Seeking Alpha

Tricky

Tricky
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Tricky's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Facebook buying VR headset maker Oculus for up to $2.3B [View news story]
    Hello gwynfryn,

    Those "calculable values" are based on estimates, not guarantees. Not really much different than buying any company (even a profitable one) unless it has nothing but "guaranteed contracts". Unless there is proof of fraud, self-dealing or gross negligence, management is always given a lot of leeway to make business decisions w/o threat of being prosecuted for doing something "illegal".

    In fact, I'd say that a company with no revenue usually has more value, all else being equal, than patents or a prospective factory, because it has a team and some momentum. These are just as important as the "concept". Most VC's will tell you that they are MORE important than the concept, all else being equal.

    Now, whether one thinks this is a good idea or not... distinctly separate matter. I'm not defending the decision, just respectfully contesting the notion that such decisions should be "illegal".

    Cheers.
    Mar 28 12:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook buying VR headset maker Oculus for up to $2.3B [View news story]
    Companies do this ALL the time. Using that logic, they should never buy patents either, because they haven't produced any revenue yet. Or issue shares to invest in a new factory, because it hasn't produced revenue yet.
    Mar 27 12:51 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Losses mount at Toys 'R' Us [View news story]
    I'm guessing that they meant to say "a pricing war"
    Mar 27 12:39 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook buying VR headset maker Oculus for up to $2.3B [View news story]
    As long as you can convince them that it's a new platform that will either double their stock price or kill them if Google gets hold of it ;-)
    Mar 25 06:29 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Facebook buying VR headset maker Oculus for up to $2.3B [View news story]
    They aren't even shipping product yet
    Mar 25 06:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Heart defects in Gulf of Mexico tuna seen tied to 2010 BP oil spill [View news story]
    And now for a more serious answer.

    I suggest you read the responses to this paper, as they will be more eloquent and experienced-based than I could ever be.

    As a general statement, while any system involving humans will never be perfect, I for one am not willing to dismiss "The Scientific Method" on the basis of one paper.

    Given that scientists wield such evil power over the world in their master plan to keep those massive grants coming (ever notice a typical scientist's net worth vs. a CEO's?) I suppose it is just safer to go along with whatever the corporation involved says, given how pure THEIR motives are?

    Seriously, what is being proposed as the alternative?
    Mar 25 11:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Heart defects in Gulf of Mexico tuna seen tied to 2010 BP oil spill [View news story]
    Well, given that you are quoting an (ahem) published research finding...

    just sayin'
    Mar 25 11:25 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Putin addresses lawmakers, annexes Crimea [View news story]
    I take a longer view on everything. While we like to believe how special we are, the truth is that the US enjoyed a perfect storm in the 20th century to enjoy the peak of power that we did -- which I would place right after the collapse of the USSR.

    In the 20th century, look at what our rivals for economic power were doing. Russia, China and India were shooting themselves in the foot with fundamentally flawed economic policies. Europe had huge portions of its physical capital, let alone human capital, wiped out *twice*. Those things are no longer happening. And the US enjoyed the economic effects of the baby boom -- rapid growth and being able to mask the fatally flawed structure of entitlement programs.

    Now, everything is different. It is inevitable that we will lose power, at least on a relative basis. Sure, individuals can have *some* impact, I don't deny that. But I just disagree on the level of impact that you think it has. The cards in everybody's hands are just very different today than they were in the 1980's/90's. That matters a lot more than whomever the next set of POTUS's will be. That's my view.

    Cheerio.
    Mar 20 08:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • President threatens tougher action against Russia [View news story]
    How is Obama outmaneuvering Putin? Specifics please, thanks in advance.
    Mar 20 02:14 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • President threatens tougher action against Russia [View news story]
    I'll play along, for fun. Okay, what specifically are you recommending that the US do. You list that, and then I'll play Vlad and let you know what my countermove is. See, that's the nasty thing about "doing something", Russia holds better cards for retaliation. They want Crimea bad enough to take considerable pain to have it, and they can inflict more pain than we are willing to bear in exchange, because the US and EU public's don't care enough about Ukraine. Sorry, we can't save everyone.
    Mar 20 01:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Putin addresses lawmakers, annexes Crimea [View news story]
    We are in complete agreement that POTUS should not make threats that we won't really back up.

    Reagan pulled out of Lebanon after the barracks got bombed and the American population made it clear it didn't support exposing our troops for such purposes. There's always a group of people against anything, that is hardly news. Aren't there >7 prominent Republicans opposed to Obamacare, yet it lives? There was a fairly dedicated group of well more than 7 prominent US leaders opposing our misadventure in Iraq. Too bad they were bulldozed by the Freedom Fries chickenhawks.
    Mar 20 01:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Putin addresses lawmakers, annexes Crimea [View news story]
    This is one of your more humorous attempts at revisionist history. All it took was 7 senators to scuttle a policy? Wow, who knew it was so easy. LOL.

    You mistake me for jake or terry. I'm not a Dem apparatchik. I think all politicians of both parties suck. And you'll NEVER see me write a good thing about Sen. King of Pork Byrd.

    I merely enjoy pointing out two things: 1) hypocrisy, and 2) how geopolitical hands are WAY WAY more important than "looking tough".

    You need to diversify your sources of information, sir. Cheerio.
    Mar 20 08:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • No "common vision" on Ukraine between U.S. and Russia, says Lavrov [View news story]
    Hi John,

    I agree with you. I do NOT think that Putin seriously intends to invade either (fantasize about it -- yes, do it -- no). I completely agree that Crimea is a very special situation that does NOT extend to the "this is Sudentenland 2.0" hysteria. I have difficulty finding a US analogy to convey how strategically valuable Sebastapol is to Russia -- they will go to the mat for it, it means way WAY more to them then it does to us, they will sacrifice almost anything to maintain control of it.

    I was answering the question "whom should we defend", since (allegedly) NATO's credibility is on the line because Obama's such a [select your synonym for "wimp"].

    Cheers,
    Tricky
    Mar 19 04:25 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Putin addresses lawmakers, annexes Crimea [View news story]
    If Bush was a wimp by 2008, it's because he had blown all his credibility on Iraq.

    But more to the point, it was the geopolitics. The US can't defend Georgia and shouldn't try. Doesn't matter who is president right now dealing with Ukraine or Geogria, not even St. Ronald (who, btw, slunk out, tail between legs, from big bad... Lebanon).
    Mar 19 04:00 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Putin addresses lawmakers, annexes Crimea [View news story]
    The problem with your analogy is that Russians have been in Ukraine since the first millenium. There have been Russians in Crimea since Peter the Great, and it has been formally part of Russia for most of the period since Catherine the Great around 1774.

    So the Russians have been there in pretty good numbers before Americans starting wiping out the Native Americans.
    Mar 19 03:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,530 Comments
2,846 Likes