andruomail's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/277477/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/173004-green-bankshares-value-in-the-tennessee-valley?source=feed#comment-764555 764555 Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:16:49 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/171530-nine-u-s-bank-stocks-for-right-now?source=feed#comment-749226 749226

On Nov 06 12:41 PM Simi wrote:

> i would be interested to know- why timeshares? i have been looking
> at those recently too.... would be great to get your input. thanks
> ]]> Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:37:35 -0500

On Nov 06 12:41 PM Simi wrote:

> i would be interested to know- why timeshares? i have been looking
> at those recently too.... would be great to get your input. thanks
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/166381-railamerica-ipo-s-sluggish-debut?source=feed#comment-715786 715786 Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:55:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/165376-tips-are-no-longer-a-steal?source=feed#comment-709300 709300
> I have another explanation for why the 10 yr is low 3's and the 30 yr is at 4. u.s. banks gave up trying to figure out which resturaunt in town was going to be successful and pay back their business loan and started borrowing at fed funds at close to 0 and buying treasuries yielding 3 and 4%. I think the author is very economically literate but I no longer look at treasury pricing as inflation plus some real return. The fed wanted low rates and figured out a way to get them by manipulating the market. Maybe domestically with u.s. banks and also giving some foriegn buyers incentives to buy treasuries. This drove the yield on treasuries down even though the safe haven appeal of treasuries is waning.]]> Thu, 08 Oct 2009 17:31:38 -0400
> I have another explanation for why the 10 yr is low 3's and the 30 yr is at 4. u.s. banks gave up trying to figure out which resturaunt in town was going to be successful and pay back their business loan and started borrowing at fed funds at close to 0 and buying treasuries yielding 3 and 4%. I think the author is very economically literate but I no longer look at treasury pricing as inflation plus some real return. The fed wanted low rates and figured out a way to get them by manipulating the market. Maybe domestically with u.s. banks and also giving some foriegn buyers incentives to buy treasuries. This drove the yield on treasuries down even though the safe haven appeal of treasuries is waning.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162763-exxon-mobil-is-a-buy?source=feed#comment-688054 688054 Wed, 23 Sep 2009 15:32:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159667-etfs-yes-they-have-their-drawbacks-too?source=feed#comment-663644 663644 sec.gov/investor/pubs/...]]> Sun, 06 Sep 2009 02:11:07 -0400 sec.gov/investor/pubs/...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159281-aig-overpriced-perhaps-not-as-much-as-barron-s-thinks?source=feed#comment-656680 656680 Tue, 01 Sep 2009 12:51:08 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158287-private-equity-sheila-bair-still-has-a-chip-on-her-shoulder?source=feed#comment-648092 648092 Wed, 26 Aug 2009 19:23:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/157536-private-prisons-a-reliable-american-growth-industry?source=feed#comment-644177 644177 Mon, 24 Aug 2009 17:23:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/157589-markets-aren-t-as-benign-as-they-look?source=feed#comment-640684 640684
On Aug 21 07:17 PM Deepv wrote:

> The deal is this: just because stuff rallies does not make it overvalued.
> Just because stuff has a low P/e Ratio (homebuilders in 2005) does
> not make it cheap. Just because a stock goes up does not mean it
> is expensive. Also, macro seems to be very US focused. I think now
> more than ever a bottom up approach is appropriate. The implied statement
> in this article is that stocks are expensive. Which ones? Microsoft
> and Cisco on generational low P/E? Apple with highest growth it
> has ever seen and innovative products (sure, maybe)? REITS trading
> at 10% of peak values and benefiting from credit enhancement? Timber
> companies trading at 40% of private transactions? Consumer staples
> on 13-17x still showing organic growth year in year out? Pharma
> after 10 years of decline? Energy after getting obliterated over
> past 12-months in the face of rising oil now seen as an inflation
> hedge or quasi financial asset? Nat gas drillers at under replacement
> cost? Retialers and discretionary still trading under book and cutting
> costs? Where are these expensive stocks? We've seen what earnigns
> look like under armegeddon (Q1 2009) condition.]]> Fri, 21 Aug 2009 22:06:49 -0400
On Aug 21 07:17 PM Deepv wrote:

> The deal is this: just because stuff rallies does not make it overvalued.
> Just because stuff has a low P/e Ratio (homebuilders in 2005) does
> not make it cheap. Just because a stock goes up does not mean it
> is expensive. Also, macro seems to be very US focused. I think now
> more than ever a bottom up approach is appropriate. The implied statement
> in this article is that stocks are expensive. Which ones? Microsoft
> and Cisco on generational low P/E? Apple with highest growth it
> has ever seen and innovative products (sure, maybe)? REITS trading
> at 10% of peak values and benefiting from credit enhancement? Timber
> companies trading at 40% of private transactions? Consumer staples
> on 13-17x still showing organic growth year in year out? Pharma
> after 10 years of decline? Energy after getting obliterated over
> past 12-months in the face of rising oil now seen as an inflation
> hedge or quasi financial asset? Nat gas drillers at under replacement
> cost? Retialers and discretionary still trading under book and cutting
> costs? Where are these expensive stocks? We've seen what earnigns
> look like under armegeddon (Q1 2009) condition.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156244-healthcare-etfs-headed-for-life-support?source=feed#comment-634259 634259 Tue, 18 Aug 2009 03:25:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/151685-kinder-morgan-s-dividend-payout-rate-is-unsustainable?source=feed#comment-610315 610315

On Jul 31 04:13 PM MLP_Noob wrote:

> Very impressed with the knowledge/experience of the commenters here
> (perhaps the point is made and its time to give the author a break).
>
> I find MLPs attractive but the discussions on tax complications elsewhere
> scary. So a few newbie questions:
> 1) Folks holding MLPs in taxable accounts: is the K-1 a big pain
> come tax time? or not?
> 2) Folks holding MLPs in tax sheltered accounts: have you ever had
> more than $1000 UBTI reported? What's the consequence? Typically
> what acct size should one have to worry about this?
> 3) Recommendations for solid MLPs would be much appreciated. I am
> looking at NAT, KMR, EEQ, LINE.
> Thanks
> MLP_Noob]]> Fri, 31 Jul 2009 18:48:19 -0400

On Jul 31 04:13 PM MLP_Noob wrote:

> Very impressed with the knowledge/experience of the commenters here
> (perhaps the point is made and its time to give the author a break).
>
> I find MLPs attractive but the discussions on tax complications elsewhere
> scary. So a few newbie questions:
> 1) Folks holding MLPs in taxable accounts: is the K-1 a big pain
> come tax time? or not?
> 2) Folks holding MLPs in tax sheltered accounts: have you ever had
> more than $1000 UBTI reported? What's the consequence? Typically
> what acct size should one have to worry about this?
> 3) Recommendations for solid MLPs would be much appreciated. I am
> looking at NAT, KMR, EEQ, LINE.
> Thanks
> MLP_Noob]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/143023-a-socratic-dialogue-fearing-the-collapse-of-u-s-treasury-bond-prices?source=feed#comment-546365 546365 Sun, 14 Jun 2009 18:38:34 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142826-defending-cramer-s-madness?source=feed#comment-544711 544711 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:43:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142865-blackrock-cuts-13-5-billion-deal-to-swallow-barclays-global-investors?source=feed#comment-544703 544703 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:30:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/141774-why-is-administration-more-amenable-to-banks-paying-back-tarp-funds?source=feed#comment-536164 536164 Sun, 07 Jun 2009 18:13:43 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/139318-trading-the-gm-bankruptcy?source=feed#comment-517205 517205 Mon, 25 May 2009 19:47:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/139103-america-s-triple-a-rating-nothing-to-worry-about?source=feed#comment-515169 515169 Sat, 23 May 2009 00:13:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/138701-expect-some-citi-fireworks?source=feed#comment-511794 511794 Wed, 20 May 2009 14:50:04 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/136268-the-stress-test-s-biggest-loser-gmac?source=feed#comment-494795 494795 Thu, 07 May 2009 20:19:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/134769-citi-needs-up-to-10-billion-in-new-capital?source=feed#comment-489776 489776 Tue, 05 May 2009 03:39:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/134314-credit-default-swaps-may-be-playing-a-supporting-role-in-chrysler-bankruptcy-filings?source=feed#comment-484867 484867

On Apr 30 09:18 PM danf wrote:

> Lots on sensitive feelings on display about calling our president
> names. He is however just a man and not particualarly crucial to
> the survival of our society. I recall much worse names being hurled
> at Bush 1 and 2. And I clearly remember the glee of the media in
> showing the shoe being thrown at the president. I personally refer
> to the president as Princess Obama.
>
> The unfortunate thing is that the consequences of whatever Ob does
> now wont show up for 5 or 7 years. So OB will take credit for the
> recovery that would come along naturally and will be out of office
> when the consequences of what he does now manifest themselves in
> the future.
>
> My own take is that the article is spot on. The unions are the favored
> constiuency of the government. It would be better for the economy
> if chrysler were liquidated rather than have the company run for
> the benefit of the UAW and the administration. Such a liquidation
> might inject some reality into the greater economy.
>
> When the means of production are nominally in private hands, but
> the enterprise is run to benefit the interests of the state - we
> have a classic description of National Socialism in Germany 1933
> - 45]]> Thu, 30 Apr 2009 21:31:12 -0400

On Apr 30 09:18 PM danf wrote:

> Lots on sensitive feelings on display about calling our president
> names. He is however just a man and not particualarly crucial to
> the survival of our society. I recall much worse names being hurled
> at Bush 1 and 2. And I clearly remember the glee of the media in
> showing the shoe being thrown at the president. I personally refer
> to the president as Princess Obama.
>
> The unfortunate thing is that the consequences of whatever Ob does
> now wont show up for 5 or 7 years. So OB will take credit for the
> recovery that would come along naturally and will be out of office
> when the consequences of what he does now manifest themselves in
> the future.
>
> My own take is that the article is spot on. The unions are the favored
> constiuency of the government. It would be better for the economy
> if chrysler were liquidated rather than have the company run for
> the benefit of the UAW and the administration. Such a liquidation
> might inject some reality into the greater economy.
>
> When the means of production are nominally in private hands, but
> the enterprise is run to benefit the interests of the state - we
> have a classic description of National Socialism in Germany 1933
> - 45]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/130236-wells-fargo-profit-people-have-short-memories?source=feed#comment-457807 457807

On Apr 09 02:27 PM Larrysyr wrote:

> If a change in accounting rules results in a change in reported profits
> which results in a change in market value, yet the underlying institution
> hasn't changed, haven't we conclusively disproved the efficient market
> hypothesis?]]> Thu, 09 Apr 2009 14:31:15 -0400

On Apr 09 02:27 PM Larrysyr wrote:

> If a change in accounting rules results in a change in reported profits
> which results in a change in market value, yet the underlying institution
> hasn't changed, haven't we conclusively disproved the efficient market
> hypothesis?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128279-big-banks-pulling-off-the-ultimate-bait-and-switch?source=feed#comment-444769 444769 Mon, 30 Mar 2009 03:09:49 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/126772-truth-and-consequences-of-the-fed-purchasing-treasuries?source=feed#comment-433108 433108 Fri, 20 Mar 2009 00:13:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123175-bank-bailouts-and-trust-preferreds-still-too-much-risk-here?source=feed#comment-417727 417727 Sun, 08 Mar 2009 06:15:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/124679-liquidity-solvency-and-acute-vs-chronic-banking-systems?source=feed#comment-417720 417720 Sun, 08 Mar 2009 05:38:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123345-what-wipe-out-the-stockholders-really-means?source=feed#comment-407537 407537 Sun, 01 Mar 2009 06:26:44 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123194-the-end-of-the-credit-crisis?source=feed#comment-406652 406652

On Feb 27 02:26 PM who wrote:

> I'm no tax expert but a bit lost....
>
> buyers will only pay 100k for bad $500k loan which is worth $300K...
>
>
> but willing to pay $300K for a good $300K loan...
>
> Ignoring tax benefits, why would the buyer not pay $100k for bad
> $500K loan and writedown the $200K. Hence get a good $300k loan
> for $100K and make 200% profit? Why not write down the loan to
> $200K - super save - and make 100% profit?
>
> Isn't this the crux of stumbling block, banks are not willing to
> sell their loans for the fraction of what they paid for it nor reduce
> the principle? The $500K loan has a good part (repayable without
> foreclosure) so why is it worth only $100K unless that is what the
> expected repayment is.
>
>
> ]]> Fri, 27 Feb 2009 21:06:36 -0500

On Feb 27 02:26 PM who wrote:

> I'm no tax expert but a bit lost....
>
> buyers will only pay 100k for bad $500k loan which is worth $300K...
>
>
> but willing to pay $300K for a good $300K loan...
>
> Ignoring tax benefits, why would the buyer not pay $100k for bad
> $500K loan and writedown the $200K. Hence get a good $300k loan
> for $100K and make 200% profit? Why not write down the loan to
> $200K - super save - and make 100% profit?
>
> Isn't this the crux of stumbling block, banks are not willing to
> sell their loans for the fraction of what they paid for it nor reduce
> the principle? The $500K loan has a good part (repayable without
> foreclosure) so why is it worth only $100K unless that is what the
> expected repayment is.
>
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123102-bank-preferreds-betting-at-the-apocalypse-casino?source=feed#comment-406580 406580
www.federalreserve.gov...

"While not expressly prohibited, BHCs are discouraged from using proceeds of the CPP or other public investment to pay dividends on trust preferred securities or repay debt obligations. If the financial condition of a CPP or other program participant deteriorates significantly, it may be appropriate for that BHC to cease paying dividends on the investment, as well as on trust preferred securities."]]> Fri, 27 Feb 2009 19:14:52 -0500
www.federalreserve.gov...

"While not expressly prohibited, BHCs are discouraged from using proceeds of the CPP or other public investment to pay dividends on trust preferred securities or repay debt obligations. If the financial condition of a CPP or other program participant deteriorates significantly, it may be appropriate for that BHC to cease paying dividends on the investment, as well as on trust preferred securities."]]>