CloroxCowboy's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/141776/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/147552-google-chrome-redefining-the-operating-system?source=feed#comment-578869 578869
A fast, streamlined, FREE os that gets users on the web quickly...I think MSFT is in serious trouble.

On Jul 08 10:01 AM Larry Bellehumeur wrote:

> The Market won't care.....there has been a viable option in MAC and
> Linux for years, and MSFT is still king. Do you imagine a Fortune
> 500 company, which is where much of their money comes from, switching
> over? The average Home user might put $100 in MSFT's pocket, where
> as GE might put hundreds of millions per year....
>
> When Google cracks the Corporate market, then people will notice.]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:58:55 -0400
A fast, streamlined, FREE os that gets users on the web quickly...I think MSFT is in serious trouble.

On Jul 08 10:01 AM Larry Bellehumeur wrote:

> The Market won't care.....there has been a viable option in MAC and
> Linux for years, and MSFT is still king. Do you imagine a Fortune
> 500 company, which is where much of their money comes from, switching
> over? The average Home user might put $100 in MSFT's pocket, where
> as GE might put hundreds of millions per year....
>
> When Google cracks the Corporate market, then people will notice.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144052-bogle-investors-getting-killed-in-etfs?source=feed#comment-553530 553530

On Jun 18 06:33 PM ETF Grind wrote:

> We already know that trading is a statistically losing proposition,
> no matter what vehicle you use.]]> Fri, 19 Jun 2009 08:50:36 -0400

On Jun 18 06:33 PM ETF Grind wrote:

> We already know that trading is a statistically losing proposition,
> no matter what vehicle you use.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142418-revisiting-the-mbs-debate-which-we-should-already-be-past?source=feed#comment-542745 542745

On Jun 10 09:24 PM Crocodilian wrote:

> My guess is that the banks got stuck with "slower-moving" inventory
> as the price of putting these deals together. That is, they didn't
> carry the inventory because they _wanted_ it, they carried it because
> these were the parts that they were having a hard time selling.

Your guess is correct.]]> Thu, 11 Jun 2009 15:38:16 -0400

On Jun 10 09:24 PM Crocodilian wrote:

> My guess is that the banks got stuck with "slower-moving" inventory
> as the price of putting these deals together. That is, they didn't
> carry the inventory because they _wanted_ it, they carried it because
> these were the parts that they were having a hard time selling.

Your guess is correct.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142418-revisiting-the-mbs-debate-which-we-should-already-be-past?source=feed#comment-540696 540696
One of the most interesting meetings I remember was when I saw that our latest operating costs were hovering around 2%. This was mid-2007 and by that time our net revenue from sales to the secondary market was about 1.75%... You might be able to guess the company motto? "Outrun it with volume!" All we had to do was keep selling more loans each month than the month before, and we could make the dream last forever. Luckily, I found a new job soon thereafter.

But as you say, none of this is new. People still defending these business practices are probably also Holocaust deniers and would buy every stock Jim Cramer mutters about in his sleep.]]> Wed, 10 Jun 2009 12:21:46 -0400
One of the most interesting meetings I remember was when I saw that our latest operating costs were hovering around 2%. This was mid-2007 and by that time our net revenue from sales to the secondary market was about 1.75%... You might be able to guess the company motto? "Outrun it with volume!" All we had to do was keep selling more loans each month than the month before, and we could make the dream last forever. Luckily, I found a new job soon thereafter.

But as you say, none of this is new. People still defending these business practices are probably also Holocaust deniers and would buy every stock Jim Cramer mutters about in his sleep.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/23310?source=feed#comment-489246 489246 Mon, 04 May 2009 16:15:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130792-friday-outlook-commodities-global-markets?source=feed#comment-485575 485575

On May 01 10:33 AM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> CloroxCowboy,
>
> Let's ignore the self-evident, that Chrysler was a walking corpse
> way before yesterday.

Why ignore it? I'd rather not if you don't mind. It's is the whole issue in my opinion. A walking corpse is something you should put out of its misery by killing it swiftly. If it can be brought back to life in a healthier form, then all the better.

> Obama's comment WAS Orwellian, in the context that it is beyond nonsense,
> absolute nonsense, it is a contradiction in terms. That's what's
> Orwellian, "slavery is freedom", "war is peace". A lie is not any
> less a lie just because it comes from the mouths of the powerful.
> Saying that a company being placed into bankruptcy is not "a sign
> of weakness". What is it a sign of, pray tell?

You're confusing Chrysler with its (soon-to-be former) management. Bankruptcy is a huge sign of weakness for Nardelli et al, proving that they are ineffective at dealing with their creditors, unions, etc. On the other hand, Chrysler, the company, the distinct corporate entity will emerge stronger because of bankruptcy, which is the entire reason Chapter 11 exists. By your line of thinking, a doctor giving his patient medication would be an Orwellian act. You're confusing the patient with the virus.

> In Obama's doublespeak, I guess what he was saying is "don't stand
> in the way of an orderly settlement", we will steam roller you. "We"
> being the government of the United States of America.

Yes, I imagine that would happen. A big reason he was elected was the concept of change, therefore it's his mandate from the majority of Americans. Changing things doesn't always equate to asking nicely.]]> Fri, 01 May 2009 11:10:42 -0400

On May 01 10:33 AM History Buff 24/7 wrote:

> CloroxCowboy,
>
> Let's ignore the self-evident, that Chrysler was a walking corpse
> way before yesterday.

Why ignore it? I'd rather not if you don't mind. It's is the whole issue in my opinion. A walking corpse is something you should put out of its misery by killing it swiftly. If it can be brought back to life in a healthier form, then all the better.

> Obama's comment WAS Orwellian, in the context that it is beyond nonsense,
> absolute nonsense, it is a contradiction in terms. That's what's
> Orwellian, "slavery is freedom", "war is peace". A lie is not any
> less a lie just because it comes from the mouths of the powerful.
> Saying that a company being placed into bankruptcy is not "a sign
> of weakness". What is it a sign of, pray tell?

You're confusing Chrysler with its (soon-to-be former) management. Bankruptcy is a huge sign of weakness for Nardelli et al, proving that they are ineffective at dealing with their creditors, unions, etc. On the other hand, Chrysler, the company, the distinct corporate entity will emerge stronger because of bankruptcy, which is the entire reason Chapter 11 exists. By your line of thinking, a doctor giving his patient medication would be an Orwellian act. You're confusing the patient with the virus.

> In Obama's doublespeak, I guess what he was saying is "don't stand
> in the way of an orderly settlement", we will steam roller you. "We"
> being the government of the United States of America.

Yes, I imagine that would happen. A big reason he was elected was the concept of change, therefore it's his mandate from the majority of Americans. Changing things doesn't always equate to asking nicely.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134314-credit-default-swaps-may-be-playing-a-supporting-role-in-chrysler-bankruptcy-filings?source=feed#comment-485456 485456

On May 01 08:59 AM Liz wrote:

>
>
> I'd hardly call $100K/year "working class".]]> Fri, 01 May 2009 10:17:43 -0400

On May 01 08:59 AM Liz wrote:

>
>
> I'd hardly call $100K/year "working class".]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130792-friday-outlook-commodities-global-markets?source=feed#comment-485417 485417
I don't see what's so "Orwellian" about Obama's statement. You kill a sick company, then revive it in a much healthier form. What's hard to understand about that? ]]> Fri, 01 May 2009 09:55:31 -0400
I don't see what's so "Orwellian" about Obama's statement. You kill a sick company, then revive it in a much healthier form. What's hard to understand about that? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134314-credit-default-swaps-may-be-playing-a-supporting-role-in-chrysler-bankruptcy-filings?source=feed#comment-484617 484617 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 16:19:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133955-examining-the-sell-in-may-go-away-axiom?source=feed#comment-484281 484281

On Apr 29 02:22 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> 'Sell in May Go Away' axiom will fail this year. The momentum is
> overwhelmingly bullish and the economy is improving.]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 13:04:00 -0400

On Apr 29 02:22 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> 'Sell in May Go Away' axiom will fail this year. The momentum is
> overwhelmingly bullish and the economy is improving.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133676-will-the-stress-test-seal-ken-lewis-s-fate?source=feed#comment-481425 481425 Tue, 28 Apr 2009 15:14:36 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/131980-the-wisdom-of-half-positions?source=feed#comment-471337 471337

On Apr 21 11:55 AM Guru914 wrote:

>You know how what you have
> has (and may in the future) performed but don't really know how what
> you're getting into will perform.

If you think you know any more about the future performance of the first stock than the second, you are mistaken. "May in the future" is not knowing anything...it's flipping a coin. Saying that you don't want to track as many stocks is a valid rebuttal to this article, whereas your statement above is a VALIDATION of the article.]]> Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:47:14 -0400

On Apr 21 11:55 AM Guru914 wrote:

>You know how what you have
> has (and may in the future) performed but don't really know how what
> you're getting into will perform.

If you think you know any more about the future performance of the first stock than the second, you are mistaken. "May in the future" is not knowing anything...it's flipping a coin. Saying that you don't want to track as many stocks is a valid rebuttal to this article, whereas your statement above is a VALIDATION of the article.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125963-paired-trades-short-nalco-holding-long-met-pro?source=feed#comment-428217 428217
For example, my style would be to find a pair where the price ratio is relatively stationary (highly cointegrated) over several years, and enter trades at several standard deviations from the mean. I would exit on a return to the mean, rinse, and repeat. Basically I just look for statistical "tails" but rarely use fundamentals or events when I value my trades. In fact, I try to specifically trade pairs with very little recent news that have slowly drifted apart (for no apparent reason) and wait for a quick rebound to the "correct" prices.

Your method seems to be different than mine, and I can see that it would require more in-depth fundamental research to trade this way. Don't get me wrong though, I think both methods can be successful. I am definitely looking forward to reading about your future trades and learning more about this style. Good luck and thanks for the reply!]]> Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:26:59 -0400
For example, my style would be to find a pair where the price ratio is relatively stationary (highly cointegrated) over several years, and enter trades at several standard deviations from the mean. I would exit on a return to the mean, rinse, and repeat. Basically I just look for statistical "tails" but rarely use fundamentals or events when I value my trades. In fact, I try to specifically trade pairs with very little recent news that have slowly drifted apart (for no apparent reason) and wait for a quick rebound to the "correct" prices.

Your method seems to be different than mine, and I can see that it would require more in-depth fundamental research to trade this way. Don't get me wrong though, I think both methods can be successful. I am definitely looking forward to reading about your future trades and learning more about this style. Good luck and thanks for the reply!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125963-paired-trades-short-nalco-holding-long-met-pro?source=feed#comment-427443 427443 Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:40:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125963-paired-trades-short-nalco-holding-long-met-pro?source=feed#comment-427437 427437
Nice to see that someone is coming out with a series on pairs trading. I have a question regarding this particular trade. Financials aside, when I look at the price ratio chart you attached it seems that the main portion of this correction might have happened already. My question is: Are you doing any analysis on the quantitative side, looking for favorable co-integration characteristics in these pairs, etc? I tend more to the techinal in my pairs trades, evaluating the movements of price ratio more than company financials, so I'm very interested to see how a strategy based largely on fundamentals (that is just my assumption from the article) will go.]]> Mon, 16 Mar 2009 09:37:15 -0400
Nice to see that someone is coming out with a series on pairs trading. I have a question regarding this particular trade. Financials aside, when I look at the price ratio chart you attached it seems that the main portion of this correction might have happened already. My question is: Are you doing any analysis on the quantitative side, looking for favorable co-integration characteristics in these pairs, etc? I tend more to the techinal in my pairs trades, evaluating the movements of price ratio more than company financials, so I'm very interested to see how a strategy based largely on fundamentals (that is just my assumption from the article) will go.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124090-barack-obama-buy-stocks-jim-cramer-stop-it-obama?source=feed#comment-416368 416368
How exactly is he "destroying wealth"? I hear that BS phrase thrown around way too much lately, so I'd like to know. What specific actions has he taken to destroy your wealth? Is he supposed to snap his fingers and make the market go up? And please tell me what actions you would take in his position to demonstrate your "skills"?]]> Fri, 06 Mar 2009 14:44:16 -0500
How exactly is he "destroying wealth"? I hear that BS phrase thrown around way too much lately, so I'd like to know. What specific actions has he taken to destroy your wealth? Is he supposed to snap his fingers and make the market go up? And please tell me what actions you would take in his position to demonstrate your "skills"?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124090-barack-obama-buy-stocks-jim-cramer-stop-it-obama?source=feed#comment-413323 413323
In other words...
Consummate.
Bullsh*t.
Artists.]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 16:55:31 -0500
In other words...
Consummate.
Bullsh*t.
Artists.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/118422-covered-call-option-writing-strategies-fishing-and-cutting-bait?source=feed#comment-403604 403604 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:08:39 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/122478-my-apple-covered-call-capture-gain-repeat?source=feed#comment-403566 403566
IMO you're better off to sell the front month or possibly two months out since, as you mentioned, you'll see the most "bang for your buck" in terms of theta decay the closer you get to expiry. Using longer timeframes makes it more of a directional play. Also you no longer have the outrageous volatility advantage that existed in Oct. If the market does take another large dive as you suggested, you may get crushed by rising IV. Selling that far OTM may not be the best move in a potentially falling environment. Once again, it seems to be a pretty bullish play but I'm interested to see how it plays out for you.]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 16:45:18 -0500
IMO you're better off to sell the front month or possibly two months out since, as you mentioned, you'll see the most "bang for your buck" in terms of theta decay the closer you get to expiry. Using longer timeframes makes it more of a directional play. Also you no longer have the outrageous volatility advantage that existed in Oct. If the market does take another large dive as you suggested, you may get crushed by rising IV. Selling that far OTM may not be the best move in a potentially falling environment. Once again, it seems to be a pretty bullish play but I'm interested to see how it plays out for you.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/122563-thoughts-on-last-night-s-speech-by-the-president?source=feed#comment-402776 402776 Wed, 25 Feb 2009 09:34:52 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/122292-an-interview-with-the-dean-of-contrarian-investing?source=feed#comment-401972 401972 Tue, 24 Feb 2009 16:30:07 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/121512-if-you-re-bullish-time-for-a-70-s-party?source=feed#comment-395476 395476
Also to be fair to the author I think there is a time and place for bumping two charts together and measuring the correlation, co-integration, etc...I just don't think this is a sound example of that approach.]]> Thu, 19 Feb 2009 14:37:30 -0500
Also to be fair to the author I think there is a time and place for bumping two charts together and measuring the correlation, co-integration, etc...I just don't think this is a sound example of that approach.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/121512-if-you-re-bullish-time-for-a-70-s-party?source=feed#comment-395371 395371
I do use a similar method for trading closely related stocks (ie pairs trade), but comparing the same index across two arbitrarily chosen time periods is completely different, and IMO borders on pseudo-statistics.]]> Thu, 19 Feb 2009 13:43:25 -0500
I do use a similar method for trading closely related stocks (ie pairs trade), but comparing the same index across two arbitrarily chosen time periods is completely different, and IMO borders on pseudo-statistics.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/116733-on-buffett-back-riding?source=feed#comment-367431 367431 Tue, 27 Jan 2009 09:16:02 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/115521-british-pound-crumbles?source=feed#comment-361046 361046 Tue, 20 Jan 2009 13:44:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/115038-banks-not-lending-anymore-simply-untrue?source=feed#comment-357554 357554
"It is certainly true that someone with a FICO score of 500 or 600 (sub-prime) might not get a loan in today’s environment..."

That's what the heads are talking about. Joe six-pack can't refi the expensive house that he wasn't really qualified to own when the bank approved his 50 year interest-only ARM loan in 2005.

There are only three possible outcomes to that scenario. The least likely possibility is that Joe is suddenly able to afford his crushing mountain of debt without modifying any loan terms...nearly impossible. Secondly, the government will eventually persuade, cajole or pass a law to force Joe's bank to either let him refi or modify his loan. Third outcome is that Joe goes into foreclosure and starts to learn some of the lessons about money that his grandparents probably learned in the '30s.

I find myself surprisingly torn between wishing for option 2 or 3...]]> Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:29:14 -0500
"It is certainly true that someone with a FICO score of 500 or 600 (sub-prime) might not get a loan in today’s environment..."

That's what the heads are talking about. Joe six-pack can't refi the expensive house that he wasn't really qualified to own when the bank approved his 50 year interest-only ARM loan in 2005.

There are only three possible outcomes to that scenario. The least likely possibility is that Joe is suddenly able to afford his crushing mountain of debt without modifying any loan terms...nearly impossible. Secondly, the government will eventually persuade, cajole or pass a law to force Joe's bank to either let him refi or modify his loan. Third outcome is that Joe goes into foreclosure and starts to learn some of the lessons about money that his grandparents probably learned in the '30s.

I find myself surprisingly torn between wishing for option 2 or 3...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112836-2008-performance-of-stocks-oil-dollar-long-bond?source=feed#comment-345625 345625
I'm disappointed because I already know the basic info, which is all these guys ever provide. What I expect from authors on this site (and I hope it's not an unrealistic expectation) is some kind of added insight. I have no problem with anyone posting a graph or talking about events in the past, but if that's all there is to the article perhaps the title should be:

]]> Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:29:19 -0500
I'm disappointed because I already know the basic info, which is all these guys ever provide. What I expect from authors on this site (and I hope it's not an unrealistic expectation) is some kind of added insight. I have no problem with anyone posting a graph or talking about events in the past, but if that's all there is to the article perhaps the title should be:

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112796-is-buying-bonds-really-a-good-idea?source=feed#comment-342443 342443
I'm confused as to what your exact position is with this article. Granted, Brett Arends' #4 explanation is a terrible justification for investing in equities, but that doesn't mean investing in equities is a terrible idea right now...he's just providing the wrong reason to do so. Since it appears you're advocating a cash position (I had to re-read that part to make sure I wasn't missing some hidden sarcasm), when exactly should investors jump back in, when prices are high again? Long-term portfolios should be buying now, on the way down, not waiting for "safety".

This is just the flipside to the arguments I saw back in Nov '07 from all the "long-terms", the ones that were deriding those of us who clearly saw the writing on the wall and preserved our profits above 13000. We were called spineless or speculators back then, and now we are being lumped in with Mr. Arends who seems to have slept through a few basic investing courses. Buy low (that's NOW).]]> Wed, 31 Dec 2008 10:11:15 -0500
I'm confused as to what your exact position is with this article. Granted, Brett Arends' #4 explanation is a terrible justification for investing in equities, but that doesn't mean investing in equities is a terrible idea right now...he's just providing the wrong reason to do so. Since it appears you're advocating a cash position (I had to re-read that part to make sure I wasn't missing some hidden sarcasm), when exactly should investors jump back in, when prices are high again? Long-term portfolios should be buying now, on the way down, not waiting for "safety".

This is just the flipside to the arguments I saw back in Nov '07 from all the "long-terms", the ones that were deriding those of us who clearly saw the writing on the wall and preserved our profits above 13000. We were called spineless or speculators back then, and now we are being lumped in with Mr. Arends who seems to have slept through a few basic investing courses. Buy low (that's NOW).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/104984-stocks-vs-bonds-an-update-for-the-current-market?source=feed#comment-305945 305945

The article you pasted in takes a pretty narrow view and ignores the possibilities that exist with the current yields. Being a young investor, I'm buying these steadily on the way down, reaping increasingly more pleasing payments along the way. I also have the luxury of a long horizon to let prices bottom out whenever they choose and sell at a profit later. I realize that not everyone has time on their side, but those people shouldn't be involved in junk funds for that very reason.
]]> Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:20:04 -0500

The article you pasted in takes a pretty narrow view and ignores the possibilities that exist with the current yields. Being a young investor, I'm buying these steadily on the way down, reaping increasingly more pleasing payments along the way. I also have the luxury of a long horizon to let prices bottom out whenever they choose and sell at a profit later. I realize that not everyone has time on their side, but those people shouldn't be involved in junk funds for that very reason.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99894-can-you-trust-junk-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-305935 305935 Fri, 14 Nov 2008 09:14:43 -0500