rsinj

GM Common Stock Is Worth More than You Think

GM is worthless and you should re-read the title of your article before you spew nonsense like "If I owned GM, I would sell it. I have always recommended that". GM even said the common stock was worthless when it entered bankruptcy, but brainless wonders like yourself continued buying, pumping, and writing nonsense like "GM Common Stock Is Worth More than You Think". Did you not write that? Sure looks like it.


On Jun 01 10:33 AM Gerry Sullivan wrote:

> GM isn't worthless, it's worth 70 cents per share. It has traded
> 87 million shares as of 10:30 AM today. There is a bid, you can sell
> it if you think it is worthless. If I owned GM, I would sell it.
> I have always recommended that.
>
> The GM bonds are all up over 20% today.
>
> I continue to recommend selling the common stock and buying the bonds.

GM Common Stock Is Worth More than You Think

Gerry - what did you make the title of this article?

'Nuff said.



On May 31 08:45 AM Gerry Sullivan wrote:

> Wow, there are some angry people on Seeking Alpha. If you don't like
> what I write you should at least be civil.
>
> I purposely ran the article after the market closed on Friday and
> stated that I had no position in any GM securities. I traded the
> GRM bonds twice and the BGM bonds twice and all 4 trades were profitable.
> I recommended purchase of those bonds for speculators and if you
> followed my advice you made money.
>
> GM will continue to trade and I expect it will trade lower. I didn't
> suggest that anyone purchase the stock and I still don't suggest
> that anyone buy GM. I was merely pointing out that there might be
> some value that was being overlooked. If you check my previous posts
> you will see that I recommended that holders of GM common sell the
> stock and buy the cheapest bonds. As recently as last Tuesday you
> could sell 100 shares of GM common and buy more than 100 of the BGM
> $25 par bonds. BGM closed at $2.48, GM at 75 cents.
>
> GM bonds will continue to trade and may trade higher. Once GM files
> bankruptcy the symbols may change. Someone mentioned that they were
> short the bonds. That might get untidy as this works its way through
> the court system. I continue to believe that the bonds will be worth
> more than their closing prices on Friday. There could easily be a
> short squeeze on the listed bonds.
>
> I like the prospects for the "new GM" and think in time it will be
> a big winner.
>
> Disclosure: no positions in GM

GM Common Stock Is Worth More than You Think

Dude - what color is the sky in your world? You think GM can file for bankruptcy protection, wipe out debts and obligations through bankruptcy court proceedings and then have tax losses still available? I suppose it's ok to you that the taxpayers fund that too?

As you'll also find out shortly, GM's stock is just about worthless - if it gets 10 cents a share through the bankruptcy, that would be miraculous. But for you, you should get a home equity loan for as much as you can and buy all the GM stock you can this week if you believe anything you're written.

It's really too bad that they let anyone with a pulse post articles for Seeking Alpha.

Boston Scientific Should Not Only Survive, But Thrive

At least the author got one thing right in labelling BSX as a crappy company where management has made so many mistakes - really no reason to go any further than that.

However, because of what was done in the past is specifically why everyone has and should continue to steer clear of this crappy company. The company was destroyed when taking so much debt to acquire Guidant - at whatever price they had to do the deal at. J&J has been laughing their asses off since that day. If BSX management was not the arrogant, egotistical morons they've proven themselves to be, they would have let J&J win the bidding, instead focused on their own business and righting things, and have been financially sound as they've always been in the past.

Now, as a result, BSX is a weak, incapacitated waste of a company saddled with over $6 billion debt and Guidant has proven to be much more trouble than they could have ever imagined.

BSX is just a zombie in limbo. The stock is dead money and will trend down to something in the $2 to $3 range just begging for some other company to buy them out on the cheap - no more than $5 per share to put them out of their misery.

There is no investment thesis here - only lessons learned.

Tractor Supply Continues to Generate Good Results

TSCO is overpriced. The company is not justified in having a PE of 20 - it is a retailer and it it not immune to the economic problems we currently have. I'd look for a decline in earnings over the next 12 to 18 months - something the authors model provides no room for. You can open more and more stores to boost revenues, but I suspect comparable sales for existing location will take a hit.

True value of the stock is with a PE down in the 7 to 10 range, which is where I suspect it will get pretty rapidly once they provide that first earnings warning.

DryShips Looks Good, Even Without Its Dividends

See prior article and my comments from 10 months ago with DRYS in the $60's

seekingalpha.com/artic...

DryShips Looks Good, Even Without Its Dividends

I do not understand what people see here. This is not an undervalued stock/company, it is a complete scam. You have a self-dealing CEO, a company based in Greece, very poor transparency when it comes to governance. What else is needed for everyone to see through this?

When your company wants to venture into an entirely different business, which they have absolutely no experience, pay the CEO's other company huge penalties for a broken deal, etc. it is not a company you should be looking to invest in, it is one you should be running away from.

DRYS is just the next in line like LHSP and ACLN.

How to Succeed in a Bear Market

coldcall - if you've only purchased your first stock in September, you have a lot to learn.

Dividends can be eliminated entirely on a moment's notice. Want a good example - look at CCL and RCL. Many of the gurus (like Cramer) were saying these companies were solid, just experiencing some uncertainty due to the economy, but their dividends were solid and provided a reason to hold (yielding 5% to 6%). Well, one after the other - they eliminated the dividend and they both crashed.

The "floor" is a result of "group think" because everyone is doing the same thing - buying up those which are yielding 5%+...because Cramer and others are telling them to. But what happens when the dividend is cut or eliminated? Group think again - the stock is yielding less (or nothing) so it has to go down...significantly because everyone is now going to sell.

Long term, fundamentals usually win out, however, in the short-term, are you able to watch the stocks in your portfolio lose 50% or more and continue to buy and hold? The "floor" causes management to rethink their dividend payment policy. If they're yielding 5% or more, and most others/yields/rates are lower, well, they have incentive to lower the dividend and conserve cash - unless they have no debt, lots of cash on the books, and no need to worry about needing more cash. You will find very few companies like this out there which are yielding above 5% where you can have absolutely no concern of a dividend cut.

As a new investor, this is your opportunity to get a valuable lesson. The only question is, will it be a tough one?

Estimating KSW at 40% Below Fair Valuation

You say: TT had 34% less revenues and 47% less net income.

Reality is:
- Reports fourth-quarter income per diluted share from continuing operations of 32 cents; 33 cents on an adjusted basis, up 27 percent
- Delivers 14.2 percent increase in fourth-quarter sales, up 10.2 percent for the year

Additionally:
- Net income growth of 14% for 2007
- Provides 2008 full-year outlook: sales up 5-6 percent, income from continuing operations up 18-26 percent, adjusted income from continuing operations up 21-28 percent

Estimating KSW at 40% Below Fair Valuation

KSW simply spent no money on SG&A in the last quarter of 2007 to achieve your 32% net income growth. They saved $1 million - more than the entire amount of the growth you've claimed. They spent about $1 million less on SG&A than the prior 3 quarters. Had they spent what they usually spend, they would have been marginally profitable, or possibly even posted a loss for the quarter. That is not something to be proud of, nor a reason to go flaunting that the company has been successful in increasing the bottom line. I might even be inclined to think that there may have been a bit of manipulation on their part, seeing that Q4 was going to be weak, reducing that SG&A would be the only way they could prevent a loss, or not being able to show the increase in net income for the year.

From 2005 to 2006 revenues increased 40%, almost $25 million, yet the bottom line was flat. You ignore that fact, but are getting excited about increasing the bottom line less than $1 million on flat revenues?

TT and JCI are not "comparable" competitors as they are multi-billion dollar corporations - not a company that can disappear next year if the wind blows in the wrong direction.

Your numbers on FIX are also incorrect. Over the last FY, FIX had about 5% increase in revenues and about 13% increase in net income. They increased revenues every quarter of the year, and the only reason why earnings were down in the final quarter of 2007 was because they spent more on SG&A - most likely to acquire new business and continue increasing revenues going forward. FIX top and bottom line growth numbers are very impressive over the past few years (much more so than KSW's).

I wonder what the effect of decreasing SG&A to almost nothing in one quarter will be as we see KSW revenue numbers for the next couple quarters?

Regarding TT - clearly you have no idea what you are talking about and have done absolutely nothing other than reading top and bottom line numbers off the Yahoo income statement page. If you had done any real investigation you might have noticed the following link and the information regarding the spinoffs which took place - there wasn't a 34% drop in revenues as your 90 seconds of "research" indicates. In fact, revenues increased 14.2% in the final quarter, and 10.2% for the year.

biz.yahoo.com/prnews/0...

On Feb. 1, 2007, Trane, then known as American Standard Companies, announced plans to separate its three businesses. On July 31, 2007, the company completed the spinoff of its Vehicle Control Systems business as an independent company known as WABCO (NYSE: WBC - News). On Oct. 31, 2007, the company sold its Bath and Kitchen business to funds advised by Bain Capital Partners, LLC. On Nov. 28, 2007, the company changed its name to Trane to reflect its focus on its remaining business, Air Conditioning Systems and Services. On Dec. 17, 2007, the company announced that it had entered into an agreement to be acquired by Ingersoll-Rand Company Limited (NYSE: IR - News).

"Doesn't this mean it merits a higher P/E than the competitors rather than a 35% lower one?"

Since the information you added is completely wrong, as all of the "comparable" competitors have shown top and bottom line increases every year, in addition to the fact that the only way KSW showed this amazing 32% increase in net income was be eliminating SG&A for a quarter, I'd have to say the answer to your question is no - KSW does not warrant a higher P/E than these others.

Estimating KSW at 40% Below Fair Valuation

When the CEO begins buying shares, I'll take that to mean the stock is undervalued. Until then, it is overvalued. Actions speak much louder than words.

DryShips Deserves More Love

Two years ago this was a $10 stock. A year ago it was a $20 stock. The company has so many transparency issues it is a joke. This is nothing more than one of Cramer's pumps and the "market kids" as DRYS realist puts it, bid the stock up way beyond any reasonable price. PE of 3? Please - that's based on the earnings they spoon feed the gullible folks - and clearly there's enough that actually believe it.

You will see the stock track back to $20 and even to $10. And once they announce the restatement in earnings, or heaven forbid the loss, you'll see it trade even lower.

Who the hell even talked about "dry bulk shippers" before Cramer filled your head with such garbage?

Wait, wait...I'm having a flashback...ACLN/ASW..... something is too good to be true...it generally is. Some folks here will learn the hard way.

Estimating KSW at 40% Below Fair Valuation

When the CEO sells shares continually for 2 years, regardless of the reason, that sends a clear message to the market. How he can now come out now and say the stock is undervalued is laughable. "I stopped selling, now the stock is undervalued". When he began selling the stock 2 years ago, the price was under $4/share. Now, with a decline in year over year quarterly earnings and his sales completed he thinks the stock is undervalued? Again, laughable.

The homebuilders told us for the better part of 2 years that everything in their businesses were just fine and we can all keep drinking the Kool Aid. I see little difference with this company and statements made.

The author also appears extremely biased being long the stock. His "estimated fair valuation of $9.72" is nothing more than that - an estimate, one which he has provided absolutely no insight how it was arrived at.

Until mid 2005, this was a $1 stock. A year later, when the CEO began his selling, it was then a $3.60 stock. That should be a clear indicator of what point the CEO thought the stock was fairly/overvalued. The growth in the company/stock appears to have merely tracked the housing/building boom since. Revenues for 2007 are flat with 2006, and the December quarterly sales number is down 15% from September - that would be the indicator to what happens in the next year or two to me. You bail out when cracks begin to apear, not when the company finally later confirms to you that things are not so rosy. The yearly income growth is attributable to nothing more than cost cutting. The "record backlog", as with the homebuilders, can have cancellations. Not a single analyst covers the company/stock because it is valued at under $40 million - who wastes his time on something so small?

The flat revenue figure for 2007 compared to 2006 is the key point here. The jump from 2005 to 2006 simply tracked the building spurt across the sector.

Now that the CEO stock sales are complete (the press release Friday to tell the world was amateurish) and he thinks the stock is now undervalued, you think he'll jump in tomorrow and begin buying? Don't count on it.

Jim Cramer's Mad Money, 2/22/08: Rally Round the Cash

Cramer talks out of both sides of his mouth whenever the opportunity presents itself. Cash in on a rally? Sounds like daytrading techniques to me. But isn't Cramer's mission not only to entertain, but to educate? Yeah, maybe if you picked some of Cramer's dogs (like NSTK which he pushed on viewers for a good 9 months) selling on a rally makes sense. For the investor who bought a stock for it's future growth and ability to hold it long-term (not just the next 2 months or 2 weeks as all of Cramer's picks are intended) while that growth takes place, a rally has no relevance on the merits of whether it is time to sell a stock.

Remember, Cramer is the man who claimed:

1. Clear sailing after the Fed announced the first rate cut (we've all seen the YouTube replay of the wild man telling the Fed they know nothing, and then when they did what he said he was all happy), everything was then under control, we were out of danger, tech stocks are where you want to be

2. DJIA would close 2007 at 14,548

3. Many other things that he relies on the short-term memory of Wall St. (and his viewers) to forget.

Cramer is nothing more than a comedian who is only good enough for CNBC.

EZCORP: It's Easy to Own This Stock

PAYDAY LOAN is all you need to read.

You can throw around all the technical metrics and valuation analysis you like. However, this business is nothing more than legalized loan sharking.

Anyone consdering EZPW (or competition mentioned) might first want to educate themselves with payday loans, usury laws, and the public backlash against them.



online.wsj.com/article...

www.azcentral.com/ariz...

www.fredericksburg.com...

www.laurinburgexchange...

consumerist.com/tag/us.../