Insiderman's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/259134/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/158875-distinction-between-positive-and-normative-economics-misses-the-point?source=feed#comment-652185 652185
I think we should examine the opposite problem; that is, why should we have a branch called "normative" economics? Economics generally describes the study of opportunity costs. You can have positive analysis (the function of economics) and normative analysis (the function of sociologists).

Then you can use economics to minimize the harmful impact of sociologists.]]> Sat, 29 Aug 2009 09:28:53 -0400
I think we should examine the opposite problem; that is, why should we have a branch called "normative" economics? Economics generally describes the study of opportunity costs. You can have positive analysis (the function of economics) and normative analysis (the function of sociologists).

Then you can use economics to minimize the harmful impact of sociologists.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/153322-commerce-department-s-revised-gdp-shows-a-delineated-story-for-the-recession?source=feed#comment-614249 614249
What I do find interesting is that the author of this post didn't say anything about the composition of GDP. EVERY category was down big time except government spending, which increased 10%. Essentially, our private sector economy actually got WAY worse, but the Feds pumped us up.

No one wants to make a move when the fiat power of the U.S. government trashes the risk and reward metrics for a market.

Plus, we still have Maiden Lane coming due and a bunch of larger banks that will surely fail if Geithner doesn't get FDIC and OTS under the Fed. Then we have the Fed essentially printing money to help Goldman Sachs, JPM, BA, and the like prop up the equity market.

Sad times for free markets.]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 08:43:21 -0400
What I do find interesting is that the author of this post didn't say anything about the composition of GDP. EVERY category was down big time except government spending, which increased 10%. Essentially, our private sector economy actually got WAY worse, but the Feds pumped us up.

No one wants to make a move when the fiat power of the U.S. government trashes the risk and reward metrics for a market.

Plus, we still have Maiden Lane coming due and a bunch of larger banks that will surely fail if Geithner doesn't get FDIC and OTS under the Fed. Then we have the Fed essentially printing money to help Goldman Sachs, JPM, BA, and the like prop up the equity market.

Sad times for free markets.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139824-the-next-debt-crisis?source=feed#comment-519365 519365
I see it coming... we'll see government workers smashing windows in order to increase GDP from Corning, transportation of the glass through Yellow, and installation of glass through Hank the glass installer. Or maybe that's the train from LA to Vegas and the center for arts performance in Florida.

So many reasons to hate over-powerful federal government.]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:32:10 -0400
I see it coming... we'll see government workers smashing windows in order to increase GDP from Corning, transportation of the glass through Yellow, and installation of glass through Hank the glass installer. Or maybe that's the train from LA to Vegas and the center for arts performance in Florida.

So many reasons to hate over-powerful federal government.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139785-we-can-t-talk-our-way-out-of-this-market-mess?source=feed#comment-519350 519350 Wed, 27 May 2009 09:25:27 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/139758-the-s-p-500-five-things-you-probably-don-t-know?source=feed#comment-519335 519335
"But the index’s P/E is not cap-weighted. To calculate the P/E, S&P sums the earnings-per-share for all 500 stocks over the past 12 months—unweighte... uses that raw number as the E in P/E. The numerator P is the index’s value, which as we have seen is cap-weighted. Thus the calculation of P/E is a hybrid: a cap-weighted P divided by an equal-weighted E for the 500 stocks in the index."

When I make an earnings forecast for each company in the S&P 500 and sum those results, I want to be able to multiply by some function of the P/E to know the value of the index.]]> Wed, 27 May 2009 09:15:02 -0400
"But the index’s P/E is not cap-weighted. To calculate the P/E, S&P sums the earnings-per-share for all 500 stocks over the past 12 months—unweighte... uses that raw number as the E in P/E. The numerator P is the index’s value, which as we have seen is cap-weighted. Thus the calculation of P/E is a hybrid: a cap-weighted P divided by an equal-weighted E for the 500 stocks in the index."

When I make an earnings forecast for each company in the S&P 500 and sum those results, I want to be able to multiply by some function of the P/E to know the value of the index.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139443-meet-the-top-ten-creditors-to-the-usa?source=feed#comment-516643 516643

On May 25 09:16 AM Vuke wrote:

> Not to worry. Bernanke could print the way out of any one, or all
> of them, in a flash. That's the beauty of the new, digital money.]]> Mon, 25 May 2009 09:31:48 -0400

On May 25 09:16 AM Vuke wrote:

> Not to worry. Bernanke could print the way out of any one, or all
> of them, in a flash. That's the beauty of the new, digital money.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139443-meet-the-top-ten-creditors-to-the-usa?source=feed#comment-516640 516640

On May 25 08:57 AM johndowd wrote:

> You mean US entitities do not hold any US government debt. I am
> sure the aggregate held by US taxpayers might be the largest. Your
> headline does not carry the word Foreign.]]> Mon, 25 May 2009 09:30:00 -0400

On May 25 08:57 AM johndowd wrote:

> You mean US entitities do not hold any US government debt. I am
> sure the aggregate held by US taxpayers might be the largest. Your
> headline does not carry the word Foreign.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/139225-government-telegraphs-future-inflation?source=feed#comment-515443 515443 Sat, 23 May 2009 11:23:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/138004-employment-is-defining-the-shape-of-this-great-recession?source=feed#comment-507208 507208
I'm surprised that Obama selected Paul Volcker head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board because Volcker raised the Fed Funds target to about 20% in 1981 and crashed the economy short-term in preparation for a longer-term growth phase.

This time the Fed wants to inflate us out of the crisis. Woe is us.]]> Sun, 17 May 2009 11:35:05 -0400
I'm surprised that Obama selected Paul Volcker head of the Economic Recovery Advisory Board because Volcker raised the Fed Funds target to about 20% in 1981 and crashed the economy short-term in preparation for a longer-term growth phase.

This time the Fed wants to inflate us out of the crisis. Woe is us.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137943-where-the-big-money-is-betting-big?source=feed#comment-506341 506341
This paragraph makes no sense in the context of your article. The BIG money isn't in mutual funds.

Mutual fund managers almost always have a mandate to invest their funds in a particular way; that is, if they were "high tech" funds, then they had to be invested in high tech (with wiggle room to be some proportion in cash). The mutual fund companies fired up funds with a new tech mandate after venture capital companies started bringing companies to IPO stage. The BIG money made more big money when they sold share through the mutual fund to the "herd" of sheep.

Now there IS big money that isn't necessarily smart, and sometimes even if they are smart they are too early or too late to the party. T. Boone Pickens just lost several BILLION over the last few years. Warren Buffett lost his mind over the last few years (well, he was an Obama supporter). Anyway, some might say he was a bit early to the party... but he always has been.

Anyway, don't confuse BIG money with big piles of money from small investors.]]> Sat, 16 May 2009 09:06:35 -0400
This paragraph makes no sense in the context of your article. The BIG money isn't in mutual funds.

Mutual fund managers almost always have a mandate to invest their funds in a particular way; that is, if they were "high tech" funds, then they had to be invested in high tech (with wiggle room to be some proportion in cash). The mutual fund companies fired up funds with a new tech mandate after venture capital companies started bringing companies to IPO stage. The BIG money made more big money when they sold share through the mutual fund to the "herd" of sheep.

Now there IS big money that isn't necessarily smart, and sometimes even if they are smart they are too early or too late to the party. T. Boone Pickens just lost several BILLION over the last few years. Warren Buffett lost his mind over the last few years (well, he was an Obama supporter). Anyway, some might say he was a bit early to the party... but he always has been.

Anyway, don't confuse BIG money with big piles of money from small investors.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137657-the-fed-s-true-purpose?source=feed#comment-503464 503464
Here's a simple model you could follow: Let money supply increase at the rate of forecast population growth, no mas. IF productivity remains the same, per capita GDP should remain the same. IF not, inflation/deflation will result (I won't delve into the conditions for each here) and some policy action might be required to maintain stable price relationships.

Blame Roosevelt or Nixon, this country crapped on itself by leaving the gold standard. Other countries that believed we "wouldn't inflate too much" after Bretton woods are learning better; that is, China.]]> Thu, 14 May 2009 09:36:59 -0400
Here's a simple model you could follow: Let money supply increase at the rate of forecast population growth, no mas. IF productivity remains the same, per capita GDP should remain the same. IF not, inflation/deflation will result (I won't delve into the conditions for each here) and some policy action might be required to maintain stable price relationships.

Blame Roosevelt or Nixon, this country crapped on itself by leaving the gold standard. Other countries that believed we "wouldn't inflate too much" after Bretton woods are learning better; that is, China.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137113-rising-treasury-yields-could-mean-it-s-time-to-short-them?source=feed#comment-500136 500136
The other real trick will be to prevent widening spreads when no one wants to be a debt holder after the government crams down GM and Chrysler senior obligations.

It's been bad enough to be an equity holder; now this.]]> Tue, 12 May 2009 08:45:54 -0400
The other real trick will be to prevent widening spreads when no one wants to be a debt holder after the government crams down GM and Chrysler senior obligations.

It's been bad enough to be an equity holder; now this.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136810-has-the-trampoline-effect-come-to-an-end?source=feed#comment-498732 498732
And we are certainly heading for the pavement on this one. But rather than have a few well-monied individuals lose their money, the government has doomed us all to years of economic atrophy and stagnation at best.


On May 11 08:08 AM abetterplace wrote:

> I prefer calling it a "safetynet". Being that it is not held as correctly
> as possible, it sure beats splatting the concrete if you're the one
> falling.]]> Mon, 11 May 2009 08:52:32 -0400
And we are certainly heading for the pavement on this one. But rather than have a few well-monied individuals lose their money, the government has doomed us all to years of economic atrophy and stagnation at best.


On May 11 08:08 AM abetterplace wrote:

> I prefer calling it a "safetynet". Being that it is not held as correctly
> as possible, it sure beats splatting the concrete if you're the one
> falling.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136514-job-numbers-from-the-bureau-of-spurious-statistics?source=feed#comment-496605 496605
It becomes even more suspect with the monthly backfill that continuously increases prior unemployment numbers.

And just to make things worse, we don't even count disenfranchised workers in the unemployment statistics because they are "not in the labor force." By comparison, our unemployment rate might be closer to about 15% if we included everyone in Detroit who decided to stop looking for work and sell drugs.

At least during the Depression era the government counted everyone who couldn't find a job.

No, having been a statistical analyst and economic forecaster, I side with Tyler on this one. The Larry Summers of the Obama administration are blowing smoke up our butts in a public sector Bernie Madoff scandal that will be uncovered shortly.


On May 08 11:37 AM cyclingscholar wrote:

> Reminds me of the articles which were carping during the Bush years
> that the 'inflation rate is actually 10% annually instead of the
> reported 2%," whining about hedonic price adjustments.
>
> The trials and tribulations of seasonal adjustments are discussed
> at length in ANY FRESHMAN STATISTICS course, and I suggest Durden
> and his tail of toadies take one.
>
> Better yet, since the BLS is supposedly so 'biased,' why not just
> get rid of the agency all together?
>
> cyclingscholar]]> Sat, 09 May 2009 09:18:07 -0400
It becomes even more suspect with the monthly backfill that continuously increases prior unemployment numbers.

And just to make things worse, we don't even count disenfranchised workers in the unemployment statistics because they are "not in the labor force." By comparison, our unemployment rate might be closer to about 15% if we included everyone in Detroit who decided to stop looking for work and sell drugs.

At least during the Depression era the government counted everyone who couldn't find a job.

No, having been a statistical analyst and economic forecaster, I side with Tyler on this one. The Larry Summers of the Obama administration are blowing smoke up our butts in a public sector Bernie Madoff scandal that will be uncovered shortly.


On May 08 11:37 AM cyclingscholar wrote:

> Reminds me of the articles which were carping during the Bush years
> that the 'inflation rate is actually 10% annually instead of the
> reported 2%," whining about hedonic price adjustments.
>
> The trials and tribulations of seasonal adjustments are discussed
> at length in ANY FRESHMAN STATISTICS course, and I suggest Durden
> and his tail of toadies take one.
>
> Better yet, since the BLS is supposedly so 'biased,' why not just
> get rid of the agency all together?
>
> cyclingscholar]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136514-job-numbers-from-the-bureau-of-spurious-statistics?source=feed#comment-496597 496597

On May 08 01:56 PM theobannion wrote:

> Cheer up, Yo', Obama's gonna retrain the unemployed to flip burgers.
>
>
> Best,
> SOB.]]> Sat, 09 May 2009 09:11:18 -0400

On May 08 01:56 PM theobannion wrote:

> Cheer up, Yo', Obama's gonna retrain the unemployed to flip burgers.
>
>
> Best,
> SOB.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136615-animal-spirits-by-shiller-and-akerlof-questioning-economic-motives?source=feed#comment-496580 496580
Here's the problem, in the absence of government intervention, self-serving government and private sector egomaniacs will pummel the submissive sheep. Good government intervention requires that ALL markets be transparent and as liquid as possible. There would be no government or companies too big to fail because that would imply market power to impose opacity and illiquidity.

Transactions cannot be made in the context of asymmetric information and/or control.

The second part of the problem is that the act of maintaining symmetric markets inherently allows self-serving actions by those in government. These public sector executives can extract toll from private sector parties in order for the private sector executives to maintain some asymmetry.

The trick to maintaining symmetries, then, would be to limit the size of government on the public sector side and limit the size of market share on the private sector side.

Hell, trust busting only occurs because self-serving government officials don't want self-serving private sector officials to have more power than they do!]]> Sat, 09 May 2009 08:54:42 -0400
Here's the problem, in the absence of government intervention, self-serving government and private sector egomaniacs will pummel the submissive sheep. Good government intervention requires that ALL markets be transparent and as liquid as possible. There would be no government or companies too big to fail because that would imply market power to impose opacity and illiquidity.

Transactions cannot be made in the context of asymmetric information and/or control.

The second part of the problem is that the act of maintaining symmetric markets inherently allows self-serving actions by those in government. These public sector executives can extract toll from private sector parties in order for the private sector executives to maintain some asymmetry.

The trick to maintaining symmetries, then, would be to limit the size of government on the public sector side and limit the size of market share on the private sector side.

Hell, trust busting only occurs because self-serving government officials don't want self-serving private sector officials to have more power than they do!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136034-hedge-fund-manager-clifford-asness-pushes-back-at-obama?source=feed#comment-493593 493593
A cramdown on Chrysler senior debt holders simply means that NO ONE (grandmas, hedge funds, etc.) will lend at only a few points above Treasuries because RISK has increased. If the likelihood of losing principal increases, people will either charge a hell of a lot more for it or simply not accept it.

That might lead to more in CDs (good for banks), but it will gut the corporate bond market (bad for everyone).

Obama is an ass.]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 09:47:01 -0400
A cramdown on Chrysler senior debt holders simply means that NO ONE (grandmas, hedge funds, etc.) will lend at only a few points above Treasuries because RISK has increased. If the likelihood of losing principal increases, people will either charge a hell of a lot more for it or simply not accept it.

That might lead to more in CDs (good for banks), but it will gut the corporate bond market (bad for everyone).

Obama is an ass.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134993-how-risky-is-the-fed-balance-sheet?source=feed#comment-488416 488416
As Dirk Van Dijk mentioned in his recent blog, the Fed does not anticipate any credit risk in MBS purchase as "the paper is guaranteed by Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE)" though "FNM and FRE happen to be on life support from the Treasury -- to the tune of $200 billion each"

How would the Fed pay for this if Treasury had to back up their guarantee to FNM and FRE? They would add liquidity.

Under that logic, the Fed has no risk from ANY asset they purchase.]]> Mon, 04 May 2009 08:38:47 -0400
As Dirk Van Dijk mentioned in his recent blog, the Fed does not anticipate any credit risk in MBS purchase as "the paper is guaranteed by Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE)" though "FNM and FRE happen to be on life support from the Treasury -- to the tune of $200 billion each"

How would the Fed pay for this if Treasury had to back up their guarantee to FNM and FRE? They would add liquidity.

Under that logic, the Fed has no risk from ANY asset they purchase.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134759-more-on-white-house-s-strong-arming-of-chrysler-hedge-fund-hold-outs?source=feed#comment-487421 487421
I guess that takes bondholders out of the crowded market for loanable funds, too, while the Treasury satiates itself on debt.

Oh, wait... they don't care about crowding out because the Fed can use funny money (book transactions) to pay for Treasury securities. Intergovernmental borrowers already make up one of the top 3 categories of Treasury debt holders. Why not add a few more TRILLION to the Feds cooked books.

I feel so... used.]]> Sun, 03 May 2009 11:09:57 -0400
I guess that takes bondholders out of the crowded market for loanable funds, too, while the Treasury satiates itself on debt.

Oh, wait... they don't care about crowding out because the Fed can use funny money (book transactions) to pay for Treasury securities. Intergovernmental borrowers already make up one of the top 3 categories of Treasury debt holders. Why not add a few more TRILLION to the Feds cooked books.

I feel so... used.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/134208-geithner-gets-it-right-on-credit-cards?source=feed#comment-483774 483774 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:02:59 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/134210-bankruptcy-chrysler-treasury-s-strategic-nuclear-weapon?source=feed#comment-483764 483764 Thu, 30 Apr 2009 09:00:07 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133910-record-deficits-expected-in-q3?source=feed#comment-482520 482520
1) Increase inflation until the effective real interest rate drops below zero (hard to do if nominal rates increase), or

2) Decrease the long-term rate through quantitative easing until the short-term rate effectively falls below zero:

www.theglobeandmail.co...

I'm waiting to see how, if they do #2, that they avoid the inverted yield curve problem.


On Apr 29 08:44 AM conceptwizard wrote:

> The numbers will change for the downside again as they have been
> doing. Just annouced Q1 GDP @ 6.1% alomost the same as Q4, nothing
> is working, The investment numbers are particularly bad, as well
> as exports down 39%. The gun is getting emply of bullets as the fed
> cant go negative on interest rates. Increased spending is a must.
> Obamas deficit reduction theory will recede with it.]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:33:54 -0400
1) Increase inflation until the effective real interest rate drops below zero (hard to do if nominal rates increase), or

2) Decrease the long-term rate through quantitative easing until the short-term rate effectively falls below zero:

www.theglobeandmail.co...

I'm waiting to see how, if they do #2, that they avoid the inverted yield curve problem.


On Apr 29 08:44 AM conceptwizard wrote:

> The numbers will change for the downside again as they have been
> doing. Just annouced Q1 GDP @ 6.1% alomost the same as Q4, nothing
> is working, The investment numbers are particularly bad, as well
> as exports down 39%. The gun is getting emply of bullets as the fed
> cant go negative on interest rates. Increased spending is a must.
> Obamas deficit reduction theory will recede with it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133883-will-deficit-stimulus-spending-help-or-hurt-economic-recovery?source=feed#comment-482485 482485
1) You inflation adjust one series but not the other?

2) The increase in GDP appears to lead the budget deficits, especially evident at the left side (1941) and right side of the graphic where this is most evident. Perhaps tax cuts or other fiscal leading caused GDP increases, quickly followed by greedy Congressmen spending even MORE (evidence the Reagan years).

Expand your thinking to the broadest possible application of your analysis: We borrow our GDP rather than produce it. We live in a pristine, carbon-emissions free country where we simply borrow from the Chinese to buy everything produced there. Hmmm. How long will that work?]]> Wed, 29 Apr 2009 10:17:46 -0400
1) You inflation adjust one series but not the other?

2) The increase in GDP appears to lead the budget deficits, especially evident at the left side (1941) and right side of the graphic where this is most evident. Perhaps tax cuts or other fiscal leading caused GDP increases, quickly followed by greedy Congressmen spending even MORE (evidence the Reagan years).

Expand your thinking to the broadest possible application of your analysis: We borrow our GDP rather than produce it. We live in a pristine, carbon-emissions free country where we simply borrow from the Chinese to buy everything produced there. Hmmm. How long will that work?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133353-gm-s-bondholder-pillaging-plan?source=feed#comment-480714 480714
Tyler didn't mention the 1-for-100 reverse split PRIOR to exchanging stock for bonds:

"As described under “Description of the Charter Amendments,” prior to the distribution of GM common stock to tendering holders on the settlement date we intend to effect a 1-for-100 reverse stock split (the “reverse stock split”) of GM common stock. Unless otherwise indicated, all share numbers contained in this prospectus related to the exchange offers are presented without giving effect to the reverse stock split."

I couldn't tell whether the 10% equity stake in exchange for bonds factors in this reverse split.]]> Tue, 28 Apr 2009 10:22:43 -0400
Tyler didn't mention the 1-for-100 reverse split PRIOR to exchanging stock for bonds:

"As described under “Description of the Charter Amendments,” prior to the distribution of GM common stock to tendering holders on the settlement date we intend to effect a 1-for-100 reverse stock split (the “reverse stock split”) of GM common stock. Unless otherwise indicated, all share numbers contained in this prospectus related to the exchange offers are presented without giving effect to the reverse stock split."

I couldn't tell whether the 10% equity stake in exchange for bonds factors in this reverse split.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/133279-mind-the-gaap?source=feed#comment-478918 478918
Average exercise takes about 13.5 months and some options have 10-year terms, so it should be an interesting exercise to standardize accounting for these.

Hull and White from Rotman GS at U of Toronto like expensing on the grant date and mark-to-market in subsequent periods.

www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~hull/DownloadablePub...

This would be conservative accounting, I suppose. Valuation of an option that reloads for the executive presents some valuation challenges, eh?]]> Mon, 27 Apr 2009 09:30:41 -0400
Average exercise takes about 13.5 months and some options have 10-year terms, so it should be an interesting exercise to standardize accounting for these.

Hull and White from Rotman GS at U of Toronto like expensing on the grant date and mark-to-market in subsequent periods.

www.rotman.utoronto.ca/~hull/DownloadablePub...

This would be conservative accounting, I suppose. Valuation of an option that reloads for the executive presents some valuation challenges, eh?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132900-why-high-inflation-will-not-take-hold?source=feed#comment-475834 475834
How will the Fed sell Treasuries into this market without a HUGE decrease in Treasury prices and consequent increase in interest rates... usually at a lag. So we'll likely have a brief period of inflatiion accompanied by--yet again--a recession.

As a technical addition to the author's formula, if you use T as transactions, then you cannot use Pi as price level. MV = Sum (Pi x Ti) where Pi is the price of the ith transaction Ti. The MV = PQ formulation, where Q is the real value of final expenditures. I prefer the MV = PY formulation because Y can be used to indicate real income or yeal expenditures in the basic GDP model.

So, if V increases dramatically, M must fall dramatically. Typically P and Q will also shift about in the short-term. Unfortunately, government operational, administrative, and recognition lags will tend to cause the adjustment of M to be inaccruate with respect to the impact of V. P and Q fluctuate cyclically in the process.]]> Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:39:48 -0400
How will the Fed sell Treasuries into this market without a HUGE decrease in Treasury prices and consequent increase in interest rates... usually at a lag. So we'll likely have a brief period of inflatiion accompanied by--yet again--a recession.

As a technical addition to the author's formula, if you use T as transactions, then you cannot use Pi as price level. MV = Sum (Pi x Ti) where Pi is the price of the ith transaction Ti. The MV = PQ formulation, where Q is the real value of final expenditures. I prefer the MV = PY formulation because Y can be used to indicate real income or yeal expenditures in the basic GDP model.

So, if V increases dramatically, M must fall dramatically. Typically P and Q will also shift about in the short-term. Unfortunately, government operational, administrative, and recognition lags will tend to cause the adjustment of M to be inaccruate with respect to the impact of V. P and Q fluctuate cyclically in the process.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132937-is-china-the-next-great-bubble?source=feed#comment-475796 475796 Fri, 24 Apr 2009 11:23:58 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/132285-open-letter-to-sec-wall-street-s-reit-bait-and-switch?source=feed#comment-472571 472571

On Apr 22 10:12 AM wobatus wrote:

> A picayune point, but the compliance department doesn't issue a report.
> They may bless it. Perhaps they were side-stepped, duped or brow-beaten
> (the last 2 hardly good defenses). But yes, the firm is to blame.
> ]]> Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:51:01 -0400

On Apr 22 10:12 AM wobatus wrote:

> A picayune point, but the compliance department doesn't issue a report.
> They may bless it. Perhaps they were side-stepped, duped or brow-beaten
> (the last 2 hardly good defenses). But yes, the firm is to blame.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132285-open-letter-to-sec-wall-street-s-reit-bait-and-switch?source=feed#comment-472454 472454

On Apr 22 09:31 AM oddsneds wrote:

> Weingarten is one of the better REIT's, I have followed it for more
> than 15 years. Their ability to sell sizeable stock so as to replace
> debt is a good sign and that alone is worthy of an analyst reconsidering
> their viewpoint as to the company's prospects. I don't know the analyst
> or her age, experience, reputation etc. so I wouldn't necessarily
> consider her opinion too highly on my reasons to buy or sell. I also
> think occasional conflicts of interest are inevitable and don't mean
> collusion or some secret plan to defraud us poor unsuspecting investors.]]> Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:50:02 -0400

On Apr 22 09:31 AM oddsneds wrote:

> Weingarten is one of the better REIT's, I have followed it for more
> than 15 years. Their ability to sell sizeable stock so as to replace
> debt is a good sign and that alone is worthy of an analyst reconsidering
> their viewpoint as to the company's prospects. I don't know the analyst
> or her age, experience, reputation etc. so I wouldn't necessarily
> consider her opinion too highly on my reasons to buy or sell. I also
> think occasional conflicts of interest are inevitable and don't mean
> collusion or some secret plan to defraud us poor unsuspecting investors.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/132285-open-letter-to-sec-wall-street-s-reit-bait-and-switch?source=feed#comment-472404 472404
4.0 (a) ii. Ensure that investment banking objectives or employees do not have the ability to influence or affect research or recommendations;

]]> Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:26:15 -0400
4.0 (a) ii. Ensure that investment banking objectives or employees do not have the ability to influence or affect research or recommendations;

]]>