Seeking Alpha

Greg Buhrow

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Greg Buhrow's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Why Low Oil Prices Will Not Last [View article]
    This comment may be in the category of "the king has no clothes" or it could reveal that I just don't know what I'm talking about, but ...
    When oil prices were high there was great fear since petroleum products are the raw materials for virtually everything.
    Now, oil prices are low and those raw material costs are correspondingly low.
    Did the purchasers of petroleum hedge themselves into a no-win situation by contracting for a price that is now above the market price, ie, airlines?
    Why are both high oil prices and low oil prices a harbinger of bad things to come?
    Are we saying the most efficient price of oil is $70-$75 / bbl?
    Jan 16, 2015. 11:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • About That Awful Retail Sales Report [View article]
    I think you are spot on!!

    The unfortunate thing is that the "market" is so emotional. I believe the S&P was down around 10 before the retail sales data and about 23+/- after.

    As a short-term trader, I agree with your logic but my wallet feels the results of the "irrational panic" currently present.
    Jan 16, 2015. 10:31 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How GoPro Has Shareholder Interests In Mind [View article]
    I don't know how gratuitous and/or nurturing Mr Woodman is to his shareholders and employees but do we really know how many shares the insiders are planning to sell? I guess we'll know soon enough.

    A cursory reading of the initial Prospectus and the S-1 shows that Woodman either individually or through a Family Trust sold 3.6 million shares.

    If one assumes he has virtually zero basis in those shares he is looking at a tax bill, ignoring the NIIT, of over $17 million. So if he sells in 2014 - the day the lock-up ends - to pay his taxes, he will owe on that as well, which could bring his tax liability to almost $21 million, just from a Federal standpoint, not including any state franchise tax on the trust and state individual income tax in CA.

    To generate that kind of money he would need to sell 275k shares at $75/sh.
    Nov 12, 2014. 09:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • It Is Not Ebola That Is Out Of Control, It Is The Media [View article]
    I live in Dallas and they are actually considering the declaration of the county as a disaster area!!

    Last year we had two people on our street contract West Nile virus and all they did was spray in our neighborhood.

    I do believe this is slightly overblown ...
    Oct 16, 2014. 12:05 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Like Micron, SanDisk Beats But Stock Tanks After Hours [View article]
    Anybody who has children can easily understand the mentality and temperament of an analyst ... if they get want they want they are happy and content, if not, they throw a tantrum, ergo, SNDK after earnings.

    Analyst: Now SNDK, you have been getting B+/A- grades lately, I want an A+ now.
    SNDK: Look, I got an A!!!
    Analyst: You're grounded for six weeks until you bring those grades up!
    Jul 17, 2014. 10:55 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Positive Sentiment In Apple Gives Buy Signal Before Earnings Release [View article]
    Enjoyed, read and re-read your article but actually come away with different conclusions as follows:

    "For clarity, I have drawn green and red lines to indicate buy and sell signals, respectively." So what I did was buy 100 shares at every "Buy" signal and sell all at each "Sell" signal. If I had no shares I would short 100 at each "Sell" signal then "Buy to Cover" all at each "Buy" signal.

    I ended up with three significant losses and one substantial gain. So with a buy-and-hold strategy I'm not sure this would be a profitable strategy.

    Perhaps if you either bought or sold at the signals then set a tolerance level of 5% and exited the position at that level you would preserve trading capital or eke out a small gain over time.

    I'd be interested in your take on my take ...

    PS: my son-in-law is getting his PhD in biochemistry and I'm trying to get him involved in trading options but without much success ...
    Jan 26, 2014. 09:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Positive Sentiment In Apple Gives Buy Signal Before Earnings Release [View article]
    What about the opposite? Sell some 520 puts.

    If AAPL goes down below 520 you get more shares, if it goes up or stays the same or even drops 20 points you keep the money and move on.

    And I too am addicted to this underlying ... trade it every week.
    Jan 26, 2014. 08:43 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Apple's Current Price Is Justified [View article]
    To keep Christmas consumers from purchasing Microsoft products?
    Dec 17, 2012. 07:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Writing Covered Calls On Apple Might Be A Bad Idea [View article]
    "You reduced your loss from 20% to maybe 15%."

    Actually, you don't have a loss - you have simply reduced your basis in the entire trade (not your cost basis on the stock) by netting an $18 gain on the sale of the call.

    And as jemmelt comments below, the next covered call should not be at the next strike or you would lock in your loss - as your chart illustrates.
    Dec 10, 2012. 08:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Writing Covered Calls On Apple Might Be A Bad Idea [View article]
    You hit it spot on!

    Don't sell calls against an owned stock at less than your cost basis on the stock purchased.

    If there is no premium, ie, lower priced underlyings, sell at maybe 1 standard deviation above the current price.
    Dec 10, 2012. 08:15 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Jobs Growth Steady But Slow [View article]
    It is certainly true that 147k jobs were created for Nov but Sep & Oct job creation dropped by 43k. So, net job creation was 103k so we're still below your forecasted number necessary maintain labor force growth.

    I also note that 350k dropped out of the labor force, obviously accounting for the drop in the rate. Most economists interviewed on Friday said they wanted top-line growth more than denominator decline.

    The report tables also state that the number of employed dropped by 122k, ie, short-term employment, retirement, etc.

    At first blush, a decent employment report but, as they say, the devil is in the details.
    Dec 9, 2012. 02:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple Volatility [View article]
    The CBOE even has a product called, interestingly enough, Apple VIX whose symbol is VXAPL.
    Dec 8, 2012. 07:09 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Real Reasons Why Apple Is Tanking [View article]
    Actually, unbeknownst at your writing, it was mentioned just today in another AAPL article on why AAPL should be selling at $700. The author makes a number of cogent points as have you ... great minds? ...
    Dec 6, 2012. 08:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • On Investor Concerns, And Why Apple Should Trade Above $700 [View article]
    Maybe I simply look through the world with "tax-colored glasses" since that is my profession, I believe the gyrations of AAPL are tax-motivated and ultimately the response of political indecision.

    For instance, yesterday AAPL dropped $37 on political inaction. In order to be taxed at long-term capital gains rates, one has to hold the stock more than one year. So, let's say AAPL was purchased on 12/2/2011 at the average of the high-low or $391.11.

    For many investors, a 500 share purchase cost $195k. The tax savings on that by selling yesterday versus in Jan 2013 is roughly $6,500. For well-heeled investors, a 5000 share purchase will net them a $65,000 tax savings, enough to buy a kid a pretty nice car for Christmas.

    For the above purpose, the tax savings is essentially the difference in the tax rates of 20% vs 15% (currently) plus the 3.8% surcharge, ignoring commissions and the potential AMT.
    Dec 6, 2012. 08:13 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fiscal Cliffs And Why Politicians Make Lousy Accountants [View article]
    One more point I would like to suggest, and this should/could be verified by someone more familiar with it than me.

    Governmental accounting is not the same as corporate (GAAP) accounting. As I recall - more or less - from gov acctg in college (1 chapter of Advanced Accounting class a long time ago) that even long-term debt is considered "current" in that all expenditures must be paid for somehow and however they are financed - long-term or short-term debt - they are reflected in the current budget, and as such, exacerbate the deficit.

    There is a lot more nuance to this but there is a difference. The readers on SA are familiar with for-profit company's balance sheets with current and long-term debt reflected appropriately. Suffice it to say, the accounting is different when it is a governement entity.
    Nov 15, 2012. 08:48 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
103 Comments
83 Likes