Seeking Alpha

Reel Ken

View as an RSS Feed
View Reel Ken's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • The Bull's Self-Delusion [View article]
    .......".......People forget that interest rates are the heart, soul, and life of the free enterprise system, and that falling rates are reflective of the demand for money..........."

    This is not totally accurate.

    Whereas interest rates may be .."the enterprise..." ......

    Falling rates are a function of supply in relation to demand, not, as you suggest, diminishing demand. For instance, demand can remain constant and interest rates will go up/down by adjusting the supply.

    Now, as a matter of differing opinion, I would argue that "profit" not "interest rates" are the "heart, sole and life of the free enterprise system", but I acknowledge my opinion is not crafted with an intent to support an otherwise flawed thesis.
    Sep 2 08:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chapman And Hempton On Herbalife: The Blind Are Leading The Blind [View article]
    Hi QTR,

    ........"...........he will eat the premiums on a new set of options, if necessary, to continue his Herbalife short. Hey Bill, me too! ........."

    How's the call option premiums doing that you bought pre-earnings?

    Are these the premiums you're talking about "eating" or is it a new set of option premiums?

    Do you have a record of how much you've "eaten" so far and will you let us know?
    Aug 17 08:41 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ackman's Gravitas Statistically Provable: Look Out Below [View article]
    HI QTR,

    How's the call option you purchased pre-earnings doing? Or was your article misleading?
    Aug 14 09:54 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why It Still Makes Sense To Buy MLPs [View article]
    .........."........... large portions of the payments to investors from MLPs might not even be taxable until the units are sold. Not only does this enhance compounding by deferring taxes, this might also convert current income into a future capital gain,.........."

    Sorry, wrong.

    Whereas you're correct in saying that depreciation, etc., shelters current income payments form taxation, upon sale, these amounts are "recaptured" at ORDINARY INCOME rates, not capital gains.

    One needs to factor in the effect of paying a deferred ORDINARY INCOME rate vs. other investments that have the potential to receive qualified dividends at favorable rates.

    Those that are interested can visit (
    Aug 8 09:40 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Herbalife Insiders Are Buying, But I'm Not Buying It [View article]
    HI QTR,

    What ever happened to the call you bought pre-earnings?
    Aug 7 10:05 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Vs. LinnCo: Is It All About Taxes? [View article]
    Hi Rip,

    Exactly, that's why he needs to keep copies of the k-1's so he can show what they were.
    Aug 6 01:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Vs. LinnCo: Is It All About Taxes? [View article]
    Hi Bill,

    If your UBTI is under $1,000, no need to file anything.

    Just keep track of everything. You may have more than $1000 UBTI on sale and any loss carry-forwards will help to offset them.
    Aug 6 09:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ......"....I didn't substitute COGS for S/2 because S/2 is not the only value of COGS, as in your "proof" where it equals a 42% discount to SRP or 58% of SRP......."

    WRONG, again. "...Tangled web...". COGS is exactly the right term if you are trying to express multiple values. It covers all values 50%;58% or whatever. It is non-specific... whatever COGS is, it is. Instead of substituting the best possible answer, the only answer that incorporates ......"S/2 is not the only value...." correctly and without ambiguity, you chose a "phrase" that is totally deceptive and when viewed at face value means something completely different than what you claim to "intend. At least that's your "story" and you want me to buy it.

    Next: ...".....->"My recollection is faulty here."

    Nice dance. "....Tangled Web..."

    You are responding to my specific request to show WHERE I used "many". Saying your recollection is faulty was not an admission of error. It is simply saying that you can't remember WHERE you said it. You repeated a similar claim in another comment when you said it will take a while to find "many" and you'll get back to me ... something you never did.

    .."... (me)This is just too easy. I was using a substitute phrase for Kristina just to show you how absurd your substitution game is played...

    Boy, you really don't get it, do you? I made a simple typo and I could have just said "oops, sorry". Instead, I took the opportunity to expand upon my subject matter by illustrating how ridiculous your "phrase substitution" game is .... instead of acknowledging simple , benign, error one can rise to a level of absurdity.

    So, Katrina, instead of Kristina, was a mistake. But my statement about having used Katrina as a "phrase substitution" was deliberate and meaningful.

    See how easy it is, if one is just willing to acknowledge a simple benign error. Don't you wish you had done the same?
    Aug 1 09:25 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    Curious made a statement, I made a statement.

    You asked how many OM greater is "millions" Than "100sK"?

    I gave the answer. You even said a "more precise answer" would have been " 2 to 7" or possibly "1 to 7".

    Now you say "1".

    Are you substituting again?

    ......."......No. As I have said, the reason I asked for the value is because I am interested in having everyone ........"

    That may sound well and good. But using the a=2b example, you asked for the value of "b" in the interim equation. I gave it, several times as b=a/2, which is the only solve for the interim equation in isolation. You just didn't get it and went on and on. Eventually, I said "consistent" with the "second equation" it is "5" because there is no solve for the interim equation in isolation.

    You were asking for a value in the wrong part of the formula. All you had to do was read the formula and the answer was self-evident. How do you expect to help ninjahatori and CBN when you can't even read a formula?

    By the way, it shows a lack of courage to "hide behind" ninja and CBN. Ninja said the problem isn't the math it was him.(maybe you should follow his lead). CBN said he can't even figure out what (2/ (1/2)) is. I can't wait to see him follow your 50%COGS-50%SRP issue.

    The problem you are encountering is that "google" and "Wiki" are not substitutes for post graduate mathematics. They don't make experts out of average people, they expose fools.
    Aug 1 09:24 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ......."......You set COGS at S/2 in your formula to me. I questioned why you set it at S/2 when in your "proof" to Kristina Raegan you set it at a 42% discount to SRP. ....."

    Thank you, I knew eventually you would have to give yourself away and show your absurdity. I presented a formula that included (A-S/2). That was, as you finally admit to and say, setting COGS. You could have easily equated COGS and S/2 as you do now. GOTCHA. What you did, was instead of substituting COGS (as any person would) for S/2, you set 50%COGS as a substitute for S/2. You then , instead of correcting it, embarked on this absurd rationalization of why 50%COGS was, as it was meant to be.

    Next: ....."......wrote I incorrectly stated you said "many" orders of magnitude, and I agreed, admitting the error......."

    WRONG again. You NEVER admitted the error. You simply did the "ole "switcheroo" by rephrasing your question ......".......(you) You've said "hundreds of thousands" is more than 1 order of magnitude away from "millions". How many orders of magnitude is it away?... (me)Oh, so I see you've looked it up and discovered that my answer was "more than one" not "many" as you insisted on several occasions...."

    There is a big difference between admitting an error and just pulling the ole switcheroo to avoid admitting it. But at least now you have finally admitted the error.

    See how the "..tangled web.." works. You eventually get yourself snared in it.

    ......"......Her name is Kristina Raegan......"

    This is just too easy. I was using a substitute phrase for Kristina just to show you how absurd your substitution game is played.
    Jul 31 09:22 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ...."....As I want to discuss implications of your formula, which requires running numbers, I've been seeking for you to provide a value for this purpose........."

    I'm starting to realize that your problem is actually a lack of understanding how to deal with equations. You're trying to solve an interim equation and wondering why it doesn't produce. If you had followed common procedure, you wouldn't have gone down your self-created quagmire.

    Example: Solve for the value of "b"
    7= a-b+2

    You're trying to solve for the value of "b" using only the first statement a=2b. Well, a=2b needs to be "plugged in" to the last equation before you can get an answer. In my "proof" if you just "plugged-in" the equation that's giving you such problems into the "solution" you would have seen that all your "value" problems with log(e) disappear and the "value" shows quite readily at 2184.....

    .....".........and also as an accommodation to people like ninjahatori who said they didn't understand the math. So that everyone can follow a discussion of the numbers in this forum, should I use 2184 or some number with more digits? ........"

    Oh yeah, that's precious. So you intend to help ninjahatori and everyone else understand this? First you'll spend the rest of your life trying to make anyone understand how 50%COGS=50%SRP and your "phrase substitution" logic.

    Then you can work on your idea of "consistent".

    I'm sure your explanation of "premature equation" will spin their heads.

    And if you can get past that, maybe you can try helping them understand some of your other thoughts ... like "millions" is only 9.999M or that your "beliefs" trump facts.

    Personally, I think you should be more concerned with your abilities ... perhaps ninjahatori can help you. But I'm sure the first thing anyone would do is to tell you to scrap that whole 50%COGS=50%SRP, and so on, stuff as it is the most confusing, deceptive and ridiculous thing that they've ever heard.
    Jul 31 09:09 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi WillyTSA,

    ..........'........(me) The rounding was consistent with the rounding in the formula...that is, to the nearest whole integer." ...(you)Even this statement is unclear to me as the formula doesn't round the expression 4401/log(e)(7.5)........

    When one says something is consistent with something else it means it was done in a similar way. So, when I rounded 4401/log(e)(7.5) I did it the same way as I did the solution,...rounded to the nearest integer.

    Just because something isn't clear to you doesn't mean it isn't correctly stated or not clear to others. Maybe it would be clearer if you put on reading glasses and look up some definitions.

    ...."........I didn't say anything about whether the formula rounded in the correct spot, although you haven't explained why you chose to round at all in the formula, especially given that you didn't do it in your "proof".....

    I said it was rounded in the correct spot after you tried to claim that it represented an incorrect rounding. And what's this about .."...didn't do it in the "proof"? I most certainly did it in the proof. And the reason was simple, it was a necessary step to allow calculations without carrying forward an irrational number. Every mathematician, engineer, construction worker, plumber and most everyone that ever poured a glass of water, does exactly what I did.

    ......."....."your "millions" argument, " ......A difference of opinion remains here. I still believe "hundreds of thousands", which most people recognize as 10^5, is one order of magnitude away from "millions", which most people recognize as 10^6...."

    First, your "millions" argument was that millions means 2m to 9.999m. That is wrong, I provided multiple sources disproving what you "believed".

    Second, if you "believe" that millions is one order of magnitude away from 100S-thousands, then you are wrong. And who are all these "most people" that think so? Everyone I know doesn't think that way.

    And do we go by what "most people" think or do we go by what it really means?

    So, if you want to believe that "millions" stops at 9.999M and that it is one OM away from 100sK, this is a free country and you can believe anything you want. But it is outrageous to suggest that your "belief" is an argument against the facts and established definitions.

    After all, you believed you admitted to the "many" error .. and we know that isn't true.

    Jul 31 06:12 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ......" me reads you consider rounding in any part of expression to be okay, which is not consistent with the "proof" as the "proof" indicates to round only the value of 4401/(...s/2)....

    Well, then you're just plain mistaken.

    It was plain as day that I was rounding as a specific courtesy to you in an isolated case. We fought toot-n-nail because I was unwilling to "round" until such time as we agreed it was simply to accommodate you. That was the condition I set before even offering an answer.

    The rounding was consistent with the rounding in the formula...that is, to the nearest whole integer.

    Your "red-herring" goes nowhere. The original formula rounded in the correct spot. Sorry, your bad.

    Why don't you just file this argument of yours away with your SG&A argument your "millions" argument, your " in context of another discussion" and all those other arguments (just too many to list) where you made up stuff to rationalize your inability to understand basic premises.
    Jul 31 02:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    I do and have understood fully what you're saying. Believe me I'm not the confused one.

    ....." when referencing S/2 I called it 50% COGS....."

    You are substituting 50%COGS for S/2. You do this, even though the numeric-formula 50%COGS does not equal S/2. You have decided to use 50%COGS as a "phrase" not a numeric-formula.

    Now most people (those that aren't afraid to admit an error) would have just substituted COGS for S/2 because they were the same thing whether you took them as a phrase or a numeric-formula. But you would like us to believe, that through some stroke of inspiration, you decide to use as a substitute phrase, a phrase that also has a numeric counter-part with a completely different meaning.

    This, is what you want us to believe.

    Now, I understand substitutions very well ... like substituting the word "Hi" instead of "Hello".

    But instead of substituting a word that people recognize as meaning about the same thing, you decide to substitute "goodbye" for "hi" and explain it by saying, in your context, "goodbye" means "hi".... and you're sorry if I find that confusing.

    So you either made a mistake and are trying to "cover-up" with the most absurd explanation of anything I've ever heard of... or... you have no understanding of language, math and communication and the importance convention plays in these.

    Believe me I know exactly what you're doing. You're trying to run away from a mistake you made and you don't care what absurdities you must create to do it.

    So let's keep it going....

    .......".......actual gross margin does not equal 100% SRP, which HLF admits, there is data showing sales at 65% SRP, ......"

    How do you know that to be true? Maybe HLF was using 100%SRP as a phrase substitution for 110%SRP. Maybe 65%SRP is a phrase substitution for 300%COGS. Maybe "data" is a phrase substitution for "rumor".

    Maybe HLF is a phrase substitution for Exxon. Maybe Katrina was using "actual gross margins" as a phrase substitution for SRP-COGS.

    Maybe when you said "no retail profit" the "no" was a phrase substitution for $16,000 and this whole exercise wasn't necessary.

    Or, maybe $16,000 is a phrase substitution for "any".

    Gee, who knows, what lurks inside your mind.

    I'm glad I don't have to look in.
    Jul 31 02:28 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 'Deep Blood Kettle', Ockham's Razor, Faith And Reason [View article]
    Hi Willy,

    ...."....At some point the discontinued product will no longer be available. In the meantime there is a sale to be made, and the sale might be the one that leads the retail customer to become a distributor..."

    Boy, you need to put a lot of conditions to make this work. Now, I'm not sure how showing a customer that one can sell product for absolutely no retail margin would help them to decide to be a distributor.

    Like I said, if someone thinks COGS=SRP makes sense, then "stupid is as stupid does".

    ......."........We know everyday that product is being "sold" at retail at 0% SRP, and the gross margin on the retail transaction is minus COGS. Why selling at minus COGS gross margin wouldn't be stupid while selling at 0 gross margin would be stupid isn't clear. ......"

    Selling at 0% retail? Is that just another one of your substitutions?

    Please explain how a gross margin is minus COGS? Or are you "substituting again?
    Jul 31 02:28 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment