TraderMark

Blackstone Is Volatile but Suits Our Strategy

Pete Peterson seems to have a higher calling. The work he is doing now is a lot more important to the country than PE.


On Oct 14 11:01 PM MrBuzz wrote:

> Blackstone is doing things according to Steve's plan. The dividend
> is good for better than fair return. And the potential upside is
> still there. Not sure I would sell right yet. But, I am an individual
> and not pro investor. PS I do miss Pete Peterson as Sr Chairman
> and guidance dept.

Blackstone Is Volatile but Suits Our Strategy

you can't sell anything nowadays ;)

selling is unAmerican and you lose by the next morning as stocks go up their traditional 1% hah.


On Oct 14 11:24 AM Alan Young wrote:

> I missed a limit-bid entry on the gap, but I sure wouldn't sell this
> chart. Look at this week's breakout in the context of the year-long
> cup-with-handle pattern. Definitely a buy; just a question of finding
> the entry point.

Taking Some Profits: Where Is This Country Going?

as explained above BHP is either forming a double top or about to start a new leg. It retreated today but any close over $70 would be quite bullish.

RTP looks identical. Remember to the quant computers they are all the same stock ;)


On Oct 09 03:04 PM Paul Harper wrote:

> Mark ... just been looking at commodities; miners in particular.
> Any thoughts on BHP that you would care to share here ? RTP is looking
> ripe to hit it's 50 day EMA (imo)

Taking Some Profits: Where Is This Country Going?

I don't have trailing stops as an option in the system that holds my model portfolio

I'd literally have to place stop orders and change them by the hour or day. Don't have time.

AGQ was up 25% in 4 sessions, good enough for me to snap off some profits - I am like a squirrel, I like to store my acorns as they fall for winter. Rather than simply wait for all the acorns to fall and then try to rush them all back my nesting spot at once.


On Oct 09 08:52 AM doubleguns wrote:

> TM why are you selling. Could you just put in trailing stops and
> run for a while.
>
> DGP and AGQ are two of my favorites. I am running with stops.

Taking Some Profits: Where Is This Country Going?

p.s. with Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan reporting next week I find it hard to believe the market will falter - I am assuming a gap up even Wed or Thursday morning on either both of their reports and off to the races.

Taking Some Profits: Where Is This Country Going?

I have a website

3 buys were posted Friday, BHP and BX among them

www.fundmymutualfund.c...

Seeking Alpha just grabs a portion of the sites posts and puts them here, so you're getting just a snapshot of postings here.


On Oct 09 10:40 AM watchingellie wrote:

> Great point of view, by the way where did you tell everyone about
> your buys last week that you are now taking profits on. Do you have
> a subscription service?
> Thanks

Private Equity, Business Flipping and Asymmetrical Outcomes

Alfredo, first stop destroying savers of this country to provide "cheap money" so these transactions can be done without regard to costs.

from the article:

"The mind-set was, since the money was practically free, why not leverage the company to the maximum?"

That will stop the leverage from the entire system reaching a point where the Fed needs to come in YET again to save the system via even more easy money.

This is why failure is necessary and too big to fail can not be allowed to continue. Only when failure is an option for even the biggest players will there actually be oversight. Right now the cost of funding for our biggest financial firms is going to be like Fannie and freddie for decades - a massive inherent advantage which will serve to only punish smaller and medium sized players who are not sucking on government's teat (implied).

The investment banks for example used to be private players who used their own money for MOST of the stuff they do. Then they have transformed to public, lobbyied Congress (Hank Paulson at the fore) to get rid of the leverage limitations, and basically use other people's money for their gambles. When it goes wrong - horribly wrong - now we are 100% sure (before we were 95% sure) the government will use taxpayers money to backstop it.

So a huge part of the solution is common sense - don't let them take this sort of leverage, don't backstop them, and don't let them ever get to the size that 1 going under destroys the world's financial system, etc. We'll never reach extreme levels in any 1 company if that was the framework. And then those taking risks with the money would actually have risk controls in place. PE is just a feeder off the i-bank system. Complete parallels with different labels.


On Oct 07 11:31 PM Alfredo Martinez wrote:

> The New York Times article was great, and I agree what Private Equity
> firms are doing is often times incredibly destructive. The problem
> is, what do you do about it?
>
> At the end of the day, these are voluntary transactions by two parties
> that want to make an exchange. When PE buys the company and sells
> the debt, it's completely voluntary for both the buyer and seller.
>
>
> I'm all for free-market solutions to curbing this abuse, but it's
> very difficult to effectively regulate. My guess is PE excess will
> be reigned in simply because many investors have become much more
> cautious.

Private Equity, Business Flipping and Asymmetrical Outcomes

No, but a system where bad outcomes actually sting financiers and not just the rest of the system would be a good place to start.


On Oct 07 03:08 PM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Mr. Mark wrote:
>
> "So here is the story in simple terms, and yes I am simplifying for
> the hard core capitalists out there who defend our beautiful system."
>
>
> Thank you Mr. Mark.
>
> I love these rants. Keep it up, although for time purposes and for
> my fellow capitalists, you could condense the articles and simplify
> them a little more.
>
> The thing is, I agree with 90% of what you write, except for the
> bottom line, the conclusion of the story, in which you write...<br/>
>
> No wait. There was no conclusion, just a rant.
>
> Now helping you out, wouldn't the conclusion be: Put Obama's Tsars
> in charge and that will fix everything?

Private Equity, Business Flipping and Asymmetrical Outcomes

Anything I put into quotes has a facetious nature. i.e. I put free market capitalism in quotes because that is the dogmatic retort of anyone who is benefiting from the system (fewer and fewer people) - they resort to sound bites that sound patriotic! We certainly do not have that here - trust me I know. But most of the population still somehow believes it to be true.

Same comment with unwashed masses - if you read me for a long time, I have a lot of sarcasm. I call us peons, I call us peasants, I call us a lot of names because thats how i think the "0.2%" think of us.


On Oct 07 10:16 AM optionsgirl wrote:

> You have written a tremendously accurate and astute op ed, TraderMark.
> I do have a couple of bones to pick, though.
> 1. I dispute you calling the actions of these carnivores "American
> free market capitalism". It is a corrupted, perverted system, but
> it barely resembles a capitalist system.
> 2. I would also like to dispute your labeling of the "unwashed masses".
> You think the workers of these companies don't know what is going
> on? Or that the general population doesn't, either? They know they
> are the victims of massive thievery and fraud. They are simply powerless
> to stop it.
>
> With so many "safeguards" put into place, you'd think it wouldn't
> be necessary to give the SEC (and Fed) more powers, which they clamor
> for a crave. They seek more power for its own sake. The SEC already
> has the power to stop the looting, and state attorneys general already
> have the power to prosecute fraud.
> I believe those bond holders and stock holders have been criminally
> defrauded, and so has the public at large.
> We must remember that the purpose of all carnivores is to feast off
> the carcasses of the weaker. They are shooting fish in a barrel.
>
> Again, kudos for a well-crafted cogent article.

Private Equity, Business Flipping and Asymmetrical Outcomes

epeon, many companies they buy are NOT PUBLIC. Not a good explanation. The idea most of the time is to try to either sell it to another firm once they do their "magic" or "IPO" it... only then does it turn public.

Mostly they look for high cash flow - then they know they can layer it with debt since banks (with cheap money from the Fed) are happy to toss it in any direction.


On Oct 07 10:15 AM epeon wrote:

> Let me play the devil's advocate here. Many of the companies that
> were bought out by PE were bought out on the cheap because their
> stock price was low. It was low because the management of said companies
> never properly rewarded their stockholders. These companies were
> run as private little fiefdoms by the management and the stockholders
> were, at best, an afterthought. Consequently, the stock's value
> languished. This made them cheap and an easy buyout target. PE
> then raped them.
>
> Was PE wrong? Sure. But,these companies made themselves such easy
> targets by allowing their stock price to be very low in relation
> to their value. I guess what I am saying is that there is wrong
> on both sides of that buyout.

Private Equity, Business Flipping and Asymmetrical Outcomes

agree. I just don't want any defender of the system to put the tag "free market capitalism" on anything we have here. They use that as a rallying call as if its a Bald Eagle. We have crony capitalism, socialism for the elite.


On Oct 07 09:17 AM John Galt wrote:

> Mark -
>
> The root of the Austrian school of economics ( you know the guys
> that predicted the crash), is the belief that the FED hands out cheap
> money... CREATES a bubble, and now they are putting out the fire
> with your dollar bills.
>
> The Austrian "Free Market" Capitalist school of thought says the
> Fed is *responsible* for the problem, and that this quasi government
> agency is NOT free market.
>
> Then you start to get into thoughts about the opportunity cost of
> doing the "wrong" and unproductive things due to false inscentives
> created by the fed.
>
> For example, you are wasting capital &amp; labor building a high
> rise commerical real estate building that you *think* will be profitable
> when in reality it won't be...
>
> Building house after house sunny Phoenix that people keep buying
> with watered down fed dollars &amp; interest rates (but can't really
> afford)...
>
> It isn't just the bad choice to build the building, but think where
> those workers and that money could have been used otherwise. You
> are losing time, possibility and potential as well as losing money
> on those individual projects.
>
> The loss isn't just the loss on particular investments, you have
> to also consider the loss in opportunity costs.

Blackstone Rallies and Goldman Sachs Huddles

Boo yah Ray. Boo Yah.


On Sep 11 01:58 PM Ray Winter wrote:

> Sharp practices are endemic within all financial institutions and
> clearly permitted by the SEC as they do nothing about them.
>
> For example the financial institutions demand that major companies
> give them regular updates on their trading, thus ensuring they have
> a massive competitive edge over the ordinary punter.
>
> Another sharp practice concerns the stacking-up of their orders ahead
> of the opening times of the exchanges, which becomes the 'Futures'
> predictions of the market for that day, once again giving themselves
> a major competitive edge over the ordinary punter.
>
> Its about time the playing-field was levelled and the SEC should
> ensure that it is but then again it seems bankers migrate to the
> SEC to protect the status quo.
>
> It always amuses me that the term Chinese Walls is used to indicate
> protection of valuable information between divisions within an institution
> whereas most real chinese walls are paper thin so everything can
> be easily overheard. Clearly the Bankers are having a laugh over
> ordinary punters.

Why I'm Adding More Blackstone Group

You wont believe this but I AGREE with you
I have written the exact same things in my blog

If you want an eye opener on how PE works this Burger King piece in BW in 2006 opened by eyes

www.businessweek.com/m...

But guess what - think of a leech and its host. The companies they buy are the hosts. PE firms are the leech. I am investing in the leech. I think the whole system is broken because they often take good companies, layer them with debt and then sell them off (of course taking massive fees for the honor)

But that is American capitalism ... since I dont invest in Goldman Sachs for moral reasons this is the next best thing to the gig that Goldman has. And since this type of capitalism is "celebrated" in America I guess I can sleep at night. All I need as a BX investor is for the leech to prosper... if its host companies die once they are IPO'd or spun off, well you need to ask bigger questions about our system in regards to that.

As long as new suckers are born each day, i-banks and PE firms win.


On Aug 18 08:53 AM auto44 wrote:

> vc folks make most of their money by using stockholders as patsies.
> Usually loading a purchsed company with debt, taking the money for
> the offices and then selling the debt ladden company back to the
> public hang with them and you'll get stung.

81 Stocks Returning 35%+ in the Past Four Weeks

many of these stocks constantly chase out short sellers

people try to short stocks on fundamentals in a technically based market. Momentum feeds on itself

Until it doesnt - and then the bottoms fall out, and some of these stocks will hit major air pockets. But you have to survive to be around to see it !:)


On Aug 17 09:39 AM predictorman1000 wrote:

> You look at some of these names and the only comment you can make
> is WTF!?
>
> Even if you use the old standard that the market looks six months
> out, can anyone see improvement of many of these companie's businesses
> in that period? In even one year?
>
> Clothing? Paper? REITS? Hotels? Again WTF!?