RickRussellTX's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/167068/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/161095-if-a-boom-is-coming-will-a-bust-follow?source=feed#comment-673364 673364 Sat, 12 Sep 2009 11:20:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140515-bio-rad-sparks-video-war-among-lab-supply-companies?source=feed#comment-525217 525217 Sun, 31 May 2009 12:38:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133219-usg-supply-is-high-demand-is-low-and-pricing-is-still-improving?source=feed#comment-478654 478654 Mon, 27 Apr 2009 04:12:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/120574-800-billion-too-much-too-little-yes?source=feed#comment-387995 387995
I call FUD on that one. Consumer saving allows banks to lend to businesses and consumers, easing the credit situation and keeping interest rates low. As long as they don't use the money to buy vastly overvalued market-traded assets (HINT HINT), the money very much stays in the economy and enters the demand stream.

Wells Fargo has been upselling me on the benefits of more savings for many months, and I suspect they are lobbying all of their customers this way in an attempt to build and maintain cash reserves and make more money available for lending.
]]> Fri, 13 Feb 2009 20:04:14 -0500
I call FUD on that one. Consumer saving allows banks to lend to businesses and consumers, easing the credit situation and keeping interest rates low. As long as they don't use the money to buy vastly overvalued market-traded assets (HINT HINT), the money very much stays in the economy and enters the demand stream.

Wells Fargo has been upselling me on the benefits of more savings for many months, and I suspect they are lobbying all of their customers this way in an attempt to build and maintain cash reserves and make more money available for lending.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115769-seagate-crashes?source=feed#comment-362367 362367
techreport.com/discuss...

In addition, their attempts to correct the problems have been rife with QA issues, resulting in more failures and more disasters:

news.cnet.com/8301-179...

www.vnunet.com/vnunet/...


]]> Wed, 21 Jan 2009 17:08:12 -0500
techreport.com/discuss...

In addition, their attempts to correct the problems have been rife with QA issues, resulting in more failures and more disasters:

news.cnet.com/8301-179...

www.vnunet.com/vnunet/...


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113620-still-blaming-the-market-victims?source=feed#comment-348943 348943 "Our nation as a whole makes very little that is of lasting value."

I think this is the key point. Efficient production of highly desirable goods is the surest way to gain comparative advantage and economic success. It's worked for Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and now it's working for China.

And the only effective ways for the federal government to influence the efficient production of desirable goods are to (1) improve efficiency by subsidizing infrastructure -- the kinds of projects that no single company could build by themselves, like power plants and bridges, or (2) improve the goods, by subsidizing education, research, etc.
]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:17:30 -0500 "Our nation as a whole makes very little that is of lasting value."

I think this is the key point. Efficient production of highly desirable goods is the surest way to gain comparative advantage and economic success. It's worked for Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and now it's working for China.

And the only effective ways for the federal government to influence the efficient production of desirable goods are to (1) improve efficiency by subsidizing infrastructure -- the kinds of projects that no single company could build by themselves, like power plants and bridges, or (2) improve the goods, by subsidizing education, research, etc.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113620-still-blaming-the-market-victims?source=feed#comment-348942 348942 "Our nation as a whole makes very little that is of lasting value."

I think this is the key point. Efficient production of highly desirable goods is the surest way to gain comparative advantage and economic success. It's worked for Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and now it's working for China.

And the only effective ways for the federal government to influence the efficient production of desirable goods are to (1) improve efficiency by subsidizing infrastructure -- the kinds of projects that no single company could build by themselves, like power plants and bridges, or (2) improve the goods, by subsidizing education, research, etc.
]]> Wed, 07 Jan 2009 15:17:29 -0500 "Our nation as a whole makes very little that is of lasting value."

I think this is the key point. Efficient production of highly desirable goods is the surest way to gain comparative advantage and economic success. It's worked for Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and now it's working for China.

And the only effective ways for the federal government to influence the efficient production of desirable goods are to (1) improve efficiency by subsidizing infrastructure -- the kinds of projects that no single company could build by themselves, like power plants and bridges, or (2) improve the goods, by subsidizing education, research, etc.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110521-my-economic-plan?source=feed#comment-329856 329856
]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:22:42 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/110521-my-economic-plan?source=feed#comment-329855 329855
]]> Mon, 15 Dec 2008 10:22:41 -0500
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109456-origins-of-the-economic-crisis-in-one-chart?source=feed#comment-322714 322714
It is certainly true that years of war have left the government impotent to address the problems.
]]> Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:57:41 -0500
It is certainly true that years of war have left the government impotent to address the problems.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/108219-the-not-so-smart-smart-money?source=feed#comment-315942 315942
I suspect we'll hunt around these lows for another 9-18 months before returning to the usual uptrend. In the meantime, I'm going to be scouting for bargains.
]]> Wed, 26 Nov 2008 20:27:48 -0500
I suspect we'll hunt around these lows for another 9-18 months before returning to the usual uptrend. In the meantime, I'm going to be scouting for bargains.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96430-bailouts-the-moral-imbalance?source=feed#comment-260002 260002
"These mortgages are worth 95 cents on the dollar if held"

The question is: is this actually true? That actual mortgage default rate may turn out to be about 5%. I've seen competing figures of 3.75% to 4.5%, but the worst may not yet be behind us, so let's assume 5%.

In principle, then, 95% of the mortgage assets can be valued at their stated value, while perhaps 5% will have a value below their stated value. In some case, far below their stated value, but in most cases, perhaps 30-70% their stated value, since the properties will be sold and the proceeds divided among the mortgage-backed security holders.

However, that assumes that home prices stabilize. If they do not, won't defaults go up? Few people will be willing to pay for a $500000 mortgage on an asset that is worth $300000 or less, and for them it may make sense to walk away, deal with the credit problems, and get back on an even footing in 5 or 7 years. I have a relative who defaulted on a mortgage -- BADLY, by just walking out and refusing to check her mail -- and she repaired her credit and was offered a new mortgage in 4 years.

The fact that young wage earners are essentially priced out of the home market in many regions is a suggestion that liberal mortgage policies (and let's face it, fraud) created an artificial elevation in home prices. Home prices are directly related to mortgage rates and liquidity. If rates go up or liquidity is permanently reduced (or both) then home prices will truly adjust downward.

That's why these assets are so toxic. Sure, 5% looks like a realistic number now. Realtors I've talked to say that about 30% of home recent buyers are in bad mortgages *right now*, at current home prices. What if the final number is really 50%?

Of course, we may not have a choice. The person who made off with the money -- and the person who was least culpable in this disaster -- was the home seller, who didn't commit fraud or put anybody in a position of taking on a bad mortgage.]]> Sat, 20 Sep 2008 11:42:25 -0400
"These mortgages are worth 95 cents on the dollar if held"

The question is: is this actually true? That actual mortgage default rate may turn out to be about 5%. I've seen competing figures of 3.75% to 4.5%, but the worst may not yet be behind us, so let's assume 5%.

In principle, then, 95% of the mortgage assets can be valued at their stated value, while perhaps 5% will have a value below their stated value. In some case, far below their stated value, but in most cases, perhaps 30-70% their stated value, since the properties will be sold and the proceeds divided among the mortgage-backed security holders.

However, that assumes that home prices stabilize. If they do not, won't defaults go up? Few people will be willing to pay for a $500000 mortgage on an asset that is worth $300000 or less, and for them it may make sense to walk away, deal with the credit problems, and get back on an even footing in 5 or 7 years. I have a relative who defaulted on a mortgage -- BADLY, by just walking out and refusing to check her mail -- and she repaired her credit and was offered a new mortgage in 4 years.

The fact that young wage earners are essentially priced out of the home market in many regions is a suggestion that liberal mortgage policies (and let's face it, fraud) created an artificial elevation in home prices. Home prices are directly related to mortgage rates and liquidity. If rates go up or liquidity is permanently reduced (or both) then home prices will truly adjust downward.

That's why these assets are so toxic. Sure, 5% looks like a realistic number now. Realtors I've talked to say that about 30% of home recent buyers are in bad mortgages *right now*, at current home prices. What if the final number is really 50%?

Of course, we may not have a choice. The person who made off with the money -- and the person who was least culpable in this disaster -- was the home seller, who didn't commit fraud or put anybody in a position of taking on a bad mortgage.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93711-google-s-chrome-sounds-like-1970s-pressure-cooker?source=feed#comment-244845 244845
Also keep in mind that, as the tools to support interactive Web sites get better, Google will actually be able to sell services directly for green cash money. Public and private sector organizations are increasingly converting to hosted Web applications for e-mail, calendaring, CRM, ERP, etc. Google already has fingers in that space and they have made some key sales, and a fast, very stable Web browser can only make those applications more appealing.

I don't know if they will try to implement unique features in Chrome and use those as a selling point for the platform (Microsoft tried it with IE, and it was pretty roundly criticized). But even if they stick to "industry standards", if they do a better job than the competition -- better performance, fewer browser crashes, etc -- that may be enough to get folks to convert.

Look at it this way, you could have made *precisely* the same argument against Firefox, which was released in Nov. 2004. Only four short years later, it's at 20% market share (almost all at the expense of IE: www.computerworld.com/... ), a feat that was widely viewed impossible. Children and grandmothers are using it, because their computer-savvy friends are telling them that it's less vulnerable to malicious software.

Unlike some others, I don't see the Web browser bringing a natural end to standalone applications. Honestly, that's silly. Look at Google Docs, for example, and compare it to any 1990s version of MS Office, or even OpenOffice. The online offerings are short on features by a huge factor, and it will be years or even decades before browser-based offerings compete directly in that space. Ultimately, there will (and should be) healthy competition in at least two major classes of applications: standalone apps coded for each platform, and Web-based apps coded for the browser.
]]> Wed, 03 Sep 2008 16:09:12 -0400
Also keep in mind that, as the tools to support interactive Web sites get better, Google will actually be able to sell services directly for green cash money. Public and private sector organizations are increasingly converting to hosted Web applications for e-mail, calendaring, CRM, ERP, etc. Google already has fingers in that space and they have made some key sales, and a fast, very stable Web browser can only make those applications more appealing.

I don't know if they will try to implement unique features in Chrome and use those as a selling point for the platform (Microsoft tried it with IE, and it was pretty roundly criticized). But even if they stick to "industry standards", if they do a better job than the competition -- better performance, fewer browser crashes, etc -- that may be enough to get folks to convert.

Look at it this way, you could have made *precisely* the same argument against Firefox, which was released in Nov. 2004. Only four short years later, it's at 20% market share (almost all at the expense of IE: www.computerworld.com/... ), a feat that was widely viewed impossible. Children and grandmothers are using it, because their computer-savvy friends are telling them that it's less vulnerable to malicious software.

Unlike some others, I don't see the Web browser bringing a natural end to standalone applications. Honestly, that's silly. Look at Google Docs, for example, and compare it to any 1990s version of MS Office, or even OpenOffice. The online offerings are short on features by a huge factor, and it will be years or even decades before browser-based offerings compete directly in that space. Ultimately, there will (and should be) healthy competition in at least two major classes of applications: standalone apps coded for each platform, and Web-based apps coded for the browser.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93711-google-s-chrome-sounds-like-1970s-pressure-cooker?source=feed#comment-244639 244639
On a Web site, there are two ways to generate content that is dynamic and interacts with the user:

(1) Every time the user does anything, submit a request back t the Web server and send new information back to the Web browser, or

(2) Run executable program code inside the Web browser itself that interacts with the user, sending updates back to the Web server only when necessary.

Google realizes that we are at a crossroads. The first crossroads was at the end of the dot-com bubble, when people started coding software designed to run on the Web browser's Javascript interpreter. That gave us rich applications like Gmail and Google Docs and Flickr.

Now we are at another crossroads. Web developers realize that if they want to code really fast, highly interactive applications (say, video editing), they must rely on a nonstandard technology, such as ActiveX (which is nothing more than executing a Windows program in the browser), Java or a plug-in like Flash. The degree to which each of these technologies can integrate with the Web browser is different -- ActiveX is tightly integrated with IE, but it's platform-locked to Windows. Java and Flash are great programming environments for various tasks, but they are essentially separate programs that run outside the browser, and do not really interact with the Web page at all. Java and Flash are also dependent on the whims of Sun and Adobe, respectively. And all three have serious implications for computer security, since they all allow the program code to run within the user's operating system. Java is pretty well locked down (and uses the same sandboxing model that Google is proposing), but Flash and ActiveX are security nightmares.

So, Google decided to develop their own solution designed to address the performance concerns of Javascript, the Web interactivity concerns of Flash and Java and the security concerns of ActiveX and Flash (and to a lesser extent, Java).

Will they pull it off? For many users, the fact that Google applications work better in Chrome may be enough to justify the switch. I spend a significant portion of my life in Gmail, Picasa and iGoogle.
]]> Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:58:21 -0400
On a Web site, there are two ways to generate content that is dynamic and interacts with the user:

(1) Every time the user does anything, submit a request back t the Web server and send new information back to the Web browser, or

(2) Run executable program code inside the Web browser itself that interacts with the user, sending updates back to the Web server only when necessary.

Google realizes that we are at a crossroads. The first crossroads was at the end of the dot-com bubble, when people started coding software designed to run on the Web browser's Javascript interpreter. That gave us rich applications like Gmail and Google Docs and Flickr.

Now we are at another crossroads. Web developers realize that if they want to code really fast, highly interactive applications (say, video editing), they must rely on a nonstandard technology, such as ActiveX (which is nothing more than executing a Windows program in the browser), Java or a plug-in like Flash. The degree to which each of these technologies can integrate with the Web browser is different -- ActiveX is tightly integrated with IE, but it's platform-locked to Windows. Java and Flash are great programming environments for various tasks, but they are essentially separate programs that run outside the browser, and do not really interact with the Web page at all. Java and Flash are also dependent on the whims of Sun and Adobe, respectively. And all three have serious implications for computer security, since they all allow the program code to run within the user's operating system. Java is pretty well locked down (and uses the same sandboxing model that Google is proposing), but Flash and ActiveX are security nightmares.

So, Google decided to develop their own solution designed to address the performance concerns of Javascript, the Web interactivity concerns of Flash and Java and the security concerns of ActiveX and Flash (and to a lesser extent, Java).

Will they pull it off? For many users, the fact that Google applications work better in Chrome may be enough to justify the switch. I spend a significant portion of my life in Gmail, Picasa and iGoogle.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93308-questioning-obamanomics?source=feed#comment-242382 242382 Sun, 31 Aug 2008 04:23:58 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/91488-inflation-cpi-vs-the-market?source=feed#comment-233513 233513 Mon, 18 Aug 2008 19:09:00 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/90721-a-million-bucks-ain-t-what-it-used-to-be?source=feed#comment-229447 229447
Whatever you may think about the gold standard, I think you missed the point of the article. He's trying to make the point that the gold standard was a way to set the value of a dollar -- we wouldn't need to produce 15 trillion dollars today, since the dollar would be more valuable in real terms if it was calibrated to something.

The problem (and I'm no economist, just me thinking on these matters) is that any commodity you choose to use as a dollar index is going to introduce strange unintended consequences. If you set the dollar rate at $1.00 = 10 kilowatt hours, what happens when companies can't buy supplies at a cost that will meet that pricing goal? They close up shop and stop producing electricity until Congress sets a new threshold?]]> Wed, 13 Aug 2008 11:28:51 -0400
Whatever you may think about the gold standard, I think you missed the point of the article. He's trying to make the point that the gold standard was a way to set the value of a dollar -- we wouldn't need to produce 15 trillion dollars today, since the dollar would be more valuable in real terms if it was calibrated to something.

The problem (and I'm no economist, just me thinking on these matters) is that any commodity you choose to use as a dollar index is going to introduce strange unintended consequences. If you set the dollar rate at $1.00 = 10 kilowatt hours, what happens when companies can't buy supplies at a cost that will meet that pricing goal? They close up shop and stop producing electricity until Congress sets a new threshold?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/87548-successful-investing-is-not-about-predicting-the-market?source=feed#comment-217552 217552
That's a fallacy. The true value of a market-traded commodity is the price that someone is willing to pay for it. That's the only measure of value.]]> Tue, 29 Jul 2008 13:12:22 -0400
That's a fallacy. The true value of a market-traded commodity is the price that someone is willing to pay for it. That's the only measure of value.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83702-dow-in-secular-bear-market-when-priced-in-ounces-of-gold?source=feed#comment-198062 198062 Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:22:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/69554-bear-stearns-should-go-for-more-than-6-barron-s?source=feed#comment-130274 130274
But why is the government involved? From this outsider's perspective, it looks like nothing more than banking bigwigs trying to help out their golf buddies. The Fed should assist all banks, not just their buddies at Bear Stearns and JPM. Bernanke needs to preserve the impartiality of the Fed by walking away from this deal ASAP.

RR]]> Sun, 23 Mar 2008 11:58:39 -0400
But why is the government involved? From this outsider's perspective, it looks like nothing more than banking bigwigs trying to help out their golf buddies. The Fed should assist all banks, not just their buddies at Bear Stearns and JPM. Bernanke needs to preserve the impartiality of the Fed by walking away from this deal ASAP.

RR]]>