Oneota Investor

Oneota Investor
Contributor since: 2013
In the medium term, how does Congress lifting oil export ban affect nat gas and UPL?
Moon, I remember CSCO share price collapsing, but net income stayed solid. Do I need to go review the finance statements to verify this?
Beats... Was the last m&a I can think of. Apple's focus is user focus oriented.
Not worthless unless you were way OTM. If you exercise option you will receive 33 sh of FCPT. Check CBOE for symbol DRI1 for more accurate info.
Thanks tinsley for the guidance above.
Re: Steve g saying something about DC Direct not being impressive is the exact opposite of Linda Powers' claim in her presentation at London. If I remember correctly she tries to sell (oversell?) the audience on Direct's "horsepower." I don't know what horsepower is in the medical world, but it struck me as odd that she didn't use efficacy or effectiveness or something else that seems more aligned with outcomes. If others have a thought on this please chime in.
Doc Logic or Tinsley,
Can someone send a link to what the progress is on the trial? I am novice, but is not easy for me to navigate.
Steve and Bohsie and Doc Logic ,
You guys are great. I love these discussions.
Doesn't SA have Tel Aviv connections? :)
Thanks for reply back. I am interested in them because it's a different REIT. It why I liked NYMT too.between you and REIT analyst thanks for getting me focused on the right parts of the mREIT world and influencing my decision to get out before the herd ran off a cliff.
Colorado, I haven't seen a quick and dirty and vigorous analysis on Chimera. I would appreciate your thoughts on an merit that uses less leverage. Thank you for all your good work.
Thanks for the fantastic analysis CWM. I have been following your analysis on this company since you started writing about nymt. Glad I got out when I did. Keep up the good work!
Maybe he sold his earlier stake to buy call options???
100% revenue growth at high margins and low credit risk warrants at least some premium.
It seems odd to me that banks didnt sell some shares (even at a discounted price) to fund capital for loans. In hindsight it seems like a no- brainer. I did not realize that BAC was purely borrowing that cash. We now have capital ratios that help partially protect investors and the country from overly aggessive short term focus on ROE.
Author talks of equity decreasing 16% as being reason for concern. Equity decreasing is due to share buyback being negative in the treasury stock portion of balance sheet. Please read Bikerguy reply above. I agree with Bikerguy because buyback is funded with free cash flow and management noted that CAT is holding market share and margins haven't fallen as much as competitors.
Long NOV here. Shock has the guts to short. Stop hating Shock for short calls that are rational. If your long, and a good company has a short seller, there is no better time to average in. Shock's time frame is 1 to 2 years. If you're setting up a portfolio for 10 to 20 years, and management is good stewards of capital, shorts help - not hurt - you. Good article Shock
CPA, you've got a huge... bank account.
Wish I had $12015 to do the same.
Dr. van Deventer
Thanks for your continued support here. The treasury website and EDGAR website are both clunky compared to Yahoo, Google, Gurufocus, and the BAC Investor Relations page.
The reason I keep asking the same question here is the following:
From 1974 to 1982 treasury yield curve of ^fvx(Yahoo finance 5yr ticker symbol) to ^tnx (10 year symbol) to ^tyx (30 year symbol) has no significant period in which there is a spread as significant as today. In fact, substantial amounts of time have inverted yield curves. As an investor over time, this is explainable. However, as a bank who has to make money on the spread, this kills NIM and likewise earnings, hence lower stock prices.
In your discussion you pose the question, do rising rates lead to rising banks' stock performance? You show that over the time frame mentioned they do not. In the time frame mentioned treasury yields peaked and the yield curve stayed shallow or inverted. A more comparable time period of the same analysis might be in the late 40's or early 50's - when treasury rates bottomed (I can see data from Most people think rates are now in a long term up trend. The sites you send do not include data in the '50's, nor the data for your own time frame.
Here is my hypothesis. Banks started to make money in the early to mid 80's because banks were able to rematch their loans at a huge profit. (E.G. A borrower comes in on September 21, 1981 and takes out a 30 yr fixed at 16.5%, The bank matches that loan to a 15.08% 30 yr Treasury. This means that the bank is losing 1.5% per year. On September 22, 1986 same borrower decides to re-finance to another 30 year fixed at 8.0% which the banks match to a 7.63% 30 year Treasury. In this ridiculous example the banks could have almost bought 2 30 year treasuries with the one they were losing money on 5 years earlier) In the time period you chose, banks could not rematch and spreads were tight. Looking to today, will banks stock prices go up with rising rates? The banks will make money only if the yield curve stays steep. They can pay depositers nothing while the fear or reality of inflation drives up 30 year rates. I am not a banker, but am I missing something here?
The reason I liked your piece so much was that it forced me to think about why I am invested in banks and what to watch our for. Please keep sending out good articles.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but I was using Treasury spreads as a proxy for credit spreads. I know its not exact, but what was the deviation in the credit spreads? I need an education here in the reply box. The gist of my comment still stands: Will there be an expansion of spreads between long dated and short dated paper?
EDGAR requires me to pay subscription. I am too small time to afford that stuff. Best site I have found is gurufocus - even though they stopped making 10 year info available in lieu of 5 year and more quarterly info.
Do you think that spreads are going to shrink? The 30yr - 10yr is about 75 basis points. Same for the 10yr - 5yr. You quote the stock's 1974 and 1984 prices, a time during which Volker sent Fed Funds over 20%. That move by itself killed the spreads. A new reassessment of risks had to be established. I don't know where to access BAC's price chart and there earnings chart for that time period. I would consider those to be fundamental as well.
BTW: excellent Peice!!!
Another great short article on one of my long positions. Your articles are on point and straight forward. Now if only I could go back in time to execute your suggestions.
I too want to write more. Time just isn't on my side.
I agree rollingstone. Lets not forget, however, the Uinta purchase was based on a $75/bbl assumption and was financed with debt. UPL has a great track record of beating their assumptions...
Agree, but he wrote an article where he developed a whole short thesis on NWBO due to Larry's past and a concocted connection to the same players mentioned in this article. I have not seen any responses from Mr. Pearson on this. If that article where Mr. Pearson declared himself short is still pertinent to NWBO, I feel that Mr. Pearson should state his position on NWBO and this promotion scandal. He has much better means than I of digging up dirt. My guess is he just likes to stir the pot and observe reactions.
Mr Pearson,
Why don't you lump your accusation of Larry Smith and NWBO in this?
I was using fishermen (and fisherwomen) as an anecdote. You know the ins and outs of this case far better than me. If BP is/was malicious to party's involved, they should be sued for that. I agree on these grounds. Bob Dudley has stated his biggest concern for the company is the US litigation BP faces.
The reason I commented on this article was because this article paints BP as a diabolical entity and extremely dumb. I don't believe that the company is either one, let alone both. Your previous articles were far more informative with emphasis on pertinent facts. Please keep up that good work!
BP is compensating those fishermen and this was the intent of the settlement originally. BP is challenging the interpretaion of its intention to compensate victims. The American judicial system is applying a very liberal view of that intention while BP took a much narrower view. Bloomberg (and BP) have shown that even illegal activities such as escort services are being compensated by this fund that BP has set up.
Live wallpaper...that is what makes android better than iOS or vice versa??? Google and Apple are two fantastic American tech companies generating profit for their share holders and giving customers what they want!
Whether Im a sheep or not, does nothing to address your unnecessary and wrong assertions. Start making intelligent, well reasoned opinions such as your market cap rule for biotech companies. I value those as a counter to Larry. However, since Larry has called you out on NWBO, your reasoning has been obtuse, highly unproductive, and plain wrong.
IMUC failed so miserably that the company wants to go to Phase 3!? This is part fail, part success. This was Larry's eerily spot on prediction in an earlier article. You obviously have some brains, but your ego gets in the way. Try reasoning out that the world does not revolve around you! Your vitriolic opinions pollute SA, Im sick of you.