2013: $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($1.25 projected vs. $1.25 actual)
Dividend for Q2 2013: Correctly stated dividend cut would occur; $0.15 per share variance; within range higher end ($0.90 projected vs. $1.05 actual)
Dividend for Q3 2013: Correctly stated another dividend cut would occur; $0.10 per share variance; within range ($0.90 projected vs. $0.80 actual)
Dividend for Q4 2013: Correctly stated another dividend cut would occur; $0.05 per share variance; within range ($0.60 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for Q1 2014: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.65 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for Q2 2014: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.65 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for Q3 2014: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.65 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for November 2014 - April 2015: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; 100% accuracy ($0.22 projected vs. $0.22 actual)
Dividend for May 2015: Company declared dividend several weeks ahead of schedule; prior to my quarterly dividend sustainability analysis. As such, no dividend projection was provided for May 2015:
Dividend for June 2015 - August 2015: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; 100% accuracy ($0.20 projected vs. $0.20 actual)
Dividend for September 2015*: INCORRECTLY stated dividend would modestly reduced; ($0.18 projected vs. $0.20 actual)
Dividend for October and November 2015: Not provided but stated increased risk to reduction by end of 2015 / early 2016.
Dividend for December 2015**: Stated dividend would be stable; highest probability ($0.20 projected vs. $0.20 actual)
Dividend Declaration for January 2016: Not provided due to time constraints.
Dividend for February 2016 - July 2016: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; 100% accuracy ($0.20 projected vs. $0.20 actual)
Dividend for August 2016 - AGNC declared a ($0.02) per share decrease prior to my quarterly dividend sustainability analysis. However, in my prior quarter's analysis, I stated I thought AGNC's monthly dividend should be stable over the near-term (3-6 months). As such, I conclude this in an INCORRECT forward projection.
BV as of 12/31/2013***: $0.40 per share variance; within range lower end ($21.87 projected vs. $21.47 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2014***: $0.16 per share variance; within range ($21.94 projected vs. $21.78 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2014***: $0.13 per share variance; within range ($22.60 projected vs. $22.73 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2014***: $0.29 per share variance; within range ($21.95 projected vs. $22.24 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2014***: $0.19 per share variance; within range ($22.10 projected vs. $21.91 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2015***: $0.20 per share variance; within range ($21.80 projected vs. $22.00 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2015***: $0.30 per share variance; within range ($22.00 projected vs. $21.70 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2015***: $0.17 per share variance; within range ($20.10 projected vs. $19.93 actual); excluding "one-time" ($0.20) per share impairment charge related to RCS; $0.03 per share variance ($20.10 projected vs. $20.13 actual; excluding impairment charge).
BV as of 12/31/2015***: $0.16 per share variance; within range ($19.50 projected vs. $19.66 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2016***: $0.22 per share variance; within range ($19.25 projected vs. $19.03 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2016***: $0.28 per share variance; within range towards higher end ($19.15 projected vs. $19.47 actual)
Dividend for Q3 2013***: Correctly stated dividend would be modestly cut; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.70 projected vs. $0.70 actual)
Dividend for Q4 2013***: Correctly stated dividend would be slightly cut; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.65 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for Q1 2014***: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.65 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for Q2 2014 - Q4 2014***: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.65 projected vs. $0.65 actual)
Dividend for Q1 2015***: INCORRECTLY stated dividend would be stable; ($0.15) per share variance; ($0.65 projected vs. $0.50 actual) In my opinion, the severity of this cut was very disappointing.
Dividend for Q2 2015***: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.50 projected vs. $0.50 actual)
Dividend for Q3 2015***: INCORRECTLY stated dividend would be stable; ($0.10) per share variance; ($0.50 projected vs. $0.40 actual) In my opinion, the severity of this cut was very disappointing once again.
Dividend for Q4 2015 - Q2 2016***: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.40 projected vs. $0.40 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2014***: $0.10 per share variance; within range ($12.40 projected vs. $12.30 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2014***: $0.43 per share variance; SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE RANGE higher end ($12.80 projected vs. $13.23 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2014***: $0.07 per share variance; within range ($12.95 projected vs. $12.88 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2014***: $0.15 per share variance; within range ($12.95 projected vs. $13.10 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2015***: $0.32 per share variance; SLIGHTLY OUTSIDE RANGE; lower end ($13.20 projected vs. $12.88 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2015***: $0.17 per share variance; within range ($12.15 projected vs. $12.32 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2015***: $0.16 per share variance; within range ($12.15 projected vs. $11.99 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2015***: $0.13 per share variance; within range ($12.60 projected vs. $12.73 actual) (most of the variance was in relation to the accretive effect of Q4 2015 share repurchases)
BV as of 3/31/2016***: $0.04 per share variance; within range ($11.65 projected vs. $11.61 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2016***: $0.35 per share variance; within range towards lower end ($11.85 projected vs. $11.50 actual)
Dividend for Q1 2014 - Q1 2015***: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.30 projected vs. $0.30 actual)
Dividend for Q2 2015***: INCORRECTLY stated dividend would be reduced; $0.05 per share variance; ($0.25 projected vs. $0.30 actual)
Dividend for Q3 2015 - Q2 2016***: Correctly stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.30 projected vs. $0.30 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2013: $0.03 per share variance; within range ($9.87 projected vs. $9.90 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2013: $0.04 per share variance; within range ($9.94 projected vs. $9.90 actual)
NAV as of 9/30/2013: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($9.86 projected vs. $9.85 actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2013: $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($9.85 projected vs. $9.85 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2014: $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($9.81 projected vs. $9.81 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2014: $0.06 per share variance; within range lower end ($9.77 projected vs. $9.71 actual)
NAV as of 9/30/2014: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($9.65 projected vs. $9.64 actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2014: $0.37 per share variance; MATERIALLY OUTSIDE RANGE ($9.54 projected vs. $9.17 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2015: $0.21 per share variance; OUTSIDE RANGE ($8.97 projected vs. $9.18 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2015: $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($9.13 projected vs. $9.13 actual) (projections + article were provided to certain interested parties outside S.A.)
NAV as of 9/30/2015: $0.05 per share variance; within range ($8.95 projected vs. $9.00 actual) (projections + analysis were provided to certain interested parties; did not have enough time to provide an article)
FSC’s Dividend Sustainability Analysis Through Fiscal Q3 2013: Stated moderate to material dividend cut is needed; 100% accurate because company cut dividend beginning in December 2013
Dividend for Fiscal Q3 2015****: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (April 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (May 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (June 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual)
Dividend for September 2015 - February 2016****: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (September 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (October 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (November 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (December 2015 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (January 2016 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual) (February 2016 $0.06 projected vs. $0.06 actual)
Dividend for September 2016 - November 2016 Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.06 per share projected vs. $0.06 per share actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2013: $0.12 per share variance; within range lower end (wider range b/c first full quarter of operations) ($15.22 projected vs. $15.10 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2014: $0.03 per share variance; within range ($15.13 projected vs. $15.10 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2014: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($15.14 projected vs. $15.13 actual)
NAV as of 9/30/2014: $0.02 per share variance; within range ($12.63 projected vs. $12.65 actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2014: $0.10 per share variance; within range (at lowest end) ($12.635 projected vs. $12.534 actual)
NAV as of 3/31/2015: $0.08 per share variance; within range ($12.38 projected vs. $12.46 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2015: $0.15 per share variance; within range (at lowest end) ($12.38 projected vs. $12.23 actual)
NAV as of 9/30/2015: $0.18 per share variance; within range (at higher end) ($11.93 projected vs. $12.11 actual)
NAV as of 12/31/2015: Not provided to readers due to the fact the company "pre-announced" NAV prior to my quarterly projection analysis (due to a material reduction)
NAV as of 3/31/2016: $0.17 per share variance; within range (at higher end) ($11.01 projected vs. $11.18 actual)
NAV as of 6/30/2016: $0.31 per share variance; MODESTLY OUTSIDE range ($11.30 projected vs. $10.99 actual)
Dividend Declaration for December 2015 - February 2016: Correctly stated very low probability (10%) for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (December 2015 $0.075 projected vs. $0.075 actual) (January 2016 $0.075 projected vs. $0.075 actual) (February 2016 $0.075 projected vs. $0.075 actual)
Dividend Sustainability Analysis Through Q4 2013: Stated material dividend cut was needed as soon as the next quarter; 100% accurate because company cut dividend in Q1 2014 from $0.80 per share (regular dividend portion) to $0.67 per share.
Dividend for Q4 2014*****: Stated dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.70 projected vs. $0.70 actual)
Dividend for Q1 2015***: Stated dividend would be "relatively" stable; accurate because company only cut its dividend by ($0.03) per share which, when calculated, was only a "minor" (< 5%) reduction
Dividend for Q2 2015***: Stated heightened risk for another minor - modest dividend reduction; accurate because company cut its dividend by ($0.03) per share which, when calculated, was another "minor" (< 5%) reduction
Dividend for Q3 2015: Correctly stated dividend would be modestly cut; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.60 projected vs. $0.60 actual
Dividend for Q3 2015*****: Stated dividend had a modest to high probability (50% - 75%) of being reduced; 100% accurate because company reduced monthly dividends from $0.18 per share to $0.14 per share beginning in July 2015.
Dividend for August 2015 - July 2016: Correctly stated each month dividend would be stable; 100% accuracy ($0.14 projected vs. $0.14 actual)
BV as of 9/30/2015: $0.06 per share variance; within range ($11.63 projected vs. $11.69 actual)
BV as of 12/31/2015: $0.09 per share variance; within range ($11.74 projected vs. $11.65 actual)
BV as of 3/31/2016: $0.09 per share variance; within range ($11.10 projected vs. $11.01 actual)
BV as of 6/30/2016: $0.01 per share variance; within range ($10.86 projected vs. $10.85 actual)
Dividend Declaration for Calendar Q2 2015****: Correctly stated low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (April 2015 $0.175 projected vs. $0.175 actual) (May 2015 $0.175 projected vs. $0.175 actual) (June 2015 $0.175 projected vs. $0.175 actual).
Dividend Declaration for September - November 2015: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (September 2015 $0.175 - $0.18 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (October 2015 $0.175 - $0.18 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (November 2015 $0.175 - $0.18 projected vs. $0.180 actual).
Special Periodic Dividend Declaration for 2015: Correctly stated high probability of a special periodic dividend paid in December 2015; exactly at my projected mean: ($0.25 - $0.30 projected vs. $0.275 actual).
Dividend Declaration for December 2015 - February 2016: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (December 2015 $0.18 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (January 2016 $0.18 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (February 2016 $0.18 projected vs. $0.180 actual).
Dividend Declaration for March 2016 - May 2016: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (March 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (April 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (May 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.180 actual).
Dividend Declaration for June 2016 - August 2016: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (June 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (July 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.180 actual) (August 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.180 actual).
Special Periodic Dividend Declaration for First-Half 2016: Correctly stated high probability of a special periodic dividend paid in June 2016; exactly at my projected mean: ($0.25 - $0.30 projected vs. $0.275 actual).
Dividend Declaration for September 2016 - November 2016: Correctly stated very low risk for a dividend reduction; dividend would be stable; $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy (Sept. 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.185 actual) (October 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.185 actual) (November 2016 $0.18 - $0.185 projected vs. $0.185 actual).
Q4 2015 Adjusted Diluted EPS: $0.00 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.67 projected vs. $0.67 per share actual)
Q1 2016 Adjusted Diluted EPS: $0.02 per share variance; within range lower end of $0.04 per share range ($0.70 projected vs. $0.72 per share actual)
Q2 2016 Adjusted Diluted EPS: $0.01 per share variance; 100% accuracy ($0.80 projected vs. $0.81 per share actual)
* = Stated there was a 60% probability dividend would be reduced to $0.18 per share; a 30% probability dividend would remain stable at $0.20 per share
** = Stated there was a 45% probability dividend would be reduced to $0.16 - $0.19 per share
*** = Provided within an AGNC article
**** = Provided within a PSEC article
***** = Provided within a NLY article
I serve as the senior MLP research analyst for CBRE Clarion Securities, a global asset management firm based in Radnor, PA. My primary focus is on investing in Master Limited Partnerships (MLPs) within a larger infrastructure investment team.
An undergraduate student from University of Toronto with passion in value investing. My focus is primary on micro to small cap value oriented stocks. I spend a lot of time on SA writing, reading other people's articles and learning about companies. When I am not online, I like to read about investing, play poker and golf with my friends.
My email is email@example.com. Feel free message me with anything that you want to talk about. And if there is any company that you need help research with I will do my best to help.
BS in Economics, MA in Public Policy (International Economic Policy). J is a well-known voice in the global shipping community, with unparalleled investment results and a penchant for activist investing.
Mintzmyer founded Value Investor's Edge, a top-ranked deep value research service in May 2015, with the goal of establishing a top-tier community of deep value investors and activists. Value Investor's Edge subscribers leverage exclusive in-depth analytic reports and community investment experience to discover disconnects in global shipping and a variety of other beaten down sectors.
TipRanks.com ranked Mintzmyer’s performance in the top 3% of all global analysts at the end of 2015 for his 2-year investment performance. While compiling his research, Mintzmyer has interviewed numerous management teams at public maritime firms, and has worked with a multitude of investors. His exclusive analysis has received numerous 'Top Idea,' 'Must Read,' and 'Small Cap Insight' awards.
J is a CFA candidate and investment enthusiast who utilizes Seeking Alpha to provide an open exchange of both trading and investment ideas. Masters in Public Policy, with focus on International Security & Economic Policy from the University of Maryland, College Park. Distinguished Graduate of the United States Air Force Academy with a B.S. in Economics. President of Mintzmyer Investments LLC, a financial services company specializing in equity research and hedge fund advisory.
Extensive background in financial analysis, equity research, accounting, portfolio management, and customized asset allocation through nearly a decade of formalized education, personal studies, and practical experience. Avid reader of business/investments and biographies.
Legal Disclaimer: Any related contributions to Seeking Alpha, or elsewhere on the web, are to be construed as personal opinion only and do NOT constitute investment advice. An investor should always conduct personal due diligence before initiating a position. Provided articles and comments should NEVER be construed as official business recommendations. In efforts to keep full transparency, related positions will be disclosed at the end of each article to the maximum extent practicable. The majority of trades are reported live on Twitter, but this cannot be guaranteed due to technical constraints.
My premium service is a research and opinion subscription. No personalized investment advice will ever be given. I am not registered as an investment adviser, nor do I have any plans to pursue this path. No statements should be construed as anything but opinion, and the liability of all investment decisions reside with the individual. Although I do my utmost to procure high quality information, investors should always do their own due diligence and fact check all research prior to making any investment decisions. Any direct engagements with readers should always be viewed as hypothetical examples or simple exchanges of opinion as nothing is ever classified as “advice” in any sense of the word.
My name is Dr Kanak Kanti De, MBBS, MD, PhD, retired medical practitioner, cancer survivor, healthcare sector investor, over 30 years' experience in the sector both in India and the United States. I write/have written on Motley Fool, SeekingAlpha, Benzinga, and on Forbes. I am consistently ranked high on TipRanks, although I don't like their ranking system. My portfolio has consistently beat the various indices for years. Email me to discuss my articles, or for just an adda (Bengali for informal chat) firstname.lastname@example.org.
My background includes education in petroleum engineering and business and 15 years working with producers, midstream operators and utilities to bring oil and gas from the reservoir to the consumer. I understand in detail the full life cycle and value chain of oil, gas, and NGLs, from the physics of permeability and extraction to the economics of refinery turnarounds and utility load profiles.
I am interested in bringing focused, in-depth understanding to issues related to oil and gas investing. Industry expertise and a true understanding of how oil and gas is discovered, produced, processed, transported, marketed and consumed are vital to valuing investment opportunities in the fossil energy space.
Check out my comprehensive MLP report here: http://level2energy.com/mid-stream-energy-fundamentals/
Wall Street Breakfast, Seeking Alpha's flagship daily business news summary, is a one-page summary that gives you a rapid overview of the day's key financial news. It's designed for easy readability on the site or by email (including on mobile devices), and is published before 7:00 AM ET every market day.
Wall Street Breakfast readership of over 900,000 includes many from the investment-banking and fund-management industries.
Sign up here to receive the Wall Street Breakfast in your inbox every business day: http://seekingalpha.com/account/email_preferences
I am a private investor based out of Toronto, Canada and I have been investing since 2003. After 8 years in Corporate Finance with a Canadian Telecom company I have decided to dedicate myself full-time to the capital markets. I write on Seeking Alpha to demonstrate my financial analysis and writing skills across a variety of industries and to take advantage of any story-based trading opportunity that may arise. My passion and greatest depth of knowledge is on Canadian small cap stocks and I consider my blog posts to be some of my best work. I am interested in any freelance opportunities that may arise outside of Seeking Alpha on Canadian or American listed stocks.
My goal is to bring exposure to business development companies (BDCs) that finance small to medium sized businesses, typically overlooked by banks. BDCs are an instrument for investors to earn healthy dividends by avoiding double taxation at the corporate level and allowing income to flow directly to each shareholder. Please see website link below for more information.
Keith began his career as a research scientist (developmental biology, biochemistry, molecular biology) at the Australian National University, University of Oxford (UK), the Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry (Munich, Germany) and finally Macquarie University (Sydney) where he held a Chair in Biology and established the Centre for Analytical Biotechnology. Pioneering the area of proteomics (with Marc Wilkins in his group coining the term), Keith established the world’s first government-funded Major National Proteomics Facility (Australian Proteome Analysis Facility) which was involved with industrialising protein science.
Keith left academe with his team to found Proteome Systems Ltd in 1999 to commercialise proteomics. The company had a strong focus on intellectual property, engineering/technology and bioinformatics. As CEO he led the company to ASX listing in 2004. Since 2005 Keith has been involved in new business development in biotech, e-health and other emerging technologies. Keith sees climate change and sustainable development as a major issue for humankind and also a major business disruptor/risk and opportunity.
Keith holds a Bachelor Agr Science from the University of Melbourne and a PhD from the Australian National University. He is a Fellow of the Australian Academy of Technological Sciences & Engineering and received an AM (Member of the Order of Australia) for services to the Biotechnology Industry. He has received various industry awards including an Innovation Hero Medal from the Warren Centre for Advanced Engineering.
With 300 scientific papers and many patents written, Keith has a clear view of innovation in the Biotechnology and Climate/Renewable Energy space. He is not a financial advisor but his perspective adds relevance to decision-making concerning feasibility and investment in technology innovation.
Official account for ChinaStockResearch.com
Several years experience as an analyst in the hedge fund world. Investment knowledge includes long/short equities, credit, macro, arbitrage, distressed debt, and special situations. Previous research publication experience includes Japanese small cap research distributed to institutional investors. Education credentials include BS in Computer Science, MBA in Finance, and CFA Charter.
Follow on Twitter @ChinaStockRsrch
Follow on StockTwits @ChinaStockResearch
Mr. Axler is Founding Partner of Spruce Point Capital Management, a long/short hedge fund. Mr. Axler is also the co-founder of Prescience Point Research Group. Mr. Axler is an activist short-seller, forensic financial researcher, and has exposed over $1.0 billion of alleged listed frauds on Nasdaq and the NYSE. Prior to founding his company in 2009, Mr. Axler spent eight years as an investment banker with Credit Suisse and Barclays Capital where he structured and executed billions of dollars of financing, derivative risk management, and M&A deals for leading Fortune 500 clients. Prior to starting Spruce Point, Mr. Axler was an Associate Director at Barclays Capital in the Diversified Industrials Group. Mr. Axler started his career with Credit Suisse in 2000, where he held roles with the Financial Strategy, Corporate Risk Management, and M&A groups.
Mr. Axler is a contributing writer to Seeking Alpha, and was profiled in the book "The Happiness Advantage: The Seven Principles of Positive Psychology That Fuel Success and Performance at Work." Mr. Axler's short research has been profiled by the National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) in an analysis entitled "How Constraining Are Limits to Arbitrage? Evidence from a Recent Financial Innovation," and shown to produce superior investment returns. In addition, according to a research study from Sumzero analyzing 12,000 analysts recommendations since 2009, Mr. Axler is the top ranking short-seller.
Mr. Axler graduated from Yale University with a masters degree in Statistics, and received both a Bachelor of Arts degree in Statistics and a Bachelor of Science in Marketing and Business Administration from Rutgers College, where he graduated with Summa Cum Laude and Phi Beta Kappa honors.
Northeastern University Student Value Fund consists of a student run portfolio that employs a long only value investment strategy in U.S mid to large cap equities.
With $170,000 in assets under management, we strive to create an environment that fosters both personal and professional development, provides opportunities to establish a comprehensive knowledge of the overall financial industry, and ultimately, produces well-rounded individuals equipped with the tools to add value in today's competitive society.
The fund seeks to outperform its benchmark, the Russell 3000 Index, primarily through stock selection alpha. This will be achieved by investing in equity securities trading meaningfully below their intrinsic value. SVF will analyze potential investments through a fundamental valuation process including a discounted cash flow analysis, comparables analysis, and valuation analysis.
SVF aims to buy and hold these investments until they reach their intrinsic value, regardless of the time horizon. The fund's agnostic approach to holding periods will help minimize portfolio turnover and reduce portfolio expenses. The fund will be constructed with a bottom-up basis strategy consisting of approximately 15 equity investments across various sectors, market caps, and styles with the U.S. market in order to minimize idiosyncratic risk.
David Zanoni is ranked in the top 1% of blogging analysts on Tipranks.com for performance and accuracy. He focuses on growth & momentum stocks that are reasonably priced and likely to outperform the market over the long-term. David is a graduate of Rutgers University with a B.S. in Management. He is an independent long term investor of quality stocks and uses options for strategy. David believes in the power of innovation, capitalism, and the characteristics of the American spirit: intellect, fortitude, and adaptability to lead our country and the world to growing prosperity. His wants to help make people money by investing in high-quality growth stocks.
I am a fundamental investor focusing on undervalued stocks with asymmetric returns and a college student actively involved in the investment community at the University of California Berkeley. I avidly follow the stock market and am studying Economics with the goal of entering a finance related career when I graduate.
Senior Portfolio Manager and individual investor who started in high school and has been at it ever since. I have an MBA and have earned the right to use the Chartered Financial Analyst designation. I have worked in the business for over 15 years. My specialties include fixed income closed-end funds for generating income during retirement, micro and small-cap value investing, and macro analysis.
Tom Shaughnessy is owner of SecretCaps.com, an independent investor and analyst. He has been investing in the stock market since the age of twelve. His style is comprehensive and includes multi-layered research on a concentrated set of stocks. Tom enjoys constructive dialogue regarding various investment ideas and theories.
Tom enjoys intensive research on prospective investments. This includes valuation estimates and modeling, CEO and management interviews, product and expansion overviews, future prospects, financial analysis and the current state of affairs at the company. Moreover, Tom's articles have a focus on micro-cap companies whose potential have flown under the radar.
In his leisure time Tom enjoys playing racquetball on a competitive level.
Engineer by trade and passion. Have worked internationally for over three decades, running my own business. I hold a PhD in engineering, but honestly believe that the school of hard knocks has taught me lessons that are more applicable to my writing here on Seeking Alpha.
My investing interests mostly concern the resource sector, with a focus on precious metals, base metals and energy stocks of all sizes. My research explicitly includes small- and micro-cap juniors, and I try to manage the associated risks in a methodical manner.
Finance professional focused on healthcare and technology. 15yrs of personal investing experience. 10+yrs of professional financial services experience and securities analysis within a bulge bracket investment bank and within a healthcare company.
Disclaimer: Articles, comments and referenced links provided are not intended to be investment advisement. Please do your own due diligence and consult your financial adviser before making investments in any security.
I am a highly trained professional equity analyst. My specialty is finding companies with excellent ratios of risk to reward. Before going independent, I was the head analyst at a boutique Israeli hedge fund. Today I am a consultant to several multibillion-dollar firms. I have covered many sectors, including technology, solar and semiconductors. I have learned to connect the dots and discern how forces in these various industries will affect individual companies. I am a big believer in analyzing investments from the top down. This means identifying themes and trends that can reveal where industries and individual companies will be in the future. There are no magic formulas for this process, just a lot of hard work. After I've found a company, analyzed it and concluded its value, then it is just like a poker game with endless cards. All we have to do is sit and wait for the next card to reveal itself and adjust our thesis accordingly. Once we find the true value of a company, we must ignore day-to-day market chaos. If we have done our research properly, we do not need to worry if the Dow goes up or down a particular day, week or month. Peter Lynch, Ben Graham and Phillip Fisher are my biggest influences. I encourage anyone who wishes to learn more about the market to read any of their books.
Follow @SmithOnStocks on Twitter for more updates (http://twitter.com/#SmithOnStocks
Please read this section carefully for some important disclosures.
Who Am I?
My name is Larry Smith. My career was spent on Wall Street as a biotechnology and pharmaceuticals analyst and also as Director of Research at Smith Barney and Hambrecht and Quist. On my website, SmithOnStocks, which can be addressed from this Seeking Alpha site, I publish articles on biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies. I attempt to be objective and present a balanced view of negatives and positives. Readers should not rely on Seeking Alpha for my latest views and articles on Seeking Alpha should be viewed as informational only. The reports section of my website reflects my most current view on a stock.
How Do I Get Paid?
My only source of revenues from my articles is from subscription revenues from my website. I do not receive any compensation from companies or investor relations firms to write articles. I do not receive any direct or indirect compensation from hedge funds, other investment managers or any entity to write articles. I consider direct compensation to be cash compensation that is directly or indirectly tied to my writing articles.
I also do not receive compensation in the form of content. I believe that it is not uncommon for some writers to receive content from hedge funds, other investment managers or any entity that are critical components of the articles that they write. I consider this as non-cash compensation. I do not receive advertising revenues from my website so there is no incentive to be sensational in order to create page hits. I only get paid if my subscribers believe that my articles are of value to them and they then decide to subscribe to my services.
You Should View Articles Published on Seeking Alpha as Informational Only
I want to make clear to readers that not all of the reports that I publish on my website are also published on Seeking Alpha. Also, I will sometimes make reports available on my website a significant period of time before publishing the same or a condensed version on Seeking Alpha. All of the articles that are published on Seeking Alpha and my website at the same time have consistent views and opinions. However, at a later data, it may be the case that my viewpoint and opinion may change and these changes in viewpoint and opinion may only be published in articles on my website.
For this reason, readers may want to check the reports section on my website for my current opinion on a stock and should not rely on the latest Seeking Alpha article as my viewpoint or opinion may have changed. The content on my website is intended only for subscribers, but non-subscribers can view the headlines in the reports section which in most cases but not all will announce a change in viewpoint or opinion. However, I emphasize that I undertake no obligation to update my articles on Seeking Alpha and the latest article on Seeking Alpha may not reflect my latest thinking. This is why I want to re-emphasize that any article published on Seeking Alpha should be viewed as information only.
What SmithOn Stocks is All About
SmithOnStocks is not registered as a securities broker-dealer or as an investment adviser with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or with any state securities regulatory authority. SOS relies solely on publicly disclosed and available information. While SOS makes all reasonable efforts to confirm the accuracy of its statements and opinions, all comments should be considered only as opinion and should not be considered to be absolute fact. Investors should carefully read the Terms & Conditions and Disclosures sections of my website. Investors should carefully perform their own due diligence, seek other points of view and consult with their broker or financial advisor.
Investing in equities includes considerable risk, and investors should be prepared for the possibility of capital loss. This is particularly the case with biotechnology stocks in which hard to predict clinical and commercial outcomes can often disappoint investors and lead to unusually large declines in price. Potential investors in biotechnology stocks must often be prepared to risk the loss of substantially all of their investment. These stocks are only suitable for investors willing and able to accept unusually high financial risk. Users of my information acknowledge that SOS and its owner are not liable to any person or entity for the accuracy, thoroughness, reliability, or timeliness of the information provided. Users further acknowledge that SOS is also not responsible for any direct or indirect losses that may arise from the use of information provided to any person or entity.
Employees of SmithOnStocks or SOS do buy and sell healthcare stocks, some of which may be the subject of written articles appearing on Seeking Alpha. In the event that employees have a stock investment in a company, that ownership is fully disclosed in notes on Seeking Alpha. On any new recommendation, I have a 48 hour waiting period before initiating a position in a stock. I trade in line with my recommendations.
In 1999 I made an ethical breach that resulted in a suspension from being a registered representative in the securities industry for a period of time. I believe that this measure was harsh beyond any reasonable measure and totally unwarranted. I have gone to great lengths in this report to give my side of the story and I hope that you will read the in-depth account that I have provided. This took place over 16 years ago and has long since ended. There has been no restriction from the NYSE for many years on my working as a registered representative if I choose to go through the required registration procedures.
Still, this NYSE action is like a Scarlett letter that I carry. I would urge you to read the full account of the events that led to this NYSE action and if you do so I believe you will agree that this in no way reflects on my integrity and the way I have always conducted myself, then and now. I strongly believe that the action taken was excessive and I think that if you read my full account you will agree.
People make mistakes. Bill Clinton lied under oath, was impeached and disbarred as a lawyer in Arkansas in connection with the Monica Lewinsky affair. However, society has judged him on the body of work that he has done. Suspensions in the security industry can result from serious infractions in which investors are defrauded or swindled. In the events that led to my suspension no investors lost money and as I explain in this report investors who followed my advice made significant amounts of money. Before you rush to any conclusions, let me tell you my story.
I Am Proud in How I Have Conducted My Career
Before I go into the details of this ethical breach, I want to emphasize that I have had a distinguished career on Wall Street. My record from 1971 when I started on Wall Street until 1999 was unblemished. I came to New York from Indiana with no business connections and no money but through hard work I became a highly regarded Wall Street analyst and was selected to the Institutional Investor All Star team in pharmaceuticals for ten years in a row. Based on my record as being the top or one of the top analysts at Smith Barney, I was selected to be head of research from 1981 until 1989. I also served on the Board of Directors at Smith Barney.
Based on my strong reputation, Hambrecht and Quist approached me in 1989 to head their life sciences research effort and to run the annual H&Q (now JP Morgan) healthcare conference. I was a Managing Director and on the operating committee at H&Q. I left H&Q in the late 1990s because I disliked the bureaucracy that was such an integral part of being head of research. I had made enough money to be financially secure and I wanted to get back into doing what I loved, biotechnology research. I joined Tucker Anthony in 1997 as a biotechnology analyst.
Explaining the Events That Led to the NYSE Issue
Tucker Anthony had a sister firm called Sutro and a decision was made early in 1998 to move health care research from Tucker to Sutro. Tucker was an east coast based firm and Sutro was based in Los Angeles. Sutro leased a New York office to which I moved. It was here that an unfortunate train of events was set in motion that led to the NYSE action that put a stain on what I consider an outstanding career.
When I moved from Tucker to Sutro, I maintained my brokerage accounts at Tucker. I conducted normal trading in this account for some months. Then the research administrative research manager for Sutro contacted me and said that for regulatory purposes I would have to move my account from Tucker to Sutro. After some time spent in looking for a broker to handle my account at Sutro I became frustrated. At that time, I had over $5 million in my brokerage accounts. While I was sophisticated in health care investing which made up 10% of my portfolio, I needed help with other parts of the portfolio. I could find no retail broker at Sutro that I wanted to trust my portfolio to. I asked and received approval to look for a broker outside of Sutro and contacted Schwab about finding an investment advisor there to manage my account.
While this was in process, the research administrative manager at Sutro called again and said that Sutro was probably planning to shut down the New York office and I would have to move to Los Angeles or leave the firm. Moving to Los Angeles was not an option for me as my roots were deep in New York. I informed her that given this choice I would soon be leaving Sutro rather then moving to Los Angeles and began to think about what to do. I came to the preliminary conclusion that I would start a consulting firm dealing in biotechnology. I also concluded that I would have to carefully manage my investment portfolio.
It was here that I made a major mistake that I have regretted ever since. Frustrated that my money was tied up in Tucker and I was unable to trade in my account and unable to find a broker that I trusted, I decided to open an account at Schwab without a broker managing it. I indicated on the account transfer form that I was self-employed based on the assumption that I was going to be leaving Sutro imminently. This was my Bill Clinton moment and turned out to be a major mistake.
I continued to work at Sutro while I was waiting for the New York office to be closed which I thought would be in a matter of days or weeks and during this time, I began to execute trades in my account at Schwab. However, after some weeks the research administrative manager at Sutro called and informed me that based on the response they had gotten from clients and the work that I was doing that the firm had reversed itself and now wanted to keep the office in New York and they were also willing to hire two assistants to aid me. There was also the promise of a significant bonus in the upcoming review that based on my work could amount to several hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Not surprisingly, I decided to stay on at Sutro instead of leaving and starting my own firm. I then looked for and finally found a Sutro broker that I could trust to help manage my portfolio. The brokerage accounts at Schwab were opened in February of 1999 and transferred to Sutro in April 1999. When I moved my accounts to Sutro the compliance department at Sutro saw that there was this hiatus when I had an unauthorized account at another firm. This was reported to NYSE.
NYSE Reviewed My Case and Took No Action for Three Years
Management at Sutro looked very closely at what had occurred and decided that while it was certainly not something they could condone, it was a minor infraction and they thought that given my stellar and unblemished record that NYSE would not take any meaningful action other than a wrist slap. Sutro decided to be pre-emptive in administering the wrist slap and fined me and suspended me for one month. They thought that this would satisfy NYSE based on their interpretation of what had occurred. They wanted me to continue with the firm, paid the sizable bonus I was due and committed to picki up all legal fees.
I then had a deposition with a lawyer from NYSE in early 2000. During a one day interview, he went over all of the details of the accounts that were held at Schwab and all of the trades that occurred in detail. He also looked at all of the reports that I had issued as an analyst during this time to compare to the trading in my account to the issuance of research reports. I then heard nothing more from the NYSE for three years.
Sutro concluded as did I that this issue was behind us. Three years later in mid-2003, I heard from NYSE to my shock that they were re-opening the case. Why after three years was the case being re-opened? In talking to the lawyers at NYSE, I came to understand that this was the result of Elliott Spitzer’s attack on Wall Street research. Remember the famous case of Henry Blodgett who recommended stocks of investment banking clients to clients that he thought were actually sales.
NYSE enforcement was under pressure because this unethical practice had been brought to light by Spitzer and they had missed it. They were under pressure to show how tough they could be as enforcers. They reviewed their records and came up with my case which they decided to reopen it in order to show that they were aggressive enforcers.
They went over the same information that had been gathered in early 2000, but came up with an entirely different interpretation. They said that I effected stock transactions shortly before issuance of research reports which I had prepared and this was a violation of Exchange Rule 472.40(2) (iii). They also said that I failed to disclose that I held securities in stocks recommended in a research report. They said that I opened accounts at a member firm that concealed fact of my employment at another member firm; violated Exchange Rule 407(b). They recommended a censure and two and one-half year suspension.
Two Stock Trades at Question
The information on opening an account at another firm is something that I just discussed at length. This was not in dispute. However, NYSE focused on two stock trades that I made and explained the suspension largely on the basis of these two trades. I believe that they were clearly wrong in their conclusions. Let me discuss those trades in detail.
The first trade was in Stericycle, a medical waste disposal company. I had been following the company for some time with a neutral rating. In my reports, I noted that the Company wanted to buy the medical waste disposal business of Waste Management and if they were successful, I would immediately go to a strong buy.
This acquisition was announced on April 14, 2009 after the close at 4 PM EST. Because it was 1 PM in Los Angeles I held a conference call with Sutro’s traders and the salesforce and told them I was going to a strong buy on the stock. It was the practice of Sutro to initiate new ideas with a conference call in this manner. The traders and sales force would then go out to the clients with the idea. After this, the analyst would follow-up by publishing a note on First Call (an electronic distribution network) and this was done on April 15 This was then followed up by a written research report on April 16. On April 16, I bought 2500 shares of the stock at a price of $12. This was accepted practice at Sutro for research analysts buying stocks that they recommended. There was no requirement to wait for a period of time to buy the stock. The analyst was allowed to buy the stock at the same time as other Sutro employees and clients
The NYSE judged my conduct on standards that were different from those that were accepted practices at Sutro. By today’s standards, the Sutro practices seem very loose but they were common at the time. This is why Sutro did not view this trade as a breach of conduct and kept me as an analyst. The NYSE also said that I did not disclose that I owned Stericycle in my written report. However, none of the analysts at Sutro were required at the time to do so. This was also standard operating procedure.
Stericycle was a major success for investors. Adjusting for stock splits the stock traded at about $3.00 when I first recommended it. Fifteen years later, the stock is trading at about $119. This was one of my best recommendations ever. I held the Stericycle stock for many years and only sold it recently.
The NYSE did not accept that my actions were in line with the practices of Sutro even though I produced a letter to that effect from the research administrative officer. I also argued that a $30,000 investment in a portfolio that amounted to $5 million at the time was de minimus. I argued that the stock was bought and maintained as a long term investment. I argued that it was an excellent money making idea for investors. The NYSE dismissed all of these arguments and maintained that I traded ahead of my recommendation.
The second trade that the NYSE emphasized was a trade in Schering Plough. On April 18, the stock had traded down by 5%. I had an accumulate rating on the stock essentially telling investors to buy the stock for the long term, but connoting less emphasis than a buy. In the morning call to traders and salesmen, I alerted them to the price weakness, but told them there was no change in the fundamental outlook and there was no change in my price target. I was not intending to issue a report, but the research administrative manager told me that the price drop in Schering Plough based on my price target indicated 25% upside that was the accepted criteria for a buy recommendation. Hence, I needed to put out a report in which I upgraded my opinion from accumulate to buy.
I bought the stock on April 20 at the same time as the written report was issued. I previously owned 500 shares and this increased my position to 1000 shares for a total investment of about $35,000 which again was within a $5 million portfolio. The NYSE again accused me of the same things as in the Stericycle situation. They said that I traded ahead of my recommendation and did not disclose that I owned the stock. My responses were the same as for Stericycle and were once again rejected.
Was The NYSE Action Justified?
I think that the NYSE action was out of all proportion to what actually transpired. I think the enforcement officers applied new standards in overturning the prior decision to take no action on this case that had been in effect for three years. They were under pressure to make a big splash in the Elliot Spitzer era to show how tough they were. My recommendations were solid recommendations and indeed the Stericycle recommendation was outstanding.
I fully recognize that my decision to open the brokerage account at Schwab prior to resigning from Sutro was an ethical breach on my part even if I was planning to resign from Sutro. When I decided to stay with Sutro, I transferred my accounts immediately. I strongly and absolutely maintain that my trading in Schering-Plough and Stericycle was in accordance with policies in place at Sutro at the time. By today’s standards these seem loose, but this was common industry practice at the time.
The NYSE review was conducted by a mediator and it was he that determined the punishment. He had spent his entire career as an enforcement officer for the NYSE. He was also friends with the NYSE lawyers on my case and sent out to lunch with them during the hearing. He was the judge, jury and executioner of my fate. As I look back, I question his objectivity and motives. In writing his opinion, he did not acknowledge documents from Sutro that showed that my stock trading disclosures were in-line with their internal procedures. I had no opportunity to review or correct his opinion in the opinion he wrote. In a country in which, guilt or innocence is established by one’s peers, mine was determined by a hanging judge with no experience in the securities business and an apparent pre-determined view on my actions.