Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View DavyJ's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • 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
  • Bear Market: More Downside Ahead [View article]
    Re: "A person watching the tide coming in and who wishes to know the exact spot which marks the high tide, sets a stick in the sand at the points reached by the incoming waves until the stick reaches a position where the waves do not come up to it, and finally recede enough to show that the tide has turned. This method holds good in watching and determining the flood tide of the stock market"

    I use that exact method myself to determine when the market peaks. It works 100% of the time.

    And, get this, it works in reverse also to show when the market has bottomed by moving the sticks the other way!

    Feb 23, 2009. 08:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Up Days: The Scarcest Commodity of All [View article]
    What's more depressing is that none of your precentages can possibly be correct! Even when correcting for 33 trading days through Thursday.
    Feb 19, 2009. 08:48 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Lower Will Equities Go? [View article]
    As long as the politicians, government officials and ex-government officials keep preaching that this is the worst crisis since the great depression, the markets will keep going lower.

    They certainly aren't helping the situation with their rhetoric and grandstanding.
    Feb 18, 2009. 02:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Assessing the Market's Current Valuation [View article]
    Mike, What do 1200 companies that have zero sales do? I.e., how do they make money and how do they stay in business?

    On Feb 18 09:02 AM Mike Carr wrote:

    > A lot of stocks are trdaing below their their average P/S ratio.
    > And more than 1200 stocks reported zero sales in the past 12 months
    > - seems interesting to me that so many stocks exist given all the
    > emphasis on fraud in teh current market. Could be indicating that
    > investors still seek risk?
    Feb 18, 2009. 02:34 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Assessing the Market's Current Valuation [View article]
    You said: "Using the P/S ratio to measure fair value, we find that 8,211 stocks have reported at least some sales in the past twelve months. (As an interesting trivia note, there are more than 1,200 listed securities with no sales at all in the past year.)"

    I ask: Would you please read that again, and again, and even again if necessary.

    Then tell us what you really meant to say.

    Feb 17, 2009. 08:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stop Trying to Jump-Start the Consumer - Barron's Interview [View article]
    You said: "If I spend all my income this year, but make $50K in the stock market, the govt says that my savings rate is 0."

    I ask: And what is your savings rate if you spend all your income this year, but lose $50K in the stock market?

    On Feb 16 06:01 PM Stone Fox Capital wrote:

    > The US savings rate is one of the most inaccurately used figures
    > around. To economists it seems that savings is the portion of income
    > but under the mattresss, but it never factors in investment/capital
    > gains. If I spend all my income this year, but make $50K in the stock
    > market, the govt says that my savings rate is 0. The savings rate
    > in the US is alot higher then the govts continues to mislead with.
    > I know very few people that have 'zero' savings as the govt suggests.
    > .
    Feb 16, 2009. 09:06 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment