Seeking Alpha

Roberto Antonio Hussein

Roberto Antonio Hussein
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Roberto Antonio Hussein's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Senator's HCV Rant Won't Slow Gilead [View article]
    I like Bernie Sanders. He is a populist who expresses the questions and thoughts of many people. On GILD's pricing, Bernie Sanders may have come up with the right mix of altruism and business strategy. Price Harvoni and Sofosbuvir as low as possible. Make it affordable to everyone who needs it. The world will be a better place, and GILD will make a fortune. Thus, I strongly disagree with many of the comments that claim that BS is a socialist menace, and should keep his mouth shut about GILD's business strategy.
    May 15, 2015. 03:41 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Senator's HCV Rant Won't Slow Gilead [View article]
    Perhaps Bernie Sanders has a point. It might be better for GILD and its shareholders if GILD reduced its eight month treatment for Harvoni and Sofosbuvir to some low number like $10,000 instead of $80,000. There must be huge price elasticity. Imagine what multiple of H and S could be sold to the millions with HepC! The marginal income and profit would skyrocket!
    May 15, 2015. 11:24 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Growth-Sapping Effect Of The Minimum Wage [View article]
    Where are you getting the chart for supply and demand of workers? Perhaps demand for workers in fast food restaurants is inelastic. Then your graph would be wrong. Provide your authorities for the graph.
    Dec 10, 2014. 06:19 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Select Metal and Mining Stocks - Why It's Time to Buy [View article]
    This is not the time to buy base metals, gold or material stocks. China is on the verge of having its mega bubble in real estate explode. This will have severe deflationary repercussions throughout assets of every type and class, especially base metals.
    Feb 7, 2010. 11:35 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold and Silver Plunge: Was That the Final Part of the Downswing? [View article]

    I realize and accept that one dollar today buys far less gold than in 2001, but I object to your claim that the "purchasing power" of a dollar is worth only 23 cents today.

    You write that a dollar put under the mattress . . .:
    "since 2001 will upon removal purchase you 23.51 cents worth of an item still available since 2001."

    I deny that. And your explanation about a dollar's value in gold does not address your wild and insupportable assertions.
    Jan 24, 2010. 01:49 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold and Silver Plunge: Was That the Final Part of the Downswing? [View article]
    You advise running, not walking, to your nearest gold and silver dealer to buy the actuals. Have you figured or taken account of the costs of buy/sell commissions (high, about 10% or more), shipping expenses, the cost of storage, the chance of theft, phony metal alloys, insurance? And this list is by no means exhaustive.

    What makes you so paranoid about PM ETFs? Have there been failures or scams in the past?

    Do you feel the same negative paranoiac way about stock certificates? (After all, all stock certificates are merely only paper.)
    Jan 23, 2010. 06:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gold and Silver Plunge: Was That the Final Part of the Downswing? [View article]
    I realize that a dollar today buys much less gold than in 2001, but, please, how do you arrive at the purchasing power of one dollar being a mere 23.51 cents today? I'd be interested in how your math demonstrates this.
    Jan 23, 2010. 06:10 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unimpressed with Bernanke's victory at the Senate Banking Committee, Larry Kudlow thinks the Fed Chairman should throw in the towel: "Bernanke's zero-interest-rate policy and continued money creation through the expansion of the Fed's balance sheet continues to fight an emergency that ended this past spring."  [View news story]
    I used to think that Larry Kudlow was the smartest guy on earth especially about money supply and the Fed. Now I think he is an idiot. Listen closely to his half-baked ideas about the market and economics - they are those of a simpleton.
    Dec 19, 2009. 06:32 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Bob Moriarty: Where to Find Cover When Black Swans Swarm [View instapost]
    Moriarty's column is filled with distortions, misrepresentations and exaggerations. He writes:

    "But basically the government’s solution to any problem is to do more of whatever they’re doing. The entire problem was caused by government in the first place. We need to go back to more savings and to real jobs. We need be exporting goods rather than pieces of paper. We need to develop a manufacturing economy. Unfortunately we’re nowhere near that. We need less government, not more."

    There is no evidence that "the entire problem [with the auto industry] was caused by government in the first place." The bankruptcy or near-bankruptcy of the auto makers was due to their own incompetency and misjudgment of the market place. Their faulty decisions threaten hundreds of thousands of workers in the auto and related industries. If it weren't for the present administration's intervention, all of these people would be unemployed. Imagine where we and the economy would be in such a scenario!

    Contrary to Moriarty's gratuitous criticisms of the federal government, the evidence is that had we more governmental regulation of derivatives such as credit default swaps (really just unregulated insurance policies on companies being to pay off their bonded debt), we could have been spared the turmoil from AIG, Lehman Bros. and many of the big banks. So much for those who speciously claim, like Moriarty, too much government is the problem. No, the opposite is true - too little government has been the cause of America's current fiscal melt-down.

    May 23, 2009. 04:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Senate Voted Wisely on 'Cram Down' Bill [View article]
    I strongly disagree with Odysseas Papdimitriou that the failure to pass mortgage cram-down was and is a benefit to banks and other mortgage lenders.

    The purpose of the U.S. bankruptcy provisions is to give everyone a "fresh start." By forcing debtors to continue to pay mortgage payments where the loan is "underwater," the opponents of cram-down make it virtually certain that debtors will allow their mortgage obligations to go into foreclosure, and walk away from their homes in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy.

    Consider the result for the mortgage lenders. If $400K, for example, was the mortgage loan amount, and if the home is now worth $300K, a foreclosure means that the lender has taken an immediate $100K loss, the same as in a cram-down. No, more than that because there are many costs in unloading a foreclosed home, such as property maintenance, repair, clean-up, selling costs, taxes, et al. Factoring in all these costs, it is likely and probable that the lender will be able to recover only $200K by the time the property is re-sold.

    So what have the banks and other mortgage lenders gained by fighting "cram-down?" The end result is that they are far WORSE off than if the bankruptcy laws allowed cram-down of primary mortgages.

    The reason why cram-down failed in the Senate is because there are mean people there who are willing to extend billions to Wall Street and the banks, but who want to punish the little home owner for failing to be able to make mortgage payments in times of economic melt-down.
    May 10, 2009. 11:38 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Horrible Self-Dealing of Ken Lewis and the Principal-Agent Conflict [View article]
    My comments are directed to Mr. Harrison on his article. You received several compliments on "your" well written piece on Ken Lewis.

    But are the indented sections your own work? If not, I don't think it is proper for you merely to reference "sources" at the end. I think you should have put the text in quotations and given a cite to the author and where the original work could be found. For example, on page one, beginning, "It was the real thing. . . ." Is this your own work or does it belong to Alan Abelson? If Abelson's, I suggest for the future that you so indicate right then and there, and put the incorporated text in quotations.
    Apr 27, 2009. 08:27 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Santelli's Rant: A Watershed Moment? [View article]
    I found Santelli's rant to be mean sprited and representative of the stunted outlook of most Republicans.
    Most people who are in foreclosure have done nothing wrong. No one takes out a mortgage thinking he or she has a good chance of defaulting. People lose their jobs, get sick, suffer financial reverses beyond their control.
    Those like Santelli who think it is against their self-interests for the government to step in and help out just show their inability to sympathize with people who suffer reverses or get into financial trouble. All those guys who clapped and "amen"-ed Santelli will surely feel differently once their own jobs are cut.
    Feb 20, 2009. 01:28 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment