H.J. Huneycutt

Cramer's Stop Trading! Toll Brothers' Sign of Stabilization (11/11/09)

I'm not sure how Ormat (ORA) has "always been at the top of the field" in solar, when they only jumped into solar about one month ago. For that matter, they are not even comparable to First Solar (FSLR), which is a solar panel manufacturer. ORA is a geothermal energy operator that appears to be looking for opportunities to operate solar energy systems.

All the same, it's a very well run company that will grow significantly over the next decade, so I have no gripe with Cramer's pick. Just curious about the logic here.

Bank Earnings: Why I Don't Trust Analyst Reports

Not that I don't agree that analysts are normally crap, but when it comes to these megacap financial institutions, I don't think it matters how knowledgeable the analysts are --- they are still going to have an extremely difficult time predicting results within 5% - 10% of the actuals.

There's a reason why I personally prefer to focus on small cap and microcap companies. Megacaps have such sprawling operations, no human being could possibly understand them in any amount of detail. The big banks are even worse than other megacaps (e.g. GE) because they have tons of leverage and lots of non-completely-transpa... loans to boot.

I'd actually be more amazed if an analyst could consistently predict the results of one of these mega financial companies. I don't see how it's even possible short of simply taking management's word and hoping (against all better judgment) that they are both trustworthy and competent.


I also disagree that the incentives for most bankers are aligned with the interests of stockholders. Until we have dramatic corporate structure reform, I don't think that'll ever be the case.


I agree with most of the rest of the stuff you stated in the article. People get too caught up in the quarterlies. The big picture is much more important. Accounting treatments can make results swing back and forth in the short-term anyway.

Dow 30 Overbought / Oversold Edition

This is a completely useless article --- it's just some bars and some completely meaningless metrics. There are absolutely no explanations.

In fact, this article appears to be an advertisement for the author's product ("one of our most closely followed customizable products"). Not sure why anyone would be willing to waste their money on this; any moron can look at a chart and see whether a stock's being going up or down over a certain time frame. The author's comment that many of these stocks are trading near their "theoretical highs" exposes how completely useless most technical analysis is.

Credit Card Crunch: Creating a New Generation of Subprime

Credit card earnings will suffer as deliniquencies increase, but this article ignores the fact that the market has priced (arguably overpriced) most of that in right now. Discover (DFS) is a deal in the $6 - 7 range. I might even buy it in real life if it were to dip down to the $4 or $5 mark.

Eight Reasons Bank of America Is Going to $20

Good article.

I actually remarked today about how insane people shorting BAC are right now. Even if their right, risk-reward is not in their favor. At most, they pocket a 100% gain; on the flip-side, they could absorb a loss in the 300-1000% range. Unless one thinks the odds of nationalization are 95%+, that's not a very wise investment based on risk-reward principles.

Rating the Top 12 U.S. Banks - From Hidden Gems to Zombies

Great article!

Guess the only area I would challenge is the "hidden gems" and the investment perspective --- it's not that I necessarily disagree with the analysis of the banks; it's that most of the "hidden gem" banks haven't been greatly discounted by the market so they don't necessarily look appealing to me as investments. I'm of the opinion that banks (even the good ones) are going to continue to suffer for another year or so at least as delinquinces increase.

I think there are definitely better sectors to invest in -- unless you can find the bargains. So the best investments here are the ones that have been substantially discounted by the market, but that should survive relatively in tact. To me, that makes STI and RF the best candidates; even if they have considerable risk. BBT is also looking increasingly appealing and probably relative safe compared to many others. WFC might also be a good investment candidate, but admittedly, I'd fear taking on a company with so much junk floating around on their books --- even if they appear to be in relatively good shape overall. Unless WFC gets discounted a bit more substantially, I'll just stay neutral on them.

STT, BK, and USB have less junk on their books and look poised to survive, the market in general doesn't really seem to disagreement with that assessment --- hence, I see little value there. You could probably make equal or greater returns investing in an index fund over the next few years and you'll have less worries.

The Main Street - Wall Street Bout, Round Two

I don't know if I can endure any more trite "Main Street" versus "Wall Street" analyses. Nor can I endure any more condescending pieces of journalism from telling the American public they are all stupid and OMG THE WORLD IS GOING TO END!!! if they don't fork over the money to financial institutions.

The market correcting itself is the best thing that can happen to American lower and middle income earners. They're the ones getting destroyed by the artificially inflated housing prices resulting from a bubble created by the financial community. After the correction, people making $30K might be able to actually afford a home! This is not the end of the world.

How to Spend $700B and Actually Solve the Problem

Gingrich has been thumping on getting rid of Sarbanes-Oxley:

blogs.abcnews.com/poli...

I'm a bit mixed on that, but it's a better idea than what Paulson is floating. If, as the advocates of the Paulson plan claim, the problem is that mark-to-market rules have required writedowns to an unnecessary extent, then the solution would seem to be to repeal or modify those rules. I don't buy into mark-to-market being the main culprit here, however. And even if it is, the institutions that own the assets are probably going to have better knowledge about which assets are "overvalued" and which ones are "undervalued" on the books --- hence, they're going to get rid of the former and keep the latter.

I would like to see SarbOx get re-evaluated, though, mostly because it imposes too high costs on small businesses.

How to Spend $700B and Actually Solve the Problem

I like these ideas. I've read a lot of blogs over the past few days on the Paulson plan and I'm seeing so many ideas that are better than what we'll probably end up doing.

Do Paulson and Bernanke Really Understand What's Going On?

I think this is a much better plan than the Feds are proposing. Liquidity is the major issue.