Debunking The Food Inflation Myth In 2 Charts [View article]
If you include eating out, the cost for food, as a % of income, is going down, too. It doesn't change the numbers that much at all. See here: http://buswk.co/11vQs0d
In the first set of data, I evaluated sentiment readings for this bull market. Then, in the second set, I extended it and went all the way back to when AAII started tracking sentiment. So not sure how including all data qualifies as cherry-picking.
The 3 Smartest Screens To Identify Takeover Targets [View article]
Not exactly. Powerball numbers are drawn completely at random, whereas takeovers are very calculated and intentional. There are fundamental reasons why a specific takeover could occur. But there is no reason why any set of numbers would appear in Powerball.
Ok. I'll humor you and leave MCD off the list. Then there's Fujitsu, Ingram Micro and the 20+ other companies under NDA.
The fact PAMT hired the number #1 M&A investment banker in the U.S. for deals under $3 billion should be a clue here, too.
You think they're going to "sign on" if there aren't legit proposals on the table. Or maybe they're getting duped too.
This is the problem with the internet and SA. Instead of getting their hands dirty, testing the tech, talking with investors, management, outside experts, "analysts" rely on internet searches and others' questionable internet research to piece together flimsy arguments.
As Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify." I've done that. If I'm wrong, I'll take my lumps like a man. Time will tell if I need to.
Not familiar with those Tobin Smith stocks. I agree with you, he's reprehensible. How he's still on Fox is a crime.
However, I can attest to the existence of actual technology for UNXL and PAMT and CRDS. So can the blue-chip partners they've announced, which obviously didn't join forces without seeing and testing the technology.
But let's not go there. There's enough back and forth about these companies on SA. The market will decide and prove once and for all who is right.
If a company is truly a "pump," would they spend any money on research and development, and specifically, patents?
Nope. There's no need to, nor is their an ability to do so b/c if they're truly a pump they don't really have any technology, right? Plus, there's no reason to waste the money.
And yet, three companies mentioned above (UNXL, PAMT, CRDS) do indeed have patents and continue to file new patent applications.
Just a "minor" point to keep in mind before you rush to judgement about the existence of an actual technology... or worse, rush out to short a company :-)
Uni-Pixel Has Ballooned From Hype, Not A Better Technology [View article]
Chris is spot on. Still bullish. Just advocating prudent portfolio management - i.e. play with the house's money whenever possible.
I appreciate the effort to try to loop me into this debate, though, Adam ;-)
Truth is, I've been researching and following Uni-Pixel's progress for almost two years. The back-and-forth and misinformation gets tiring for guys like Chris and I to constantly refute. So I've resigned myself to this beautiful fact of life - the market serves as the final arbiter.
So, as always, time will tell who's ultimately right. Best of luck!
3 Companies More Innovative Than Apple [View article]
Thanks for chiming in Robert. And you're exactly right. No single criterion is a reason to invest in any of these stocks. This is just a starting point for further analysis.
And in future columns I'll start digging into the angles you suggest (limiting to large and mid cap, etc. and evaluating for total return), among others.
3 Companies More Innovative Than Apple [View article]
The purpose of this article was to encourage investors to look at innovation in a new, more quantifiable way. It's not an effort to buttress a short case against Apple. Nor am I "shilling" for any hedge funds or others with Apple shorts.
I agree with everyone that novelty is not enough. As investors, patents must be novel AND commercially relevant. If the company can't translate the technology into meaningful profits it's worthless to us.
But since patents are indeed a precursor to products, we'd be foolish not to pay attention to them. It can only increase our investment intelligence.
The metrics presented begin to develop a sense of the quality of patents.
Again, this is merely to encourage a discussion to think more specifically about patents. And I'm confident time will validate such an endeavor.
10 Reasons Why The Sun Won't Shine On SolarCity's IPO [View article]
Goldman, BofA and Credit Suisse were lead underwriters for SolarCity's initial public offering. So do you expect them to issue anything but a "Buy" rating?
The 3 Most Potent Forces Underpinning The Real Estate Recovery [View article]
Not just pushing stocks. SA doesn't syndicate all my work. I think most compelling buys are distressed SFH in strong rental markets. However, most investors can only afford one of those, at best. Plus, competition for those homes is intense now that private equity is in the game. So, I also think it's smart to look for other stock market plays levered to the housing recovery.
Debunking The Food Inflation Myth In 2 Charts [View article]
http://bit.ly/Zgzqnb
Debunking The Food Inflation Myth In 2 Charts [View article]
Why You Should Ignore the Masses [View article]
The 3 Smartest Screens To Identify Takeover Targets [View article]
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
The fact PAMT hired the number #1 M&A investment banker in the U.S. for deals under $3 billion should be a clue here, too.
You think they're going to "sign on" if there aren't legit proposals on the table. Or maybe they're getting duped too.
This is the problem with the internet and SA. Instead of getting their hands dirty, testing the tech, talking with investors, management, outside experts, "analysts" rely on internet searches and others' questionable internet research to piece together flimsy arguments.
As Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify." I've done that. If I'm wrong, I'll take my lumps like a man. Time will tell if I need to.
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
However, I can attest to the existence of actual technology for UNXL and PAMT and CRDS. So can the blue-chip partners they've announced, which obviously didn't join forces without seeing and testing the technology.
But let's not go there. There's enough back and forth about these companies on SA. The market will decide and prove once and for all who is right.
Good luck to you!
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
If a company is truly a "pump," would they spend any money on research and development, and specifically, patents?
Nope. There's no need to, nor is their an ability to do so b/c if they're truly a pump they don't really have any technology, right? Plus, there's no reason to waste the money.
And yet, three companies mentioned above (UNXL, PAMT, CRDS) do indeed have patents and continue to file new patent applications.
Just a "minor" point to keep in mind before you rush to judgement about the existence of an actual technology... or worse, rush out to short a company :-)
Uni-Pixel Has Ballooned From Hype, Not A Better Technology [View article]
I appreciate the effort to try to loop me into this debate, though, Adam ;-)
Truth is, I've been researching and following Uni-Pixel's progress for almost two years. The back-and-forth and misinformation gets tiring for guys like Chris and I to constantly refute. So I've resigned myself to this beautiful fact of life - the market serves as the final arbiter.
So, as always, time will tell who's ultimately right. Best of luck!
Is Marin Software The Next 'Hot IPO'? [View article]
3 Companies More Innovative Than Apple [View article]
And in future columns I'll start digging into the angles you suggest (limiting to large and mid cap, etc. and evaluating for total return), among others.
So stay tuned.
3 Companies More Innovative Than Apple [View article]
I agree with everyone that novelty is not enough. As investors, patents must be novel AND commercially relevant. If the company can't translate the technology into meaningful profits it's worthless to us.
But since patents are indeed a precursor to products, we'd be foolish not to pay attention to them. It can only increase our investment intelligence.
The metrics presented begin to develop a sense of the quality of patents.
Again, this is merely to encourage a discussion to think more specifically about patents. And I'm confident time will validate such an endeavor.
10 Reasons Why The Sun Won't Shine On SolarCity's IPO [View article]
The (Stubborn) Myth Of Green Energy Investing [View article]
The 3 Most Potent Forces Underpinning The Real Estate Recovery [View article]