dmnieren

http://biohedger.wordpress.com
Total Rating:
0 / 0

7 Comments

    • Thu Oct 23rd 11:21 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Muni Bonds: Constructive in Current Portfolio Asset Allocation
      I hate to play political angles when investing, but my bet would be on no changes to the tax structure...why?

      1) It would kill cities and states that issue large amounts of munis.
      2) These cities and states tend to vote Democratic (see: CA, NY, MA, IL)
      3) Next admin, and certainly Congress is likely to be Democratic.

      As always, the Democrats might state they want to "target" the rich, but what they really mean is that they want to "target" their political adversaries, meaning "rich" businessmen/workers, not largely Democratic states with bloated budgets & high state taxes that are partly subsidized by the tax breaks on munis and the state income tax deduction. Not being partisan, just reading what actually happens (like last time they ran the gov't--taxes were raised down to couples making $40K or whatever it was, but there was no touching of the muni exemption, homeowners subsidy, etc)
      View article »
    • Wed Aug 20th 12:53 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Anesiva 'Pain-free' High Growth
      What insurance company will pay for this?
      I'm skeptical that payers view needlestick pain as a problem they need to reimburse for.
      View article »
    • Wed Aug 6th 17:35 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      What's Going On at Roche Palo Alto?
      scuttlebutt is that roche palo alto will close. biologics will of course stay at Genentech/Roche. Everything else will be transferred to Nutley, New Jersey
      View article »
    • Mon Apr 21st 12:40 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Better Off Now Than 5 Years Ago?
      I keep pretty detailed expense records (part of running the finances for my wife's business) and I can say with certainty that our day-to-day expenses are more than 30% higher than they were 5 years ago. However, I'm lucky in that my salary is 50% higher, so I'm better off, but I can certainly see where a heck of a lot of people who haven't had such good fortune would be in a world of hurt.

      By the way, we're not living any richer, we're putting that money away for buying a house when (hopefully) the market is closer to a bottom. We still have the same car as 5 years ago, etc etc.
      View article »
    • Thu Apr 3rd 12:13 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      GTx, Inc.: A Diamond in a Mud Pit
      Except for that pesky patent issue on toremifene. or that there's nothing to stop a doc from prescribing a similar drug like Fosamax that's going generic.
      View article »
    • Sat Jan 26th 00:07 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Who Is Jerome Kerviel?
      Soros is an idiot who got lucky once.
      View article »
    • Thu Jan 3rd 00:42 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Black Swans, Real Estate and Financial Stocks
      I'll give you a point that Taleb sets up a bit of a difficult argument to prove or disprove, but that's not really his point. His point would be your model --Citigroup's decline is a low-probability event (as defined by you of 1:40 years)--is not real. It does not and cannot accurately quantify the likelihood of a 45% decline in C's stock. Your probability is based on past returns which do not account for the unknowable black swan even of the future (i.e. Enron-style fraud, Spitzer-like gov't interference, or worse). Therefore, your "prediction" that such a return is only a 1:40 event is useless.

      BUT the biggest nail in your silly probability coffin is that C had a >40% decline just 6 years ago in the August '01 to June '02 timeframe (less than a year; Black Swan=9/11). C had nearly a 50% decline from June -Sept '98 (Black Swan=Russia default). And another from June '90 to Oct. '90 (Black Swan=S&L?, Gulf War I?). And another from from Sept - Dec '87 (Black Swan=October '87 crash). And another from May '81 to March '82 (help me out on that one--interest rates?).

      FIVE such declines in the past 25 years. This is not a 1:40 event. Period. That is what Taleb was hammering on. These probabilistic models always underestimate the "tails" because stock returns do not follow a standard bell curve.

      By not correctly estimating your downside risk, you greatly increase the odds you'll get blown up. Period. That's one of the big themes in Taleb's work.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»