DavyJ's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/205792/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/176347-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-788623 788623
Yep, once the money is out there, there is no getting it back. $200 billion at 3.5% (~ten year bond rate) interest is $70 billion over ten years that is automatically added to the deficit with no accountability.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 12:04:06 -0500
Yep, once the money is out there, there is no getting it back. $200 billion at 3.5% (~ten year bond rate) interest is $70 billion over ten years that is automatically added to the deficit with no accountability.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/175604-why-i-m-cautiously-optimistic-about-the-future?source=feed#comment-781897 781897
You're not confusing him with James Newton are you?]]> Sun, 29 Nov 2009 18:48:18 -0500
You're not confusing him with James Newton are you?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/173712-new-york-manufacturing-stalls-retail-sales-rise-somewhat?source=feed#comment-763868 763868
But the report also said: "The government also revised the September results down to a 2.3 percent decline, from the 1.5 percent drop initially reported."

Subtract the 0.8 percent revision and sales were actually 0.2 percent less than expected!

But nevermind. Just minor details of a fraction of a percent. ]]> Tue, 17 Nov 2009 11:57:16 -0500
But the report also said: "The government also revised the September results down to a 2.3 percent decline, from the 1.5 percent drop initially reported."

Subtract the 0.8 percent revision and sales were actually 0.2 percent less than expected!

But nevermind. Just minor details of a fraction of a percent. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/173683-stocks-bounce-but-big-name-investors-aren-t-convinced?source=feed#comment-762965 762965
But the report also said: "The government also revised the September results down to a 2.3 percent decline, from the 1.5 percent drop initially reported."

Subtract the 0.8 percent revision and sales were actually 0.2 percent less than expected!

But nevermind. Just minor details of a fraction of a percent.]]> Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:15:39 -0500
But the report also said: "The government also revised the September results down to a 2.3 percent decline, from the 1.5 percent drop initially reported."

Subtract the 0.8 percent revision and sales were actually 0.2 percent less than expected!

But nevermind. Just minor details of a fraction of a percent.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171294-s-p-500-priced-in-gold?source=feed#comment-745401 745401
Now you're asking a question about the future. The truth is that I don't know and since you're asking I guess you don't know either. Yawn.]]> Wed, 04 Nov 2009 20:13:21 -0500
Now you're asking a question about the future. The truth is that I don't know and since you're asking I guess you don't know either. Yawn.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170339-economic-data-showing-signs-of-negative-trends?source=feed#comment-739533 739533 Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:36:16 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170128-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-737103 737103
But it's on track for 3,500,000 jobs created by the end of the year so that will only be $224,857 per job.

Well, we'll see.]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 11:50:02 -0400
But it's on track for 3,500,000 jobs created by the end of the year so that will only be $224,857 per job.

Well, we'll see.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167395-what-crash-greenspans-black-monday-blooper?source=feed#comment-722304 722304 Tue, 20 Oct 2009 13:08:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/165923-looking-back-at-fiscal-2009?source=feed#comment-712828 712828
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-so...

Excellent point about using FICA data to determine employment, by the way. Monthly data would be THE defining number. Much more accurate than some survey of a small percentage of the population.

On Oct 11 09:25 AM Pat C wrote:

> To what extent in actual dollars is the 20% personal income tax decline
> compared to the 54% for corporate? Also does the government report
> somewhere a comparison of FICA (Social Security) contributions? It
> would seem to me that comparing FICA contributions would be an excellent
> indicator of the employment situation rather than the BLS estimates.
> Personal income tax has been subject to alot of manipulation so I
> don't think it would be a good measurement, but FICA should be.]]> Sun, 11 Oct 2009 23:18:20 -0400
www.irs.gov/pub/irs-so...

Excellent point about using FICA data to determine employment, by the way. Monthly data would be THE defining number. Much more accurate than some survey of a small percentage of the population.

On Oct 11 09:25 AM Pat C wrote:

> To what extent in actual dollars is the 20% personal income tax decline
> compared to the 54% for corporate? Also does the government report
> somewhere a comparison of FICA (Social Security) contributions? It
> would seem to me that comparing FICA contributions would be an excellent
> indicator of the employment situation rather than the BLS estimates.
> Personal income tax has been subject to alot of manipulation so I
> don't think it would be a good measurement, but FICA should be.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/165200-why-eliminating-earnings-guidance-is-a-bad-idea?source=feed#comment-706844 706844 "In addition, it results in a statistically significant loss in shareholder wealth..."

Exactly how does it do that?]]> Wed, 07 Oct 2009 10:29:26 -0400 "In addition, it results in a statistically significant loss in shareholder wealth..."

Exactly how does it do that?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164676-manufacturing-exported-goods-sharply-up-so-what-s-the-problem?source=feed#comment-702994 702994

On Oct 04 10:52 AM Ricard wrote:
...
> Tom Armistead wrote:
...]]> Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:40:47 -0400

On Oct 04 10:52 AM Ricard wrote:
...
> Tom Armistead wrote:
...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164565-is-another-october-surprise-in-the-works?source=feed#comment-701638 701638
Another interesting thing about 1987 is that it was an up year. The DJIA finished 1986 at 1896.00 and finished 1987 at 1938.80 a 2.26% increase. Same for the S&P 500.]]> Sat, 03 Oct 2009 14:42:25 -0400
Another interesting thing about 1987 is that it was an up year. The DJIA finished 1986 at 1896.00 and finished 1987 at 1938.80 a 2.26% increase. Same for the S&P 500.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164379-is-the-jobs-data-a-concern?source=feed#comment-699377 699377
On the other hand, when there is panic, he who panics first gets the best price.]]> Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:52:05 -0400
On the other hand, when there is panic, he who panics first gets the best price.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/164059-how-inflation-concealed-the-djia-s-precipitous-decline-over-the-last-decade?source=feed#comment-696820 696820
And if you're using the DJIA as a benchmark against your own portfolio, surely you are making adjustments there.

Also, don't forget to add in the dividends for the DJIA as you do for the dividends you receive.


On Sep 30 08:19 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Mr. Hyperinflation: I think you have written an article that many
> will agree with.
>
> What language do you speak? I take it you're not an English major.
>
>
> I would add, in addition to the theme that the real value of the
> Dow is less than appears, that whenever a company, for example, GM,
> is headed to oblivion, another company heading up is substituted
> in its place. Hence, comparing the Dow of the '30's or the '70's
> to the present Dow is comparing apples to oranges.]]> Wed, 30 Sep 2009 10:52:39 -0400
And if you're using the DJIA as a benchmark against your own portfolio, surely you are making adjustments there.

Also, don't forget to add in the dividends for the DJIA as you do for the dividends you receive.


On Sep 30 08:19 AM Tony Petroski wrote:

> Mr. Hyperinflation: I think you have written an article that many
> will agree with.
>
> What language do you speak? I take it you're not an English major.
>
>
> I would add, in addition to the theme that the real value of the
> Dow is less than appears, that whenever a company, for example, GM,
> is headed to oblivion, another company heading up is substituted
> in its place. Hence, comparing the Dow of the '30's or the '70's
> to the present Dow is comparing apples to oranges.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163697-how-much-sidelined-money-remains?source=feed#comment-694788 694788
So suppose all of that $9.55 trillion changed hands and the old cash holders now own all of the S&P 500 and the old owners of the total S&P 500 now hold all of the cash. What has changed. Nothing! Just an exchange of assets. That's why the NYSE is called an exchange. Or the NASDAQ, AMEX, whatever.

Well yes, something will have changed. Those holding stock who wanted to get rid of it did. Now they hold the cash and will no longer be shouting that there's all this cash on the sidelines.

Think about it.]]> Mon, 28 Sep 2009 21:30:45 -0400
So suppose all of that $9.55 trillion changed hands and the old cash holders now own all of the S&P 500 and the old owners of the total S&P 500 now hold all of the cash. What has changed. Nothing! Just an exchange of assets. That's why the NYSE is called an exchange. Or the NASDAQ, AMEX, whatever.

Well yes, something will have changed. Those holding stock who wanted to get rid of it did. Now they hold the cash and will no longer be shouting that there's all this cash on the sidelines.

Think about it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162495-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-685099 685099
Who would reap the rewards if the best happens?

Do the profits or losses just stay there forever?

Could the Federal Reserve go into conservatorship?]]> Mon, 21 Sep 2009 14:06:10 -0400
Who would reap the rewards if the best happens?

Do the profits or losses just stay there forever?

Could the Federal Reserve go into conservatorship?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162110-the-recovery-was-too-expensive?source=feed#comment-684503 684503
Who would reap the rewards if the best happens?

Do the profits or losses just stay there forever?

Could the Federal Reserve go into conservatorship?]]> Sun, 20 Sep 2009 22:30:18 -0400
Who would reap the rewards if the best happens?

Do the profits or losses just stay there forever?

Could the Federal Reserve go into conservatorship?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162260-options-trader-flash-ban-friday?source=feed#comment-684463 684463
Who would reap the rewards if the best happens?

Do the profits or losses just stay there forever?

Could the Federal Reserve go into conservatorship?
]]> Sun, 20 Sep 2009 21:07:41 -0400
Who would reap the rewards if the best happens?

Do the profits or losses just stay there forever?

Could the Federal Reserve go into conservatorship?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159571-the-best-quote-of-2009?source=feed#comment-660615 660615
"The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011…The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade."

Alan Greenspan speaking in the 2001 Congressional Testimony]]> Thu, 03 Sep 2009 13:59:33 -0400
"The most recent projections from the OMB indicate that, if current policies remain in place, the total unified surplus will reach $800 billion in fiscal year 2011…The most recent projections, granted their tentativeness, nonetheless make clear that the highly desirable goal of paying off the federal debt is in reach before the end of the decade."

Alan Greenspan speaking in the 2001 Congressional Testimony]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157649-weekly-etf-rewind-back-in-overbought-territory?source=feed#comment-641360 641360
stockcharts.com/h-sc/u...

It's odd that I see no other mention of this, considering how much the head and shoulders pattern on the daily chart was in the news 5 or 6 weeks ago.

Kind of scary if one is bearish.

Or is this another setup to catch the technical analysts off guard?]]> Sat, 22 Aug 2009 22:40:03 -0400
stockcharts.com/h-sc/u...

It's odd that I see no other mention of this, considering how much the head and shoulders pattern on the daily chart was in the news 5 or 6 weeks ago.

Kind of scary if one is bearish.

Or is this another setup to catch the technical analysts off guard?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156289-start-of-the-shorting-season?source=feed#comment-632097 632097
stockcharts.com/h-sc/u...

For fun look at the same chart of DOG, the inverse of DIA. Notice how we're now below the neckline. For more fun look at DXD or SDS.

Kind of scary if one is bearish.

Or is this another setup as was the daily head and shoulders of 4 or 5 weeks ago?
]]> Sun, 16 Aug 2009 14:18:51 -0400
stockcharts.com/h-sc/u...

For fun look at the same chart of DOG, the inverse of DIA. Notice how we're now below the neckline. For more fun look at DXD or SDS.

Kind of scary if one is bearish.

Or is this another setup as was the daily head and shoulders of 4 or 5 weeks ago?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154465-which-historical-period-does-this-market-resemble?source=feed#comment-620751 620751
The 5th was still up 48%.

Momentum builds on momentum?]]> Fri, 07 Aug 2009 22:25:24 -0400
The 5th was still up 48%.

Momentum builds on momentum?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154621-confidence-games-and-ponzi-schemes-no-way-to-run-the-world-s-largest-economy?source=feed#comment-620742 620742 "But, what doesn't make sense is when we are told that an enduring economic rebound will require these now-thriftier Americans to "regain their confidence" in a system that has failed them so miserably over the last few years and, during a period of declining incomes and rising unemployment, go out and spend more money."

But the more I read, the more I realized I was mistaken. I can't narrow it down to a single paragraph.

Great article!]]> Fri, 07 Aug 2009 21:55:24 -0400 "But, what doesn't make sense is when we are told that an enduring economic rebound will require these now-thriftier Americans to "regain their confidence" in a system that has failed them so miserably over the last few years and, during a period of declining incomes and rising unemployment, go out and spend more money."

But the more I read, the more I realized I was mistaken. I can't narrow it down to a single paragraph.

Great article!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154612-abby-joseph-cohen-s-bullish-calls?source=feed#comment-620709 620709
Abby works for Goldman Sachs and on July 20th with the S&P 500 at 950, Goldman Sachs raised its year-end price target on the S&P 500 from 940 to 1060. So far, so good.

Don't fight the Fed, er, I mean Goldman Sachs. For-warned is for-armed.

Put options if you're holding inverse ETFs anyone? Or is it too late?]]> Fri, 07 Aug 2009 20:59:59 -0400
Abby works for Goldman Sachs and on July 20th with the S&P 500 at 950, Goldman Sachs raised its year-end price target on the S&P 500 from 940 to 1060. So far, so good.

Don't fight the Fed, er, I mean Goldman Sachs. For-warned is for-armed.

Put options if you're holding inverse ETFs anyone? Or is it too late?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153163-the-fallacy-of-money-on-the-sidelines?source=feed#comment-612085 612085
One of life's mysteries, I suppose.]]> Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:37:41 -0400
One of life's mysteries, I suppose.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153038-1929-all-over-again?source=feed#comment-612075 612075
Waiting another 3 or 4 weeks won't make a significant difference to an investor. Not waiting could make a difference.

Check back in 20 days.]]> Sun, 02 Aug 2009 18:32:03 -0400
Waiting another 3 or 4 weeks won't make a significant difference to an investor. Not waiting could make a difference.

Check back in 20 days.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152907-33-billion-in-taxpayer-money-subsidized-wall-street-bonuses?source=feed#comment-610802 610802
It seems to me they saw the huge one time investment opportunity using taxpayer money and couldn't resist.


On Jul 31 05:31 PM homogenik wrote:

> You are right for the most part however goldman and jpm didnt need
> the bailout but were forced into it. ...]]> Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:29:49 -0400
It seems to me they saw the huge one time investment opportunity using taxpayer money and couldn't resist.


On Jul 31 05:31 PM homogenik wrote:

> You are right for the most part however goldman and jpm didnt need
> the bailout but were forced into it. ...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152827-are-you-buying-this-rally?source=feed#comment-610156 610156
It's a done deal.
]]> Fri, 31 Jul 2009 15:52:42 -0400
It's a done deal.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150765-wall-street-breakfast-must-know-news?source=feed#comment-599618 599618

On Jul 23 09:42 AM anon345 wrote:

> Dear Grammar Nazi,
> Due to the high quality work Rachael produces every day I feel confident
> defending her that she knows the correct spelling and rather was
> playing on the word 'shoe' since Zappos is a shoe retailer.
>
> Great work as usual Rach]]> Thu, 23 Jul 2009 12:39:59 -0400

On Jul 23 09:42 AM anon345 wrote:

> Dear Grammar Nazi,
> Due to the high quality work Rachael produces every day I feel confident
> defending her that she knows the correct spelling and rather was
> playing on the word 'shoe' since Zappos is a shoe retailer.
>
> Great work as usual Rach]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/149397-if-americans-don-t-want-another-stimulus-why-are-we-having-one?source=feed#comment-592058 592058
Nine years and counting. What good has it done?]]> Fri, 17 Jul 2009 12:06:34 -0400
Nine years and counting. What good has it done?]]>