Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Eli Hoffmann  

View SA Editor Eli Hoffmann's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Opexa prices offering, shares plummet [View news story]
    Quite a wild ride. Paper gains and losses for those who held on. Wild gains for those who owned and unloaded. Wild losses for those who bought into yesterday's strength.
    Aug 8, 2013. 08:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Uralkali Stuns The Potash Market: The New Era Begins [View article]
    What are the chances that this is a game of chicken between Uralkali and Belaruskali?
    Jul 31, 2013. 03:49 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha fires a shot at Bloomberg, StreetAccount [View news story]
    Thanks everyone for your awesome feedback.

    We're going to revert back to showing the key symbol on the main Market Currents page as we did previously. Once it's live, please let us know how it looks to you.

    I'm also curious to know how you feel about the switch from paragraphs to bullets after we revert the symbol column. While bullets do consume more vertical space, I still believe they are a far superior user experience once you've decided to read a specific Market Current.

    Also remember that Market Currents aren't just a web product. Every Market Current is sent to hundreds, thousands, or even tens of thousands of real-time email alert subscribers. Have any of you received the new format (real title + bulleted Current) in an email alert? How do you feel about the experience there?
    Jul 30, 2013. 04:47 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha fires a shot at Bloomberg, StreetAccount [View news story]
    Great feedback. And I totally agree. SA authors (IOW buyside-analysis) is not only as important and impactful as sell-side research, it's more so!

    I don't know if you've noticed but Jason's team is already doing a good job of linking to influential SA-organic analysis from within Market Currents. We're also upgrading our internal content management system - which Jason's team uses to compose Market Currents - so that related SA articles surface automatically as the MC analyst is composing his Market Current. Having the information at their fingertips, as opposed to having to remember to go looking for it, should boost our efficiency here as well.
    Jul 30, 2013. 04:37 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Seeking Alpha fires a shot at Bloomberg, StreetAccount [View news story]
    <<Case in point, nine out of ten of the items I need for day trading come from Briefing, while one of ten comes from Market Currents. I get what I pay for.>>

    Perkins Cove, can you be more specific. Is it that they're faster than us? Or that they're covering things we aren't? And do you have any sense of which areas we're beating them on?
    Jul 29, 2013. 11:10 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend Investors Should Get Ready To Load Up [View article]
    Articles on our home page are most-read articles at any given time. I guess mrmedusa's comment brought quite a few people back to the article, and bumped it up to the home page.

    (During the week, only articles published during the previous 24 hours can appear on the home page, but during the weekend there is no such constraint.)
    Jul 21, 2013. 03:33 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • TeraGo: The Cheapest Communications Cash Cow You've Never Heard Of [View article]
    I can't see any price quotes since May 31. Did TeraGo delist?
    Jun 27, 2013. 06:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A $234 Million Company Worth $0: Short Biozoom [View article]
    Hmm... http://1.usa.gov/14oLiTy
    Jun 25, 2013. 10:05 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    I re-read my comment and stand by what I wrote. I have no idea how this plays out. I have no position in EBIX, have never had one, and don't know enough about the company to voice an opinion one way or the other.

    I do believe SA as a forum for diverse opinions on stocks is a good thing. I could point to many cases in which authors were well ahead of the curve in identifying possible red flags that were being ignored by longs, and conversely identifying possible positive catalysts that were being ignored by shorts.

    What vexes me is that I believe everyone gains in the long run from a forum that welcomes diverse opinions. Yet inevitably when presented with a counter-argument, people on the other side of the trade, instead of being thankful for a heads up, and instead of entertaining at least *the remote possibility* that they may have misread things, dig their heals in. They toss out accusations and character assassinations and try to intimidate anyone who questions their stance. This is bad for everyone. The net effect is that authors whose opinions align with the party line are made to feel welcome and continue to publish, while often those who see things differently are cowered into silence.

    EBIX shares are now 50% lower than they were a week ago. Maybe EBIX cleared of all suspicion and rocket right back to $20 (and big thanks to the longs for making it clear that that's a real possibility!), and maybe things are even worse than they look (and big thanks to GCR and others for raising that possibility). I think it's a good thing to have a forum for diverse opinions, and it was in that vein that I applauded GCR.
    Jun 25, 2013. 06:55 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ebix: All Distraction, No Clarity [View article]
    Indeed! Here's what I posted (http://seekingalpha.co...) in a comment today to the first article on EBIX:

    Someone recently suggested a market indicator. I'm not sure what to call it yet, but here's how it works: When reading a particularly contentious comment stream, try to discern if one side of the trade seems fairly balanced and open to hearing new information, while the other side of the trade is obstinate and seems wed to its position. Then figure out whom you want to join.

    To all the commenters who used this article to ridicule the contributor and take SA to tasks for its lack of due diligence: What do you have to say now?

    I've seen this time and time again. And with very few exceptions, the nay-sayers never show up after the fact to say, "I was wrong."

    Good job Gotham City Research in trying to warn investors. And good job to any of those who listened.
    Jun 20, 2013. 09:30 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Truth About Robin Raina's Ebix: Part I [View article]
    Someone recently suggested a market indicator. I'm not sure what to call it yet, but here's how it works: When reading a particularly contentious comment stream, try to discern if one side of the trade seems fairly balanced and open to hearing new information, while the other side of the trade is obstinate and seems wed to its position. Then figure out whom you want to join.

    To all the commenters who used this article to ridicule the contributor and take SA to tasks for its lack of due diligence: What do you have to say now?

    I've seen this time and time again. And with very few exceptions, the nay-sayers never show up after the fact to say, "I was wrong."

    Good job Gotham City Research in trying to warn investors. And good job to any of those who listened.
    Jun 20, 2013. 09:28 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Heska Provides Investors Low Risk / High Reward Opportunity In Companion Animal Space [View article]
    FWIW, management does not seem to be regarded highly by employees.

    http://bit.ly/140unqq
    Jun 13, 2013. 09:37 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We're Boosting Payments To High-Value Contributors [View article]
    OldWarrior,

    Thanks - that's very interesting. I was just discussing this with someone: using quality_of_comment_stream as a gauge of article_quality.

    On the Ashraf Eassa article, I think you mean this one? http://seekingalpha.co...
    Jun 13, 2013. 02:50 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We're Boosting Payments To High-Value Contributors [View article]
    SA contributor Gregory Vousvounis wrote an awesome post in the Contributor Forums apropos to the discussion here:

    " I believe that SAs benefits from this move are widely misunderstood.

    Essentially SA is not only differentiating its position against every other pageview oriented site but is also building a unique high-quality database that will monetize for a long time to come. Let me elaborate.

    Trying to compete in the pageview and ad attracting business is a 100% losing proposition in the long-term for two reasons. First there is an infinite number of competitors (especially for widely followed large caps) that chase every pageview attracting subject relentlessly.

    Second because of this abundance of content providers, advertisers continuously lower the prices they are willing to pay. More supply brings prices down 100%. Unless someone has a real competitive edge they will be operating at zero thin margins if not in loss.

    Please note that falling advertising prices also mean less $ per CPM for contributors all over the web.

    To combat this fate SA thought of something clever. They try to leverage the vast knowledge of their contributors to create a crowd-sourced equity research platform. In the context of this platform they will charge subscriptions for high quality ideas from real professionals with skin in the game. And is a win-win proposition, contributors get more money for their time and effort and customers get exclusive Alpha generating ideas.

    Of course they won't kill the pageview part of their site. It provides them and their contributors with essentially free advertising for their premium services and maybe some extra income and long-term brand recognition.

    Best Regards,
    Gregory"
    Jun 7, 2013. 05:15 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We're Boosting Payments To High-Value Contributors [View article]
    One thing we've been discussing is allocating some of SA Pro subscribers' monthly fee for them to dole out to the authors of articles they found most valuable.

    I'm not very bullish on stars and other systems because people tend to vote based on their bias rather that what's good. But if you can use payments to determine what's good, it tends to be a much purer measure.
    Jun 7, 2013. 05:14 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
852 Comments
1,780 Likes