Seeking Alpha

Marion Contrarian

Marion Contrarian
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Marion Contrarian's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Always More to Learn From Buffett [View article]
    I believe the correct spelling of the term is "baited breath"....

    On May 07 12:04 PM effiiciency wrote:

    > The compounded return of the Buffett partnership from 1956 to 1969
    > would be more impressive than what you've cited.
    > As for BRK.A, the 1997 peak was at $84,000 and as I write, it's priced
    > at $94,050, This translates to .94% for that 12 years. No dividend
    > involved. Hence, woefully pales to................ cash.
    > Adjust it for inflation, and what do you have?
    > Yes, I am well aware of massaging data with origins, but I chose
    > 1997 as the pinnacle of the buy and hold posture Buffett advocates
    > (but doesn't necessarily follow). Since then, net net, less than
    > a per cent per annum nominal
    > I'll spare you on Munsingwear, US Air (gee that rhymed) as well as
    > sweetheart deals or delving into foreign currency.
    > But, I will commend on your ability to spell thus avoiding confusion
    > with all-you-can-eat diners in a northern suburb of Detroit. An
    > aspect many groupies fail at.
    May 28, 2009. 01:06 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Six Month Correlation Among iShares ETFs [View article]
    As the author noted, longer time periods should be evaluated. In addition, different market environments should also be considered.

    It would be interesting to evaluate ETF : S&P correlations during the prior bull market (i.e., for various time periods leading up to the Oct '07 peak).
    Apr 27, 2009. 01:47 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Friday Outlook: Commodities, Global Markets [View article]
    Info on DeMark indicators [charts]:

    On Apr 24 07:24 AM Cliff Wachtel wrote:

    > In the first part you say:
    > "Let’s remember the monthly DeMark charts. I put up a few times this
    > year. The sequential 9 count is generally impressive from monthly
    > views and often marks an end or pause to any trend. Below you can
    > see these counts clearly on SPX in 2007 and again just recently.
    > They’re not perfect but generally should be respected. Finally, these
    > counts appeared on most major indexes in the same manner."
    > Please elaborate on this. What are DeMark charts, and what is the
    > significance of the 9-count?
    > thanks again for great work, Cliff
    Apr 25, 2009. 03:46 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analyzing Dividend Capture Strategies [View article]
    I would think that this strategy would be arbitraged away by the institutional investors, so retail investors wouldn't be able to benefit.

    As such, your comment, "Generally, retail investors' commission costs prohibit this strategy." would be more beneficial if placed near the beginning of the article.
    Jan 16, 2009. 11:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Peter Schiff: Outlook for the Gold Market [View article]
    Maybe the "money" didn't exist, but the equity did. When your house had a (temporary) market value of $450K, you would have been able to refi or get a second mortgage to extract additional equity from your home. The bank would have lent you real money.

    On Jan 05 07:29 AM sundrenched wrote:

    > Noop, this is a common misconception, but this money never existed,
    > it was only an estimate of worth, not actual worth. The market cap
    > of a company is the number of outstanding shares multiplied by the
    > last transacted price, but the last transacted price would not be
    > available to all shareholders if they tried to sell all at the same
    > time.
    > Likewise, all this housing wealth that disappeared never really existed
    > to begin with. I bought a house at 250k and at some point similar
    > houses in my street were going for 450k, and now it's back at 250k,
    > but that doesn't mean that I lost 200k and someone else walked away
    > with it. I suffered a theoretical loss, but no money changed hands.
    > On Dec 23 09:50 PM BrucePile wrote:
    Jan 9, 2009. 06:08 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Deflation Scam [View article]
    Once velocity (V) resumes, then cessation of the "printing press" will not be sufficient to prevent inflation - money (M) will need to be withdrawn from circulation to reduce (M) as an offset to (V). This is usually accomplished via increasing transaction costs through rising interest rates

    On Dec 20 01:37 AM John Lounsbury wrote:

    > A worthwhile addition to this discussion stream would be to recognize
    > the role of velocity of money in inflation.
    > Inflation as a monetary phenomenon can be considered an increase
    > in the nominal value of all transactions. ...
    > ... Milton Friedman made popular (created?) the following equation:

    > nT = V M
    > where nT represents the nominal value of aggregate transaction, V
    > is the velocity of money and M is the quantity of money in circulation.
    > In the simplest view, velocity can be considered a multiplier representing
    > the number of times a dollar is exchanged between parties (each exchange
    > is a transaction) in a specified time period.
    > ...In practice, both V and M change ...
    > What has happened in the past couple of decades, and accelerated
    > in the last few years? There has been a steady increase in M, but
    > the big change was in V. The velocity of money involved in creating
    > a humongous pile of finacial paper became very large, allowing the
    > inflation of a huge bubble of credit. ...
    > So now we come to 2008. The value of V has collapsed dramatically,
    > and the nominal value of aggregate transactions has fallen in step.
    > There has been massive deflation in financial assets because V has
    > become so small. If you print enough money to double M (the currency
    > in circulation) and V falls by 75%, the value of aggregate transactions
    > falls by 50%, or the economy suffers a 50% deflation.
    > Now the race is on. Can we print money faster than velocity slows?
    > If we can, deflation can be slowed, then stopped and, finally, reinflation
    > started. If we don't print money fast enough deflation is not stopped.
    > ...
    > Above I discussed what happens if we lose the money printing race.
    > What happens if we win? All of a sudden a point comes when the product
    > of V times M starts to increase. If we could identify that point
    > and stop printing money in a timely manner, the growth in aggregate
    > transactions (V times M) might continue to grow in a moderate way
    > and inflation coming out of the deflationary period could then be
    > controlled without drastic actions such as very high interest rates.
    > The problem is, it is unlikely that the proper point in time to slow
    > down or stop the printing of new money will be recognized. The most
    > likely result is the deflationary period is followed by a period
    > of above normal inflation.
    > ...
    > To conclude, the government can print vast amounts of money and we
    > can remain in deflation if the money is kept in a warehouse (bank
    > balance sheets) and not on the street (used in exchange for goods
    > and services). Eventually, though, one of two things must happen:

    > 1. Deflation persists until all economic activity grinds to a halt
    > and people live at a subsistence level (think hunter-gatherer).
    > OR
    > 2. Money starts coming out of the warehouse, deflation stops and
    > the risk of inflation returns.
    Jan 7, 2009. 01:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peter Schiff: Outlook for the Gold Market [View article]
    Or perhaps both (a little diversification never hurts)...
    But entry now might be a bit premature, and you won't need to catch the bottom.

    On Dec 23 01:17 PM Simmons wrote:

    > The best way to play this inflation theme is not by buying gold but
    > by shorting long term treasuries.
    Jan 3, 2009. 12:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Hedge Funds: What Happens When the Chickens Come Home to Roost? [View article]
    The old line, "One way to avoid a hangover, keep right on drinking" - is applicable here. Propping up the economy by increasing the money supply has been (and will continue to be) the game plan for this economy for some time, and has accelerated since the late 90's:

    Sooner or later, the partiers have to make a choice:
    Endure the headache and nausea - or else succumb to liver failure.

    As much as we wish to avoid pain, the alternative is much less attractive, don't you think.
    Nov 6, 2008. 11:30 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment