Seeking Alpha

Anonymous 2

Anonymous 2
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Anonymous 2's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • The Super Bad Committee's Quest To Weaken The Economy [View article]
    This isn't exactly political, but I think we need someone with Farage's ability to say it like it is to lead this country!

    Let's all forward this message on to YOUR duly elected representatives
    Nov 21, 2011. 03:27 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Long-Term Chart of S&P 500 [View article]
    A 10% CORRECTION FRO EARLY MAY HIGH OF 12,876 IS 11,588.
    Jun 10, 2011. 04:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Sector ETF Valuations and Momentum: Energy and Industrials Look Attractive [View article]
    You could have used and saved you and your readers a lot of time.
    I have been using them (including to help me get actionable indicators.
    These two sites enable one to "see" trends and more important ewarly indications of changes in trends (AS suggested by "tweedn" above.
    Feb 14, 2011. 11:39 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Just One ETF: Controlling Risk Through Hedge Fund Replication [View article]
    Great article. It is interesting that the sescurity had similar problems as many others during last years march through June 1st time period.
    probably no comment can be given - after all it happened to many other stocks and etfs. The Black Swan is always out there. A risk pretty hard to hedge against.
    Feb 12, 2011. 03:07 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • On Israelsen's 7Twelve Portfolio [View article]
    What is difference in the "management of the positions" with regard to Tactical and Strategic?
    Please explain the "flat line performance in 2009 for your two Tactical portfolios
    how often do you reallocate to the 8.3% positions?
    if monthly, are the reallocations based on last bus day of month values?
    If quarterly, would that improve returns? overall volatility of returns?
    what criteria went into selecting the specific alt ETFs for the asset classes?
    Oct 6, 2010. 04:29 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Thoughts on John Mauldin's Recent Dismal Outlook on Employment and the Economy [View article]
    Speaking of Hussman - if and when you have had an opportunity to review/critique his recent comments - beginning with his past two quarterly letters, I am sure I am not alone in k=looking forward to a critique of John's recent rather bearish words of wisdom.
    His words are relatively original in that his comments, conclusions and opinions are more based on his own rather analysis than on his comments on other's thoughts.
    And he is investing his/his investors money using his views rather than being an just an observer.
    Jul 7, 2010. 02:49 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Global Economic Concerns Sink Stocks, Send Major Averages to New 2010 Lows [View article]
    The two Johns have spoken
    Hussman and Mauldin
    Charlie Rose needs to interview them so that the whole world starts to see the world without rose colored glasses.
    Jun 30, 2010. 02:50 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Thursday's Sell-Off: Bad News for Bulls [View article]
    For both individual stocks and their benchmark sector index
    5 MA criteria - bullish if up or above & bearish if down or below

    50 day sma trending up (last level higher than the day before)
    200 say sma trending up (ditto)
    50 day above 200 day level
    Price above 50 day sma
    Price above 200 day sma
    Do the same for the benchmark index
    each criteria creates more reason to be bullish or bearish
    If the criteria of BOTH the stock and its benchmark/sector are complementing each other larger allocations can be added
    sounds easy - and statistically probably works. but if you use Fundamentals to select investments these signals help determine allocation of additions or liquidations of positions.
    Jun 25, 2010. 03:39 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 'Big Time' ETFs Below Their 200-Day Trendlines [View article]
    USING MA DATA TO HELP TIME ENTRY AND EXIT of a fundamentally researched security investment.
    keep it simple five bull/bear signals in any one security - stock or etf
    The following are bullish signals
    1.stk price above 50 day
    2. stk price above 200 day
    3. Fifty day above 200 day
    4. 50 day price/value > than the day before close price.
    5. 200 day price/value > than the day before close price
    The opposite of each of the above are bearish signals
    This works best if you also track an appropriate benchmark sector or industry and act (Buy or sell) if and when the above signals in this benchmark sector/industry index are also showing similar signals.
    Thus you expand the number of confirming signals from 5 to 10.
    Obviously one could use the exponential MA lines if one wants
    to act in anticipation of a change in direction.

    If one were to act bullish or bearish only when their fundamental research also complimented the decision to buy or sell, then these signals help create an unemotional method of building and or trimming a potential position.
    May 9, 2010. 06:17 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Dividend ETFs: Aristocrat or Achievement? [View article]
    Where does one find an updated spreadsheet of "growing dividend stocks" (such as the aristocrats but including those with 10 years of increasing dividends and more) which would include columns showing:
    (a) the last quarterly dividend declared,
    (b) the x div date,
    (c) the current price,
    (d) The YIELD based the most recent declared plus previous past 3 quarterly payments,
    (e) the annualized current dividend (using only the most recent declared dividend X 4),
    (f) the yield based on the current annualized dividend,
    (g) The Estimated next 12 months of dividends including the last declared plus the next three estimated quarterly dividends, and
    (h) the current yield based on this estimated future 12 months of dividend payout.
    (i) the previous calendar year (2009) payout percent
    (j) the current year (2010) estimated payout percent
    (k) the forecasted year 2011) payout
    (l) Last cal year Actual EPS
    (m) current year earnings 2009 to date
    (n) current estimates for full year 2010

    I believe this data would be nice to see for all the listed dividend growth stock companies
    I also see no reason to not do the same for all the ETFs (I have about 40 I am monitoring) and MFs which are being marketed as providing investors who seek investments in Growing dividend companies or in portfolios of such companies.

    Mar 10, 2010. 08:59 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Stupidity or Malfeasance in Government? [View article]
    did you watch the Charlie Rose interview yesterday
    with Stiglitz? 35 minutes of interesting thought provoking concerns and suggestions. How does he fit into the economists mentioned in your article and to what extent odes he provide similar forecasts - - on a macro 3 to 7 year time frame?
    Mar 4, 2010. 03:13 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Presidential First Years: Stock Market Returns [View article]
    I'd like to see the same stats after 4th (and 8th) years in a column(s) next to the results for just one year
    Jan 23, 2010. 07:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Serious Divergence: Great Depression Dow vs. Great Recession S&P 500 [View article]
    It would be interesting to see the number of ARMs and the total $ in ARMs comi g due during these next 7 or 8 years - Why 7 or 8 years. The longest and often time the largest (JUMBO) option arms ARMs were the 10 year option ARMs and the last time the ARMs were popular was about 2-3 years ago - thus the bulk of the ARMs which will eventually cause some "trouble" will be those which expire (7 + 2) nine and (8+3) eleven years from now.
    In the meantime it wopuld be nice to seethe total dollar ARMs with the top 10 banks holding the most ARMs - BY YEAR... Best folks to ask to do this would be the sell side BANK ANALYSTS.
    Jan 4, 2010. 02:28 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Trade Desk Thoughts: Hedge the Drop [View article]
    So how specifically does a individual retail investor enter and trade markets on a Turkey holiday be it mid week or on a saturday or Sunday. Must he have an ac with a brokerage firm which will take his trade on a designated international market? I realize this is an open question - hard to answer "specifically" - but what is involved administratively - logistically. I am retired broker - siort of a grand pa with a desire to play in todays stadium.
    Nov 26, 2009. 11:03 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Mutual Fund Fee Datapoint of the Day [View article]
    speaking of FEES
    Just FYI: Following is an interesting comment on the recent Schwab ETF launch.
    In My Opinion - Very innovative - and will cause many industry changes for the better of individual investors - especially among other ETF sponsors and financial entities using and offering ETFs. Somewhat negative for most - all? - continued growth of Mutual Funds.

    Tal Fletcher

    Investing Specialists: ETF Investing
    Investors Win with Schwab's Entry into ETFs
    By Scott Burns | 11-05-09 | 08:40 AM |
    I have to admit, Schwab's Nov. 2 announcement that it would not charge trading commissions to clients purchasing Schwab ETFs on its online trading platforms was a bit of a shock to me.
    I have long theorized that it was only a matter of time until one trading platform or discount brokerage launched its own line of ETFs and used subsidized trading costs to fuel asset growth. I had initially figured that said company would offer discounted trades--say, $3 a trade instead of $12 a trade. It was hard for me to see a scenario where a for-profit group of firms would offer its funds with a $0 trading cost. So, it was a huge surprise when Schwab not only came out with what can only be described as ultracheap offerings from an expense-ratio perspective but also dropped trading costs to $0.
    Overall, this is an incredibly investor-friendly move. In fact, I will go so far as to say this is one of the most investor-friendly actions by a fund company ever. Is it at the same level as Jack Bogle founding Vanguard or the rise of discount brokerage platforms? Probably not, but it is up there. I say it is one of the top-five most investor-friendly moves by a fund company or financial company, but others can feel free to disagree.
    What's in It for Chuck?
    Now, let's not kid ourselves and think that Schwab simply did this out of the goodness of its heart. Last I checked, it was a publicly traded company and not the Salvation Army. Of course, this will help Schwab grow assets in its funds--jump-starting their liquidity and removing one of the major humps that all new ETFs face.
    From a business perspective, Schwab was staring down a world where advisors and investors alike were using low-cost ETFs to circumvent the wholesaler costs charged by mutual fund supermarkets. Schwab's One Source platform is among the largest of these supermarkets, which means that it had a front-row seat to witness the phenomenon. Worse, as more and more advisors and investors adopted passive management strategies, Schwab was likely to get hit with a double whammy of losing fees from the wholesale business, while not making it up in trading commission. You see, in passive management, investors would buy their ETFs, set their allocations, and maybe rebalance once or twice a year. So, in theory, Schwab would gain assets, but the ETF providers would be the ones making all of the money. Given all of the baby boomer money that is set to roll out of tax-deferred accounts (IRAs and 401(k)s), Schwab needed to position itself better to deal with the needs of both its Registered Investment Advisor client-base and self-directed individual investors. All of them report, in any survey that I've seen, that they plan on using ETFs more and more in their portfolios.
    In addition to alleviating the situation mentioned above, Schwab can attract new clients and is providing a much appreciated service to existing ones. With this the firm can continue to gather assets and sell other services such as cash deposits, margin accounts, and trading costs on other non-Schwab products, be they ETFs, mutual funds, or individual securities.
    Even after laying out all of the reasons Schwab may have done this for itself, I say, "So what?!" Investors are the big winners here. If Schwab is willing to split the economic rents from providing low-cost, transparent, liquid ETFs to investors by offering those funds free of transaction costs, then I honestly don't care why it did it.
    Teaser Rate?
    The biggest concern for most people out there is that this is a bait-and-switch teaser rate to attract assets in the short-run. We had some representatives from Schwab come in to Morningstar HQ to talk about their ETF offerings and their strategy. I asked them point-blank if this was a teaser rate. Their response (and I am paraphrasing) was that this was absolutely not a teaser rate and that Schwab was committed to keeping these products commission-free for the long haul. I then asked if that was in writing somewhere, and I received an answer that I interpreted as it was written down somewhere ... but don't consider it legally binding. So, I will tell the folks at Schwab this: As long as your ETFs remain commission-free to your clients, then I will continue to describe this as one of the most investor-friendly moves ever. Because you reserve the right, so do I. In the end, it most likely won't even matter if it wanted to rescind it because ...
    The Competitive Response
    People in the financial world must be livid with this move. ETF providers are beside themselves because, with the possible exception of Vanguard, they don't have a trading platform with which to waive fees. They are all looking to advisors and individual investors to fuel their assets-under-management growth over the next 10 years. Other discount brokerages are mad because they had planned on trading costs from ETFs to be a huge driver of future revenue. Wirehouse platforms are ticked because this is just another reason for their best advisors to go independent on them, and they had thought ETFs would be the best of both worlds for themselves (wrap fee plus trading commissions). The traditional fund companies can't like the fact that, without commissions, you lose that transaction-cost friction that kept ETFs out of 401(k) plans or made them unsuitable for dollar-cost averaging strategies.
    Game theory would tell us that this move cannot stand unmatched. Really, that is what leads me to call this a "shot heard around the world" type of event. The ETF providers can't sit by and watch this upstart new entrant gather the assets that they've been counting on--especially with the price BlackRock paid for iShares/BGI. The other discount brokerages won't be able to let Schwab woo their clients with a promise to remove the one thing that investors and traders alike despise: trading costs. Frankly, I'm not really sure what the wirehouse firms can do about this.
    So, what will they all do? The ETF providers are going to need to either build trading platforms or find some partners. Finding partners would most likely be the more cost-effective move in the long-run. Imagining a BlackRock and E*Trade merger or partnership is not out of the question. The bigger discount brokerages and investing platforms are going to need to either develop their own competing ETF products or similarly find partners to split the costs with. I think the bigger ones with larger RIA clearing operations like TD Ameritrade or Fidelity are more likely to develop their own products. Short of banning the products from their platforms, I'm not sure how wirehouse firms can respond. I would advise them not to do that, as it would only tick off their clients and advisors. If I were them, I would match the $0 commissions and be content with the wrap fee and other service fees that are charged. In fact, wirehouses could adopt that for all ETFs and perhaps stem the tide of asset and advisor outflows.
    Overall, ETFs are a commodity product--especially if they track passive indexes. That may sound strange coming from someone who likes ETFs as much as I do, but that is exactly why I like them. In commodity products, the lowest cost wins; that's just Econ 101. This kind of competitive price pressure will invariably push the cost of investing down for all levels of participants investing in ETFs and funds in general. Even if Schwab wanted to rescind this offer three years down the road, it won't matter. If its competitors match it, then it won't really have the choice. To do so would invite the same outflows that its competitors now stand to face with the launch of these new ETFs.
    Challenges for Chuck
    For all the positives this brings to investors, it won't matter much if Schwab can't execute a successful investing experience for its clients. That means these funds have to perform as advertised, and, more importantly, the market makers and authorized participants (the folks responsible for arbitraging ETF premiums and discounts) have to do their part. If investors get bad trade execution or the funds' performance lags competing offerings, then this will be all for naught. While there may be some stumbles early on, I don't think this is a major long-term concern. The Schwab team has hired some pretty experienced and well-known folks from competitors and the exchanges to make sure that this operation runs as smoothly as possible. That said, the standards are pretty high these days in terms of both execution and performance, so the margin of error is pretty slim.
    Put One on the Board for Investors
    Combine the value added for Schwab clients with what the most likely competitive response will be from the industry as a whole, and investors are the real beneficiaries here. This move has all the makings of redefining ETF investing for the smaller investor and the potential to redefine fund investing in general.
    I have a saying, "When fund companies compete, the investor wins." This week, the investor won and won big.
    Nov 7, 2009. 04:56 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment