Seeking Alpha

Sean Hannon

View as an RSS Feed
View Sean Hannon's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Employment Growth Ahead? [View article]
    I agree it would be interesting. The reason it is not included is I cannot find good data. The St. Louis Fed database I use only extends to 1939.
    Apr 8 04:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Motorola Is Heading Higher [View article]
    I have used average operating margins of 3% (actual average b/t 2002-2008 was 6%), a growth rate of 8%, and a terminal rate of 4% and then modeled the cashflows and discounted back at a CAPM rate.
    Feb 26 03:28 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2009 Prediction Review [View article]
    I think it is clear that we will not come to an agreement on this issue. Of the articles you highlight, one was a short-term bullish trade that was correct, the other was clearly wrong, and the final one said prices were headed lower (which they did) prior to me reversing and going long as prices headed higher. I think we will both agree that in any investment environmeny, especially one as chaotic as the first three months of 2009, flexibility is needed and opinions must change as markets move. Also, I never have said I am consistently correct as the 2009 review piece clearly states that 3 of my 5 predictions missed the mark.

    Congratulations on your investing success and I wish you the best of luck in the year ahead. This was an interesting year for all of us and in 2010 I will continue to post articles that express my opinions, highlight when I am correct, and identify when I am off the mark. Happy New Year.

    On Dec 30 10:10 AM logicalthought wrote:

    > Actually, the February "Dow 4000 call" "clearly states" (to use your
    > phrase) that you were extremely bearish (right down to your trade
    > recommendation). I was going to post excerpts from the article but
    > there are so many that one could read it for oneself and draw one's
    > own conclusions. For convenience sake, here once again is the link:
    > And yes, your trade recommendation there was a correspondingly (and
    > correct, short-term) bearish one. But what about all the "bottom
    > calls" you'd made in the months leading up to that bearish call?
    > (Ironically, you finally capitulated and threw in the towel just
    > ahead of the lows.) How much did you cost your investors with those
    > earlier calls? And all your March 10th call was was yet another "bottom
    > call" which, for the first time, turned out to be right. Again, there's
    > nothing unusual about making wrong calls (I'm the first one to plead
    > guilty to that myself, as I've been way too bearish on the broad
    > market all year), but there's a lot wrong with making as many bad
    > (or sometimes, deliberately ambiguous) calls as you do and yet arrogantly
    > claiming to "be right yet again", etc., etc., etc.
    Dec 30 10:24 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2009 Prediction Review [View article]
    Perhaps you should have read the articles as opposed to just the headlines. The article clearly states" While the current bear market has erased 48%, in line with the declines seen in most bear markets, the duration of 344 days is the shortest on record. If you follow the belief that this bear market is unwinding 60 years of excess spending, we should expect the Dow to lose at least 70% from peak to trough and the bear market to last in excess of 600 days. Combining these data points, the market may not bottom until the Dow approaches 4,000 sometime in the next 9 to 12 months."

    That analysis was based on the 1929 crash and NASDAQ bubble as templates and offered investors a worst-case scenario. The last section gives the trade recomendation:
    "Using a September 2009 expiration, I recommend shorting the SPY 77 calls (ROQ+IY) and using the proceeds to buy the SPY 77 puts (ROQ+UY) as this week's fundamental trade. Cover 5% of your portfolio with this trade (six contracts for my portfolio).
    which was clearly correct and profitable as the S&P bottomed 100 points below the strike over the next two weeks.

    As for your final point, congratulations on your returns. My investments/ideas are very transparent and can be found in my weekly newsletter as well as other trade sharing sites. Whereas your final sentence attempts to make this a comparison between the two of us, my point to you is that you have misrepresented articles I have written on many occasions and I only ask that if you want to make valid critiques, at least rely on valid points - not mispreresentation.

    On Dec 30 09:04 AM logicalthought wrote:

    > >>Publishing nearly 300 ideas per year I clearly make mistakes that
    > I constantly discuss and analyze, but twisting facts to suit your
    > agenda serves little purpose.<<
    > I have no agenda other than to call BS when I see it. Like anyone
    > (myself certainly included), you have wrong calls and right calls.
    > However, it's completely disingenuous of you to imply that your February
    > column was anything but a prediction of a high likelihood of Dow
    > 4000. The reason I happen to have commented on two of your consecutive
    > columns is simply your arrogance in claiming to usually be right,
    > when you've clearly had a huge number of misses. Here, let's make
    > it simple: What were your returns in 2009, 2008, 2007, 2006 and 2005?
    > (If you care, mine were:
    > 2005: +45.3%
    > 2006: +23.9%
    > 2007: -8.7%
    > 2008 +10.6%
    > 2009 YTD approx.: +80%)
    Dec 30 09:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2009 Prediction Review [View article]
    Thank you for the links and your opinion as reviewing the past often will give perspective to forecasting techniques. However, as with other comments you have posted, you are again misrepresenting my articles. For the links you provided, the article on 10/13/2008 did not say stocks were heading higher only that some stocks were selling at very low levels and offered a nice entry point. Of the two stock mentioned, CB and PFE, both are higher since the article was written. The next link you provided was from 12/4/08. That article clearly stated my opinion that the markets had not bottomed, but were ready for an oversold rally. Over the next 4 weeks the Dow moved from 8,376 to 9,034 (7.9%). Although never reaching my target of 9,600 the prediction for a move higher was correct. The article on 1/29/09 called for an oversold rally that never occurred. On this one I was wrong. Finally, the 2/23/09 article did not say that the Dow would trade to 4,000, but that if this bear market ended with great values like we saw in 1982, the Dow would be at 4,000. The recommendation in the article was to stay short via options and as the Dow fell from 7,114 to 6,547 over the next 2 weeks, that prediction was correct as well.
    I welcome the criticism of my track record as valid arguments will allow me to learn from mistakes. However, your approach does not meet that threshold as you continually misrepresent what I have written. Publishing nearly 300 ideas per year I clearly make mistakes that I constantly discuss and analyze, but twisting facts to suit your agenda serves little purpose.

    On Dec 30 07:52 AM logicalthought wrote:

    > >>Add in the prediction in my March 9 newsletter that the most oversold
    > market since 1981 was ready to rebound and that we must become long,
    > and I did a good job forecasting broad market trends... As I sit
    > down to write my predictions for 2010, I will attempt to repeat this
    > success.<<
    > lol, you must have the most selective "memory" I've ever seen...
    > You said the market was a buy in October, 2008 (as far back as you
    > were posting on SA:
    > and December of '08:
    > And January of 2009:
    > And then, lol, on February 23rd 2009 your were calling for Dow 4000:
    > You're not related to "the Donald" by any chance, are you?
    Dec 30 08:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Markets' Gains Last Through New Year's? [View article]
    The following is verbatim from my page 1 of my newsletter published this past Sunday - 12/20:

    "As we look toward the final two weeks of the year, the question is whether prices are bound to fall further or retain high levels. Although I acknowledge that staring at the past does not provide answers about the future, it does provide a handy forecasting tool. With eight trading days remaining in 2009, little information is scheduled to be released. Holidays and vacations will trump new data and we should prepare ourselves for a low-volume, emotion-driven market. Under this scenario, the past will become the future with all declines being bought and prices continually moving higher."

    Such action is exactly what has occured this week and is what I reference in this article when I use the words "in my most recent issue". To reference an article from Thanksgiving, as you did in your comment, and pretend it is the most recent piece of data I have published is misleading.

    On Dec 24 09:09 AM logicalthought wrote:

    > >> are progressing just as I predicted.<<
    > Yeah, sure, "just as you predicted":
    > Sorry, but whenever I see a financial commentator write "just as
    > I predicted", it raises my hackles.
    Dec 24 09:20 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Preparing for Market Volatility [View article]
    Agreed. I wrote this yesterday morning so with how markets are trading now, most of what I referred to has already seen its price adjustment.

    On Dec 01 09:00 AM TheFounder wrote:

    > Interestingly, based on trading until today, the markets treated
    > Dubai as a stand alone, isolated, and minor event.
    > Usually, markets tend to assume the worst. The worst in this case
    > is that Dubai is just an example of hundreds of billions of bad debt
    > sitting on balance sheets of countries and companies globally. <br/>
    > It is hard to explain rationally. Perhaps we are seeing the last,
    > powerful stage of a technical bull market and the Dubai effect (i.e.
    > repricing of risk) will hit hard in 1Q10.
    Dec 1 09:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why XTO Energy Is Overvalued [View article]
    Today's price movement justifies my thesis. With a 5%+ move in oil (and natural gas higher on the week as well), XTO is slightly lower. I shorted the shares Monday morning at $41.85 so am currently sitting on a small profit. However, I will now be covering. Where XTO had refused to move lower with falling energy prices and was 2% overvalued versus my reserve value, I now see the shares 15% undervalued versus reserves given the large increase in energy prices. Having seen the market change, so will I and am currently covering my short position at market prices.
    Sep 30 02:49 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An Option Trade for RIM's Earnings Announcement [View article]
    A follow-up will be in my weekly newsletter that is sent each Sunday. To view the follow-up you can subscribe here:


    On Sep 25 10:01 AM relayer75 wrote:

    > Well done. Please update when you buy to cover. RIMM is @ $70.11
    > as I write this, at 10 a.m. e.s.t. on 9/25.
    Sep 26 08:11 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I'm Shorting Visa [View article]
    It should bounce off $60 as the first line of support and I will be looking to close my short there. If it falls through $60 on heavy volume, $52 would be my price target.

    On Jun 17 07:15 AM ScroogeMcduck wrote:

    > Sean I'm curious, through your stock analysis. How low do you expect
    > Visa to go?
    Jun 17 07:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I'm Shorting Visa [View article]
    Per Bloomberg, Visa has a beta vs gold of -.3 and an r-squared of .038.

    On Jun 16 12:39 PM Graham Jervis wrote:

    > Just out of curiosity, has anyone looked at the correlation to VISA's
    > stock price and Gold? i know visa has been trading for a short period,
    > but i was just curious if anyone noticed a correlation.
    Jun 16 01:41 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • MasterCard Could Be a Potential 'Black Swan' [View article]
    Same applies for V. Given the cost of the option, MA (with higher stock price) offers more potential return.
    Mar 18 06:43 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Shorting the Four Horsemen as Market Grinds Lower? [View article]
    QID delivers 2 times the inverse of the QQQQ. Since the returns are based on daily results, QID should never be used for a long-term tactical asset allocation choice. There are many articles all over this website that explains the problems with using leveraged ETFs for portfolio decisions. Leveraged ETS like QID should only be used for trading purposed while shorts in the actual ETF are more ideal for portfolio management purposes. Hope this helps explain the choice of using the short QQQQ as opposed to QID

    On Mar 02 08:40 AM User 234014 wrote:

    > If you are shorting the QQQQ rather than executing a more cost effective
    > way through a long QID position my guess is you also spend more time
    > writing blog entries than actually trading.
    Mar 2 10:41 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • First Solar: Expecting a Sell-Off [View article]
    I think your points are valid and the fact that FSLR has held up during the recent sell-off is impressive. The decision to exit is based on the belief that I think market are heading lower and I am looking to protect my portfolio. I understand those who which to hold the shares as the macro-themes are very much in FSLR's favor. However, if you do so please consider option trades to protect your position. When markets break violently, anything can happen

    On Feb 16 09:32 AM Sarge wrote:

    > With earnings coming (2/24) and FSLR's history of beating estimates,
    > do you really believe it wise to close your position now? Better
    > than expected earnings coupled with a stimulus bump could mean good
    > gains for FSLR in the weeks ahead.
    Feb 16 09:54 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Proposed Solution for Toxic Assets Plaguing Banks [View article]
    I agree - As I wrote in an article on this site on 2/13 (

    Your argument echoes mine that the only way to solve the issue is through a profit sharing agreement.
    Feb 15 08:10 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment