icandoitdon

Ackman's Desperate Target Fight

amen, brother. early in my career i was a senior financial analyst for target. they're a well disciplined firm with top notch management.

as for having "shitty boards," flashguy, ackman doesn't make that assertion of the board or management, which leads to the logical question: what the hell does he think he's doing? of all the lousy retailers in this country he tries to strong arm one of the best managed. he never understood his "target."



On May 12 04:17 AM Aaron Epstein wrote:

> Bill Ackman's business is HEDGE fund management, meaning taking high
> risks to obtain immediate high profits.
>
> I have been a shareholder in the original Dayton Corporation since
> 1967 when there were just 15 Target stores. Today there are over
> 1600. The business was built brick by brick on solid footing.
>
> The management has ALWAYS reacted to current market conditions by
> adjusting, but has NOT jumped to knee-jerk over-reaction which has
> crippled other companies.
>
> A basic premise taught in marketing 1A is to compete with your competitors
> on your ground, not theirs. That is what Target has been successful
> in doing. Five years ago K-Mart announced that they were not going
> to sit back and let Walmart be the lowest price retailer. They
> attempted to match Walmart’s prices item by item. Not having Wal-Mart's
> purchasing power, and sophisticated computerized distribution system,
> they entered bankruptcy within 24 months.
>
> Mr. Ackman's suggestion to sell off Target's real estate to realize
> immediate profits endangers Target's future profits and stability.
> One of the main contributors to Mervyn's bankruptcy was that they
> no longer had control over their real estate expenses.
>
> Mr. Ackman may now talk a different line, but I for one judge him
> by his past proposals and am voting to retain the current and very
> qualified Board and not endanger the future of the company at the
> risk of possible temporary market gain.
>
> Aaron M. Epstein, N. Hollywood, CA
> .........................

Ackman's Desperate Target Fight

setting up a single stock fund was his first mistake. picking target...a well managed retailer with a good long term record of performance....as his target, so to speak, was his second mistake. pitching a loser of an idea that relys on financial leverage to goose returns to an informed, well discipline board like target's was his third mistake.

if anyone ever makes a dime in this fund it will be because of the success of target's chosen strategies...not ackman's.

Political Incompetence Could Drive Up the Price of Oil

oil is the new gold, chased by fearful investors who do not trust governments to manage their economies or world affairs responsibly. given the history of the last 10 years or so, who can blame them?

Curious Accounting Tactics at Wells Fargo

"Keep in mind, Goodwill is an intangible asset and amortized (to expense) in the income statement over a period of time."

the accounting rules for goodwill were changed in 2001. goodwill is no longer amortized to income. if discounted future cash flows of the related assets are less than goodwill carrying cost, an impairment charge is required.

Chrysler's Future

this is typical of the ignorance that pervades any discussion of automobile industry wages. the $74 figure is not an hourly wage rate...it is a fully loaded cost, inclusive of pension, life, health and other benefit costs, including retireee costs. the average hourly wage is less than half this figure.

let me also remind you geniusus who think that eliminating union wages is the cure-all for these poorly run companies, let me remind you that it is in the interests of any party to a negotiation to drive the best deal possible for their own interests. instead of bitching about the UAW having done a hell of a lot better job at this simple task than industry management, why don't you rip industry management the new a**hole they assuredly deserve, given their failure to look out for the interest of their shareholders.

it is management that drove this industry into the ground...period.

get your facts straight. the pure wage differential with japanese manufacturers in this country is minimal.


On Apr 30 04:57 PM jstratt wrote:

> It seems stange to suggest that a bankruptcy is a great thing...
> but it is. When I heard that UAW Chrysler had basically agreed to
> freeze wages it seemed unfair for bondholders.
>
> It will take a strong judge but perhaps the astronomical hourly wage
> cost should be reduced along with work rules. If I remember from
> last year the cost per hour was approximately $74 an hour.
>
> Just thinking if I was a bankruptcy judge
> -the workers would have to participate by reducing to a competitive
> wage.
> - The bondholders would get much pain
> - Pensions would be funded at a fair rate
> - The company would be left in a position to grow and prosper.<br/>
>
> All of the above can happen. With a competitive wage Chrysler would
> be a competitive force. Perhaps increase employment 50% in a future.
> Without a competitive wage it is not going to be a success.
>
> The UAW leadership is conflicted. They dont want Chrysler to be successful,
> just to exist. Whatever happens at Chrysler will determine GM's future
> wages as well.

Oil Speculators: Watch Out

they don't have to limit the number of contracts. all they have to do is increase margin requirements to 50% for anyone but a producer or commercial user of oil whose sole intent is to hedge. that wipes out 90% of the speculative trading that has, in my view, come to dominate oil futures markets. it's too important a resource to be left to the whims of futures traders who don't give a rats ass about anything but capitalizing on price trends. let em trade hog bellies...it's more fitting.

Paulson Throws Bernanke Under the Bus, Backs Ken Lewis

ken lewis is the worst CEO of the banking industry, bar none. his muddle-headed, impetuous decision to buy merrill lynch in the midst of a financial meltdown still unfolding has to go down in the books as one of the worst decisions ever by a CEO.

i dont' think lewis's "threat" to back out of the deal was simply an 11th hour attempt attempt to extract further concessions from government. he knew his firm was "too big to fail" and that the government, at any time, would do whatever it took to back it.

it's likely that lewis simply got cold feet and felt that he had legal basis for invoking the MAC clause. apparently the only thing that stopped him was the government threat to remove him as CEO and to replace the board. funny....i thought only shareholders could do that.

lewis put his personal interests ahead of the firm. period. he didn't have the balls to tell paulson to stick his threats up his a**, which he should have done and could have done, making his own threat to back it up with his personal resignation and a public villifying of a federal reserve and treasury department run amok, if necessary. i think that might have cooled the jets of paulson and bernake and left them to sink in their own sh**.

lewis failed on multiple levels. nobody in the history of banking deserves termination more than he.

How the Gold Game Could End

he's not referring to the hunt brothers, who tried to corner the silver market around 30 years ago (and nearly succeeded). buffett made a large investment in silver around the time referred to...but i wouldn't say he tried to "corner" it.


On Apr 19 02:30 PM don miguel wrote:

> I believe you may be referring to the two Hunt Brothers...

Earnings Preview: Bank of America

well, that makes me feel a whole lot better. the rules changes the entire industry was screaming for don't really matter.

what's wrong with this picture?

i worked for a fortune 50 company once that created revenue out of thing air, knowing, they would have to reverse it later, because they need a penny to meet estimates for the quarter and "by god, we're going to meet estimates." i objected in the strongest terms possible but my objections were overruled with the argument that the additional penny "was not material." i told the dumb ass that if it wasn't material he wouldn't be doing it. i left the company months later.


On Apr 18 01:42 PM Rohan C. Pease wrote:

> JP Morgan CEO Jamie Dimon said the changes in mark to market did
> not provide any difference, and were insignificant.

U.S. Equities Still Overvalued - U.K. Report

when you can tell everyone with a 95% confidence interval what the "e" is going to be, your judgment that "equities are undervalued" might have some value beyond that of a baseless opinion. as for the historical average of forward p/e, what's that got to do with anything? p/e relationships vary greatly from one year to the next. they are one of many theoretical valuation measures, utterly useless in determining short term (1 year or less) price movements that are based on the dual emotions of fear and greed.

On Mar 26 11:40 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> Boo hoo hoo. Market keeps surging anyway. Equities are undervalued,
> actually. The S&amp;P has a forward PE of only 13 while the historical
> average is over 18.

Truth and Consequences of the Fed Purchasing Treasuries

christ, how inane is this?

don't you realize what the federal reserve is doing? they're printing money. and you not only think they should do more of it but stiff those countries who've loaned us trillions. what do you think a dollar would be worth if the fed simply printed it without restriction?

either educate yourself or quit wasting your time on a web site for adults.







On Mar 19 01:57 PM Chancer wrote:

> At least Bernanke is doing something, while Obummer and his "best
> &amp; brightest" dither, hem, and haw.
>
> Since China just expressed concerns, this could be a show that there
> are others buyers.
>
> I think this is interesting because it is like financing our own
> debt. If the Treasury cannot repay the Fed, what are the consequences?
> Fed and Treasury could both write it down with no repay cost to the
> taxpayer. Too bad the Treasury cannot finance all the debt by having
> the Fed buy it- better than repayment to China.

Bernanke Is Right: 'Transparency' Is Important

"The issue for an investor is what will those toxic assets be worth whenever the markets start to work properly again. That's the sixty-four-thousand dollar question, and it's hard to work that out without the full information (and even then it's a little complicated, but not impossible which is what Chairman Bernanke implies)."

i'm amused by the popular notion that mark to market is worthless when "markets aren't working." it's the cornerstone of the objection to mark to market accounting. it's also a red herring that is largely irrelevant to the issue. it's not dissimilar to an overleveraged consumer begging for "just a little more time" to work out his unmanageable debt load.

i'm sure that most are familiar with the adage "markets can stay irrational longer than investors can stay solvent." this maxim addresses the problem any prudent investor would have accepting the notion that, given time, most troubled assets will recover their value. says who, and when?

most institutions operate on razor thin capital bases that are wholly inadequate to support large amounts of troubled assets that must be held for long periods to recover their value. if they expect private investors to put up my cash to help them stay solvent they can expect to pay dearly for it. that's how it should be.

Time to Bury the Rotting Carcasses of Dead U.S. Banks

there you have it. a rational analysis that gets to the heart of the issue and the steps that must be taken to constructively solve it, notwithstanding the anger expressed by disgruntled "investors" who've made bad bets on zombie banks.

the federal reserve and treasury are bent on perpetuating a failed financial system built on excess leverage, underpriced risk, securitized lending, no effective federal regulation and opaque accounting rules that permit financial institutions to take huge off balance sheet risks. that model has failed and anyone who doesn't understand that doesn't understand economics, capital formation or investing.

Mark-to-Market: The Bogeyman of the 1930s Is Back

here's the short answer.....

the general rule is that companies are required to carry assets at the lower of cost or market value. lower being the operative word. in some cases market values can be written back up, not to exceed cost. rules depend on the industry, the asset and circumstances in general, e.g. whether losses are deemed permanent or not.

mark to market accounting is not the underlying problem. overleverage and off balance sheek risk are the twin elephants in the room that laid waste to the financial services industry. had mark to market accounting rules not existed these problems would have surfaced at the point where cash began to dry up and obligations couldn't be paid. that's exactly what brought down AIG, Lehman, Bear Stearns and Wachovia...all major financial institutions that were badly overleveraged.

i have no doubt that mark to market accounting could be improved. but no way should it be eliminated, leaving it up to some greedy, self-serving crook, disguised as a CEO, to decide whether to disclose bad assets on his books.








On Mar 13 08:13 PM f(x) wrote:

> I have never taken an accounting class. Can someone tell me if the
> Mark-to-market rule helped banks look better than they were in a
> good economy? If that is the case, is it right (ethical) to abandon
> it just because now it hurts the banks in a bad economy?

Don't Watch CNBC

i haven't watched CNBC in over a year for all of the reasons stated. too much eye candy pretending they know what they're talking about, too much sophomoric cheerleading, too many people on the set, too much banal chatter, too much overtalking, too many of the same see-no evil, hear-no-evil, speak-no evil guest idiots who couldn't recognize a bear market if it bit them in the ass...which it has if they're talking their book. all in all, too little substance and too much noise.

bloomberg is not perfect but they are not wall street/corporate shills. they still see themselves as financial journalists instead of circus performers and they take the time to pick the brains of those guests who do have brains. that's something cnbc could never do because their guests lack the first requirement of brain-picking, which is having one.


On Mar 13 02:59 PM Ricard wrote:

> Very well said. I can't agree more. If you are looking for financial
> commentary or food for thought, I'd recommend Bloomberg over CNBC
> any day of the week.