Roger Ehrenberg

Did JP Morgan Overpay For Bear Stearns?

fxtrader07, your comment is emotional, populist drivel. JPM doesn't have a put back on the deal. They are assuming it all - the good, the bad and the ugly, with a margin of safety provided by the Fed. Your value of the building comment is inane, because you can't strip out an asset from the analysis and compare it to the acquisition consideration. As I wrote in my post, it is about the true assessment of hard book value taking into account the factors mentioned. So a guarantee is not what JPM received. Repeat, not a guarantee.

This isn't the result of a cabal; it is the work of a Fed and a Treasury that is completely at a loss about what to do. They are not acting out of malice - they are acting out of fear. I know you think you and Mr. Paul have all the answers, but I guarantee that you do not. While I am not happy with many if not most of the Fed's actions over the past six months, they can hardly be chided for trying to act quickly and decisively to stem the ripple effect of the failure of a bulge-bracket firm. With trillions of dollars of interconnected transactions in the swaps and credit derivatives markets, taking them out of the picture would leave a lot of loose ends.

8 Market Trends For the Next Few Years

TS, it is nice that you have an opinion. I respectfully disagree with much of your theses. But thanks for commenting.

Microsoft's Potential Is Exponential

Tom, bottom line, if they did what I said they'd be a screaming buy. But unless I saw evidence of that change, I'd have to agree with you. As of today, no buy.

Alpha Opportunities in Citi-Abu Dhabi Deal

Veryan, very nice piece. Well-written and well-conceived. Thanks for adding your intellect to the dialogue.

Roger

Memo To Retail Investors: Smart Investing Is A Serious Business

Memo to John, John and David S. Did I say anywhere in the piece about professional money management being the answer, or that somehow being an Institutional Investor makes you immune to the pitfalls I discussed? Answer: no. And David S., I'd like to understand your definition of arrogance. Opinionated, yes. Arrogant? I don't think so. I think you had your own agenda in mind and didn't read the words. As to your view that "Wall St. exists largely to obfuscate things," that, my friend, is an view borne of both ignorance and arrogance. I am a fan of asset allocation, indexing and using your own skills on a limited amount of your portfolio, as in my experience those who have the ability to create true alpha are few and far between. If you care, read my blog. I've been brutally consistent in my view since I started writing. So if you are so smart, congratulations, go run other people's money or run your own to great ends. But don't paint Wall St. with such a broad brush unless you really know what you are talking about. Because select scandals and idiocy to the contrary, most of Wall St. has provided the platform for the benefit of denizens the world over, yourself included.

Bear Stearns Investors Learn Just How Volatile Illiquid Assets Can Be

John, in my experience, "security selection" implies a view as to whether or not an investment is cheap or dear, and the likelihood of success once a position is established. If this was ambiguous, my bad. I thought my colloquial interpretation was pretty well-established. Therefore, issues such as liquidity, sector concentration, portfolio diversification, etc. are factors which, when viewed together with security selection, help an investor size a position.

Concerning your view of the Bear Stearns problem, I completely disagree. Is leverage a factor? Of course. Lack of diversification? Again a factor. But the driver of the melt-down is liqudity - these other factors merely exacerbate the problem, IMHO.

Think Carefully Before Macro Hedging Your Life/Work/Oil Exposures

Jordan/Josh/Malkiel, I didn't set out to prove anything. I set out to raise some very pragmatic, real-world issues as they relate to human behavior and the average retail investor. So whether or not the strategy has inherent theoretical logic is irrelevant to me. In fact, I specifically said that I thought it did right up front. But to be clear, I am not writing to the far-right tail of the investing world, i.e., the truly savvy, smart and dispassionate investor, so I didn't feel like addressing Shiller's argument from that perspective was either necessary or worthwhile. So there it is. Sorry if you are disappointed by my lack of completeness.

John, easy there, dude. It's not tension, it's passion. And my seeds have been and are adequately spread, thank you very much.

And finally Paul, as an old Oak Park denizen, son of a former Ford man and a product of the now-defunct Grace Hospital in Detroit (or Day-toi as we say), I've still got pride for both the Motor City and the Wolverines. Go Blue!

Leopard Delay, iPhone Hype - Apple Knows What It Is Doing

A-kid, very nice, well thought-out post. I am extremely impressed. Great job.

Google's Venture Capital Misadventures

Reinharden, the key issue to me is the definition of Google's core competencies. Are substantially line-extending acquisitions business development or venture capital investing? It depends on how you define your terms. I call it VC investing, and that's how I use it in my post. My contention is that if Google applied laser focus to its existing IP base with an eye towards monetization, they would do better than looking at broad initiative at diversification.

Can Starbucks Remain a Success Story?

John, you clearly don't know me, my blog or my writings, because your analysis is so off base as to be laughable. I am massively pro-globalization, and, in fact, pro Starbucks. I have patronized them for years and know their culture and products very, very well. My post was about the worrisome impact of the erosion in culture on their long-term prospects. Joe is simply an example of a place that is laser-focused on the customer experience, something that Starbucks itself was focused on in its earlier days. Starbucks has a delicate balancing act - growing intelligently while not losing what made it an attractive and sought-after venue to begin with. And Howard Schultz himself agrees with me. So before you put forth your own agenda why don't you do a little homework before inferring mine. Because you're wrong.