Owen's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/229852/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/172609-who-is-the-mystery-buyer?source=feed#comment-756706 756706
You don't need one billion dollars to buy a notional value of $1B in S&P futures. Based on current margin rates, you'd only need about $60 million, a mere trifle for most hedge funds. And if it's done as part of index arbitrage, the amount needed is far less.

Why would the government need to "stabilize the market" after a 65% run-up from the March lows by buying the S&P on low-volume days? If you must dream up conspiracy theories, at least come up with plausible ones.


On Nov 10 10:18 PM TheDecider wrote:

> Small orders? The volume was over 50K in this 5 minute period.
> That means the order on the E-minis could have been well over $1B.
> You call that small? Who has the firepower to execute an order like
> that at the asking price? ]]> Thu, 12 Nov 2009 07:15:22 -0500
You don't need one billion dollars to buy a notional value of $1B in S&P futures. Based on current margin rates, you'd only need about $60 million, a mere trifle for most hedge funds. And if it's done as part of index arbitrage, the amount needed is far less.

Why would the government need to "stabilize the market" after a 65% run-up from the March lows by buying the S&P on low-volume days? If you must dream up conspiracy theories, at least come up with plausible ones.


On Nov 10 10:18 PM TheDecider wrote:

> Small orders? The volume was over 50K in this 5 minute period.
> That means the order on the E-minis could have been well over $1B.
> You call that small? Who has the firepower to execute an order like
> that at the asking price? ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172974-values-have-dropped-less-than-25-of-the-fall-required-to-reach-trend-status?source=feed#comment-756683 756683
Plot the chart again using a log scale for prices, and everything will make more sense, and will, not surprisingly, coincide much better with reality.]]> Thu, 12 Nov 2009 06:33:57 -0500
Plot the chart again using a log scale for prices, and everything will make more sense, and will, not surprisingly, coincide much better with reality.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/172609-who-is-the-mystery-buyer?source=feed#comment-754689 754689
It's amazing how even in the absence of any motive or mechanism, people will still come up with the most amazing conspiracy theories.

No one can move the cash stock market simply by buying small amounts of S&P futures on low-volume days. The reason for that is that there is effectively unlimited capital behind index arbitrage traders, so you'd never see the spread between the cash market and the future's fair value drift by more than a tick or two, except during massive crashes.

Rapid, large block trades in the S&P futures can be the result of any number of things. These include mutual funds rolling over their December contracts to the March ones, hedgers or 130/30 funds being forced to rebalance after a large transaction, a hedge fund being forced to cover a short due to an impending margin call, or even a foreign government trying to diversify a multi-billion dollar portfolio.

The S&P futures are the basic tool of the trade for any large equity trader. When things need to be done in a hurry, they go to the CME "spooz" pit, or--more often these days--the Globex E-mini S&P terminal. Large blocks change hands all the time; we only notice them during low-volume days, when they move the futures market.

> I don’t know if there is malfeasance behind this]]> Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:19:20 -0500
It's amazing how even in the absence of any motive or mechanism, people will still come up with the most amazing conspiracy theories.

No one can move the cash stock market simply by buying small amounts of S&P futures on low-volume days. The reason for that is that there is effectively unlimited capital behind index arbitrage traders, so you'd never see the spread between the cash market and the future's fair value drift by more than a tick or two, except during massive crashes.

Rapid, large block trades in the S&P futures can be the result of any number of things. These include mutual funds rolling over their December contracts to the March ones, hedgers or 130/30 funds being forced to rebalance after a large transaction, a hedge fund being forced to cover a short due to an impending margin call, or even a foreign government trying to diversify a multi-billion dollar portfolio.

The S&P futures are the basic tool of the trade for any large equity trader. When things need to be done in a hurry, they go to the CME "spooz" pit, or--more often these days--the Globex E-mini S&P terminal. Large blocks change hands all the time; we only notice them during low-volume days, when they move the futures market.

> I don’t know if there is malfeasance behind this]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/32583?source=feed#comment-679001 679001
A person, company or country can be leveraged. The world as a whole cannot, by definition, be leveraged. For every debtor there is a creditor. Once again, an article published with the sole purpose of inspiring panic in people who don't have basic knowledge of economics.]]> Wed, 16 Sep 2009 10:53:30 -0400
A person, company or country can be leveraged. The world as a whole cannot, by definition, be leveraged. For every debtor there is a creditor. Once again, an article published with the sole purpose of inspiring panic in people who don't have basic knowledge of economics.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98028-bailout-cost-per-taxpayer-by-income?source=feed#comment-657519 657519
True, the initial indication of profit on the TARP funds may be misleading. However, the assumptions behind your calculations are also already known to be false, even if no additional dollar of TARP is to be repaid from this day on -- an unlikely scenario.

There was no way of knowing any of this in September 2008. What bothers me is the accountability of naysayers. I salute you for following up on your old articles and responding to comments. However, the fear mongering crowd of commenters who kept predicting the end of the world -- they were heroes a year ago, and now are nowhere to be found. I'd like to see one of THOSE idiots stand up and say, "Sorry, I was wrong!", instead of hiding behind a new alias.


On Sep 01 10:51 AM Richard Shaw wrote:

> Owen -- I presume from your comment that I am one of those idiots
> in your opinion. I disagree strongly with your view that TARP has
> shown a profit. There is no way to know what the profit or loss
> is until all the accounts are settled. It is false logic to assume
> that because some accounts have turned out well that the remaining
> accounts will perform similarly.]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 21:57:06 -0400
True, the initial indication of profit on the TARP funds may be misleading. However, the assumptions behind your calculations are also already known to be false, even if no additional dollar of TARP is to be repaid from this day on -- an unlikely scenario.

There was no way of knowing any of this in September 2008. What bothers me is the accountability of naysayers. I salute you for following up on your old articles and responding to comments. However, the fear mongering crowd of commenters who kept predicting the end of the world -- they were heroes a year ago, and now are nowhere to be found. I'd like to see one of THOSE idiots stand up and say, "Sorry, I was wrong!", instead of hiding behind a new alias.


On Sep 01 10:51 AM Richard Shaw wrote:

> Owen -- I presume from your comment that I am one of those idiots
> in your opinion. I disagree strongly with your view that TARP has
> shown a profit. There is no way to know what the profit or loss
> is until all the accounts are settled. It is false logic to assume
> that because some accounts have turned out well that the remaining
> accounts will perform similarly.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155545-what-might-happen-with-america-s-unemployment-rate?source=feed#comment-655294 655294
Last October you told us here on SA how the bailout will never work and how the taxpayer will never see a penny of it back. Now we know the bailout saved the economy, and not only much of it has already been repaid, the taxpayer made a cool 15% profit on the funds.

So now what? Of course, predictions of doom about employment.

At least have the decency to admit that you don't have the ability to forecast economic conditions any more than a pair of dice. In fact, you'd probably be right more often if you used a pair of dice to make your predictions.


On Aug 12 11:14 AM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> Unemployment WILL go double-digit AND remain there for an extended
> period. We continue to bleed jobs to overseas sources. This week's
> productivity report has shown cause for employers to hold off on
> hiring -- just squeeze those who remain for more output. And lastly,
> the neo-Marxist policies of the current administration do not foster
> growth, but stagnation -- this is not my opinion, but the historical
> truth that has been repeated time and again: socialist economics
> leads to higher unemployment and slower growth...precisely because
> government are not producers, but redistributors...which means that
> those who do the producing are continually hit with ever-higher costs
> and therefore, shrinking margins. That doesn't foster hiring. We
> all know this...but Congress refuses to acquiesce!!!]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:34:32 -0400
Last October you told us here on SA how the bailout will never work and how the taxpayer will never see a penny of it back. Now we know the bailout saved the economy, and not only much of it has already been repaid, the taxpayer made a cool 15% profit on the funds.

So now what? Of course, predictions of doom about employment.

At least have the decency to admit that you don't have the ability to forecast economic conditions any more than a pair of dice. In fact, you'd probably be right more often if you used a pair of dice to make your predictions.


On Aug 12 11:14 AM Socialism cannot compete! wrote:

> Unemployment WILL go double-digit AND remain there for an extended
> period. We continue to bleed jobs to overseas sources. This week's
> productivity report has shown cause for employers to hold off on
> hiring -- just squeeze those who remain for more output. And lastly,
> the neo-Marxist policies of the current administration do not foster
> growth, but stagnation -- this is not my opinion, but the historical
> truth that has been repeated time and again: socialist economics
> leads to higher unemployment and slower growth...precisely because
> government are not producers, but redistributors...which means that
> those who do the producing are continually hit with ever-higher costs
> and therefore, shrinking margins. That doesn't foster hiring. We
> all know this...but Congress refuses to acquiesce!!!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98028-bailout-cost-per-taxpayer-by-income?source=feed#comment-655278 655278
So far, the US taxpayer has actually made a profit of 15% on the TARP money, much of it already paid back. Where are these prophets of doom now? Probably posting here under a new alias.

Here's the current status of TARP: business.theatlantic.c...]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 16:21:50 -0400
So far, the US taxpayer has actually made a profit of 15% on the TARP money, much of it already paid back. Where are these prophets of doom now? Probably posting here under a new alias.

Here's the current status of TARP: business.theatlantic.c...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158939-a-warren-buffett-stock-screen?source=feed#comment-653285 653285
I'm also surprised to see a criterion like dividend yield as part of the filter. This have never been part of Buffett's criteria. I also can't see him considering a stock with a P/E over 20 as a "reasonable price".

Howard Silverbatt, the S&P analyst who created the list, has absolutely no understanding of Buffett's decision-making process. Mentioning Warren's name in the title is a shameless attempt to plug his own, flawed analysis.]]> Sun, 30 Aug 2009 11:15:59 -0400
I'm also surprised to see a criterion like dividend yield as part of the filter. This have never been part of Buffett's criteria. I also can't see him considering a stock with a P/E over 20 as a "reasonable price".

Howard Silverbatt, the S&P analyst who created the list, has absolutely no understanding of Buffett's decision-making process. Mentioning Warren's name in the title is a shameless attempt to plug his own, flawed analysis.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141233-smith-midland-cheap-undiscovered-infrastructure-stock?source=feed#comment-644894 644894
Other than giving your own posts a thumbs-up, do you have something of value to say here?


On Aug 17 05:58 PM JDROC wrote:

> not anymore]]> Tue, 25 Aug 2009 08:32:45 -0400
Other than giving your own posts a thumbs-up, do you have something of value to say here?


On Aug 17 05:58 PM JDROC wrote:

> not anymore]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157183-teva-pharmaceutical-predictable-growth-good-value?source=feed#comment-640878 640878
Prices, inflation, and compound growth are all log-normal ("exponential") phenomena. Representing them on a linear scale gives a false overweight to recent years while artificially deemphasizing the past.]]> Sat, 22 Aug 2009 09:35:00 -0400
Prices, inflation, and compound growth are all log-normal ("exponential") phenomena. Representing them on a linear scale gives a false overweight to recent years while artificially deemphasizing the past.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/141233-smith-midland-cheap-undiscovered-infrastructure-stock?source=feed#comment-533103 533103 Fri, 05 Jun 2009 06:34:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133485-state-street-a-bankable-proposition?source=feed#comment-483241 483241
On Apr 29 02:57 PM dirty_dirty wrote:

> paul, any examples of these married options using cheaper stocks?
> very interested, but kind of new to this and would like to try one
> out...want to keep from losing my shirt the first time around.]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:07:47 -0400
On Apr 29 02:57 PM dirty_dirty wrote:

> paul, any examples of these married options using cheaper stocks?
> very interested, but kind of new to this and would like to try one
> out...want to keep from losing my shirt the first time around.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133944-great-recession-datapoint-of-the-day?source=feed#comment-483232 483232
We are only 30% below the all time peak, which is pretty typical of long recessions. But of course, people love to panic, given half a chance.

On Apr 29 01:36 PM schlumpf wrote:

> Owen wrote : By my reckoning, that means exports are now
> running at half the level they were at six months ago, more or
> less.
>
>
> how far away is the total collapse ????]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 18:04:09 -0400
We are only 30% below the all time peak, which is pretty typical of long recessions. But of course, people love to panic, given half a chance.

On Apr 29 01:36 PM schlumpf wrote:

> Owen wrote : By my reckoning, that means exports are now
> running at half the level they were at six months ago, more or
> less.
>
>
> how far away is the total collapse ????]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133944-great-recession-datapoint-of-the-day?source=feed#comment-482821 482821
If the 09Q4 figure is down 34.5%, only then it would bring us to 50% below the peak: (100 - 23.6%) x (100 - 34.5%) = 50%.

> By my reckoning, that means exports are now running at half the level they were at six months ago, more or less.]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 13:13:58 -0400
If the 09Q4 figure is down 34.5%, only then it would bring us to 50% below the peak: (100 - 23.6%) x (100 - 34.5%) = 50%.

> By my reckoning, that means exports are now running at half the level they were at six months ago, more or less.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133485-state-street-a-bankable-proposition?source=feed#comment-481408 481408
Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see STT going back to its April 2008 level of $80+ even before the Jan 2011 expiration date, so I'd be more nervous about writing the Calls and missing out on the big move, if anything. In my previous comment I was merely pointing out the dollar amount on the worst case scenario outcome, for the traders considering it.

In a post-credit crunch economy, the well-capitalized surviving banks will have better pricing power, and higher margins. While the overall financial industry earnings might shrink, they will be divided between fewer players, so we may very well see some select banks enjoying a very rapid recovery in their valuation.

I make a good portion of my money from writing options, but when it comes to STT, I believe the implied volatility of 107% correctly reflects the potential for a large stock movement--in either direction.]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 14:58:23 -0400
Personally, I wouldn't be at all surprised to see STT going back to its April 2008 level of $80+ even before the Jan 2011 expiration date, so I'd be more nervous about writing the Calls and missing out on the big move, if anything. In my previous comment I was merely pointing out the dollar amount on the worst case scenario outcome, for the traders considering it.

In a post-credit crunch economy, the well-capitalized surviving banks will have better pricing power, and higher margins. While the overall financial industry earnings might shrink, they will be divided between fewer players, so we may very well see some select banks enjoying a very rapid recovery in their valuation.

I make a good portion of my money from writing options, but when it comes to STT, I believe the implied volatility of 107% correctly reflects the potential for a large stock movement--in either direction.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133181-latest-additions-to-the-bank-failure-list-4-banks-1-credit-union?source=feed#comment-480425 480425
As long as the Treasury can sell US dollar denominated assets such as bonds, the FDIC's resources are effectively limitless.
]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:40:09 -0400
As long as the Treasury can sell US dollar denominated assets such as bonds, the FDIC's resources are effectively limitless.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133485-state-street-a-bankable-proposition?source=feed#comment-480417 480417 Tue, 28 Apr 2009 06:19:06 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130503-the-investment-circus-why-mean-ignorant-monkeys-beat-median-jumping-clowns?source=feed#comment-461239 461239
Minor note: The $26 trillion figure is over a year old. The current worldwide market value of all mutual funds is probably closer to $15 trillion.]]> Mon, 13 Apr 2009 06:46:00 -0400
Minor note: The $26 trillion figure is over a year old. The current worldwide market value of all mutual funds is probably closer to $15 trillion.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128417-derivatives-just-one-reason-to-short-the-banks?source=feed#comment-447583 447583
They may have over a trillion each in total assets, but that number is meaningless for this discussion. Most of these assets are segregated regulated funds in client accounts, so the banks have no access to these funds for paying off derivative losses.]]> Wed, 01 Apr 2009 05:57:35 -0400
They may have over a trillion each in total assets, but that number is meaningless for this discussion. Most of these assets are segregated regulated funds in client accounts, so the banks have no access to these funds for paying off derivative losses.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/20015?source=feed#comment-429651 429651 Tue, 17 Mar 2009 15:38:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125472-is-berkshire-a-long-run-buy?source=feed#comment-425197 425197
Like other Berkshire shareholders, I too am worried about the company after Buffett is gone. Warren has a unique ability to close a multi-billion dollar deal with a handshake after a 30 minute chat, and the talent to write annual reports that are both clear and fun to read.

But as to his investment acumen, there are two or three people at Berkshire who will do as good a job as him in managing the company's ever growing investment portfolio. One is Ajit Jain, and another is Lou Simpson--who may very well be an even greater investor than Warren, albeit not much younger than him. Neither of these gentlemen possess Warren's folksy charm, but the company will be in good hands with either of them at the helm.

The company doesn't need a "manager" at the top. Each of the 80 or so individual businesses essentially manage themselves. The sole job of the 18 people working at headquarters is to allocate capital. But remember, this is an operating business, not a mutual fund. Berkshire will do reasonably well even if all excess funds are invested in the S&P-500 index. Perhaps not as well as they've done so far, but well enough to justify paying more than book value for their shares.

Buffett often says, "Buy a business that even an idiot can run, because sooner or later an idiot will run it." I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon with Berkshire Hathaway, and if the stock does fall on news of Warren's retirement or death, I'll use that opportunity to buy more shares.]]> Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:46:01 -0400
Like other Berkshire shareholders, I too am worried about the company after Buffett is gone. Warren has a unique ability to close a multi-billion dollar deal with a handshake after a 30 minute chat, and the talent to write annual reports that are both clear and fun to read.

But as to his investment acumen, there are two or three people at Berkshire who will do as good a job as him in managing the company's ever growing investment portfolio. One is Ajit Jain, and another is Lou Simpson--who may very well be an even greater investor than Warren, albeit not much younger than him. Neither of these gentlemen possess Warren's folksy charm, but the company will be in good hands with either of them at the helm.

The company doesn't need a "manager" at the top. Each of the 80 or so individual businesses essentially manage themselves. The sole job of the 18 people working at headquarters is to allocate capital. But remember, this is an operating business, not a mutual fund. Berkshire will do reasonably well even if all excess funds are invested in the S&P-500 index. Perhaps not as well as they've done so far, but well enough to justify paying more than book value for their shares.

Buffett often says, "Buy a business that even an idiot can run, because sooner or later an idiot will run it." I don't think that's likely to happen any time soon with Berkshire Hathaway, and if the stock does fall on news of Warren's retirement or death, I'll use that opportunity to buy more shares.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125539-berkshire-s-huge-exposure-nonsense?source=feed#comment-425163 425163
Many financial institutions are now selling investment instruments that offer the market return if the index goes up, but guarantee your principal in case it goes down. They make their profit by collecting the dividends on the portfolio (or the interest, if they use futures contracts), and by capping the return if the market goes up beyond a certain level (which allows them to write covered calls on the portfolio).

However, to retain their credit rating, they must fully hedge their exposure in case the market goes down. They do so by buying long term put contracts on the index. If priced correctly, they can ensure a fixed, predictable profit for themselves, without exposing themselves or their customers to any risk--beyond the counterparty risk on the puts. That's why they'd choose Berkshire, the most trusted insurer around.
]]> Fri, 13 Mar 2009 19:04:35 -0400
Many financial institutions are now selling investment instruments that offer the market return if the index goes up, but guarantee your principal in case it goes down. They make their profit by collecting the dividends on the portfolio (or the interest, if they use futures contracts), and by capping the return if the market goes up beyond a certain level (which allows them to write covered calls on the portfolio).

However, to retain their credit rating, they must fully hedge their exposure in case the market goes down. They do so by buying long term put contracts on the index. If priced correctly, they can ensure a fixed, predictable profit for themselves, without exposing themselves or their customers to any risk--beyond the counterparty risk on the puts. That's why they'd choose Berkshire, the most trusted insurer around.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/125814-there-s-value-in-value-line-shares?source=feed#comment-424820 424820 Fri, 13 Mar 2009 14:09:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125375-how-to-know-a-bottom-when-you-don-t-see-one?source=feed#comment-421990 421990
I don't care where the market will be tomorrow or next week, as long as I have a good sense of where it'll be 10 years from now.


On Mar 11 01:20 PM ArkansasAngie wrote:

> I'm not sure as an investor that I need to know when the market bottoms.
>
>
> Historical means and mediums are about as accurate/helpful as the
> FEDury's ability to report initial GDP and unemployment numbers.
>
>
> And ... with saw in hand ... technical analysis presumes stable linkages
> between variables. In today's chaotic environment, spurious conclusions
> litter the floor.]]> Wed, 11 Mar 2009 13:38:32 -0400
I don't care where the market will be tomorrow or next week, as long as I have a good sense of where it'll be 10 years from now.


On Mar 11 01:20 PM ArkansasAngie wrote:

> I'm not sure as an investor that I need to know when the market bottoms.
>
>
> Historical means and mediums are about as accurate/helpful as the
> FEDury's ability to report initial GDP and unemployment numbers.
>
>
> And ... with saw in hand ... technical analysis presumes stable linkages
> between variables. In today's chaotic environment, spurious conclusions
> litter the floor.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123992-wednesday-outlook-commodities-emerging-markets?source=feed#comment-413578 413578
When Lyndon B. Johnson was in office, I was on the other side of the ocean, fighting wars of our own.

The US military buys most of its light firearms from Colt and a few specialty manufacturers. I don't see how Smith and Wesson would benefit from additional wars, unless they are fought on the streets of Los Angeles. A fear of imminent tightening in gun control laws is the most likely explanation for the rise in stock price, although I'd be surprised if their next quarterly report will actually show a dramatic increase in sales.

The author's comment about Shiller and the "novel approach" is pure demagoguery. Shiller has been using the same method for his calculation all along, something the author knows or should have known before making such an accusation.

This author has a tendency to see conspiracies and sinister plots in the most trivial events. I'd be happy to listen to them if he had any shred of proof to support them. Alas, he prefers to hide behind veiled suggestions and obscure innuendo.


On Mar 04 10:05 AM Alex Biggs wrote:

> Fakir and Owen: Not sure if you're old enough to have historical
> perspective based on your comments.
]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 22:09:19 -0500
When Lyndon B. Johnson was in office, I was on the other side of the ocean, fighting wars of our own.

The US military buys most of its light firearms from Colt and a few specialty manufacturers. I don't see how Smith and Wesson would benefit from additional wars, unless they are fought on the streets of Los Angeles. A fear of imminent tightening in gun control laws is the most likely explanation for the rise in stock price, although I'd be surprised if their next quarterly report will actually show a dramatic increase in sales.

The author's comment about Shiller and the "novel approach" is pure demagoguery. Shiller has been using the same method for his calculation all along, something the author knows or should have known before making such an accusation.

This author has a tendency to see conspiracies and sinister plots in the most trivial events. I'd be happy to listen to them if he had any shred of proof to support them. Alas, he prefers to hide behind veiled suggestions and obscure innuendo.


On Mar 04 10:05 AM Alex Biggs wrote:

> Fakir and Owen: Not sure if you're old enough to have historical
> perspective based on your comments.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124025-berkshire-hathaway-presents-a-rare-opportunity?source=feed#comment-412236 412236 Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:53:08 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123992-wednesday-outlook-commodities-emerging-markets?source=feed#comment-412233 412233
Indeed, why? Buffalo Wild Wings is up 92% since November. So what? If there's something you want to say, say it. Enough with the innuendo.

> and come up with this novel approach this morning

"Novel"? Shiller has always been using the ten-year trailing earnings formula. Look up his original historical paper, and get over your paranoias already.]]> Wed, 04 Mar 2009 05:42:25 -0500
Indeed, why? Buffalo Wild Wings is up 92% since November. So what? If there's something you want to say, say it. Enough with the innuendo.

> and come up with this novel approach this morning

"Novel"? Shiller has always been using the ten-year trailing earnings formula. Look up his original historical paper, and get over your paranoias already.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123422-eight-companies-that-are-hiking-dividends?source=feed#comment-408310 408310 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:07:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123411-buffett-s-financial-bets?source=feed#comment-408305 408305
Buffett does better with companies he owns outright than with shares of publicly traded companies. The reason for that is that while he is a great investor, he is an even better leader and mentor. People working for him are trying much harder to do a good job than those reporting to a short-sighted, disinterested board of directors.
]]> Sun, 01 Mar 2009 16:01:13 -0500
Buffett does better with companies he owns outright than with shares of publicly traded companies. The reason for that is that while he is a great investor, he is an even better leader and mentor. People working for him are trying much harder to do a good job than those reporting to a short-sighted, disinterested board of directors.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123293-u-s-banks-and-the-china-factor?source=feed#comment-407068 407068
Most of us have to choose between risk and reward, but apparently not the Chinese. Isn't that terrific! If you're Chinese, you can buy any kind junk bond--Ford, GM etc. yielding 15-25% interest, and not even bother to check their creditworthiness, since it all enjoys the triple-A backing of Uncle Sam. What a system!]]> Sat, 28 Feb 2009 12:49:23 -0500
Most of us have to choose between risk and reward, but apparently not the Chinese. Isn't that terrific! If you're Chinese, you can buy any kind junk bond--Ford, GM etc. yielding 15-25% interest, and not even bother to check their creditworthiness, since it all enjoys the triple-A backing of Uncle Sam. What a system!]]>