DWD Investing

Long only, value, momentum
DWD Investing
Long only, value, momentum
Contributor since: 2014
Company: DWD Value Investing
I thought you were talking IBB. I still don't think XBI will ever get to 20, but it's more plausible than IBB. I'd still take those odds on XBI.
We could have also just given it to people on a monthly basis tax free. An extra 1000 a month for a year would have increased demand overnight.
I shifted in late December (Although I was never in high ratio FANGS) and trickled on in January. I may have some dry powder left is valuations in BIO keep increasing (prices keep dropping). It's getting very, very tasty looking. Even if I have to sell higher average shares, it would be worth it to buy at these levels.
My strategy just changed to buy now and sell later--if I need the capital--even at a loss. I could actually have a much lower average on some positions and show a loss year end too--given I hold that long, and have really value oriented price ratios in the longer term.
Good article, Bret.
I wonder, do you really believe what you say? If so, I'd assume you are leveraged in short all you can get? I mean, the big, big, big one not even God can fix is coming. It's logical to short it, right?
Or are you like the pastor who gave a very convincing sermon about how the end was nigh, and to get ready "anytime" for rapture!
The next morning he was seen planting Oak trees in the church's entryway.
It's always an expensive market-- until you look back 10 years.
Indeed. Gilead, for e.g.
AAPL at 10X? What a deal!
HAHAHA, You can, you can! Yeah there isn't a huge market like it use to be in 1945. It's becoming more competitive and more saturated--e.g., Networking equities. I can't get my head around the future, so I play what I can. Change is the only rule.
They probably don't even have to directly communicate. They know their game too well to have to ask for clarification for what are logical results to actions taken.
" If the Fed would have stopped at TARP and we would not have added so many layers of regulation (6 of the 7 highest years on record for new pages to the Federal Register have happened under this administration), we would be in much stronger place both in the economy and the market."
It's always fun to assert things as truth that there is no way of proving, isn't t?
It can go to zero. I'd be buying all the way down too.
No, you'll be losing money in the coming months waiting for a valuation that is pure fantasy. Not personal, but rather just how I see your comment from a data point perspective. In order for biotech to go down that much, it would have to be a dying market, not a growing market, like coal, and it ain't that.
Richard Nixon once proposed a Federal allowance for all people. I forget the number, but for the 70s, it was a lot, something like 900 a month. His advisory said no because it would start inflation, demand. Imagine it now. Demand up?
Maybe as good as the one in 2000?
I do the exact same thing and I have to be really careful when publishing anything.
"B) Socialism never has and never will work as it goes against human nature"
It's human nature to want and need daily and long term security. It's even a necessity for institutions to develop and even social systems to emerge. In other words, security (also known as safety) is a necessary condition of human advancement. No culture has ever remained in a state of war, for example, and progressed much. Thus, whatever political and economic structure gives the most security without destroying freedom, will eventually win.
I'm just stating this as a meta-idea and not taking any sides, here.
I don't know about that. If I had a long term horizon, I might be seeing some REALLY good long term buys right now, such as Gilead.
Nothing we can do about that. The only thing we can do is look for companies that we think are going to make or are making money and buy them based on research and an understanding of values. I mean Gilead is down over the last 7 months from 120 to 85, and they just slaughtered earnings estimates Q4. Does that mean the company is bad?
I don't like being at 82 cents either, but it isn't because NAVB missed guidance or has other fundamental problems. Who predicted a huge sell off in the total market starting Jan 1st and the worst January record in the history of the market?
The only thing we can do is ride it out.
I would not and do not expect much of anything we don't already know. The grumblings on some boards about a couple of board members is just rumor and innuendo, mostly, and mostly because of angry shareholders that bought back when NAVB was at its all time high.
That being said, NAVB does need to perform this year, even though their sales increases are better than 142% 2014-2015. (They need more sales totals.)
I'm waiting for the annual. We should hear some meat by then, although we will not know what the Q1 sales numbers are until May.
Even if the company performed about the same in 2016, if you take an average of 17% Q/Q increases in LS sales, they would not do too badly. Then we have Europe coming online this year too.
I'd like to see some clarification on MT. I think we need to see some movement there, but again, with what cash? Rick is trying to get the company into cash flow break even. So, that leaves grant money and a possible partner of some sort, and we have no information on a partner.
NAV4694: This is a Phase III trial. If there is actually anything to it, I'd like to see Navidea keep it if they can somehow find the money to develop it. However, it is a Alzheimer's diagnostic agent, not a treatment. I don't really know anything else about it because it is a of back end importance area for the company, and we never took it into consideration for analysis (or for a position). However, people tend to get their panties in a roll over Rick not getting rid of it and so on and so forth, so it should be addressed.
You have a very tight argument that seemingly gets rid of all the political noise.
I really do hope you are correct about bio showing signs of life. But you can walk into a hospital hospice care unit and and see signs of life too, life support. Ready for this to be over.
I read most all of your articles, but I have a hard time biting this one with any conviction.
"It can take years for policies to be put into effect and then have an impact on the economy, and good policies can have effects that last even after they have been reversed. . . .I would be quick to note that Republican administrations have yielded three periods of declining productivity (Eisenhower, Nixon, and Bush II), while Democratic administrations have only yielded two periods of declining productivity (Carter and Obama). . . .No political party can lay a claim to implementing policies that consistently lead to sustained rises in prosperity. . . .
One thing that stands out is that the Obama years have seen productivity growth that rivals the malaise that characterized the Carter administration. "
So if it can take years to implement policy and that policy can affect the economy even years after repealed, why talk of Presidents in the first place? (For instance, a decline in one President's term could have been due to bad policies in anothers', and vice-versa.)
"After New Hampshire, the Clinton Machine is going to run over Grandpa, provided she is not indicted first."
Great, then we get grandma.
And as a reader of the constitution, I assume you have read Supreme Court documents on how the constitution is interpreted? I think you have because your post reflects the point that "The Constitution" is nothing if not up for interpretation. It's very interesting that some think the Constitution is an unmoving rock. In some areas, it is, in most others, it is not. Thanks for your post.
You cannot give up your rights voluntarily nor be forced to give them up vs What are your rights (where "rights" can change)?
NO! Because capitalism worked so well in 1929!!
To answer your other concern, "something going on over in Dublin"
well not really." Actually, more like something going on over at the NAVB message boards, like Yahoo, that have little supportive evidence or material information. To me, just a bunch of angry shareholders who bought high and got burned way back in the day.
Internal conflict in companies is not the exception, it's the rule. It's healthy. All companies have it.
My suggestion is not to put too much into shareholders who think they have it all figured out about how to run "their" company.
If the fundamentals of the company have not changed, then obviously sure; that is, the math remains the same. Now it is WAY undervalued.
But there isn't anything we can do about all boats rising and falling in the same ocean, regardless of fundamentals.
How can my comment be "flat out wrong" when I phrased it as a question?
"One difference, perhaps, is that those auto loans are not being packaged and resold for profit (fake profit), like the toxic housing loans on 2008?"
Yes indeed. A little digging beneath the surface is always a good thing.
"The "Keynesian" economics you're referring to is something that doesn't really exist except in the mainstream media where people use the term pejoratively as a synonym to socialism. "
I think you have finally captured the problem here.
"The Fed is indicating it may be in such bad trouble it may follow Japan down the negative interest rate road. "
Source please.
You could have a very valid point, since if you're adjusted income is 48K or above, you get no, zero, healthcare insurance subsidy. That's going to cost you around 6000 a year!
If you're single, and working, an adjusted income of 48K minus taxes leaves you around 25% Fed tax bracket. That equals 8K in Federal tax. So your gross income would be 59K - 8K minus state tax which could be as high as 13% in CA. Average another 4K off of that income and you get 59K-11k or 47K cash to live on w/o putting any of it into savings or investments.
That leaves you with 3900 a month to live on. Now add the cheapest health care plan for another 454.00 per month, which doesn't even cover pharmacy costs, and a 6500 total deductible. Now you're down to 3400 a month.
Rent in California for a one bedroom 700' apartment is going to cost you around 1000K a month, just ballpark figure, leaving you with 2400 to live on, minus food, car, car insurance, fuel, maintenance, dental expenses (easy another 1200 month, and that's cheap), and that's if you perform without any other expenses.
That's a best case scenario. For instance, what about people who have a 1800.00 house payment and they have owned their how for 10 years and are 50 years old, who need that house for retirement?
So yeah, the ACA took billions out of spendable income.