BSCLossMan

25 Comments

    • Apple TV: It Could Be the End of the Line [view article]
      AAPL Tv could be the biggest winner in the universe if it was--a TV... Oct 01 08:14 AM
    • Whale Watching: Buffett's Move Is Just What Investors Need [view article]
      I'm certainly no expert, but I simply cannot understand the price of GS shares. Now it's just a bank with a golden name, but still just a bank among many banks vying for deposits. The high valuation of GS (250/share not so long ago), and it's precipitous drop to 100, then up to 125+ reflected its status as an investment bank not a regular bank. I don't know why this isn't trading at $50, which still is giving it a premium (as a bank) for its golden name. Can anyone answer this? Sep 24 10:35 AM
    • Why I Bought AIG Last Week [view article]
      AIG comment #2: I'm certainly an amateur, but I have one more qualification about buying any AIG stock, regardless of price. I am probably wrong, but I think the fed would be very leery about letting the shareholder revolt wrest control of AIG from them. $85B is a lot of money, but AIG has much more bad stuff on its books, and it's difficult for me to imagine a consortium of large shareholders raising enough capital to make the fed feel okay with letting them take control of the company. Even with asset sales, there might be many more extremely large write-downs at AIG and if the fed lets AIG go, they (the fed) might be in the same boat in the future, bailing out AIG again. $2.50 a share sounds cheap until it goes to 5 cents...I of course, don't know, but these are just my thoughts. Sep 23 08:32 AM
    • Why I Bought AIG Last Week [view article]
      It's amazing how difficult it is to find answers on the internet to the most simple question about stocks. For example, I've not seen a single word about what would happen to those extra millions of shares of stock that would be issued by AIG in a fed takeover after the loan is paid? Are they put onto the market (thereby maintaining a massive dilution) or are they given back to AIG subsequently to be destroyed? (PS: I'm not sure what the law says about destroying stock that has been issued). The way I look at it, that's the most important question regarding AIG shares. Sep 23 08:26 AM
    • AIG: The Mark-to-Lehman Market [view article]
      There's a good article on Forbes today about AIG. AIG has many assets it can sell, real assets, not voodoo securities. Sep 13 07:18 AM
    • Market Losing Patience with AIG [view article]
      Hold on. I think AIG will triple from here in 3 years. The drop is primarily due ot shorting the stock. I'm not saying AIG doesn't have problems, but it's not like LEH or BSC or WM. It has tremendous assets and great businesses. While the fed is trying to stablize markets, the SEC made a terrible mistake allowing naked shorts. They should be stopped, period, for all stocks, and for all time. Sep 12 07:25 PM
    • Why ETFs Will Overtake Traditional Mutual Funds [view article]
      I agree with everything said, but one must be careful of saying (as so many people parrot) that ETFs are low-cost. Many ETFs have expense ratios in excess of .6%, even up to 1%. And many mutual funds, finally wising up, are finally lowering costs, with many below 1%. Vanguard, of course, is best in both categories. It seems to me that mutual funds are best for investors, while ETFs are best for traders. Aug 26 07:39 AM
    • Freddie and Fannie: Living in the Past [view article]
      In my humble opinion, entities like fannie and freddie should not exist and should never have existed. Banks that write loans should never be allowed to package them in any way, shape or form, to sell elsewhere. It's clear that Wild Capitalism, during which anyone will do anything to make money and juice returns, the only restraint (obviously government supervision doesn't do much) is to force, by law, banks to hold all loans on their books. Period. Aug 22 12:53 PM
    • Our Advice? Buy the Financials Now [view article]
      I like your thoughts, but the end of the financial crisis has been called all the time, even in January. We aren't close yet; too much deterioration. After Fannie & Freddie & LEH fail might be the time to buy. Then again, financials could go down further, even after that. AIG case in point; when they do another massive write-down, financials will follow downward. Aug 22 07:43 AM
    • Bank Index [BKX]: Near-Term Bottom in the Financials? [view article]
      I wish people would stop talking about the bottom in anything, particularly financials. We're in for a long slide yet. Jul 15 08:04 AM
    • Alcoa Management: "Global Supply and Demand Is Essentially Balanced" [view article]
      And AA was down by the time of market close... Jul 10 08:33 AM
    • Still Bearish on Financials - Stop Trading! (5/29/08) [view article]
      I think it's silly to say C can quintuple in 5 years. At the height of the voodoo-security bubble, C was only 55, and all that voodoo is disappearing, and earnings for banks have to be much lower going forward. Maybe, at best, a double in 5 years May 30 07:35 AM
    • Intrepid Potash IPO: Soaring Shares Signal Fertilizer Bubble? [view article]
      I'm not going to bash anyone, and I'm no expert, but I would like to add that POT, MOS, IPI, etc have real earnings and a scarce product, so I think their shares deserve to go higher with no end in sight. A high stock price is not necessarily a sign of a bubble. On the other hand, companies with small earnings and huge write-downs (banks) see their shares continually going up which makes no sense. I think it's very valid, however, to look at stocks like the fertilizer stocks, see the great run, and have some caution... Apr 24 09:27 AM
    • Do ETF Investors Care About Expense Ratios? [view article]
      I agree with everything said. I look closely at the expense ratios of ETFs, and I am tired of hearing that ETFs have low expense ratios for the various professionals who talk about ETFs. Many ETFs have equal or higher expense ratios than mutual funds. Apr 24 04:42 AM
    • How Cheap Are U.S. Bank Stocks? [view article]
      I'm no expert, but I look at the 2007 highs in bank/brokerage stocks as false highs based on voodoo securities. So to say C, for example, is about 50% off its high does not mean that it is cheap and will rise to those levels for a long time. With earnings very questionable going forward, book value almost a meaningless number, and write-offs every quarter (depending on what the bank wants to divulge), a still huge housing problem, I just cannot believe why people keep buying these stocks. The more they cut earnings and the more voodoo securities they admit to (& write down), the higher their stocks go. Other, non-financial stocks, miss earnings estimates by a cent, and their stocks get hammered. To me, a non expert, there is no sense to it. Apr 18 12:38 PM
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»