bds231's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/181441/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/99288-ten-missouri-stocks?source=feed#comment-279632 279632 Sat, 11 Oct 2008 02:35:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/98948-when-hedgies-attack-morgan-stanley-drops-40-on-rumors?source=feed#comment-276255 276255 Tue, 07 Oct 2008 18:15:30 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/98691-inefficient-markets-shorting-the-vix-and-unintended-consequences?source=feed#comment-275028 275028 Mon, 06 Oct 2008 16:06:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/97600-can-investor-sentiment-be-rescued?source=feed#comment-266934 266934 Sat, 27 Sep 2008 13:56:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96931-yesterday-s-crude-spike-most-cut-and-dry-case-of-speculation-yet?source=feed#comment-262518 262518
Sure, some of them would be balanced out by long speculators, but is there really a 1-to-1 match between short and long speculators (I would find that hard to believe)? Or are there people out there trying to use the futures market the old-fashioned way -- to lock in the price for a commodity they must buy -- getting whipped around by heavy speculation?]]> Tue, 23 Sep 2008 11:29:46 -0400
Sure, some of them would be balanced out by long speculators, but is there really a 1-to-1 match between short and long speculators (I would find that hard to believe)? Or are there people out there trying to use the futures market the old-fashioned way -- to lock in the price for a commodity they must buy -- getting whipped around by heavy speculation?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/93109-gdp-and-the-decline-of-national-statistics?source=feed#comment-241164 241164 Thu, 28 Aug 2008 17:04:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92776-high-growth-expectations-for-the-s-p-500?source=feed#comment-239594 239594 Tue, 26 Aug 2008 17:25:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92045-home-prices-have-stopped-falling-the-statistics-are-skewed?source=feed#comment-235885 235885
1) Assumption: Mike Roth's data is accurate. We have no idea who this guy is, where he's getting his data from, what the geographical distribution of the data is, how large a sample he's using.... We don't even have the data itself! Hey Tim, I just sold my house for a 500% profit! I guess there's a new housing bubble... yay!

2) Logic Gap: Roth implies that adding "all new appliances, granite countertops and new carpet, paint, interior doors, garage door, updated windows, central heat and ac" will add $10k - 20k to a house. I don't believe it - show me the data.

2.5) Logic Gap: Mike Roth states that the difference between a bank owned house and a "nice home" is, again, "all new appliances, granite countertops and new carpet, paint, interior doors, garage door, updated windows, central heat and ac." I don't know exactly how much that's worth, but it's clearly worth something. So it does not follow to imply (as the author does) that a home is worth 40% less simply because it's bank owned -- the home is worth less primarily because it's not as nice a home! I would not be surprised if there's some additional "penalty" to the value because the bank wants to unload it quickly and is willing to lower the price to do so, but that penalty is less than 40%.

3) Logic Gap: The reduction of the average caused by the sale of bank-owned houses is very much a real reduction that affects anyone who is going to sell. If my neighbor's house was sold by the bank for 60% the cost of my house, my house is worth less. Maybe not 40% less, if it had nicer appliances, fixtures, etc., but still less. If I then sell my house WITHOUT foreclosing on it, then the houses of my other neighbors are worth less, this time depressed by a non-bank owned sale. And the cycle continues.

4) Assumption: As astutely pointed out above by westwest888, this analysis assumes 0% inflation.

I'm sure there's many more, but I'm tired of this article.
]]> Thu, 21 Aug 2008 16:01:05 -0400
1) Assumption: Mike Roth's data is accurate. We have no idea who this guy is, where he's getting his data from, what the geographical distribution of the data is, how large a sample he's using.... We don't even have the data itself! Hey Tim, I just sold my house for a 500% profit! I guess there's a new housing bubble... yay!

2) Logic Gap: Roth implies that adding "all new appliances, granite countertops and new carpet, paint, interior doors, garage door, updated windows, central heat and ac" will add $10k - 20k to a house. I don't believe it - show me the data.

2.5) Logic Gap: Mike Roth states that the difference between a bank owned house and a "nice home" is, again, "all new appliances, granite countertops and new carpet, paint, interior doors, garage door, updated windows, central heat and ac." I don't know exactly how much that's worth, but it's clearly worth something. So it does not follow to imply (as the author does) that a home is worth 40% less simply because it's bank owned -- the home is worth less primarily because it's not as nice a home! I would not be surprised if there's some additional "penalty" to the value because the bank wants to unload it quickly and is willing to lower the price to do so, but that penalty is less than 40%.

3) Logic Gap: The reduction of the average caused by the sale of bank-owned houses is very much a real reduction that affects anyone who is going to sell. If my neighbor's house was sold by the bank for 60% the cost of my house, my house is worth less. Maybe not 40% less, if it had nicer appliances, fixtures, etc., but still less. If I then sell my house WITHOUT foreclosing on it, then the houses of my other neighbors are worth less, this time depressed by a non-bank owned sale. And the cycle continues.

4) Assumption: As astutely pointed out above by westwest888, this analysis assumes 0% inflation.

I'm sure there's many more, but I'm tired of this article.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85767-invest-and-stop-working?source=feed#comment-209477 209477 Sat, 19 Jul 2008 14:41:29 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/84627-the-long-case-for-canadian-oil-sands-trust?source=feed#comment-203419 203419
I don't mean to be a douche, but any investment advice that has the words "trust me" in a non-ironic context is suspect at best.]]> Fri, 11 Jul 2008 20:04:50 -0400
I don't mean to be a douche, but any investment advice that has the words "trust me" in a non-ironic context is suspect at best.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83695-oil-and-the-futures-market?source=feed#comment-198372 198372
Then again, oil futures have been traded for about 25 years, so if oil-producing entities are indeed keeping the price up, you have to wonder why they let the price get so low in the late-90s...

Very interesting to think about, although I don't have the expertise to know if this is actually feasible -- has anyone done the analysis to see if this pecils out?]]> Fri, 04 Jul 2008 02:10:15 -0400
Then again, oil futures have been traded for about 25 years, so if oil-producing entities are indeed keeping the price up, you have to wonder why they let the price get so low in the late-90s...

Very interesting to think about, although I don't have the expertise to know if this is actually feasible -- has anyone done the analysis to see if this pecils out?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83416-hey-congress-speculators-may-not-be-the-bad-guys?source=feed#comment-196774 196774
Oil producers and consumers use futures to hedge well known and *relatively* constant demand and supply, so for them the number of open contracts should remain *relatively* constant (or at least rise predictably with the global consumption of oil).

On the other hand, when speculators buy futures contracts, they start with a dollar value and work backwards to the number of contracts -- they have $1,000 to spend, so they buy $1,000 worth of contracts. They don't say "give me 100 contracts whatever it costs." So as oil (and oil futures) go up, fewer contracts equal the same dollar value.

]]> Tue, 01 Jul 2008 16:05:21 -0400
Oil producers and consumers use futures to hedge well known and *relatively* constant demand and supply, so for them the number of open contracts should remain *relatively* constant (or at least rise predictably with the global consumption of oil).

On the other hand, when speculators buy futures contracts, they start with a dollar value and work backwards to the number of contracts -- they have $1,000 to spend, so they buy $1,000 worth of contracts. They don't say "give me 100 contracts whatever it costs." So as oil (and oil futures) go up, fewer contracts equal the same dollar value.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82788-is-the-equities-party-over?source=feed#comment-193601 193601
"[the DJIA is] very vulnerable to a big correction. Few stocks would be spared in such a downdraft. Do you have a slightly greater appreciation for technical indicators?"

This is a circular argument: Technical indicators make a significant prediction, therefore technical indicators must be correct.]]> Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:18:33 -0400
"[the DJIA is] very vulnerable to a big correction. Few stocks would be spared in such a downdraft. Do you have a slightly greater appreciation for technical indicators?"

This is a circular argument: Technical indicators make a significant prediction, therefore technical indicators must be correct.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82839-avoid-options-on-inverse-index-etfs?source=feed#comment-193590 193590 Thu, 26 Jun 2008 15:07:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/82119-southern-copper-s-stock-split-doesn-t-hurt-its-fundamentals-one-bit?source=feed#comment-189560 189560
#2 - How could having more shares possibly make PCU vulnerable to shorting?

#3 - The short-term target for PCU is $110, less than 1% above today's close? Not exactly going out on a limb there, are we?

#4 - Actually, unless you're planning on making a large sale soon, your PCU position will change by many shares -- it will triple due to this very split we're discussing!]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:34:55 -0400
#2 - How could having more shares possibly make PCU vulnerable to shorting?

#3 - The short-term target for PCU is $110, less than 1% above today's close? Not exactly going out on a limb there, are we?

#4 - Actually, unless you're planning on making a large sale soon, your PCU position will change by many shares -- it will triple due to this very split we're discussing!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/82091-when-crude-drops-amr-will-fly?source=feed#comment-189559 189559
This post is an interesting idea... but who's to say oil won't stay up long enough for AMR to fold? And given the huge daily swings in the airline stocks lately, the risk of being long AMR, even if you're right in a few months, would be huge. Wouldn't it be easier to buy puts on USO to capitalize on this thesis?]]> Fri, 20 Jun 2008 23:25:21 -0400
This post is an interesting idea... but who's to say oil won't stay up long enough for AMR to fold? And given the huge daily swings in the airline stocks lately, the risk of being long AMR, even if you're right in a few months, would be huge. Wouldn't it be easier to buy puts on USO to capitalize on this thesis?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81535-speculators-driving-up-commodity-prices-hardly?source=feed#comment-186797 186797
This is potentially a very interesting angle. Do you have any data on hand you can share?]]> Mon, 16 Jun 2008 21:25:08 -0400
This is potentially a very interesting angle. Do you have any data on hand you can share?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81341-by-the-numbers-mining-stocks-are-undervalued?source=feed#comment-186165 186165 Mon, 16 Jun 2008 00:00:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81415-mid-year-picks-and-pans-from-barron-s-roundtable?source=feed#comment-186161 186161 Sun, 15 Jun 2008 23:49:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81283-options-trader-friday-outlook?source=feed#comment-185281 185281
I always look forward to your posts, but if you truly have significant $$$ deployed against oil, then your have larger cajones than I.

I do think you'll be proven right one of these days...]]> Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:55:53 -0400
I always look forward to your posts, but if you truly have significant $$$ deployed against oil, then your have larger cajones than I.

I do think you'll be proven right one of these days...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/81309-yahoo-destroying-shareholder-value-internet-balance-of-power?source=feed#comment-185279 185279 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:47:21 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/81318-indicator-points-to-higher-gas-prices-and-3-potential-power-plays?source=feed#comment-185260 185260
Since the 3 stocks mentioned are US/North American companies, wouldn't this scenario put more pressure on them, not less? It seems to me that in order for these companies to succeed, either the price of oil must break or US/North American governments must cut gas taxes so that more of the cost of gas goes into the refiners' coffers than the governments'. This is the opposite of cutting subsidies, as the author proposes.

Am I missing something?]]> Fri, 13 Jun 2008 18:23:33 -0400
Since the 3 stocks mentioned are US/North American companies, wouldn't this scenario put more pressure on them, not less? It seems to me that in order for these companies to succeed, either the price of oil must break or US/North American governments must cut gas taxes so that more of the cost of gas goes into the refiners' coffers than the governments'. This is the opposite of cutting subsidies, as the author proposes.

Am I missing something?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80256-calling-a-housing-bottom?source=feed#comment-179982 179982 Thu, 05 Jun 2008 19:59:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/78571-phosphate-holdings-an-undiscovered-agricultural-gem?source=feed#comment-173372 173372
Phosphate Holdings (PHOS.PK) is the sole owner of Mississippi Phosphates, a producer of diammonium phosphate.

and

Another possible reason for the cheap stock is that PHOS has no source of phosphates of its own, but must buy it from Office Cherifien des Phosphates, the Moroccan state phosphate monopoly.

These statements seem contradictory, or do I just not understand what the difference between "diammonium phosphate" and "phosphates?" What am I missing?]]> Sun, 25 May 2008 02:01:42 -0400
Phosphate Holdings (PHOS.PK) is the sole owner of Mississippi Phosphates, a producer of diammonium phosphate.

and

Another possible reason for the cheap stock is that PHOS has no source of phosphates of its own, but must buy it from Office Cherifien des Phosphates, the Moroccan state phosphate monopoly.

These statements seem contradictory, or do I just not understand what the difference between "diammonium phosphate" and "phosphates?" What am I missing?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/77312-1990-all-over-again?source=feed#comment-167657 167657 Wed, 14 May 2008 17:10:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/76904-best-performing-stocks-on-earnings?source=feed#comment-166628 166628 Tue, 13 May 2008 01:34:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/75557-what-goes-around-comes-around-in-the-equity-market?source=feed#comment-161576 161576
"They [our broker-dealers] continuously create bursts of volatility to shake out stop positions. They do it to take your money to put into their pockets."

Where's the data to support that allegation??]]> Sun, 04 May 2008 13:51:31 -0400
"They [our broker-dealers] continuously create bursts of volatility to shake out stop positions. They do it to take your money to put into their pockets."

Where's the data to support that allegation??]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74333-blood-in-the-streets-buy-and-hold-ge-for-now?source=feed#comment-158389 158389
Here's one thought I've long had about GE:

Go back to the 90s. GE was an industrial conglomerate with a touch of financials on the side, and its high-teens/low-20s PE was comparable to that of other industrials.

Today GE is a near 50-50 blend of industrials and financials (with a sprinkling of salt & pepper on the side in the form of Healthcare and NBC Universal). While other pure industrials still have PEs in the high-tees/low-20s, pure financials have PEs in the low-teens (not withstanding distortions from the chaos of the last few months).
So GE's current PE is about midway between a pure industrial PE and a pure financial PE, reflecting the blend of the company itself -- about midway between being a pure industrial and a pure financial.

Based on that very simplistic analysis, I wonder if GE's stock price will increase anytime in the near future based on multiple expansion. I also wonder if GE's stock price will continue to drop as the company further emphasizes financials and de-emphasizes industrials (and its PE continues to trend towards that of a pure financial).

I am long GE and also an employee of a GE subsidiary. Frankly, my biggest hope for my stock is that my subsidiary gets spun off.]]> Tue, 29 Apr 2008 00:33:07 -0400
Here's one thought I've long had about GE:

Go back to the 90s. GE was an industrial conglomerate with a touch of financials on the side, and its high-teens/low-20s PE was comparable to that of other industrials.

Today GE is a near 50-50 blend of industrials and financials (with a sprinkling of salt & pepper on the side in the form of Healthcare and NBC Universal). While other pure industrials still have PEs in the high-tees/low-20s, pure financials have PEs in the low-teens (not withstanding distortions from the chaos of the last few months).
So GE's current PE is about midway between a pure industrial PE and a pure financial PE, reflecting the blend of the company itself -- about midway between being a pure industrial and a pure financial.

Based on that very simplistic analysis, I wonder if GE's stock price will increase anytime in the near future based on multiple expansion. I also wonder if GE's stock price will continue to drop as the company further emphasizes financials and de-emphasizes industrials (and its PE continues to trend towards that of a pure financial).

I am long GE and also an employee of a GE subsidiary. Frankly, my biggest hope for my stock is that my subsidiary gets spun off.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/74449-3-reasons-why-the-euro-may-fall-further?source=feed#comment-158209 158209
I agree that when it re-entered the "Buy Zone" on Feb 26 it was indeed a good time to buy... assuming you didn't lose your shirt following the earlier fluctuations.

What am I missing?

Thanks]]> Mon, 28 Apr 2008 17:30:58 -0400
I agree that when it re-entered the "Buy Zone" on Feb 26 it was indeed a good time to buy... assuming you didn't lose your shirt following the earlier fluctuations.

What am I missing?

Thanks]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/73811-tanker-stocks-bargains-here?source=feed#comment-156191 156191
DHT - ships only crude oil
ATB - ships crude oil and refined petrol products
ANW - ships crude oil and refined petrol products
VLCCF - ships only crude oil
OSG - ships crude oil and refined petrol products
TK - ships crude oil and refined petrol products

(Data from finance.yahoo.com)]]> Thu, 24 Apr 2008 19:15:59 -0400
DHT - ships only crude oil
ATB - ships crude oil and refined petrol products
ANW - ships crude oil and refined petrol products
VLCCF - ships only crude oil
OSG - ships crude oil and refined petrol products
TK - ships crude oil and refined petrol products

(Data from finance.yahoo.com)]]>