Seeking Alpha

Ron Reed

View as an RSS Feed
View Ron Reed's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Plug Power: Irrational Exuberance To End In Ruin [View article]
    I believe Bob Shiller was the one to bring it into common use.
    Mar 11 03:13 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Buzz building over Tesla gigafactory [View news story]
    You may want to check your facts there, GS is #6 in line of holdings at a mere 4.15, Susquehanna International Group, LLP at 11.865 and FMR, LLC at 11.618 hold the most. BAC at 4.39 and MS at 3.85.

    Edit to note, that is in millions of shares not percent.
    Feb 24 05:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Green Mountain +38.3% AH in response to Coca-Cola deal [View news story]
    Huh? I disagree 100%! This is exactly why options work well. This is exactly why shorts work well. 30% or so was short on SODA at 50.00 and it plummeted post earnings, now it plummeted again. Now would be the time to cover and switch betting that PEP will join hands with SODA soon. Even if not, SODA has a world wide footprint already and is banking quite a lot.

    I think you are simply angered by a bad play.
    Feb 5 05:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • American Capital upgraded at JPM, book value erosion nearly finished [View news story]
    Like most of us, I don't pay attention to the 'analysts' they are often wrong and there is no incentive for them to be right. Much like newspapers, big story on page one, the apology is in 8pt text on page 10 below the full page ad.

    I do find it comical when they give us 'big' news 2-3 weeks after we've all hashed it all out.
    Feb 5 04:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • American Capital upgraded at JPM, book value erosion nearly finished [View news story]
    A little late to the party.
    Feb 5 03:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Global electric vehicle production on the rise [View news story]
    Um, just where do you think the electricity comes from to power the EV? The same place that Hydrogen will come from, natural gas. The argument to that is renewable sources; which is the same argument for hydrogen.

    I make no claim either way to which is better, worse, or other. But the idea that FF's are going away is naive, no matter what cars run on directly in the future.
    Feb 5 07:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Pandora soars on Facebook's results, Goldman note [View news story]
    No. Re-read the statement. P got 73% of its rev. from ads. FB got 53% of its rev. from ads. Neither one got any money from the other. The statement was just drawing the conclusion that ad revs are up for FB so the quasi-logical conclusion is that P will have better earnings as well.
    Jan 31 05:57 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    "First off, ....for guessing though." - Wrong, you can get a satellite connection, you just have to pay about 120.00 a month for it for 15M down and 3M up. Besides that, you do have another option for a low cost and you said it, a DSL line, you just did not like the speed it had.

    "I'm perfectly willing to pay for what I can and can't look at once I walk through that door?" - They have the right to limit those services that take the most bandwidth and bog the system down the most. Do you get angry when your power company will not allow you to pull more than 60amps from the circuit? Do you want the Gov't or some one else to come in and tell the power company how much electricity you can use? (They do, and no I don't like that either). They have the right because they pay for the lines, they pay for the switch, they pay for all the infrastructure that supports it.

    "Also, my point on the cre...s unacceptable." - They have the right to do so because it is their equipment. You on pay a small fee to use that equipment. Do you expect that because you pay a fee you can do anything with it?
    Jan 15 01:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Not so. If the providers are creating a position that something is not available or due to cost is too high to be available, provided there is enough interest, someone will take advantage of that and make it available. My argument is not that the Gov't is bad, my argument is that Gov't interference in private markets is not good nor does it lower prices. If Comcast raises the rates for NFLX to transmit on their BW, and there are a bunch of customers that want that service, another provided will come in and sell it. In the regions where there is only one low cost company available (in fact there are others available, they are just more expensive), they only exist there and no others have moved in due to low usage in that area. There is no reason for another company to move in and set up shop. If Comcast is the only available carrier in an area, and they block NFLX, and lots of folks want NFLX, then ATT or another comapny will take advantage of that want and come in an compete.

    How do you come to the conclusion that it is okay for customers to all pay one price and stream high data use at the cost of the carrier? Sounds more like you just want to whine and have the gov't step in a force a private industry to offer you a service at a lower price. As far as I'm concerned, Comcast, or any other provider can allow or disallow any content it wants on its lines since they are the operator. This is not like the oil or car companies charging you for which road you use, this is like them dictating what fuel you have to use in the car from them or offering a grade of fuel at the Exxon gas station. Don't like it? Don't buy it. If you don't like the terms or rates of a given carrier, then either get another carrier or find a different way to get what you want. And please don't tell me you don't have another carrier option, you do, you just don't want to pay for it.

    On the internet build, you are a little off base. The Gov't did not build the internet, DARPA did all the basic research and first testing on it for military communications. Once it became open technology, various private industries began setting up networks and they built the internet. What the Gov't did is not what you know as the internet today, I've used that system and grew up on it. But they did not build it, nor did they provide much of the technology that exists today as the internet, in fact, had they not done it it most likely would have happened anyhow just a few years later as Bell labs was the first to begin the ideas, got DARPA grants and thus begun, they would have gotten private money has the Gov't not stepped in.
    Jan 15 12:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    -zackly :) Lets blame the Gov't! Let's call on the Gov't to do something! ra-ra-ra Let's make the price lower by the Gov't paying for it, they are the endless stream of money and our taxes will never go up, just listen to them talk on the news..

    So many people need to think for themselves, but that is just too hard.
    Jan 15 11:26 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    And if that happens then you don't subscribe to NFLX and it solves the issue. Enough folks feel that 25.00 is too high and they will lower the price. It looks like everyone's argument is that they want low prices even if the Gov't has to step in to make them low. Guess what, that is socialist.
    Jan 15 11:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Regulators back down over Volcker CDO provision [View news story]
    FWIW, if you are investing in CDO's you are given the rating up front, providing that the bank acts IAW its own charter and not with customer funds that are FDIC insured, they can do what they please. Less gov't interference is what is needed. The Volker rule is so complex that most small banks will never have the assets to even try to fully understand it, much less comply with it. So, they will be fined and folded into larger banks and that is not good for anyone. It reduces competition and just adds to the 'much too big to fail' banks that the gov't is creating. This is just a farce of so called public interest.
    Jan 15 08:04 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Oooh good one, I think I may have to steal that line.
    Jan 14 04:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Oh boy! Yeah, lets get the Government involved that will make the prices lower, speed service, and make it all more streamlined (all in jest). No, the Gov't has never streamlined or lowered the cost on anything. Spread the bill around for sure, but heck if you want that, just go into a poor neighborhood and pay to connect a block on your dime. The cost would likely be lower and you would help more people per dollar than the Gov't could. In fact, dollar for dollar, direct philanthropy and involvement is the most efficient way to do so. Because when it is your money you make sure it goes for good reason.

    I hit that note because that is the only reason I can see why you would make the argument, as folks with money will simply buy what they want/need and it only leaves the poor at a disadvantage. If I'm totally off base correct me please.
    Jan 14 02:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Appeals court strikes down net neutrality rules [View news story]
    Chances are in fact you have several other options, you may or may not realize they exist. Even in the SE part of the state here where you may or may not have electricity, you always have two satellite companies for coverage. They are more expensive than the cell towers, but in fact there are options. They also offer much faster download speeds, although upload is about the same as DSL. Hand pump for water, generator for electricity, propane for fuel, and 15M download for entertainment. Odd priorities but everyone to his/her own.
    Jan 14 02:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment