Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View DavyJ's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
    We need "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" buttons for articles as we have for comments. You can't rely on a article being on the most read list as often the title will lead you astray and even though you didn't like the article, just by reading it you are endorsing it. Complimentary comments don't help since they aren't available until you have committed to read the article.

    In particular, this article comes to mind:

    By the way, I looked for a more appropriate place for suggestions didn't readily find one.
    Mar 27, 2009. 11:56 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Fed, Treasury Propose the Dissolution of Capitalism [View article]
    Good article. Thumbs up!
    Mar 27, 2009. 11:51 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • When America Ruled the World (Part 2) [View article]

    You said: "The English Parliament reacted to the crisis exactly the way our current clueless bunch of moron Congressmen are reacting to the AIG debacle. The estates of the directors of the South Sea Company were confiscated and used to relieve the suffering of the victims, and the stock of the South Sea Company was divided between the Bank of England and East India Company."

    Huh! What am I missing? I can't seem to make the connection.

    Mar 25, 2009. 08:54 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • When America Ruled the World (Part 2) [View article]

    I imagined all that you asked me to, and all that I could imagine afterwards was more violence then you can imagine.
    Mar 25, 2009. 08:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Sideline Cash Headed Back into Stocks? [View article]
    I just don't understand it. Every time I put my sidelined money into the market, someone on the other side of the trade takes that money out of the market and puts it on the sideline. So there seems to be no change.

    One of life's mysteries, I guess.
    Mar 23, 2009. 08:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Not a Day to Dive Back In [View article]
    By the way, how do you know that "Most of the buying so far has been due to short covering"?
    Mar 15, 2009. 08:48 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Did the Market Show Capitulation? Not Exactly [View article]
    To paraphrase the movie title, what if they gave a capitulation party and no one came?

    Mar 15, 2009. 08:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Not a Day to Dive Back In [View article]
    Re: "As someone just said on CNBC, no one becomes rich by buying on the 4th up day!"

    So is the trick to buy on down days? There has been no shortage of them this year.

    Mar 15, 2009. 08:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investor Capitulation: What to Watch Now [View article]
    Can I get a refund on my textbook if the market doesn't perform like the book says?
    Mar 11, 2009. 09:08 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Grand Illusion: The Federal Reserve (Part 3) [View article]
    I'm a little skeptical of the numbers published by According to their calculations, consumer inflation has increased 160% since 1995 (eyeballing the chart you published). With the exception of house prices and maybe medical costs, I can't think of a single category that even comes close to that number.

    We know what has happened to house prices, and by the way, rents didn't follow house prices nor did the cost of ownership if you already owned a house.

    And much of the increase in medical costs has to do with improved diagnostic technology and it's related costs. I.e., bump you head and you end up with a multi-thousand dollar CAT scan. But it's not mandatory that you get the CAT scan that wasn't available not so long ago.

    Not even transportation costs, to round out the top three household expenditures, have increased that much (160%).

    This is not to say that there is no price inflation, only that I disagree with their numbers.
    Mar 10, 2009. 08:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Grand Illusion: The Federal Reserve (Part 3) [View article]
    James, for future reference when calculating percentages, the equation is (x/y-1) x 100.

    So 211.1/10.0 - 1 equals 20.11 or 2,011%.
    Maybe not much difference from your 2,111%

    But 211.1/30.9 -1 equals 5.83 or 583%.
    That's a difference 100% from your 683%.

    And if in some future article you want to show that something has doubled, it will be 200/100-1 or a 100% increase not 200% which would be a tremendous difference.

    Still maybe the "average American", or "Regular Joe", wouldn't catch the mistake.
    Mar 10, 2009. 07:21 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Rally, When It Comes, Will Be a Doozy [View article]

    As for the graphs, Jeez said it right.

    Judging from the lack of thumbs up, it appears that his comment went over the head of many readers.

    On Mar 06 11:30 PM Jeez wrote:

    > AND the graphs are deceptive - they are percentage of S&P market
    > cap. Well the graph will shoot up (actually double) just because
    > "S&P market cap" is 50% down with any increase of $ being sidelined!
    > So much for doozy fantasy....
    Mar 7, 2009. 02:42 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Rally, When It Comes, Will Be a Doozy [View article]
    Back to the subject of the article, there is no increase in money on the sidelines. When Heckel buys from Jeckel, Heckel's money that was on the sidelines now becomes Jeckel's money on the sidelines. And when Jeckel buys again the process repeats.

    The only time money moves from the sidelines into the market is when a company issues new stock, and it moves out to the sidelines when a company buys back it stock.
    Mar 7, 2009. 02:38 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Another Tough Month [View article]
    There have only been 6 times since 1928 that the DJIA has had a decline of 6 months in a row. In five of those times the index was up the following month.

    Feb 2009
    Sep 2002
    Sep 1981
    Jun 1973
    Jun 1953
    Jan 1942 - down another 3 months for a total of nine months

    What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. It's just an interesting fact but someone, somewhere will put a twist on it.
    Mar 1, 2009. 06:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Siegel vs. Standard & Poor's [View article]
    Who says stock prices have to mirror earnings and stay in fixed band around some historical ratio? In 1962 with the S&P 500 around 68, P:E ratios peaked at about 24 as earnings were depressed, yet by 1968 the S&P 500 was over 100 and P:E ratios had fallen to about 17. The same thing in 1988 and 1992.

    In 1974, P:E ratios were single digits, and the S&P 500 was back to the mid 60s.

    The important question is whether earnings will recover to their long term rate of increase of 6 per-cent per year.

    As reported earnings for the S&P 500 peaked in 2006 at $81.51. Will they never reach that point again?

    Feb 28, 2009. 02:40 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment