Comments on Scott Weitz's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/scott-weitz/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/77348/comments?source=feed#comment-207604 207604 Thu, 17 Jul 2008 09:24:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/77348/comments?source=feed#comment-169182 169182 Fri, 16 May 2008 22:44:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/77348/comments?source=feed#comment-168324 168324 Thu, 15 May 2008 16:42:07 -0400
Thx jegan ;-) ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/77348/comments?source=feed#comment-168031 168031 Thu, 15 May 2008 10:23:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/77348/comments?source=feed#comment-167900 167900 Thu, 15 May 2008 07:36:39 -0400
Residing in Florida I would agree with WCI, however MTH seems a bit of a stretch and goes against a lot of what I have been reading about the company.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/55272/comments?source=feed#comment-120227 120227 Thu, 28 Feb 2008 11:56:54 -0500
I see they are fighting for rail access on public railroads which BHP thinks they own.

Is China's investment in FMG enough to recommend buyers to stay away?

The recent 10 to 1 stock split seemed a little excessive - what was behind it?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58907/comments?source=feed#comment-110875 110875 Wed, 16 Jan 2008 16:30:27 -0500
I do realise it is important not to create a positive precedent for a
merger which is alledgedly viewed as a monopoly.

Of course, there is this 10-year-old FCC limitation in that one company should not be able to control the entire sprectum. But that was 10 years ago. Moreover, it is a merger of equals, combining forces to obtain efficiency and benefits for the consumer, their astonishing 17 Million Voluntary Subscribers!

For years I had not studied anti-trust law and boy, what subject to read. However, it comes down to recognizing market power and monopoly power and cross-elasticity -- neither do apply in this case.

In my view therefore a monopoly is 100% not the case -- as the strongest merger-opponent is the NAB: why would they worry, if not fishing in the same, wide pond? Cross-elasticity is the word; it is not as if radiolisteners have starved from entertainment before the SDARS were there... on the contrary: the market landscape has become so wide every consumer has a free choice of radioconsumption. If as a consumer you desire uninterrupted, ad-free reception and CD-quality throughout the country, driving from coast-to-coast of course you buy one, or two or soon: just one supplier of this service. If you can't or do not want to pay: fine, stick to good old FM or AM or CD or iPod or even cassette.

Even if the happily merged companies nastily would up their charges to say $39.99/month , they would shoot in their feet as consumers still have a choice and would churn rapidly. This is not about about a milk-cartel!

So DoJ, so FCC: this is 2008 go ahead, give the merger a greenlight and get back to bigger matters.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58907/comments?source=feed#comment-108425 108425 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 13:59:10 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58907/comments?source=feed#comment-108398 108398 Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:42:39 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58907/comments?source=feed#comment-108158 108158 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:29:21 -0500 Does anyone think that the NAB's oposition is not self-serving?
Full disclosure: I have a small position in XMSR.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/58907/comments?source=feed#comment-108115 108115 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 17:24:35 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58907/comments?source=feed#comment-108073 108073 Thu, 03 Jan 2008 14:49:52 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/55272/comments?source=feed#comment-103051 103051 Mon, 26 Nov 2007 11:26:40 -0500