Seeking Alpha

Wealthcompound

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Wealthcompound's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Alico: Getting Land On The Cheap [View article]
    I have not been following that closely but only the 51% share owned by Atlantic Blue was sold. Looks like a good deal from the buyer's side at first glance although I would have to analyze the deal further.
    Nov 8, 2013. 11:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Hortons Hears A Hedge Fund [View article]
    I haven't looked at WEN recently so I can't render an opinion.
    May 25, 2013. 06:39 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Stocks To Research Before The Coming Correction [View article]
    Thanks for the heads up. It looks like it is going to be a rainy memorial day weekend in the tri-state so I should have plenty of time to do some further research.
    May 24, 2013. 04:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Stocks To Research Before The Coming Correction [View article]
    Not a bad strategy when you know what you are doing. I usually only dabble in options when selling puts but it is all dependent on your comfort level. Congrats and hopefully it continues to work for you on both ends.
    May 23, 2013. 09:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
    No one said the government created fracking. Your comment doesn't even make sense. Go read a newspaper.
    Jun 3, 2012. 11:35 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
    I am arrogant? Thank You
    Jun 3, 2012. 11:34 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
    Please read my comment again. I didn't say the government developed fracking. Commercializing hydraulic fracking in the late 1940's and the technological advances since then that have allowed for the natural gas boom of the past 2 years was a public/private partnership with NETL not only helping to advance the process but also to make it as safe as possible. And yes, that involved nice subsidies and taxpayer money to fund the private sector development, which is what I stated.

    Second, on the Keystone issue, the Gov. of Nebraska, Dave Heineman (a Republican) took issue with the new route (and the previous route) as well as most Nebraskans while Pres. Obama placed it under review. Also because of the pipeline crossing international borders, it required State department review (each new proposal). However, when Congress, controlled by Republicans with many Democrats support on the pipeline, tried to force his hand for a decision by mid-February on the north pipeline, he therefore said no, citing lack of time for full environmental review. However, he didn't reject it outright and TransCanada submitted a new application early last month that they say avoids the Sands Hill region of Nebraska. We will see what happens.

    Third, did I say anything about replacing fossil fuels? I am 150% sure I didn't. All I said is the same subsidies the author derided in regards to "green" technology helped the technology that he is favoring (which is a fact). I didn't say anything in regards to green tech subsidies being good or that green tech should replace fossil fuels by next Tuesday or even if I support green tech at all. So no, I am not idealistic and inexperienced in regards to comments that I didn't even make. Next time when you read anything, understand what the person is saying and don't leap to wrong conclusions.
    Jun 3, 2012. 11:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
    You need to re-think the sources you are using. The "study" you reference may have some bias, don't you think?

    Second, I am politically neutral and respect arguments on both sides but only when those arguments reference facts. Your last paragraph unfortunately doesn't include them. First, to reference the Keystone pipeline as a reason the Obama administration is "unfriendly" to the energy industry is just a Republican talking point and doesn't delve into the nuance around the opposition of one particular section of said pipeline. Second, the reason for advances in "fracking" is due primarily to, guess what, government subsidies that helped fund the research (not to mention other energy related research). Subsidies that you deride in reference to "green" energy and technology.

    Please, if you are going to post articles, make sure they are only rooted in facts. We have enough of the left-right political non-sense elsewhere.
    Jun 2, 2012. 02:58 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
    Brokers are always telling people to buy, buy, buy. That is how they make money. That is how Wall Street makes money. Wall Street is at the end of the day a sales industry. Yes, I probably could be considered an insider or professional considering I am in the investment field. However, my purpose is to tell individual investors NOT TO LISTEN to Wall Street, their brokers, the financial media, etc. Do your own objective analysis, have patience, learn as much as you can and understand that the only one who will care about your money is you.
    May 25, 2012. 08:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
    Yes, if individual investors over the age of 10 do not have a serious distrust of Wall Street by now (and the mainstream media, especially on the financial side) then they deserve to lose their money. There are thousands of other public companies to invest in that an investor can know and understand like the inside of their pocket and which Wall Street doesn't care about (or they are so large and established that the company is not being hyped). This is where the individual who wants to invest in equities should be looking.
    May 25, 2012. 08:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
    I can do fundamental research just not on an overpriced tech stock like FB. The rest of what you wrote is nonsense as well.
    May 25, 2012. 08:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
    "The amount of hype was too much for the small investor to ignore."- Are you serious with this idiotic statement. The whole purpose of my rant is to make it clear that individual investors SHOULD ALWAYS ignore the hype, especially when it comes from Wall Street and the media (who can in some respects be considered one and the same.) And what is M.Z.?
    May 25, 2012. 08:35 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
    @TexasRazz- No sir, you are the moron. You have completely missed the point of the article, which I clearly state was more rant than well written analysis. The main point is that time and time again, individual investors buy into the hype created by Wall Street and then wonder what happened when things go wrong. For some reason Americans seem to think that Wall Street gives a damn about them and has other motives besides profit. THEY DON'T The problems with the trading have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that FB was overvalued from the get go. Even if everything went perfectly, the shares would have sunk. Why? There was unusually large individual investor interest and very few institutions who wanted to touch the stock (in comparison to most other IPOs).
    May 25, 2012. 08:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Inflation May Not Be On The Horizon [View article]
    I probably should have specified and expanded on your point. However, that is not the purpose of the article. Unfortunately, all statistics regarding inflation are flawed. Since the Fed uses the CPI, this is what we have to go by. The accuracy is another issue possibly for another article.
    Apr 11, 2012. 10:14 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Pepsi's Management Shuffle, Packaging Redesigns Are Distractions [View article]
    I understand the nature of Pepsico and its business very well. It is NOT a health food business. It is a beverage and snack food business. It is perfectly reasonable to invest in healthier products to an extent but the main focus should be investing in the core brands (possibly finding ways to make them healthier) and not just accumulating brands for the portfolio. Also, as an RIA, CFA, CFP, blah, blah; for you to say that the company can afford the bumps along the way is really amazing. So management needlessly wasting shareholders money is ok with you? In my view, when management needlessly wastes even a dollar, it is one dollar too many. Lastly, I understand marketing quite well. If you were to ask someone in marketing (who is not full of B.S. and actually knew something), they would tell you do not, under any circumstances, fool around with iconic brands. There is no reason to do so. What smart marketers will do is build upon that brands "iconic-ness" (especially by incorporating links from the brands history e.g. Coca-Cola changing the design of the 2-liter bottle to the "iconic" shape, which also allowed them to cut costs). By your logic, McDonalds should get rid of the golden arches or big mac because they have healthier products on the menu.
    Mar 16, 2012. 09:38 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
48 Comments
37 Likes