Seeking Alpha

Qniform

Qniform
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Qniform's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • GPT Forum [View instapost]
    Jack, this particular circumstance isn't only applicable to REITs either. Any debt or equity issuance is potentially dilutive if it doesn't add to assets or profit generation. Preferred stock is higher in the capital structure than the common, and converting it to common really has no net effect if it converts at a proportionate value below or equal to the total value of the assets owned in the total capital structure.
    Apr 3 11:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • J.C. Penney: Time To Buy The Spectacular Turnaround [View article]
    Right. I guess I will never question any company's statements - after all, they're required by law to disclose material facts. In a way that the most simple-minded will perceive, too. :))

    Incredibly arrogant and incredibly naïve.
    Apr 3 10:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ConEd: Replacing aging gas pipelines could take decades [View news story]
    "The amortization of historical cost does not come close to the true expense ..." True enough. My point is that when money must be spent for infrastructure, it is built into rates or it will not be spent.
    Apr 2 10:41 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ConEd: Replacing aging gas pipelines could take decades [View news story]
    Regulated utilities are allowed a negotiated ROC. Costs are ultimately passed on to consumers, and even if there is some "lag" in when the rates are adjusted, there are catch-up provisions. Rate guarantees (or freezes) are not part of this landscape in the event costs go up. In the utility landscape, it is mostly the private, unregulated activities (e.g. energy commodity supply), which get them into financial difficulties.
    Apr 2 01:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • J.C. Penney: Time To Buy The Spectacular Turnaround [View article]
    I see nothing in this article to justify the characterization of a "spectacular turnaround." Maybe this is a Dante nom de plume? Sounds like a game set and match call when there was no profit or YoY growth...
    Apr 1 07:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • J.C. Penney: Time To Buy The Spectacular Turnaround [View article]
    Acquisition at $0 per share. Such confidence!
    Apr 1 07:18 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vale fears it could lose all of Guinea mine investment [View news story]
    Never say never :))

    For instance, there are tons of stock price jumps on poor earnings reports, when the miss isn't as bad as expected.
    Apr 1 12:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Vale fears it could lose all of Guinea mine investment [View news story]
    I'd be surprised if the likely number isn't fully priced in. A reported loss less than what the market expects or a favorable decision from the government would actually move the stock up. The mining and utility sectors are really the best place for finding value right now. Vale and ED are my picks - I'm long both, and wrote OTM puts in both as well.
    Apr 1 11:27 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Defy Putin By Making A 50% Return On CTC Media [View article]
    "We have had regime changes in America through murder...i.e. JFK."

    Ah. This gives some context to your position(s).

    Plonk.
    Mar 31 10:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • House Democrats target Gilead for high price of Sovaldi [View news story]
    Clearly the money doesn't buy the high price you (rightly) decry in the U.S. You seem to finally get my point. Some markets subsidize others. Why do you think that is? If the subsidy which produces what profits there are were eliminated, would there be money available for R&D? In a fair world, all markets would share the cost in some rational way. But the policy decisions which have produced the present situation are not rationalized across markets. Anyway, I can be no more clear about how I see the situation, so I sincerely wish you good luck in investment (and healthcare).
    Mar 30 09:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • House Democrats target Gilead for high price of Sovaldi [View news story]
    Brazil has nationalized health, which is (per se) a controlled price environment. Is the price paid manufacturers under the system sufficient to cover the all-in cost of R&D for specific and new replacement therapies as patent protections are lost (I agree that the costs to produce the drugs themselves are low)? Hypothetically, if the entire world charged the same as Brazil would it render biopharma companies profitless? Based upon the margins seen in the industry financials, the answer is unequivocal and affirmative. But these costs must be paid, and it isn't Brazil paying them. They have therefore appropriated property. That's just the way the world is working presently.

    "I can assure you the pharmaceutical companies are not selling these drugs at a loss." Unfortunately, in the above context your assurance has no demonstrated basis in fact. I have no answer for you why the U.S. should be footing the bill the way we are. While I agree it isn't fair, we can't fix this unilaterally. It's a global issue. In that way I simply point out that your "fix" is the global root of the problem if it involves legislating the price a company can charge for a product.
    Mar 30 05:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • J.C. Penney: Walking The Liquidity Tightrope [View article]
    EA, what about cutting hours of FT employees? Some JCP employees have been commenting here on SA that that was their experience. If a company keeps employment steady but cuts hours per employee there are lots of benefit savings (i.e. same number of employees, fewer hours per employee). I wonder what YoY staff count reveal? This is a pretty old concept for reducing salary/benefit costs (along with outsourcing which is not applicable in this case).
    Mar 29 02:11 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • J.C. Penney: The Dividend Isn't Coming Back Anytime Soon [View article]
    Tim, do you think Enron will reinstate their dividend? Oh, wait...
    Mar 29 01:55 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • House Democrats target Gilead for high price of Sovaldi [View news story]
    So being an "American first," do you want to control (nationalize) GILD pricing policy? Just appropriate their property? Make no mistake - that's all you can do, because you can't control EU or Egypt's government policies. When anyone anywhere takes that step the problem is born. What is naïve is to think that more control is a solution when that caused the problem to begin with. That biopharma companies can get the prices they do here in the U.S. is likely the only reason that innovative therapies are being developed at all. At least we agree that this is a terrible situation.

    The core issue is that anyone anywhere can legislate what companies charge for their products. Once that happens, companies adapt through the complex process of balancing volume and average selling price. Forget GILD. Any company selling worldwide has the same issue. INTC sells the exact same product for different prices in China, EU, U.S. etc. because of the same issue. Government policy decisions. "Fairness" is not a basic feature of the universe, and attempts to produce it via policy have never worked. I'm simply pointing out that you have not addressed the real problem. I don't have a solution either.
    Mar 29 01:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • House Democrats target Gilead for high price of Sovaldi [View news story]
    "...which is why Waxman is going after GILD in the first place." That is an incredibly naïve statement. Regardless of which side of the aisle, there's only one reason a politician publically says anything these days. This is the real issue, not the political positions themselves.
    Mar 29 11:23 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,304 Comments
1,441 Likes