Seeking Alpha

Kurtis Hemmerling

View as an RSS Feed
View Kurtis Hemmerling's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Is Dividend Growth Investing Enthusiasm Inflating A Bubble? [View article]
    hmmmm... here goes 200 plus comments. Let the games begin
    Aug 24 08:51 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Disinflation Could Happen [View article]
    I might be misunderstanding but I think you are referring to relative currency value but not buying power. If two countries double their money supply, their currency ratio might stay the same but in each country it only buys half as much. Two birds falling out of the sky at the same speed might not think they are falling but watch out. The inflationary effects do show up in a limited resource like gold which we haven't figured out a way to print in the backroom yet.
    Aug 10 07:02 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Great Combination Of Dividend Plays That Warrant Closer Look [View article]
    I see a whole slew of numbers but I was hoping you could shed some light on it with an opinion and put a 'little meat on the bones' so to speak and make an argument with a compelling case for buying or selling. I love dividend stocks but please make the numbers speak to us.
    Jul 12 10:50 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is 2012 Silver's Year? February Update On Silver Price, Stocks To Consider [View article]
    Succinct and to the point plus some actionable advice. Thanks for sharing.
    Feb 13 05:25 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Here's How to Take 20 Years to Build a Retirement Fund That Lasts Forever [View article]
    Wow... I didn't expect this to be such a hot topic. 14% return is not that high!

    *The S&P 500 has delivered anywhere between 9 - 11% annualized returns over the past 20 - 25 years.

    *Warren Buffett with Berkshire Hathaway has returned 20.3% annualized return from (1965-2009). Last year in 2010 his shares rose almost 15%. Source: www.berkshirehathaway....

    Many, many investors have been able to greatly exceed 14% annual gains over long periods of time. I am quite surprised that 14% is the prime concern of the posters. I do not recommend selling naked puts or calls. Every strategy involves buying options, covered options (either cash secured or with underlying asset).

    If your investing returns are higher than your loan interest, it makes sense to borrow to begin.

    If you are closer to retirement than 20 years, you should have a bigger nest egg to start with. 'Get your 10 year old with his calculator', as one person put it, and invest 2.5 times your desired annual income, plus contribute 15% of your income to achieve you goal in roughly 10 years.

    I think the biggest dissidents are those that a) have themselves not made 14% annual gains. Many have and that is the point of this article. Buy Berkshire and Hathaway and you have good odds of doing just as what's stated in the article. No need to pick one of the 'risky' investment choices. b) retirement planners. Articles like this threaten their jobs as they are the 'experts' that rely on people not investing themselves.

    Frankly, the market has become more volatile and picking a strategy that will make 14%+ gains in blue chip stocks(boosting dividends plus options income) even if it trades sideways or down is a smart method that doesn't rely on market advancement.
    Jan 23 09:59 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple: Probably Going To Remain Painful For The Average Investor [View article]
    I would love to hear your analysis of what would happen if Apple paid out 80% of its existing cash to shareholders (about 1/3 of current share price is cash) and paid an 80% payout ratio going forward after that on profit... even assuming that earnings growth was a big zero now and forever.

    This may not happen but it does give you a picture of valuation beyond a price chart which just shows investor sentiment and not value.
    Apr 8 12:32 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Hard Truth Of Dividend-Growth Investing [View article]
    I agree with what you say chowder. It is why I dedicate so many articles to dividend growth and trying to determine what a high quality stock is (in my opinion) and how to find separate high quality from low.

    I guess my point is that out of 200 dividend growth stocks that have at least 10 years of annual increases - which 15 or 20 do you want to own and why? I see articles that say 'I like these 20 stocks because they are good' but why are they better than the other 180 dividend growth stocks? What is the reasoning behind it? I'm a quantitative guy and I like hard numbers and rationale. All I ask is that if someone is going to critique my strategy - which I encourage as it pushes me to improve and work harder - please offer me something concrete as a filter improvement or an alternate strategy.
    Feb 21 12:26 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My Prediction For 2013 - All Other Predictions Will Be Wrong [View article]
    You still need to exercise caution. A company can ever so slowly erode while paying increasing dividends. After 20 years if you have made $1,000,000 in dividends but with a capital (share price) loss of $600,000 and had to pay potentially $400,000 in dividend tax.... still good to keep an eye on the market even in dividend growth investing.
    Dec 28 06:44 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Kiss Goodbye To The Hidden Risk Of Stock Picking [View article]
    Good point. 'Stock picking' is much more than randomly picking stocks. Even if 50% of the stocks screamed from bull-horns 'we are bad' and the other 50% yelled 'we are great' and they were telling the truth, the method outlined in the article would still only generate an average plus extra volatility for having fewer stocks.
    Dec 20 06:56 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Proven Stock Screens Earn 20%+ Annual Returns [View article]
    I've used Zacks before and was very unimpressed. Their Research Wizard looked pretty but lacked the ability to program or use formulas with any depth. But as for survivorship bias there are still unanswered questions (and there was survivorship bias when I used it not too many years ago)...

    They say that the problem is now fixed but they have a market cap cut-off. I wonder why. Also, when stocks fall below the market cap cut-off (they are tanking and heading for bankruptcy), do they disappear effectively creating the survivorship bias problem all over again?

    More important than this is look ahead bias. Computstat is really good for a true 'point in time' result. Is Zacks using Compustat data? Probably not. What happens is you run a screen and it looks smoking hot. You run a scan going forward and it performs like a dog. Then you run a back-test and the simulated results are not the same as your real scans. Why? Becuase the back-testing platform is using data that wasn't really available at that time.

    If the Research Wizard was only $200 I would use it as a fun little toy but I think they charge a couple thousand if you want full features and at least 10 years worth of data... am I right or wrong? Really, Portfolio123 solves all these issues but you need to be willing to learn how to program from the bottom up. Its not some point and click software.
    Nov 27 08:25 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is A Stock Market Drop Imminent? [View article]
    Good point. I'll ask my boss Tim at portfolio-cafe.com if we can have a free section on market timing that looks at three areas: fundamental, value, and technical.

    Its tricky on SA since they don't allow TA articles only. You have to mask it in a bunch of other stuff so I'm not sure that it would be reliable following it here.
    Oct 23 04:21 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Disinflation Could Happen [View article]
    I think disinflation is where inflation is still positive, just decreasing.
    Aug 10 07:31 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The New Stock Market: Obscenely Volatile, Perfectly Inefficient And It Only Gets Worse [View article]
    Great great piece! I agree with the above and it changes the way you invest/trade/handle risk.

    In fact, unless a dividend is paid or is ever paid - what real link is there to share price and fundamentals? As companies turn to buybacks instead of dividends - the link between intrinsic firm value and share price becomes moot allowing HFTs and quant funds to rule the roost.

    Wall Street Exposed series: http://bit.ly/NHmspw
    Aug 8 08:05 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Not To Re-Balance Your Stock Portfolio [View article]
    When the market goes up 1% - how high on average does the stock go up? 2%? That's a high beta stock. 0.5%? That's a low beta stock. The theory used to be that high beta meant leveraged gains and leveraged losses but this has widely been disproved. It gives indication of volatility... but that's not the same as risk either. Still a useful metric but not the 'be all end all' it was once thought to be decades ago.

    I'm doing a 10 or 12 part blog series called Wall Street Exposed you might enjoy that takes the market from the ground up from uncommon angles.
    http://bit.ly/NHmspw
    Jul 20 06:22 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Fed Does As Advertised [View article]
    I am not totally convinced. Can you show a few more charts?
    Jun 21 08:06 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
471 Comments
406 Likes