Comments on William Eichler's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/william-eichler/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-478047 478047 Sun, 26 Apr 2009 14:11:54 -0400 regular dividend of $0/46/sh...

So now the question becomes: who do you trust...the HCP Board
and management or, the various comments, opinions and claimed
financial holdings (long, short, none) of investors?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-420667 420667 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 13:01:27 -0400
Unfortunately what often happens is that when year end statements are prepared, some of the adjustments made actually apply to prior periods (quarters). So while the company may indeed adjust prior quarterly statements, rather than show all the adjustments in Q4, some sites do not update quarterlies already posted, but merely post the year end which of course will include all adjustments. The obvious problem with that is when you add up the 4 quarters, they do not equal year end totals.

This is also a very good argument why one should not rely on a single source for such info, especially when using the info to make an investment decision.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-420616 420616 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 12:31:06 -0400 Discrepancies in reported earnings are not a good thing for the average investor who is trying to make an accurate assessment of a corporation's vitality. I
was just stating what I observed at this yahoo source:

finance.yahoo.com/q/ae...

Another culprit, MSN lists their quarterly earnings as adding up to $1.81 and then on the same page posts it at $1.82!

moneycentral.msn.com/i...

so, as you can see, none of these vaunted websites are in much of an agreement on the earnings of HCP. I wonder why that is

However, either way, a REIT is required to pay about 90% of it's earnings in the form a dividend and in some
cases may choose to pay out more than 100%. So, it could very well be business as usual. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-419721 419721 somewhere these EPS figures have gotten skewed. According > to Yahoo Finance, the last 4 quarters' reported earnings numbers > were as follows. Mar.08 - $.56, Jun.08 - $.51. > Sep.08 - $.71, Dec.08 - $.48. The FY ends in Dec. so the total was > $2.26, not $1.79. For FY'09 they are estimated to show $2.21 and > for 2010, $2.30. The technicals on this stock are terrible. Imagine > that! > > Is the dividend safe? perhaps, but the better question is: > Is the real estate market safe?]]> Mon, 09 Mar 2009 17:09:39 -0400
finance.yahoo.com/q?s=HCP&=

Here is the link to their SEC 10-K filing. It also shows EPS to be $1.79.

yahoo.brand.edgar-onli...

BTW, your quarterly numbers are not accurate. Please check them again.

The correct numbers are as follows:

Q1 (Mar 2008) EPS = $0.21
Q2 (Jun 2008) EPS = $0.96
Q3 (Sep 2008) EPS = $0.49
Q4 (Dec 2008) EPS = $0.13

Therefore 2008 EPS = $1.79 (as stated)

On Mar 09 03:47 PM barnabas wrote:

> somewhere these EPS figures have gotten skewed. According
> to Yahoo Finance, the last 4 quarters' reported earnings numbers
> were as follows. Mar.08 - $.56, Jun.08 - $.51.
> Sep.08 - $.71, Dec.08 - $.48. The FY ends in Dec. so the total was
> $2.26, not $1.79. For FY'09 they are estimated to show $2.21 and
> for 2010, $2.30. The technicals on this stock are terrible. Imagine
> that!
>
> Is the dividend safe? perhaps, but the better question is:
> Is the real estate market safe?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-419616 419616 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 15:47:52 -0400 to Yahoo Finance, the last 4 quarters' reported earnings numbers were as follows. Mar.08 - $.56, Jun.08 - $.51.
Sep.08 - $.71, Dec.08 - $.48. The FY ends in Dec. so the total was $2.26, not $1.79. For FY'09 they are estimated to show $2.21 and for 2010, $2.30. The technicals on this stock are terrible. Imagine that!

Is the dividend safe? perhaps, but the better question is:
Is the real estate market safe? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-419537 419537 Marcap, > > When evaluating REITs a more accurate guage of the ability to pay > out their dividends, which is required, is the FFO or funds from > operations. More sophisticated investors then back out the capital > expenses from this number to get a truer look at cash flow.]]> Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:53:47 -0400
Secondly, there is no such thing as a dividend being "required" as you have suggested. A dividend may be reduced or eliminated by any company at any time.

And finally, this has nothing to do with the company's "ability" to actually pay the dividend (at this time). Sure they have the ability to pay the $1.84, but it lacks logic to do so, especially when that amount is greater than their net income per share. i.e. If you pay me $1.84 for every $1.76 you earn, please tell me what will eventually happen.

In short, any company which continues to pay a dividend greater than its earnings per share will eventually go out of business. And that is simple mathematics.

On Mar 09 02:00 PM Dave Shafer wrote:

> Marcap,
>
> When evaluating REITs a more accurate guage of the ability to pay
> out their dividends, which is required, is the FFO or funds from
> operations. More sophisticated investors then back out the capital
> expenses from this number to get a truer look at cash flow.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-419454 419454 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 14:00:47 -0400
When evaluating REITs a more accurate guage of the ability to pay out their dividends, which is required, is the FFO or funds from operations. More sophisticated investors then back out the capital expenses from this number to get a truer look at cash flow.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-419315 419315 Mon, 09 Mar 2009 12:38:09 -0400
Marcap is right - you can't expect a sustained higher dividend than what the company earns.

The cynic in me presents a scenario where management sees massive losses in the future, which will eventually result in zero dividend, and decided to convert as much of the company's resources into a dividend payment as possible before this event. After all, insiders own 2.24M shares. "A bird in the hand..." they say. After all, what's their reward for holding cash and reducing the magnitude of the loss?

Perhaps my inner cynic is missing a bullish sign and an opportunity to lock in low-risk 10% dividends on my money for decades. However this inner cynic has, over time, saved me more money than I've ever made! Every investor needs one. I'll dig a little deeper on HCP, HCN, HR, and VTR.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124767-is-health-care-properties-a-buy?source=feed#comment-418114 418114 Sun, 08 Mar 2009 13:31:07 -0400
1. Solid Balance Sheet: CA = $285M vs CL = $225M; TA = $12.03B vs TL = $6.74B

2. Trading at less then book value: Price = $16.08 vs BV = $19.39

3. P/E Ratio: 8.97

4. Div & Yield: $1.84 / 10.10%

I would not however expect to continue receiving a dividend of $1.84, especially given that it is slightly greater than the company's EPS of $1.76. Clearly doing so would not be logical unless there is a significant increase in net income. At current profit levels, a dividend around $0.90 would be much more realistic.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80484-oil-price-rise-demand-supply-speculation?source=feed#comment-393047 393047 Wed, 18 Feb 2009 02:05:53 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195688 195688 nah smokey, most posters here have an agenda, but no clue. Eichler's > first two points are spot on, and actually nothing new if you had > been reading industry journals like Argus/OMI etc instead of just > dwelling on this site. I am ambiguous on the third point, the relationship > between the spot and the futures market is very complicated, and > academics are not in unison on what is happening here. Is the additional > liquidity by speculators required for this market? Anyway, they risk > their own money, all those gov't interventions called for risk taxpayer's > money. And to all those supply-demand/Hubbert comments above - Eichler > is not even contradicting them! In fact his points are based on S/D, > and he calls them "aspects" not the whole picture! Indeed, economics > is no more just about S vs D, they are now about truly understanding > the microfoundations of a market, as well as the agent's incentives > etc... not just foolishly applying two-dimensional textbook-like > S-D curves like some of the above posters seem to try. > > So smokey... (1) reserve estimates of the US offshore fields are > old and vague, but do not expect to find another Ghahar/Cantarell > etc that can keep up current US consumption ad infinitum. It will > buy you time, but will not affect the price much (the US cannot use > domestic fields to isolate itself from world markets), but it won't > buy you very much time. (2) is much more important - solve the demand > side, get yourself off the stuff. The main obstacle to progress here > has been the present US gov't, which has happily invaded Iraq on > behalf of its oil majors, but has been blocking climate and other > progressive treaties. Political will is paramount, as energy efficiency > is riddled with market failures. But many interest groups and voters > are against it due to the negative short term implications...]]> Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:35:21 -0400

On Jun 30 05:32 AM maximax wrote:

> nah smokey, most posters here have an agenda, but no clue. Eichler's
> first two points are spot on, and actually nothing new if you had
> been reading industry journals like Argus/OMI etc instead of just
> dwelling on this site. I am ambiguous on the third point, the relationship
> between the spot and the futures market is very complicated, and
> academics are not in unison on what is happening here. Is the additional
> liquidity by speculators required for this market? Anyway, they risk
> their own money, all those gov't interventions called for risk taxpayer's
> money. And to all those supply-demand/Hubbert comments above - Eichler
> is not even contradicting them! In fact his points are based on S/D,
> and he calls them "aspects" not the whole picture! Indeed, economics
> is no more just about S vs D, they are now about truly understanding
> the microfoundations of a market, as well as the agent's incentives
> etc... not just foolishly applying two-dimensional textbook-like
> S-D curves like some of the above posters seem to try.
>
> So smokey... (1) reserve estimates of the US offshore fields are
> old and vague, but do not expect to find another Ghahar/Cantarell
> etc that can keep up current US consumption ad infinitum. It will
> buy you time, but will not affect the price much (the US cannot use
> domestic fields to isolate itself from world markets), but it won't
> buy you very much time. (2) is much more important - solve the demand
> side, get yourself off the stuff. The main obstacle to progress here
> has been the present US gov't, which has happily invaded Iraq on
> behalf of its oil majors, but has been blocking climate and other
> progressive treaties. Political will is paramount, as energy efficiency
> is riddled with market failures. But many interest groups and voters
> are against it due to the negative short term implications...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195687 195687 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:32:12 -0400
So smokey... (1) reserve estimates of the US offshore fields are old and vague, but do not expect to find another Ghahar/Cantarell etc that can keep up current US consumption ad infinitum. It will buy you time, but will not affect the price much (the US cannot use domestic fields to isolate itself from world markets), but it won't buy you very much time. (2) is much more important - solve the demand side, get yourself off the stuff. The main obstacle to progress here has been the present US gov't, which has happily invaded Iraq on behalf of its oil majors, but has been blocking climate and other progressive treaties. Political will is paramount, as energy efficiency is riddled with market failures. But many interest groups and voters are against it due to the negative short term implications...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195615 195615 Mon, 30 Jun 2008 00:03:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195610 195610 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 23:55:42 -0400
What do any of you think of the idea of (1) drilling where we haven't even if it does take a few years to get here - which I figure is better than a few years plus few years more if we don't start now & changing some speculation rules if applicable; and (2) starting a serious Manhattan like Project directed towards energy to determine to the best short term direction (rather than throwing a bunch of money at everything with HOPE) and more directed towards a more longer term final solution? (or does either of these two (or three) avenues even come close to addressing the issue of energy) Thanks for you time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195462 195462 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:37:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195368 195368 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:45:53 -0400
If you think it is rigged, don't play it or use it!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195316 195316 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 14:17:26 -0400 They predict the price of gas will go up - it does.
They never predict it go down - but it does anyway.
Here in Kalifornia last week gas was 4.60 - now 4.45.
Why? - figure it out - if you drive you know why except for the morons who mommy & daddy must buy their gas for them.
55 mph works - why no clamor for it now - will we wait for gas lines?
Guarantee - if Dems can implement their "solutions" you will see lines, rationing, etc. History will repeat itself.
Heard very little about the 15 cent drop - I heard one report that said gas was down 1 - 3 cents.
Wait till it goes back up 1 cent and watch the coverage.

News flash from the year 2020 - Democrats claim it will take 10 years to get any oil if we start drilling now.
Arnold down to one Hummer but we still ain't gonna drill of OUR coast.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80484-oil-price-rise-demand-supply-speculation?source=feed#comment-195275 195275 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:21:45 -0400
And, 85% of our outer continental shelf is off limits not only to drilling, but to exploration as well.

If you don't think the "Dim-wit-o-crats" have had an adverse effect on our energy situation, you are not very smart!

The "greenis weenies" will take the US down if they have their way.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195263 195263 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 13:08:03 -0400
Fjasyr sounds as stupid as most of the members of the US Congress, especially the "Dim-wit-o-craps!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195248 195248 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:43:51 -0400 If speculators are at least partially responsible for the runup in oil prices why are the outer contract months almost always in backwardation and rarely in contango?
The speculators rarely if ever take delivery and over time that is proof that speculators play virtually no part in the pricing of oil.
The reason for oils runup is supply and demand and geopolitical risks.
By 2020 oil consumption will exceed 120mmbopd and I suspect production will be considerably less.

I would like to hear some dissenting arguements to this theory...

Thank you]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195179 195179 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 11:21:56 -0400 In May, another huge block of oil speculators came on board when the Dubai commodities market began trading in WTC sweet crude. Free of any transparency other than the numbers, NYMEX and other exchanges provide excellent cover for those who may be manipulating the market. Otherwise the US oil industry has great transparency with the Energry Department's statistics and analysis of the industry and the SEC which provides supplemental documents, especially 10-K reports that disclose much greater information about individual producers activities than the quarterly and annual reports.

I would like to add a fourth reason to the three you have provided regarding the current and future status of the oil markets -- the merger of Exxon and Mobil in 1999. Not since the breakup of Standard Oil Company by the Supreme Count in 1911, has one company been able to exercises monopoly-like influence on both the market for crude and the price at the pump as Exxon-Mobil. Considering that it takes a few years for consolidation of operations, productions and marketing strategy, the current volatility of the market appears to have emerged at the point on Exxon-Mobil's timetable when consolidation was completed and the oil company giant was capable of exercising its influence.

I suggest you go back to the time of the merger and read the comments by company officials and marketing gurus predictions of the company's times.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195150 195150 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 10:45:48 -0400
If I extrapolate the cost of my first home and correlate gas prices accordingly, gasoline would cost $7.50 a gallon. So increase supply, decrease demand, put up, shut up and walk off your love handles.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195118 195118 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:55:06 -0400
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195114 195114 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 09:50:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195065 195065 jack]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 08:40:36 -0400 > jack]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83092-3-aspects-to-pricing-oil?source=feed#comment-195042 195042 Sun, 29 Jun 2008 07:38:10 -0400 1. we are running out of oil the cheap (easy to find, easy to refine, flows out of a well) stuff first.
2. demand and supply are very close - resulting in more firms wanting to hedge future prices
2. demand and supply are very close - resulting in speculators being able to influence near term pricing]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81251-oil-prices-and-wash-trades?source=feed#comment-185399 185399 Sat, 14 Jun 2008 04:22:40 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81251-oil-prices-and-wash-trades?source=feed#comment-184915 184915 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:26:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81251-oil-prices-and-wash-trades?source=feed#comment-184848 184848 CFMA2k -> Gramm -> McCain. McCain = Evil Thanks for the info Willy. I guess I should vote for socialism in November?]]> Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:29:28 -0400 CFMA2k -> Gramm -> McCain. McCain = Evil Thanks for the info Willy. I guess I should vote for socialism in November?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81251-oil-prices-and-wash-trades?source=feed#comment-184839 184839 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:21:02 -0400 theinvestingspeculator...]]>