BioInvestor

10 Signs of a Recession

In fairness to George Bush, the word nuclear actually has three syllables not two.

On July 6, DanD1 wrote:

remember "New Clear"? Was George Bush uttering code words for the future? The press presented him as a bumbling idiot because he couldn't pronounce nuclear; maybe he pronounced it the way he wanted it said? Report abuse

SUV Makers Feel the Heat of Higher Oil Prices

johndough110, your abusive comment is out of place on this site. If you can't be civil, stop posting.

Pfizer: Dividend Yield Makes It a Haven in This Market

ertsfan, it seems that your answer is a "no": you can't support the claim that you made.

I am going to respectively ignore the other unsubstantiated claims you make below.



On July 4, ertsfan wrote"

No more than the analysts cited in this and other pro-PFE drivel. Taking S&P as a random sample of one, their price target has been stair-stepping down from 30 to the current 21 at least since 2005. PFE has no pipeline, which is why they bought out Warner-Lambert et al. Their chart has been going straight down since July 2000. For 8 straight years value investors have been heralding PFE has bottomed and "now" is the time to buy (I mean, "now." I mean, "Now." I mean, "NOW"), they have been repeating the mantra of the graying of America and all things drug-related will go up, and they have been touting the dividend. And amazingly enough we still hear about their pipeline, but what significant drug have they produced recently (or even not so recently)? Viagra was approved in 1998. Are you really satisfied with a 7% dividend as your portfolio growth goal? (In comparison, Ken Heebner's CGM Focus Fund is up about 17% YTD.) What's changed about PFE since 2000? Why not force PFE to prove themselves before committing money there? Why not see if they can first hit 18 and stick? Or make them hit 19 and stick? Or, God forbid, force them to stick 20? When PFE hits 17 (then 16 then 15), will the chorus "But it's got a great dividend" make the weak share price okay?

The ATM at the Airlines

sf94127, I disagree that the baggage charge is something that should be removed. There are passengers that simply don't need to check baggage. I believe it fair to disaggregate pricing and assess a fee for those that want to check their bags.

I think that the idea of a fuel charge is interesting. Airlines have tried this option quite successfully. For the case of the airline, the advantage of a charge of food or baggage is that this charge could remain after fuel prices moderate.



On July 5, sf94127 wrote:

I believe consumers would understand (but not like) a surcharge for rising fuel costs. Let this cost float with the price of jet fuel at the time they make the reservation. It may be a $400 flight has a $75 fuel surcharge; so be it. Get the cost out front, transparent, and get rid of the silly nickel and dime stuff which are just surrogates for real issue of high fuel cost.

Auto Sales Dismal: GM and Chrysler Oddly Optimistic

edaddy, I don't follow what you're saying. What I read is that

1. The US Big Three sold cars to rental car companies at cost or less;
2. They no longer sell cars to rental car companies at cost or less;
3. As a result, the share price of rental car companies has dropped.

So, the argument offered in the post is that the reason the share prices of rental car companies have declined is that they can no longer buy cars from the major three domestic car makers at a discounted price.

One could conclude that these companies are either (a) buying cars or (b) they're not buying cars. If the rental car companies are not buying cars right now or are extending the average age of their fleets (neither situation is actually occurring in a way to support the argument), then, at least in the past two years, they no longer have a major cost, which would seem to argue against a decline in stock price.

On the other hand, if they are buying cars right now from the Big Three and paying higher prices for those cars, then they do, in fact, have a higher overall cost, which should negatively impact their stock price. Conversely, if the Big Three are selling cars to rental companies at a higher margin, then, presumably, these sales should help car company revenue numbers.

So, I don't understand the argument you're making. The facts you state don't appear to support your claims.

Incidentally, if you look at the financials for Hertz, as an example, you'll see that the company hasn't changed the average age of its fleet: it continues to buy cars. Further, last year Hertz generated almost $6 billion in car rental revenues worldwide and $1.76 billion in equipment rentals. In 2007, revenues grew by $8.69 billion (aided by a declining dollar!); pre-tax income grew by 35.8% and net income grew by 36.7%. The company is diversifying its fleet and no longer depends exclusively on US automakers; however, this trend has been in place for some time.

For Hertz, at least, the stock has been in decline, but I see no evidence to support the thesis that this decline is driven by higher prices from the Big Three US automakers.



On July 4, edaddy wrote:

I love how all the wall street articles over look a major component that is missing from the big 3 sales numbers this year, sales to rental car companies. The big 3 has dramatically cut these zero profit sales to Avis, Budget, Dollar, Hertz, Thrifty, etc. since 2007. The big 3 used to sell their over capacity cars to the rental companies at cost or less and then would guarantee buyback prices. The big 3 stopped a large portion of these sales in 2006 and have reduced every year since. That is why you see the rental car stocks like CAR, DTG and HTZ tank since the end of their fiscal year 2007. So for companies like Chrysler, Ford and GM to sell as many trucks and SUV's as they did in June is actually amazing considering the state of the economy and fuel prices.

Did the 'Enron of Norway' Pull a Fast One on Microsoft?

yohoho, you're uninformed as to what SeekingAlpha is about. This site is not designed for journalists; it's a site where people give opinion and analysis on, among other things, publicly trade companies. You owe the author--and the rest of this community--an apology.



On July 4, yohoho wrote:


The facts are debatable, but calling this 'reporting' is not. Its indirect and sensational only.

Pfizer: Dividend Yield Makes It a Haven in This Market

ertsfan, do you have any sort of analysis that supports your claim that Pfizer, at today's price, will yield a capital loss?


On July 4, ertsfan wrote:

With picks like this you probably won't need capital gains offsets, but PFE's great benefit is you'll be able to count on taking a wonderful capital loss when you've finally thrown in the towel. Report abuse

Is General Motors Closer to a Default?

BADDAD, let's try and inject a little intellect into a conversation about investing. Reread what I wrote: I didn't mention anything about poisoned dog food, lead in the paint of toys. The arguments you present in this thread are lacking in substantive content.

You stated earlier that all jobs are leaving the US; they're not. You made a statement that is patently false.

There are problems in some cases with imports from China; there's no evidence that there are problems with all imports. There are always issues, be they in domestic or foreign products. Right now, many overseas banks are dealing with problems in US financial assets; problems that appear to have been created by fraud. Decades ago, we in the US and those in western Europe for that matter had issues with products from Japan.

I'd urge you, if you must post, present a clear, cogent, rational argument for your position. Stop posting nonsense please!



On July 2, BADDAD wrote:

Dear Bioinvester, so your saying that buying poisioned dog food, lead painted kids toys and the such is good for our economy? Also if you would like to hook up your Toyota or Honda pick-up to the back of my Ford pick-up facing the other way, I would be glad to see who pulls who for a little wager!

Is General Motors Closer to a Default?

On July 2 BADDAD wrote

Dear Bioinvester, so your saying that buying poisioned dog food, lead painted kids toys and the such is good for our economy? Also if you would like to hook up your Toyota or Honda pick-up to the back of my Ford pick-up facing the other way, I would be glad to see who pulls who for a little wager!

Is General Motors Closer to a Default?

Mr Jimmy, you didn't read what I wrote. I wrote that the companies have been in decline for some time--many, many years. There's no evidence, none, of an adverse affect on the economy. The US economy continues to grow.


On July 2, Mr Jimmy wrote:

BioInvestor, if you believe the US economy is "humming along", you and I have a huge perception gap.

Challenge for Ford and GM: To Stay in Business

The problem is that for each company that turns around and bounces back, approximately nine others cease to exist. Turnarounds are tough. Personally, I can't imagine the big three disappearing. Of course, five years ago, I wouldn't have imagined GM hitting a half century low.


On July 4 paulk8756 wrote:

What we know about the history of equities is the greatest gains are made in stocks that NOBODY wants anymore. GM and Ford certainly qualify here. But that's a TOUGH CALL when you're investing real money, which is precisely why the returns are so great if they make it. GM at 10 and F at 4 are beginning to look awfully tempting, aren't they...?

Pfizer: Dividend Yield Makes It a Haven in This Market

Sabre07, I think one can argue that the Lipitor expiration is already built into the stock price.

Mark, can you shed some more light on the products that Pfizer has coming to the market in the next few years. I don't see anything truly exciting.

Is General Motors Closer to a Default?

Seyjazz, I don't see how your points relate. Some of your statements make no sense.

I don't believe that there is evidence that US automakers are making better cars. One survey that I think is pretty objective is that provided by Consumers Union. Here US branded cars don't score well. While the traditional Big Three may be showing some improvement, they’re not up to par yet. Personally, I find it disappointing, but facts are facts.

I also don't see how you can make a statement about the knowledge of those who happen to purchase what are often referred to as foreign cars.

Finally, even if the big three auto makers were to stall or even fail, there's simply no evidence that it present any major problem to the US economy. The companies have been in decline for some time--moving much production off shore, the US keeps humming along.



On July 1 seyjazz wrote:

Let's get right to the point. The US Auto makers made a mistake and they paid for it. Now they are making better cars than their competitors and are really giving people what they want, but it seems that all you cry babies who buy foreign don't realize that, so you buy foreign. You'll pay for it . . BIG TIME . . when you loose you job if the economy keeps going down. . . But you'll blame everybody else but youself. Wake up before it's to late my friend.

Is General Motors Closer to a Default?

BADDAD, your argument is nonsense. Buying quality products helps the economy, it doesn't hurt it. The only proviso is that businesses respond to this demand and change their products appropriately. If companies don't respond appropriately to what they're doing wrong, only then are we in trouble.


On Jul 01 BADDAD wrote:

I only have one thing to say, I understand people buying imported products to save a buck in this day and age. The problem is all the jobs are leaving this country and in reality people are selling the futures of there own children to save a buck, shame on all of you!!!

Is General Motors Closer to a Default?

Mr. Jimmy, it's actually helpful to focus on the topic and not on the person. The writer's background is irrelevant; the argument stands or falls on its merits or lack thereof.


On June 30 Mr. Jimmy wrote:

My apologies. I just read Mr. Pezzutti's bio and learned that he "is a Commander in the Italian Navy, specializing in telecommunications&... Mama Mia!!! Impeccable qualifications for being a U.S. auto industry pundit!!!