Joulie's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/224464/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/122544-ge-says-smart-grid-equal-to-41gw-of-power-plants?source=feed#comment-403416 403416
Question:

What is the unified field theory of carbon credits vs. KwH vs. money vs. global warming? How does this benefit GE?]]> Wed, 25 Feb 2009 14:38:24 -0500
Question:

What is the unified field theory of carbon credits vs. KwH vs. money vs. global warming? How does this benefit GE?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105857-ge-hits-12-year-low-time-to-stock-up?source=feed#comment-305310 305310
Do GE capital contracts still have "triple-A puts" ? (These were common in the early '90s).
]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 13:04:43 -0500
Do GE capital contracts still have "triple-A puts" ? (These were common in the early '90s).
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98060-does-warren-buffett-think-goldman-is-more-creditworthy-than-ge?source=feed#comment-271228 271228
It looks like BH/Mr. Buffet made GE capital ugliness a non-issue so that GE can move on with rebuilding the infrastructure of most of the world, financed by GS.

(There is an anecdote about Mr. Buffet wanting to "own a bridge" because everyone had to use it - this reminds me of that).(Except times a zillion).

At any rate, this seems to put a floor on GE's stock price at $22.84 at the end of 5 years time, or before (the strike price for the $3B in warrants).


]]> Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:59:35 -0400
It looks like BH/Mr. Buffet made GE capital ugliness a non-issue so that GE can move on with rebuilding the infrastructure of most of the world, financed by GS.

(There is an anecdote about Mr. Buffet wanting to "own a bridge" because everyone had to use it - this reminds me of that).(Except times a zillion).

At any rate, this seems to put a floor on GE's stock price at $22.84 at the end of 5 years time, or before (the strike price for the $3B in warrants).


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/96497-we-ve-crossed-the-line-from-capitalism-to-socialism?source=feed#comment-261071 261071
C'mon comrades - there's no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda as they say.

]]> Mon, 22 Sep 2008 01:21:25 -0400
C'mon comrades - there's no Pravda in Izvestia and no Izvestia in Pravda as they say.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88332-how-we-lost-faith-in-the-financial-superstructure?source=feed#comment-219829 219829 www.rand.org/pubs/mono...

Of course factory floor jobs require on site workers, although I would query whether there will be alternatives to single individuals driving automobiles.

]]> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 23:38:01 -0400 www.rand.org/pubs/mono...

Of course factory floor jobs require on site workers, although I would query whether there will be alternatives to single individuals driving automobiles.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/88332-how-we-lost-faith-in-the-financial-superstructure?source=feed#comment-219712 219712
Yet, the true cross-elasticity for gas in the tank is the internet -- telecommuting.

This is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to eliminate dependence on mid east oil.

We need to decide if cultural issues are so important that we have to devote most of our national resources to keeping people in their cars so they can drive to a desk downtown. ]]> Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:23:53 -0400
Yet, the true cross-elasticity for gas in the tank is the internet -- telecommuting.

This is the fastest, cheapest, and cleanest way to eliminate dependence on mid east oil.

We need to decide if cultural issues are so important that we have to devote most of our national resources to keeping people in their cars so they can drive to a desk downtown. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/87660-another-american-money-pit-infrastructure?source=feed#comment-217674 217674 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:26:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/85880-scarlett-o-hara-doris-day-and-financial-market-tumult?source=feed#comment-210303 210303
I haven't read the Grant piece, but the gist seems to be: All the backstops in regulatory, corporate governance and simple individual ethics failed, what happened?

Deconstructing what happened, not surprisingly, the theme running through it all like a red thread is, "Maximize my pay regardless of my performance". Put another way, "Money attracts flies."

So where are we: disorientedly afloat. Asset (stock, commodity) market values are untethered from the price of the financial instruments that created them.

The article points to the gold standard. Is gold the answer? It does tie valuation to something. I think it's too early. We don't know what we don't know, we need more unwinding. I don't even think mark to market by selling 10% and seeing what you get will work -- it's a moving target.

My vote: We need damage control during this "Great Unwinding".

Regulate leverage up the wazoo where ever you find it. Naked shorts, commodity futures, whatever. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but, painful as it may be, we need to have supply and demand relate to the asset, not to the financial instrument alone.

So far, the regulators seem to be saying, to paraphrase Scarlet, "[public] opinion is a matter of supreme indifference to me."

I'd like to see the D&O insurers help as far as governance, maybe they can team up with the regulators and make and actual plan, unlike what we have now, which is chaos.

]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 01:12:14 -0400
I haven't read the Grant piece, but the gist seems to be: All the backstops in regulatory, corporate governance and simple individual ethics failed, what happened?

Deconstructing what happened, not surprisingly, the theme running through it all like a red thread is, "Maximize my pay regardless of my performance". Put another way, "Money attracts flies."

So where are we: disorientedly afloat. Asset (stock, commodity) market values are untethered from the price of the financial instruments that created them.

The article points to the gold standard. Is gold the answer? It does tie valuation to something. I think it's too early. We don't know what we don't know, we need more unwinding. I don't even think mark to market by selling 10% and seeing what you get will work -- it's a moving target.

My vote: We need damage control during this "Great Unwinding".

Regulate leverage up the wazoo where ever you find it. Naked shorts, commodity futures, whatever. I'm not sure what needs to be done, but, painful as it may be, we need to have supply and demand relate to the asset, not to the financial instrument alone.

So far, the regulators seem to be saying, to paraphrase Scarlet, "[public] opinion is a matter of supreme indifference to me."

I'd like to see the D&O insurers help as far as governance, maybe they can team up with the regulators and make and actual plan, unlike what we have now, which is chaos.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85718-the-sec-s-campaign-against-naked-shorting-misguided-or-right-on?source=feed#comment-208770 208770
Pelican may be on to something, higher % returns, this is going on much more than we know.

SEC? Hello?
]]> Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:31:41 -0400
Pelican may be on to something, higher % returns, this is going on much more than we know.

SEC? Hello?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/85718-the-sec-s-campaign-against-naked-shorting-misguided-or-right-on?source=feed#comment-208741 208741
I was unaware it was 17 companies. Why is making a special rule for 17 companies legal? Last time I checked we had a Constitutional Equal Protection clause -- you can't make laws picking only on individuals.

Be that as it may. . .I don't think these amorphous markets should be banned, just transparent.

I think you make an important point: With *unreported* naked shorters around (and dark pools), the public equities markets are now on-line gaming casinos. It's a guess - you don't know the value of the shares because you don't know the volume traded and you don't know the liquidity.

The regs should require that naked short contracts be made public, along with the number of shares or other instruments traded in dark pools.
]]> Fri, 18 Jul 2008 12:06:56 -0400
I was unaware it was 17 companies. Why is making a special rule for 17 companies legal? Last time I checked we had a Constitutional Equal Protection clause -- you can't make laws picking only on individuals.

Be that as it may. . .I don't think these amorphous markets should be banned, just transparent.

I think you make an important point: With *unreported* naked shorters around (and dark pools), the public equities markets are now on-line gaming casinos. It's a guess - you don't know the value of the shares because you don't know the volume traded and you don't know the liquidity.

The regs should require that naked short contracts be made public, along with the number of shares or other instruments traded in dark pools.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/84459-will-dark-pools-be-the-capital-markets-next-black-holes?source=feed#comment-202462 202462
If I post a web site that says, "Gambling here! Bet that General Electric Stock will go down!" the Feds and the state and the Native American tribes would be all over that for illegal gambling. But aren't dark pools the same thing?

Or, at a minimum, illegal boycotts? Aren't the dark pools refusing to deal in an anticompetitive way?

We need some sunshine on these "dark pools", they defeat the purpose of the securities laws by totally hiding the major risks involved with investing -- which is the exact opposite of what the securities laws were supposed to do. The laws are to let people kick the tires, slam the doors and figure out if the stock is worth the price based on information available to everyone. If the major, market-moving information is secret -- the liquidity (volume of shares) traded -- then isn't that just admitting that the SEC is a farce, and basically the stock markets aren't based on free market, but rather based on collusion of the economically powerful private entities?

Am I overly paranoid? To me this is so obvious -- am I the only one?

Regulators? Business leaders? Hello?

]]> Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:07:58 -0400
If I post a web site that says, "Gambling here! Bet that General Electric Stock will go down!" the Feds and the state and the Native American tribes would be all over that for illegal gambling. But aren't dark pools the same thing?

Or, at a minimum, illegal boycotts? Aren't the dark pools refusing to deal in an anticompetitive way?

We need some sunshine on these "dark pools", they defeat the purpose of the securities laws by totally hiding the major risks involved with investing -- which is the exact opposite of what the securities laws were supposed to do. The laws are to let people kick the tires, slam the doors and figure out if the stock is worth the price based on information available to everyone. If the major, market-moving information is secret -- the liquidity (volume of shares) traded -- then isn't that just admitting that the SEC is a farce, and basically the stock markets aren't based on free market, but rather based on collusion of the economically powerful private entities?

Am I overly paranoid? To me this is so obvious -- am I the only one?

Regulators? Business leaders? Hello?

]]>