Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View charliezap's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Total SA's Ambitious Goals Are A Good News/Bad News Proposition [View article]
    S&P agrees with you, cuts TOT from Strong Buy to Hold.

    ""We cut our '14 earnings per ADS est. by $0.53 to $6.28, and '15's by $0.55 to $6.64. We also cut our 12-mo. target price by $11 to $73, using a forward P/E of 11X, above TOT's historical forward average. Total's shares are up 16% year to date, well above the peer average gain of 4%. We believe that Capital IQ consensus projections indicating significantly improved free cash flows through '17 are contingent on aggressive production goals as well as reduced capital spending, but with much of that incremental production stemming from emerging markets, we see execution risk.""
    Jul 10, 2014. 01:36 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • UCP, LLC's Lot Portfolio Is Worth 84% Of Its Enterprise Value, Giving Shareholders Homebuilding Exposure At A Discount [View article]
    You say: ""The publicly-traded entity is UCP, LLC and its only asset is a 42.3% economic interest in the operating entity UCP, Inc.""

    But looking at your diagram, it appears to be the other way around. UCP, Inc. owns a 42.3% interest in the operating entity UCP, LLC. The UCP shares I own are of UCP, Inc, according to my brokerage records.

    Can you confirm?
    Jul 4, 2014. 10:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Exxon Mobil's Dividends Sustainable? [View article]
    Silly question!
    Jul 2, 2014. 10:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    veritas, re economists, they may not always be precisely right in their forecasts, but, in my observation, they make better forecasts than say, medical doctors, lawyers, politicians, and most of the denizens of this website.

    Of course, there are economists, and there are charlatans who call themselves economists. It is the charlatans who give economists a bad name.

    Example: the so-called supply-siders, led by Arthur Laffer, who advised Reagan on the tax cuts that were implemented in the 1980's. They told Reagan that the tax cuts would produce additional revenue through economic growth. Unfortunately, that did not happen. The Reagan tax cuts produced massive deficits that were not eliminated until the later years of the Clinton administration.

    Example: the GW Bush advisers, Glenn Hubbard and Larry Lindsey, proposed tax cuts that were supposed to promote growth and raise tax revenues. Growth came in the form of the housing bubble, which was unsustainable. After housing collapsed, we had the Great Recession. The national debt doubled during GW Bush's stint in office. (But Dick Cheney famously said: "Deficits don't matter." And Larry Lindsey was kicked out when he suggested that the Iraq war might cost more than the $100 billion projected by the Bush administration. A recent Reuters article puts the cost of the Iraq war at over $2 trillion!)

    For more on charlatans, see a recent column by Paul Krugman:
    Jul 2, 2014. 12:32 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why This Oil Giant Is Tried And True [View article]
    Ratios of rumors to actual acquisitions is about 1000 to 1.
    Jun 30, 2014. 08:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Bank Of America's Fair Value Is $19 [View article]
    @diction, yeah, let's get back to sub-prime mortgages for all, to liar loans, failed mortgage companies, and Wall Street cowboys. Just like the GW Bush years!
    Jun 29, 2014. 08:16 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Oil going through distillation tower not impacted by crude export ban [View news story]
    """Why do we need oil anyway?"""

    Your comment is not worthy of comment.
    Jun 29, 2014. 08:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Report: Oil going through distillation tower not impacted by crude export ban [View news story]
    See my comment above. XL and Bakken will create jobs. Have you looked at job growth in North Dakota, and the low unemployment rate there?
    Jun 29, 2014. 08:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • BP: A Possible Tax Inversion Takeover Target [View article]
    Won't happen. You'll see.
    Jun 24, 2014. 12:10 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • BP: A Possible Tax Inversion Takeover Target [View article]
    """BP sold amoco years ago to tesoro [sic]."""

    In 1998, BP and Amoco merged. In 2001, BP sold 2 small refineries and 45 gas stations in N Dakota and Utah to Tesoro. More recently, BP sold a California refinery (acquired through merger with Arco) and associated marketing assets to Tesoro. BP has sold other refineries to various operators, including the large Texas City refinery that came with Amoco. BP retains 3 large northern refineries in Indiana, Ohio, and Washington state.

    But most of the value in the $45 million purchase of Amoco, was in the exploration and producing end (upstream), especially natural gas, and BP retains these assets.

    """All major oil companies exist from the break up of standard oil.... """

    Except Royal Dutch Shell, BP (though it took over Std of Indiana, Std of Ohio, and Arco), Gulf and Texaco (though they were taken over by Std of California (now Chevron), Total, Petrobras, Phillips 66, and a few others.

    PS: A merger of BP and XOM won't happen. Too many Standard Oils in that combination for this Anti-Trust department, or any Anti-Trust department for that matter. (XOM would bring Std of NJ, Std of NY, and Vacuum Oil to the party.)
    Jun 24, 2014. 12:08 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How To Get $1,000 Annual Dividends From Royal Dutch Shell In 2024 [View article]
    BP changed its name from "British Petroleum" many years ago, after taking over Standard Oil of Indiana, Arco (Atlantic Refining + Richfield), and Standard Oil of Ohio.
    Jun 15, 2014. 07:54 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Brand New Mortgage REIT That May Deliver Something Special [View article]
    @COBee, yup, I thought someone would say that if I mentioned Obama. But step back and look at it objectively. The stock market was down in 2009. Was it because of the financial crisis/great recession? Or was it because Obama was elected? A lot of investors, for whatever reason, were (and still are) very anti-Obama. But the negativism presented great buying opportunities, in techs, biotechs, energy, and other areas where the underlying developments were positive.

    REITs were another area of opportunity. The crash in the residential single family home market generated a lot of negative sentiment about "real estate". REIT stocks were down, but those who looked saw that the underlying trends in commercial real estate were positive -- and eREITs were a Buy.
    Jun 13, 2014. 07:36 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Brand New Mortgage REIT That May Deliver Something Special [View article]
    Agree with you, surfgeezer. When investing, leave your politics at the door and focus on the underlying trends. The recovery has gone on for 5 years now, and, while the recovery may not have been as quick as some previous recoveries, nothing suggests that another recession is imminent; there are no severe excesses in the economy.

    But if you spent a lot of time on Fox News, or Fox Business, all you heard about was the failures of the US government, and that America and the US economy were headed for hell in a handbasket. You stayed out of stocks and bought bond funds. You listened to Peter Schiff, and bought gold. (Have you looked at the 3-year gold chart lately?)

    Meanwhile, the Dow closed at 7949 on the day that Obama was first inaugurated. Yesterday, it closed at 16,844, a gain of 112%, not including dividends.
    Jun 12, 2014. 10:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why You Shouldn't Believe The Himax-Google Break-Up Rumor [View article]
    FWIW: Technically, the stock looks like it has bottomed. The daily MACD sent a positive signal 2 days ago. The RSI is below 50, but is trending up. Fundamentally, the this financially sound stock is undervalued at just 10.3 next year's earnings. A Strong Buy right here!
    Jun 7, 2014. 07:08 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Outlook For U.S. LNG Exports [View article]
    """Exporting LNG . . is a bad idea, the only beneficaries will be the Oil/Gas companies."""

    Well, it boosts US GDP, it closes the trade gap somewhat, it boosts employment, and puts more income in the hands of the people, so that we can buy more TV's and other good things from China!

    Plus, the oil/gas companies make more profit in the USA and pay more income tax, reducing the federal deficit.
    Jun 6, 2014. 09:34 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment