Seeking Alpha

DrP79

DrP79
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View DrP79's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • GM rejects senators’ request to extend compensation claim deadline [View news story]
    Perhaps the good Senators would take on the liability personally to see how good an idea it is.
    Jan 29, 2015. 09:12 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • GE Offers Investors An Electrifying Dividend Yield [View article]
    Large mutual funds/holders, such as Buffett, need large positions in large firms as they move the market too much for small firms.

    GE, with a good dividend yield, is a good place to park their cash for the short term. GE's backlog of orders provide a relatively safe place in the mid-term.

    Longer term folks can have their own views. Yet the longer term is where the real money is made and seeing a Buffett here is instructive. The restructuring of GE to be more of an industrial firm instead of based on finances will pay off as the market reflects the different market multiples of each.
    Jan 26, 2015. 11:45 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Amazon Vs. Wal-Mart: A Race To The Bottom? [View article]
    The UPS Store, formerly known as MBE, has that as a prime market.
    Jan 12, 2015. 08:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    read again the discussion about burglary

    You see someone entering at home at night. So you call the cops and they investigate. The police determine it was the owner who was locked out of his vacation home and wanted to get out of the cold and into his home.

    Burglary is normally defined with two elements that have to be proven
    1 - illegally breaking into a house or business
    2 - with the intent of a crime, normally theft

    In this case there was
    1 - no illegal entry or
    2 - no intent of any crime

    So no burglary was COMMITTED and one should not CALL that owner a burglar even when calling the cops. Nor should there even be an arrest let alone a trial.

    YOUR BELIEFS do not match up with the elements of any crime.
    Jan 11, 2015. 11:20 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Amazon Vs. Wal-Mart: A Race To The Bottom? [View article]
    "In the second half of 2014, Wal-Mart lowered its online prices below not only Amazon, but also below its own Superstores. Given that the cost of goods sold is the same irrespective of whether or not Wal-Mart sells the product through a store or the internet, this is necessarily bad for gross margins."

    I am not so sure that the cost is the same for in-store vs on-line for Wal-Mart.
    Jan 10, 2015. 12:28 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    You do not care what the courts say as it is OPPOSITE of your belief.

    You can say what you want, but it won't change how the courts and the REGULATORY bodies operate. Nor does their following the law make them corrupt for taking time to investigate according to the law.

    http://1.usa.gov/1nJ3tSe

    KEY STATMENT
    ______________________...
    "Not all MLM businesses are illegal pyramid schemes. To determine whether a MLM business is a pyramid, a court must look at how the MLM business operates in practice. See id. at 783–84; see also United States v. Gold Unlimited, Inc., 177 F.3d 472, 479–82 (6th Cir. 1999); In re Amway Corp., 93 F.T.C. 618, 716(1979).
    _____________________

    "BurnLounge is CORRECT that when participants bought packages in part for INTERNAL consumption (to obtain the ability to sell music through BurnPages and to use the package merchandise), the participants were the “ULTIMATE USERS” of the merchandise and that this INTERNAL sale alone does NOT make BurnLounge a pyramid scheme."
    ------

    The court goes on to say

    ----
    But it is incorrect to conclude that all rewards paid on these sales were related to the sale of products to ultimate users.

    Whether the rewards are related to the sale of products depends on how BurnLounge’s bonus structure operated IN PRACTICE. See Omnitrition, 79 F.3d at 781.

    In practice, the rewards BurnLounge paid for package sales were not tied to the consumer demand for the merchandise in the packages; they were paid to Moguls for recruiting new participants.

    The fact that the rewards were paid for recruiting is shown by the necessity of recruiting to earn cash rewards and the evidence that the scheme was set up to motivate Moguls through the opportunity to earn cash. Rewards for recruiting were “unrelated” to sales to ultimate users because BurnLounge incentivized recruiting participants, not product sales.

    ------
    BurnLounge and Arnold cite a passage from an FTC advisory letter, Exhibit 3 at trial, to argue that proof of INTERNAL consumption does not establish that BurnLounge was a pyramid. Read in its entirety, the relevant passage of the letter is consistent with the district court’s analysis. The relevant passage reads:

    --Much has been made of the personal, or INTERNAL, consumption issue in recent years. In fact, the amount of INTERNAL consumption in any multi-level compensation business does not determine whether or not the FTC will consider the plan a pyramid scheme.

    The CRITICAL QUESTION for the FTC is whether the revenues that PRIMARILY support the commissions paid to all participants are generated from purchases of goods and services that are not simply incidental to the purchase of the right to participate in a money-making venture.--

    As discussed above, the rewards BurnLounge paid to Moguls were PRIMARILY in return for selling the right to participate in the money-making venture—the Mogul program. The merchandise in the packages was simply incidental.

    ------
    IV. CONCLUSION

    We affirm the district court’s holding that BurnLounge was an illegal pyramid scheme, in violation of § 5(a) of the FTCA. BurnLounge’s scheme satisfied both prongs of the Omnitrition test because Moguls paid for the right to sell products, the rewards BurnLounge paid were PRIMARILY for
    recruitment, and Moguls were clearly motivated by the opportunity to earn cash rewards from recruitment.

    http://1.usa.gov/1nJ3tSe

    NOTE

    I capitalized some words, such as PRIMARILY, but otherwise comes directly from the decision.

    The key is PRIMARILY. Hence the emphasis on sales from recruiting or not.

    BL had 95% of their sales from recruiting. Herbalife has less than 5%. They are polar opposites. BL was a bad actor, but the industry cheered the ruling.

    95% > 50% > 5%

    Note also the court approved the expert witness for among other reasons the title of his article that discusses the differences in MLM from pyramid schemes.
    Jan 9, 2015. 10:40 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is junior ONLY to the US Supreme Court
    and they have said MLM are NOT pyramid schemes
    Jan 9, 2015. 08:30 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    If you are tired of seeing folks ripped off - the first step is the TRUTH not an agenda pushed by activists.

    - See what the law ACTUALLY says - not what folks WANT it to say
    - See what the case law says - see the actual court rulings not what others claim is says to the opposite
    - See the ACTUAL FACTS not allegations, assertions, and guilt by association or just beliefs
    Jan 8, 2015. 04:03 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 40-hour work week standard to be debated in Congress [View news story]
    This is just like the minimum wage law discussion. The very people who the law is designed to help are hurt the most.

    Some folks think that there is a free lunch somewhere.

    Raise the cost of something artificially and firms will try to reduce their use.
    - limit hiring new workers
    - fire existing workers
    - use more part time workers
    - use more automation instead of workers
    - change the design of their products to use less workers
    - outsource their labor
    - raise their prices to customers, some of which will not buy their product anymore
    - reduce more investment in the firm and/or industry
    - sometimes that means getting out of a specific business altogether

    This is also akin to the great way to stimulate the economy by breaking all the windows. thus owners have to spend money to replace the broken windows.

    Left unsaid is the ALTERNATE uses for that money that the owners would have made for themselves that they cannot do now.
    Jan 8, 2015. 03:10 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 40-hour work week standard to be debated in Congress [View news story]
    The law does not force anyone to do anything. It just raises your costs prohibitively if you do not make the logical steps implied.

    If you have 50 or more employees your costs and regulations go up dramatically. Firms respond by doing their best to have less than 50 employees. They do that by hiring more part time workers in lieu of full time workers
    Jan 8, 2015. 02:58 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    Why does it matter to you?

    Read the case law, the law, the economics, and the facts

    the LOGIC of the message should be clear enough.

    Unless of course you are trying to appeal to authority and in that case, one better note who has announced that they are activists with an ax to grind to promote their pet causes.
    Jan 8, 2015. 02:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 40-hour work week standard to be debated in Congress [View news story]
    win except the workers, the firm that would prefer to expand, the taxpayers, and the economy
    Jan 8, 2015. 01:52 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 40-hour work week standard to be debated in Congress [View news story]
    Obamacare creates incentives for firms to cut the number of full time workers and then hire PART TIME workers
    Jan 8, 2015. 01:44 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    Until a credible source provides overwhelming EVIDENCE for EVERY ELEMENT of a crime, there is no court in the world that would say so.

    this is especially true when a proponent's credibility is severely challenged by making FALSE STATEMENTS to promote an agenda.

    All the courts have said is that the others did not meet their burden to sue you. That is a far cry from making any comments on the merits of what you believe.
    Jan 8, 2015. 12:44 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Slip-Sliding With Herbalife, With The FTC Or Without It [View article]
    Note that making FALSE STATEMENTS to push an agenda is to be condemned
    Jan 8, 2015. 11:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
1,426 Comments
4,101 Likes