BSCLossMan

Still Bearish on Financials - Stop Trading! (5/29/08)

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

Intrepid Potash IPO: Soaring Shares Signal Fertilizer Bubble?

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...

Do ETF Investors Care About Expense Ratios?

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.

How Cheap Are U.S. Bank Stocks?

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.

Should Short-Selling Be Limited?

I'm no expert, and most people who read this SeekingAlpha site and many other investment sites won't agree with me, but in my ideal world I'd ban all puts, calls, options of all kinds, and all short-selling. Also, I'd ban all pre-market sales and post-market sales. In addition, I would ban all sales of stocks at discount prices (WU, et al). Everyone should always be on the same playing field. On the other hand, I'm willing (nice of me, huh?) to allow all this game playing to go on if everyone, including the Fed, would rename the stock market and all the various exchanges, with "casino" in the name. That's all the stock market has become, a big casino. No different than betting on horses.

Why We Doubled Our Position in Borders

I'm no expert, and I agree with everything Mr. Tilson says, but I have only one caveat and question. Everything I read on the subject of BGP leads me to believe the Barnes & Noble does not want to buy BGP because of cross-over in stores. BGP would be much better off allowing BGP to file bankruptcy and then cherry-picking the stores it wants at fire-sale prices. And I don't know why any other company (such as private equity) would buy BGP. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm afraid of bankruptcy, and that's the only reason I don't buy it. Am I right or wrong?

Starbucks: Who's Buying $5 Lattes In This Economy?

Oh, and I forgot one thing: I have no idea if the Starbucks stock is worth buying. I leave that to the experts. I'll just drink the coffee.

Starbucks: Who's Buying $5 Lattes In This Economy?

Don't forget all the Caribou coffee stores, also, and their coffees are better (my opionion) than Starbucks. Who buys this stuff? Me & lots of people. What, I think, analysts don't take into consideration, is that no matter how poor the economy, a $3-$5 coffee drink makes one feel rich, even for a brief, shining moment.

GE Q1 Estimates Widely Off the Mark

I'm no expert, but I think if GE was to write down about $20 billion is voodoo securities, the stock price would have risen...witness the insanity with C shares rising more and more the more slime they admit to...

A Debate Over Citi

With all the expert analysis on this site, as well as other sites--and I do mean it--lots of really good experts--no one that I have seen has mentioned what I believe is a very interesting point that I have dreamed up: You can't look at the highs of 2007. They are false highs based on voodoo securities and private equity buyouts. In addition, the earnings power of financials will be a lot lower because that voodoo will no longer be available. Therefore, in my estimation, C, as a $55 dollar stock, was a mirage. Likewise most of the financials. A similar argument, to some degree, could be applied to many non-financial stocks. Was $750 a real price for GOOG, for example? Anyway, I'm no expert, but these are my thoughts.

Borders Keeps Us In Suspense

I'm no expert, but before you get too excited about anything regarding BGP, check out recent article on FT.com

Goldman Analyst: Write-Down Concerns at Merrill and Citigroup

I'm no expert, but the more write-downs a bank has [it seems] the higher the stock price flies. Yet, if a non-financial company misses earnings by a nano-cent, the stock goes down brutally. Is this insanity?

Analysts Expect High-End of Guidance or Better from RIM

I'm no expert, but RIMM just seems to me to be a one-trick pony, unlike Apple...

Sears Holding's Lampert Continues Great Brand Lineup

I'm interested in SHLD, but Mr. Lampert is missing what I think is a very important point: Sears stores are old and ugly. And as mentioned in other comments, KMART is worse. If Lampert is doing a mini-hedge fund play, that's one thing, but I think it's trouble for him to completely overlook the lack of attractiveness of the stores themselves, as, bottom line, SHLD is still a series of stores.