dmnieren's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/135638/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/156727-genzyme-more-negative-news?source=feed#comment-635390 635390 Tue, 18 Aug 2009 17:22:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/101109-muni-bonds-constructive-in-current-portfolio-asset-allocation?source=feed#comment-288735 288735
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)]]> Thu, 23 Oct 2008 11:21:38 -0400
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)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/91140-anesiva-pain-free-high-growth?source=feed#comment-234919 234919 I'm skeptical that payers view needlestick pain as a problem they need to reimburse for.]]> Wed, 20 Aug 2008 12:53:02 -0400 I'm skeptical that payers view needlestick pain as a problem they need to reimburse for.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/89396-what-s-going-on-at-roche-palo-alto?source=feed#comment-224477 224477 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 17:35:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/73124-better-off-now-than-5-years-ago?source=feed#comment-154078 154078
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.]]> Mon, 21 Apr 2008 12:40:01 -0400
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/70972-gtx-inc-a-diamond-in-a-mud-pit?source=feed#comment-136023 136023 Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:13:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/61661-who-is-jerome-kerviel?source=feed#comment-112914 112914 Sat, 26 Jan 2008 00:07:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/58801-black-swans-real-estate-and-financial-stocks?source=feed#comment-107944 107944
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.
]]> Thu, 03 Jan 2008 00:42:07 -0500
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.
]]>