willynill's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/184745/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/177228-meredith-whitney-says-banking-sector-problems-are-getting-worse?source=feed#comment-798694 798694

On Dec 09 12:40 PM LaChic wrote:

> the problem I have with Meredith Whitney is the timing, she was extremely
> bearish and down right wrong when she put the call to stay away from
> banks sometime in early summer as the market was moving higher, then
> she came back on on CNBC towards the end of the summer or early fall
> with a buy rating on GS, but GS was already close to 190.00 a share,
> it moved a bit more and it has been dropping ever since. This is
> the problem i have with many of these ANALysts. Their timing sucks,
> which makes me question whether they truly understand or know what
> the hell they are talking about. Anyone who gets a call right these
> days qualifies as a Analyst and cnbc along with their many cheerleaders
> take their word as solid investment. Now, She could very well be
> right this time for 2010, but we as investors cannot depend on any
> of these people, you either do your own research or sufffer the consequenses.
>
>
> I personally do not believe any of them, i take their rantings/buy/sell
> calls and review as trash, this is not the 1980's where information
> about a company was not availiable to the public, we have all the
> information we need to make our own decisions and not depend on any
> of them.]]> Wed, 09 Dec 2009 17:53:17 -0500

On Dec 09 12:40 PM LaChic wrote:

> the problem I have with Meredith Whitney is the timing, she was extremely
> bearish and down right wrong when she put the call to stay away from
> banks sometime in early summer as the market was moving higher, then
> she came back on on CNBC towards the end of the summer or early fall
> with a buy rating on GS, but GS was already close to 190.00 a share,
> it moved a bit more and it has been dropping ever since. This is
> the problem i have with many of these ANALysts. Their timing sucks,
> which makes me question whether they truly understand or know what
> the hell they are talking about. Anyone who gets a call right these
> days qualifies as a Analyst and cnbc along with their many cheerleaders
> take their word as solid investment. Now, She could very well be
> right this time for 2010, but we as investors cannot depend on any
> of these people, you either do your own research or sufffer the consequenses.
>
>
> I personally do not believe any of them, i take their rantings/buy/sell
> calls and review as trash, this is not the 1980's where information
> about a company was not availiable to the public, we have all the
> information we need to make our own decisions and not depend on any
> of them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176297-24-states-borrow-money-to-pay-unemployment-benefits?source=feed#comment-789115 789115

On Dec 03 06:45 AM chris coonan wrote:

> I think your a bit ignorant of what is going on in the world Dan.
> You should get out of Minneapolis more, it will do you some good
> to broaden your perspective.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:46:19 -0500

On Dec 03 06:45 AM chris coonan wrote:

> I think your a bit ignorant of what is going on in the world Dan.
> You should get out of Minneapolis more, it will do you some good
> to broaden your perspective.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175334-bond-expert-i-m-moving-on-with-thanks?source=feed#comment-777644 777644 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 15:40:48 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/174818-artificial-economy-yes-artificial-inflation-no?source=feed#comment-774613 774613

On Nov 23 10:14 AM conceptwizard wrote:

> The solution lies in replacing Milton Friedman's mantra that "the
> goal of business is to maximize profits, regardless of the social
> and environmental costs" with a more viable one: "Make profits only
> within the context of creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful
> world," and to create an economy based on producing things the world
> truly needs.
>
> There is nothing radical or new about such a goal. For more than
> a century after the founding of this country, states granted charters
> only to companies that proved they were serving the public interest
> and shut down any that reneged. That changed after an1886 Supreme
> Court decision that bestowed on corporations the rights granted to
> individuals--without the responsibilities required of individuals.]]> Mon, 23 Nov 2009 23:34:39 -0500

On Nov 23 10:14 AM conceptwizard wrote:

> The solution lies in replacing Milton Friedman's mantra that "the
> goal of business is to maximize profits, regardless of the social
> and environmental costs" with a more viable one: "Make profits only
> within the context of creating a sustainable, just, and peaceful
> world," and to create an economy based on producing things the world
> truly needs.
>
> There is nothing radical or new about such a goal. For more than
> a century after the founding of this country, states granted charters
> only to companies that proved they were serving the public interest
> and shut down any that reneged. That changed after an1886 Supreme
> Court decision that bestowed on corporations the rights granted to
> individuals--without the responsibilities required of individuals.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172179-conservative-property-index-predicts-we-re-less-than-halfway-through-fall?source=feed#comment-752869 752869

On Nov 09 12:57 PM Location Cubed wrote:

> Mr. White (or should one say Mr. Gloom) is at it again. Unlike whatever
> most commentators on this block sell for a living, real estate is
> location specific. A good example are 2 markets that I'm active in:
> Phoenix has seen a decline of over 45% according to the all-powerful
> Case/Schiller, but the location-specific area that I invest in and
> build homes in has suffered a net-loss of less than 11% and bottomed
> out a year ago (you have to have eyes on the ground at the LOCATION
> to know this). In Boston, while the Quants on this blog keep terrorizing
> the readers with general, half-baked info, my group's investment
> portfolio in downtown has gained 6% in value.(again location-specific
> information that you quants are too lazy or don't have the resources
> or the patience to look at)...
>
> In your world, the sky is falling indeed... and I have a thousand
> graphs with kick-ass trend lines to prove it.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 15:58:19 -0500

On Nov 09 12:57 PM Location Cubed wrote:

> Mr. White (or should one say Mr. Gloom) is at it again. Unlike whatever
> most commentators on this block sell for a living, real estate is
> location specific. A good example are 2 markets that I'm active in:
> Phoenix has seen a decline of over 45% according to the all-powerful
> Case/Schiller, but the location-specific area that I invest in and
> build homes in has suffered a net-loss of less than 11% and bottomed
> out a year ago (you have to have eyes on the ground at the LOCATION
> to know this). In Boston, while the Quants on this blog keep terrorizing
> the readers with general, half-baked info, my group's investment
> portfolio in downtown has gained 6% in value.(again location-specific
> information that you quants are too lazy or don't have the resources
> or the patience to look at)...
>
> In your world, the sky is falling indeed... and I have a thousand
> graphs with kick-ass trend lines to prove it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171052-move-on-gold-coming-soon-u-s-s-willy-nilly-actions-could-be-to-blame?source=feed#comment-745392 745392 Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:12:10 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170701-how-that-8-000-tax-credit-subsidizes-housing-deterioration?source=feed#comment-741954 741954 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 07:48:47 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170291-more-weakness-more-volatility?source=feed#comment-738442 738442

On Oct 31 09:49 AM YoYoMama wrote:

> Actually, the volume on this sell-off was pathetically low, a sign
> that this rally still has legs. Sorry, your shorts will have to wait
> a little longer.]]> Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:27:25 -0400

On Oct 31 09:49 AM YoYoMama wrote:

> Actually, the volume on this sell-off was pathetically low, a sign
> that this rally still has legs. Sorry, your shorts will have to wait
> a little longer.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167038-when-will-the-dollar-snap-back?source=feed#comment-718523 718523 Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:10:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/164254-beware-the-ides-of-october?source=feed#comment-698380 698380

On Oct 01 08:47 AM Dean M wrote:

> Sorry Rich, you already called the market top, I think it was back
> in July. You only get one bite at that apple.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:01:13 -0400

On Oct 01 08:47 AM Dean M wrote:

> Sorry Rich, you already called the market top, I think it was back
> in July. You only get one bite at that apple.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163995-the-housing-bounce-why-it-s-artificial?source=feed#comment-697861 697861

On Sep 30 07:05 AM Zack Miller wrote:

> does it matter?]]> Wed, 30 Sep 2009 21:49:51 -0400

On Sep 30 07:05 AM Zack Miller wrote:

> does it matter?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162305-funding-a-rally-extension?source=feed#comment-684482 684482

On Sep 20 08:47 PM beaux wrote:

> Interesting analysis. Well done. I think you may be on to something.
>
>
> But it must be said that the posts following the article are so consistent
> in their vitriol and cynicism for this rally one could be forgiven
> for concluding that they find themselve among those who have missed
> this move (or have even played it from the short side) and are experiencing
> an associated emotional reaction. It reminds me of the emotional
> outbursts that the longs expressed on the meltdown. Perhaps melt-ups
> provoke the same responses.
>
> Could it be that the posts, as a contrarian indicator, suggest that
> the rally may indeed have some way left to run?]]> Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:41:10 -0400

On Sep 20 08:47 PM beaux wrote:

> Interesting analysis. Well done. I think you may be on to something.
>
>
> But it must be said that the posts following the article are so consistent
> in their vitriol and cynicism for this rally one could be forgiven
> for concluding that they find themselve among those who have missed
> this move (or have even played it from the short side) and are experiencing
> an associated emotional reaction. It reminds me of the emotional
> outbursts that the longs expressed on the meltdown. Perhaps melt-ups
> provoke the same responses.
>
> Could it be that the posts, as a contrarian indicator, suggest that
> the rally may indeed have some way left to run?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160853-foreclosures-they-re-not-just-for-breakfast-anymore?source=feed#comment-673808 673808

On Sep 10 01:46 PM User 463833 wrote:

> How can we be sure that the FASB will begin requiring banks to report
> off-balance sheet assets/liabilities? This administration has been
> controlled and therefore has pandered to banks and investment firms
> in proportions never seen before. They have spoken out of both sides
> of their mouth and will, in all probability, continue to manipulate
> the situation.]]> Sat, 12 Sep 2009 16:43:48 -0400

On Sep 10 01:46 PM User 463833 wrote:

> How can we be sure that the FASB will begin requiring banks to report
> off-balance sheet assets/liabilities? This administration has been
> controlled and therefore has pandered to banks and investment firms
> in proportions never seen before. They have spoken out of both sides
> of their mouth and will, in all probability, continue to manipulate
> the situation.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160532-a-new-worry-for-stock-market-bulls?source=feed#comment-668929 668929

On Sep 09 09:56 AM JLarkin wrote:

> I see other bloggers out there claiming the S&P web page shows
> the S&P P/E ratio is 145 (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> or something like that. Where did you find 17, which sounds more
> realistic to me? Is 17 based on the forward looking 12 months?]]> Wed, 09 Sep 2009 12:58:29 -0400

On Sep 09 09:56 AM JLarkin wrote:

> I see other bloggers out there claiming the S&P web page shows
> the S&P P/E ratio is 145 (seekingalpha.com/symbo...)
> or something like that. Where did you find 17, which sounds more
> realistic to me? Is 17 based on the forward looking 12 months?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160277-joe-klein-is-wrong-about-krugman-s-numbers?source=feed#comment-665569 665569 Mon, 07 Sep 2009 19:17:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159497-corporate-profitability-is-the-real-problem?source=feed#comment-657982 657982 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 08:45:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159357-how-are-the-200-week-simple-moving-averages?source=feed#comment-657624 657624 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:23:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159392-indexes-could-test-support-levels-today?source=feed#comment-657594 657594

On Sep 01 07:49 PM David Van Knapp wrote:

> The high PE right now is a result of BOTH current prices and trailing
> earnings. That is obvious from the calculation: (current price) divided
> by (trailing earnings) = PE.
>
> Thiazole is correct that the PE ratio is based on past earnings of
> stocks that are no longer in the index. S&P has replaced more
> than 40 companies in the past 12 months. Further , the current price
> used in the calculation is the current price of the stocks in the
> index now.
>
> So the PE is a mish-mash. Each investor will need to decide how relevant
> this number is to forward-looking investment decisions. I am with
> thiazole, it is not very relevant. There are plenty of other valuation
> metrics available than this historically aberrational PE.]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 22:09:53 -0400

On Sep 01 07:49 PM David Van Knapp wrote:

> The high PE right now is a result of BOTH current prices and trailing
> earnings. That is obvious from the calculation: (current price) divided
> by (trailing earnings) = PE.
>
> Thiazole is correct that the PE ratio is based on past earnings of
> stocks that are no longer in the index. S&P has replaced more
> than 40 companies in the past 12 months. Further , the current price
> used in the calculation is the current price of the stocks in the
> index now.
>
> So the PE is a mish-mash. Each investor will need to decide how relevant
> this number is to forward-looking investment decisions. I am with
> thiazole, it is not very relevant. There are plenty of other valuation
> metrics available than this historically aberrational PE.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159392-indexes-could-test-support-levels-today?source=feed#comment-657339 657339

On Sep 01 03:52 PM thiazole wrote:

> I figured that is what he meant, but it obviously doesn't work, does
> it. It would have suggested that you miss this huge rally and that
> it was much better to own before the crash. If you use trailing P/E
> as an indicator on whether to buy or not, you are using backward
> looking data to make a purchase that you plan to hold in the future.
> That explains why it gives the wrong signal. What do I care that
> GM, Ford, Chrysler, AIG, etc, etc, lost billions in the 4th quarter
> of 2008? What does that have to do with what they will do in 2010?
> You do realize that the ridiculous P/E ratio that you quote is a
> result of what happened in Q4 08 and not what is happening right
> now, right? Hell, the companies in the S&P right now aren't even
> the same companies that were in the S&P back then - the worst
> companies are gone, but they are still being counted in the trailing
> P/E...]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:51:52 -0400

On Sep 01 03:52 PM thiazole wrote:

> I figured that is what he meant, but it obviously doesn't work, does
> it. It would have suggested that you miss this huge rally and that
> it was much better to own before the crash. If you use trailing P/E
> as an indicator on whether to buy or not, you are using backward
> looking data to make a purchase that you plan to hold in the future.
> That explains why it gives the wrong signal. What do I care that
> GM, Ford, Chrysler, AIG, etc, etc, lost billions in the 4th quarter
> of 2008? What does that have to do with what they will do in 2010?
> You do realize that the ridiculous P/E ratio that you quote is a
> result of what happened in Q4 08 and not what is happening right
> now, right? Hell, the companies in the S&P right now aren't even
> the same companies that were in the S&P back then - the worst
> companies are gone, but they are still being counted in the trailing
> P/E...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159392-indexes-could-test-support-levels-today?source=feed#comment-656814 656814

On Sep 01 11:45 AM thiazole wrote:

> If you really believe that stocks are more expensive now than in
> 2007, it exposes a very serious flaw in your price analysis.]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 14:11:23 -0400

On Sep 01 11:45 AM thiazole wrote:

> If you really believe that stocks are more expensive now than in
> 2007, it exposes a very serious flaw in your price analysis.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158926-pace-of-insider-sales-continues-to-escalate?source=feed#comment-652765 652765

On Aug 29 02:21 PM Foosie wrote:

> And, Nick, you did say 143.95 P/E?
>
> As of 6/30/09 S&P was 23x earnings according to S&P. Factoring
> in last four quarters, S&P P/E is 15.25 times reported earnings.]]> Sat, 29 Aug 2009 19:47:29 -0400

On Aug 29 02:21 PM Foosie wrote:

> And, Nick, you did say 143.95 P/E?
>
> As of 6/30/09 S&P was 23x earnings according to S&P. Factoring
> in last four quarters, S&P P/E is 15.25 times reported earnings.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157585-china-s-credit-bubble-and-the-balance-of-trade?source=feed#comment-640057 640057 Fri, 21 Aug 2009 13:24:26 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/157452-cramer-s-mad-money-when-obama-stumbles-stocks-soar-9-20-09?source=feed#comment-639677 639677 Fri, 21 Aug 2009 10:31:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/154694-the-teddy-bears-picnic-predicting-a-market-crash-that-may-not-come?source=feed#comment-620047 620047 Fri, 07 Aug 2009 13:34:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/153570-bond-expert-tuesday-outlook?source=feed#comment-614936 614936 Tue, 04 Aug 2009 13:15:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/153300-bond-expert-monday-outlook?source=feed#comment-613010 613010 Mon, 03 Aug 2009 12:29:41 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29222?source=feed#comment-607033 607033 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:21:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/151259-barry-eichengreen-is-wrong-we-need-to-pass-a-bigger-stimulus?source=feed#comment-601705 601705 Sat, 25 Jul 2009 07:39:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/149126-demographics-make-russia-a-risky-long-term-investment?source=feed#comment-591380 591380

On Jul 16 10:20 PM willynill wrote:

> Russia is not unique. There is/will be a population decline in all
> of Asia and Europe now with total fertility rates of less than two
> babies per woman. Check out the U.N. reports on world population.
> The U. S., alone, in the northern hemisphere is expected to have
> a sustainable population growth, primarily because of immigration.
> How can population declines lead to anything other than deflation
> and stagflation? Shall we direct our eyes to the southern hemisphere?]]> Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:23:16 -0400

On Jul 16 10:20 PM willynill wrote:

> Russia is not unique. There is/will be a population decline in all
> of Asia and Europe now with total fertility rates of less than two
> babies per woman. Check out the U.N. reports on world population.
> The U. S., alone, in the northern hemisphere is expected to have
> a sustainable population growth, primarily because of immigration.
> How can population declines lead to anything other than deflation
> and stagflation? Shall we direct our eyes to the southern hemisphere?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149126-demographics-make-russia-a-risky-long-term-investment?source=feed#comment-591377 591377 Thu, 16 Jul 2009 22:20:07 -0400