Seeking Alpha

GaltMachine

GaltMachine
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View GaltMachine's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Health exchanges face tech glitches [View news story]
    Obamacare is the glitch :)
    Sep 29 10:07 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Can Fed Put Rate Genie Back In Bottle, Keep Bubbles Corked? [View article]
    Pompano,

    "At 15x earnings on the S&P valuation"

    Where did you get this number?

    The current multiple is just over 19 http://bit.ly/RW5dWW.

    This is not undervalued by the PE metric.

    Thanks.
    Sep 28 03:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • EPA to set carbon limits on power plants [View news story]
    Exactly the opposite of the predictions of these "experts":

    http://bit.ly/1fOboXB
    "Heading into October -- 2013 global hurricane activity remains historically low

    • North Atlantic tropical cyclone ACE is 71% below normal. 5th lowest since 1950. --> Figure
    • Northern Hemisphere ACE is 55% below normal. Lowest since 1977. --> Figure
    • Global ACE is 47% below normal. Lowest since 1977. --> Figure "
    Sep 27 05:24 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • EPA to set carbon limits on power plants [View news story]
    bungaylad,

    " Over 90% of the scientific community"

    No. Just because you heard it doesn't mean its true. Clearly you have not been reading both sides of the debate and it is a debate. A theory is not a fact and man-made global warming is an unproven theory.

    Science is based upon facts not consensus. This may be seem obvious but clearly people don't understand this basic concept of how science is done.

    http://bit.ly/1fNLpiU
    "Scientific consensus is the collective judgment, position, and opinion of the community of scientists in a particular field of study. Consensus implies general agreement, though not necessarily unanimity. Scientific consensus is not by itself a scientific argument, and it is not part of the scientific method. Nevertheless, consensus may be based on both scientific arguments and the scientific method.[1]"

    The consensus in science is usually wrong (flat earth, earth is the center of universe, theory of relativity, some races are inferior to others, etc.) but we only know that after the fact. One single observation can overturn an entire established body of science and has done so many times in the past.

    We have done our best to show you that you should not limit your thinking the rest is up to you.

    Good luck.
    Sep 27 03:09 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Jobless claims at 305K [View news story]
    bbro,

    How would we know if hiring is shifting primarily to part-timers based upon jobless claims?

    Is there any way to know this?

    The stories are that hours are being cut below 30/week to get below the Obamacare cut-off rules so in theory you could have fewer claims and more part-time hiring to compensate. Yet the pie remains the same or does it?

    All the distortions from Obamacare in the short-run are making a mess of a lot of these numbers.
    Sep 26 11:02 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Hertz craters after guidance cut tipped in presentation slides [View news story]
    That's quite the reaction for that change in guidance!
    Sep 26 08:49 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Analyzing The Logic Of Tesla Bears [View article]
    Thanks for the link. It gets really hot here in South FL for about 7 months of the year so this is helpful:

    "Climate Control and Outside Temperature

    Climate Control energy usage is related to keeping the cabin at a comfortable temperature. Maintaining a desired temperature in the cabin requires energy draw from the battery, which affects range. It is challenging to generalize how much the use of climate control will affect your range. It depends predominantly on how different the cabin temperature is from the outside temperature, if there is a large heat load from the sun, and how long you operate the climate control system. If you are driving slowly for a very long time and operating climate control continually it will have the largest percentage impact on your range. In very hot or cold operating conditions with typical usage of climate control and driving at speeds around 55 mph you may see a 10-15% reduction in range."
    Sep 24 04:05 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analyzing The Logic Of Tesla Bears [View article]
    Thanks for the replies. Unfortunately I am not an owner and the forum posts that I saw were pretty uninformative in terms of actually answering the question.

    I am surprised that a straightforward question like this doesn't have a straightforward answer provided by the company. Relying upon your owners for technical questions is not wise given your lack of control over what they say and post.

    Is there anywhere in which Tesla, the company, has responded to this in an FAQ style response?

    Thank you.
    Sep 23 11:54 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Analyzing The Logic Of Tesla Bears [View article]
    I can't seem to find the answer to this question. Assuming you live in very hot or very cold climates you will at some point need to run the heater and the AC units in the car.

    I live in FL, I use my AC constantly for about 10 months of the year. I imagine if you live up north you probably use the heater a lot.

    What impact does this have on the range of the vehicle?

    I can only imagine being stuck in a snowstorm or in an accident while travelling with everyone else and then running the heater or AC unplanned for hours. I can't "gas" up so who do you call if you run out of stored power?

    Thank you.
    Sep 22 12:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are we in a price/earnings sweet spot? [View news story]
    This is so misleading as to be hilarious regardless of whether Tobias is correct or not the statement above is not supportive of it:

    "and found that investing in stocks when P/E ratios were in the 14-16x band provided annual returns of 14.6%."

    "According to Reuters' This Week In Earnings, the forward four-quarter (Q2/13-Q1/14) P/E ratio for the S&P 500 is 14.5."

    Comparing FORWARD PE's with CURRENT PE's is like comparing Apples and Lemons.

    From that article:

    "Above 16x they swiftly collapse again, on a median return basis. And if anyone ever calls the market a screaming buy on a P/E of over 20x, scream back at them. (And keep your money away!)"

    The current PE according to Multpl.com is 19.5. http://www.multpl.com which Tobias did not mention in the article strangely enough. According to the article this would then be one of the worst times to invest.

    Given the importance of the current PE number to his premise, why didn't he mention it?

    It's easy enough to find for even a neophyte like me not to mention an "expert" like him.

    So to answer the question posed on this stream's title, according to the article that's a big fat "NO".

    :)
    Sep 22 11:34 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will The No Taper Surprise Affect Stocks? [View article]
    James,

    I guess if I were to summarize this, I would say there is more art than science in the science and art of valuation!

    :)
    Sep 21 03:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will The No Taper Surprise Affect Stocks? [View article]
    James,

    The "cyclical" part makes sense and explains a lot.

    I can clearly see how it can be misused in the wrong hands.

    Last questions (I promise). Is there any connection between the dividend yield rate and the resulting valuation?

    Are stocks "worth more" with a higher dividend yield?

    6% & 7% yields during the 50's versus the 2% or so now as an example.
    http://bit.ly/rOl1U8

    Thank you.
    Sep 21 02:22 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will The No Taper Surprise Affect Stocks? [View article]
    James,

    Thanks for the feedback.

    On point 4, my thought was S&P earnings were around $61/share in 2009 and in the current period it is likely to be closer to $110/share (Q4 2008 was -$24/share!).

    I don't calculate DDM's so maybe I am missing something in how it is done. Perhaps doing it for the the index rather than an individual stock means it won't make sense.

    Isn't there a connection between the EPS and the assumed dividend payout stream in a DDM model? Wouldn't starting with a higher EPS directly translate to a higher overall value?

    In 2009, DDM would have put a low value on the market and today it presumably puts a higher implicit value on that same market despite the fact that we are talking about the same companies - the only difference is the timing of the initial EPS in the stream of future flows.

    So it would give you two different values for the same stream of cashflows, how do you know which one is correct?

    That seems problematic. Would it make sense to use something like CAPE to adjust for that?

    Thanks. I appreciate the education!
    Sep 21 01:57 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • How Will The No Taper Surprise Affect Stocks? [View article]
    James,

    Question I have always wondered about when using Dividend Discount Models to value stocks is:

    "How do you take into account the inevitability of earnings being reduced during recessionary periods and the resultant impact on the dividend stream?"

    It seems simplistic to assume that dividends are an uninterrupted stream of cashflows that stays the same or increases forever. Of course the higher the discount rate used in the model the less likely you are to introduce distortion. What is your assumption for the discount rate in your models?

    Also you will clearly get wildly different valuations for your analysis depending upon the starting point for the dividend stream in the business cycle - 2009 vs. 2013 as an example.

    Thanks.
    Sep 21 12:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • EPA to set carbon limits on power plants [View news story]
    One other item to make you go hmm.

    "Obama Has Had The Fewest Hurricanes Of Any President
    Posted on May 8, 2013 by stevengoddard

    NOAA keeps hurricane records back to 1850. The average number of US hurricane strikes per presidency is almost eleven. Obama’s presidency has had only three hurricane strikes, matched only by Abraham Lincoln and Benjamin Harrison.

    Grover Cleveland and FDR both presided over 26 hurricanes, almost nine times as many as Obama."

    The accompanying chart is interesting:

    http://bit.ly/15fz5AG

    Grover Cleveland was President in 1885 by the way in which 26 hurricanes occurred at the temperature low based upon the NASA series. Also keep in mind they didn't have hurricane hunters and technology back then so it is very likely the numbers were even higher back then.

    The point is correlation is not causality. Pointing to hurricanes as evidence of "man-made" (emphasis on man) global warming is pure bunk as the recent record shows.
    Sep 21 10:53 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,135 Comments
1,458 Likes