Seeking Alpha

Logic

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Logic's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Stock Split Could Doom MasterCard [View article]
    Interesting article, however, some initial thoughts...

    Stock split will not affect the fundamental value of an investment, as you mentioned. In fact, the abnormal price movement with Mastercard's stock split program can be explained with active investors exploiting the stock split anomaly where investors view that the reason why a stock has to split in the first place is because it is becoming too expensive for the average investor and it is viewed by investors as a signal to continue to rise (and affordable by less well off investors). Hence, I don't think this should alert any investors.

    The argument with bitcoin is a bit stretched... bitcoin is still a relatively new concept and by no means it is a liquid currency to be purchased day to day goods... Plus, we are talking about virtual money in essence.. I dont think merchants are likely to accept them (given credit risk and other issues). I am not saying Bitcoin has no future or anything, simply saying I dont see indication or catalyst that will move this forward to replace "real money" yet...
    Jan 14 05:44 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • DSW Inc.: A High-Conviction, Fast-Growing Idea [View article]
    I agree. Their private brand names is showing strong popularity and the exclusiveness of these brand gives them a good moat to defending market share.
    Oct 31 09:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A New Permanent Portfolio For The 21st Century [View article]
    Yup I agree with your points. The numbers for the back test are strong. Got some other thoughts:

    The original permanent portfolio is set up in a way such that its expected to do "ok" in any economic environment. As you commented that you selected low vol ETFs as you want to reduce lower volatility for better returns during the recession, but your bonds portfolio should in theory already provide some form of protection during the recession. Thus, I just worry that it might be a little bit too conservative and you might miss out on the upside when the market/economy prospers. And since I think this portfolio is meant for the long term (meaning it will go through bear and bull markets), your portfolio will be more defensive vs the original permanent portfolio, but in longer term will that "defensiveness" outweigh the upside during the bull market is properly the question that can only be answered with time or more sophisticated backtest (ie mimic the S&P minimum variance portfolio and date it back for back test).

    Again, just my 2 cents and happy to discuss further if you have any other comments.
    May 1 01:26 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A New Permanent Portfolio For The 21st Century [View article]
    Hi there, very interesting piece of research you put together there. I have a some comments on your newly improved portfolio though, much to do with the relatively short back test period.

    Your advised portfolio consists of 40% in minimum variance equity funds, I would imagine this will be big part of the reason why your strategy beat the traditional Harry Browne portfolio. I have worked in the hedge fund industry for the past 3 years, and ever since the GFC struck, people lost faith in equities and investors have been showing interest and piling into minimum variance funds (as they believe this lowers risks). This will provide a kicker for your portfolio. However, this kind of environment might not be sustainable as once the equities market recover and investors chase after volatility again, it might suffer.

    Please dont take my comment the wrong way, I am not saying your portfolio won't hold up in time. I am simply pointing it out so you and other readers will be aware of this. Happy to discuss this further.

    Love your approach towards pushing up higher yields for the portfolio though! Great work overall!
    Apr 30 07:42 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Should Sell Shares Of Oracle [View article]
    "I published an article about Oracle (ORCL) on August 13, 2012. In that article, I suggested investors reduce long-equity exposure to Oracle. I was right: Oracle's share price declined on the fiscal cliff worries. That said, I apologize: I wasn't able to publish an article suggesting investors increase long-equity exposure."

    the stock was temporarily down and at the largest drawdown since your article on Aug 13 is 31.12 and lowest was on Nov 14 with closing price at 29.42... 5.5% down and you call yourself right?

    Also.. your second claim that you didn't publish an article suggesting investors to increase long-equity exposure is just pure hindsight bias
    Mar 15 04:11 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
5 Comments
8 Likes