Ryan Pollack

Citigroup Looks Overpriced

I would just stay away from Citi. Some comments concerning the breaking up of the company and they have sold off prime assets already are warranted. Future earnings power is going to be muted. But they won't go out of business either because the gov't is backing them so shorting at these levels is not a great idea either.

Geron: Huge Potential in Oncology, Regenerative Med Pipeline

Yes it is perceived bad news because it looks like trials will not start in the summer, however, how can it really be bad news when human trials haven't started, and I doubt there is bad news in this new batch of animal trials. There was not any bad news in the 22,000 page/years of research that was already handed to the FDA. It looks like Geron gave more information to start at a higher dose, which would be good news actually, and/or found another neurological disorder that could be treated from these cells and wants to start multiple trials. The reason for this drop is that the company isn't the best communicator and traders getting out that were playing a trial pop.

Visa: Well Positioned for Growth

I think people are finally getting the fact Visa and MA have no credit risk, but people still do not understand in general that with these companies it isn't how much people are spending, but how much are they using the cards. And usage is increasing throughout this whole economic mess.

Dave's Top 10 Reasons This Recession Will Last Forever

When people start saying this or that will never happen again or something will last forever that is the bottom or top of the market.

Here's an Unconventional Idea: Sell Apple

Does not look like $25 billion in cash + equivalents to me. phx.corporate-ir.net/E.... I get the same numbers form Yahoo and Google finance. Do not add short-term investments to cash and equivalents as they may not be that liquid. Short-term is a year or less. If waiting a year that is not liquid to me.

Here's an Unconventional Idea: Sell Apple

Good evening everyone. Just commenting to clarify/expand on points in the article.

1) The IPhone cannibalization of IPod sales would not be as big a deal to me if Apple was planning to phase out the IPod. With all these new phones having a music player as a standard I do not think there is the need for an IPod anymore. And with cheaper phone prices the IPod would eventually become a wasted expense to produce it. As far as I know IPods will still be produced and in my view will be in competition with its sister product.

2) As far as an $11 billion number for cash + equivalents. That is a correct number at the end of Apple's 2008 fiscal year. The free cash flow model only counts the most liquid of current assets. If you include all current assets then yes you get a $30 billion number, but that model doesn't count all current assets because for the most part there is no liquidity in receivables, inventories, and short-term investments (which have a maturity date of 1 year or less). In fact with cash and equivalents I was generous to Apple taking the last fiscal year's number and not last quarter because cash + equivalents last quarter went down to $4 billion. Obvioulsy due to Apple investing it back into the company. In the end you can come up with any model you want. If everyone had the same model and inputs all analysts would have the same price target. We know this to not be the case.

3) Speaking of the models you normally get much different price targets becasue they look at different things such as earnings, cash flow, even dividends (which would be useless in valuing Apple). Here the market chooses to value Apple on free cash flow, but most companies are valued on earnings.

4) When you write your thoughts/views you should be prepared to be called an idiot or stupid. If it bothers the author then you shouldn't be an author. So I don't take it personally.

5) AT&T's contract as service provider runs out in 2010. They will get better terms if they renew. That means margins will decrease for Apple. If Verizon or other service providers enter the fray it may sustain sales longer than I expect due to new customer base being able to buy, but again margin per sale will go down with each new contract Apple negotiates. These providers will not want to subsidize an IPhone and get to break even in 7 months on the plan in this economic environment, which is a whole other concern in itself.

6) Finally, anyone can tell you to buy Apple. Look at the comments and discussion about the contrarian idea! I wish I could get this response to all articles!

Happy investing

Geron: Strong Investment in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

If successful the stock price will no doubt change drastically. I think we are still a couple years away yet from concrete results either way though.


On May 26 01:37 PM Titus Andronicus wrote:

> Great article. Thanx for the info Ryan. Where can I find updated
> (non-biased) info on these trials? If one of the trials are successful,
> how drastic do you believe the stock price could potentially change?

Geron: Strong Investment in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Trial for spinal-cord injuries hasn't started yet. The company will provide updates every now and then in the mean time.


On May 26 01:37 PM Titus Andronicus wrote:

> Great article. Thanx for the info Ryan. Where can I find updated
> (non-biased) info on these trials? If one of the trials are successful,
> how drastic do you believe the stock price could potentially change?

Geron: Strong Investment in Human Embryonic Stem Cell Research

Geron has iPSC patents as well. iPSC until recently needed a virus that causes cancer to make the skin-cell act like hESC so that is no help. A team recently said they can do it a different safer way but they are the only ones to say this. iSPC, in my opinion, are 15-20 years behind hESC and adult stem cells. I wouldn't worry about iSPC right now.


On May 26 11:38 AM User 419923 wrote:

> On the day of Obama's EO I saw an interview with the Geron CEO.
> He was asked how much impact the EO would have on his company. He
> said, not much really due to the discovery of iPSC, Induced Pluripotent
> Stem Cells. He said that adult skin cells can now be reverse engineered
> into pluripotent stem cells with many of the benefits of ESC without
> some of the drawbacks, like rejection and ethical concerns.
>
> I would make the case that the Obama EO is in itself a reason to
> invest in Geron, doesn't necessarily make sense. I don't think you
> were making that case, just to be clear.

Visa Looks Good for Prolonged Recovery

If you back out the one time lawsuit settlements the true P/E of Visa is around 20.


On May 15 09:19 AM Windsun33 wrote:

> Problem I see with Visa is it's near 50 PE.

Time to Flee the Dollar?

Agree on the Euro. Some of those countries have real problems and could affect the currency. How about currency in commodity based nations, if you believe in reflation/inflation like I do, such as Australia, Canada, and if you are feeling frisky Russia.


On May 07 01:02 PM manya05 wrote:

> Yes, Euro is a good place to be except if one of the EU Eastern European
> economies goes poof (which could happen), if so, it is anybody's
> guess what the Euro will do. Right now, between uncertainty and bold-face
> manipulation, I am not sure Forex is a good place to be. Best bet
> is to be VERY diversified, and biased towards the currency of where
> you think you will retire.

Visa and MasterCard Likely to Continue Growth Trend

Good article and fair points. Visa gains on the big bank failures becuase WaMu was a huge MasterCard issuer. JP Morgan, however, is a huge Visa issuer. Since JP Morgan owns WaMu now, it is fair to say a percentage of MasterCards will now be issued as Visa cards once those cards expire this year and 2010. Visa should gain market share on MA because of it, but I would expect JP Morgan to deal with both in the future.

The U.S. is not important in the credit card industry. It is a mature market. So while payments volume has decreased (and this won't be forever anyway) transactions have increased overall thanks to debit. Transactions matter more to V and MA than payments volume.

Based on expected growth rates I would still say V and MA are cheap.

Another advantage for Visa is ZillionTV. Won't be out for a couple of years, but it has the potential to be a hot tech item. Perhaps when we are in a recovery for certain and beginning the next bull. Could be another boost to already high expected growth.

Bulls Are Hungry for Grains

I agree with both of the comments. Just like bubbles are over-done to the upside, the resulting busts are also over-done to the downside. Assuming an economy recovery end of year or even sometime in 2010, reflation/inflation about 2-3 years from now, and back to following the normal supply-demand curve it wouldn't surprise me at all to see all commodities and those stocks trade near all-time highs 5 years from now.

Six Ways to Cut Our Debt and Advance Obama's Agenda

You obviously did not read one word of the article or didn't understand it. For instance where did I say to NOT invest in green energy? Or to tax social security income; I said to have all workers and income levels pay their fair share of THE social security tax that is taken out of your paycheck. I didn't say crime would disappear with the legalization of drugs i said DECREASE there is a huge difference. As far as online gambling and drugs people are doing it/using it anyway, why not get tax dollars for it to reduce the government's debt and pay for social programs?

Nice try on trying to spin my words around though, but it didn't work.


On Apr 28 05:53 PM JulieCJ wrote:

> Normally, I read, but don't write. However, I disagree with this
> writer pretty much across the board. I couldn't just sit back and
> not put my two cents in here.
>
> To NOT invest in green technology is unthinkable at this point in
> our history. Green technology is ultimately what will free us from
> the bonds of the foreign oil. It must happen sooner rather than later,
> so do your due diligence and invest in green technology NOW! There
> are hundreds of companies out there that have great ideas and incredible
> technology right now!
>
> New drilling for oil will inhibit the employment of green technology,
> not to mention, especially in the hurricane-prone Gulf of Mexico,
> the potential for damage to the fragile environment. The time it
> takes to bring a new well to full production is just too long - and
> expensive, given the environmentalists fights to prevent any new
> wells anywhere. It would be much better, cheaper and easier to reactivate
> wells that have been shut down, and allow the wells that are currently
> operational to pump at full capacity (rather than limiting the amounts
> they can pump). Do that and new drilling will not be necessary.<br/>
>
> The writer's opinion on gambling and drugs makes me wonder - legalizing
> them will NOT result in the utopia he promises. If it isn't drugs
> that makes the underworld tick, it will be something else. Crime
> will not magically disappear. It's simply too lucrative to that element.
> Does the writer (and others who push the same agenda) enjoy one or
> both too much . . . enough that they want them to legalized to be
> sure they won't end up in prison?
>
> Tobacco is deadly and must be taxed out of existence, if that's the
> only way to be rid of it! Second-hand smoke is even more deadly (it's
> picked up and carries potentially deadly viruses and bacteria while
> it's in the air). Legalizing tobacco just to rid the country of a
> group of lobbyists seems a bit odd. Lobbyists can be legislated away
> (although that's not likely given the definition of politics), but
> lung cancer can kill, and is hugely expensive, whether or not you
> live to tell about it.
>
> Taxing Social Security benefits is wrong. ALL workers who will benefit
> from Social Security should pay into it, from from ALL income sources,
> including bonuses! However, taxing the benefits is robbing the poor.
> It's a less-than-poverty living for seniors to begin with and taxing
> it further erodes it's worth to the recipient. It was never intended
> to support people in the manner-to-which-they-h... while working.
> If all workers paid SS taxes on all incomes, the benefits wouldn't
> need to be taxed!
>
> What is usually considered to be unearned income (capital gains)
> should be taxed - every penny of it! First, it is income (duh), however
> it was generated, and second, just begging for it to be taxed less
> leads me to believe the writer has a lot of unearned income (as opposed
> to earned income). The only exception would be the capital gains
> taxes on homes. Home ownership has taken a real beating, thanks in
> part (at least) to Wall Street, so making it that much harder hurts
> everyone.
>
> For too long, too many have had it their way (lower or no taxes while
> the 'middle class' foots the bill). That is changing, thanks to the
> revelations of greed on Wall Street and in board rooms across the
> country.
>
> '. . . dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal'
> means that EVERYONE - rich and poor alike - pay their way, whether
> the rich think it's 'fair' or not!

Six Ways to Cut Our Debt and Advance Obama's Agenda

I didn't say we should just increase Gulf of Mexico oil production. I meant doing this along the whole coast. From Florida to Maine and Washington to California. This would directly benefit about 14 states along both coasts and then the money filters inward to the middle of the country by those people with new, high-paying jobs buying products and taking vacations.


On Apr 28 12:09 PM perfectfaceforradio wrote:

> jpiretti is correct, and there are other reasons that off-shore drilling
> is a poor idea.
>
> Even now, whenever there's so much as a tropical depression in the
> Gulf, we see *wild* price fluctuations, for no real reason (no supply
> constriction, just wild unregulated speculation).
>
> Increasing our dependency on Gulf oil would only further destabilize
> the Oil/Gas market. Do you want to see $20/gal unleaded? If we increase
> our dependency on Gulf oil, $20/gal gas is a big "Yes we can!"<br/>
>
> Gulf oil is a pathetic wedge issue only good for splitting the "greens",
> the "Conservatives" and people with common sense from each other.
> Why do I think this? Because there's more *light sweet crude* under
> the Dakotas than there is under Saudi Arabia. With that much honey-colored
> light sweet crude in the center of the US, what possible reason is
> there for discussing oil development in the Gulf of Mexico, where
> both the economic and environmental impacts would be far from positive?
> It's wedge that distracts us from real issues and real solutions.
> Nothing more. Nothing less.
>
> Gulf oil is not going to benefit normal americans... it won't save
> one american one cent at the pump. It will only benefit those that
> work on the edge of legal behavior and manipulate the market for
> their own profits at the expense of our nation's economy and security.