DRH's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/331246/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/136724-dow-30-overbought-oversold-edition?source=feed#comment-497500 497500 Sun, 10 May 2009 09:18:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/130996-dendreon-short-squeeze-time?source=feed#comment-464551 464551 Wed, 15 Apr 2009 22:59:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/128362-4-stocks-for-an-anticipated-industrial-recovery?source=feed#comment-443972 443972 Sun, 29 Mar 2009 10:38:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125108-dividend-yields-continue-to-shrink-don-t-yet-indicate-a-bottom?source=feed#comment-421240 421240 Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:36:37 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/125216-we-re-in-a-dividend-investor-s-paradise?source=feed#comment-421226 421226
Now when I run my screens I set a minimum requirement of 5% yield and still get a lot to chose from. Granted, not all dividends are created equal, but it is possible to find 6, 7, even 8% yielders. I know it's a terrible thing to say, but I was disappointed we went up so much today. I'm greedy and I wanted more decline so I could keep buying! ]]> Tue, 10 Mar 2009 21:11:29 -0400
Now when I run my screens I set a minimum requirement of 5% yield and still get a lot to chose from. Granted, not all dividends are created equal, but it is possible to find 6, 7, even 8% yielders. I know it's a terrible thing to say, but I was disappointed we went up so much today. I'm greedy and I wanted more decline so I could keep buying! ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124794-barron-s-calls-a-bottom?source=feed#comment-418631 418631
I've heard lots of great arguments for why stocks can't get much lower. The points made in this article are, for the most part, reasonable. However, when people are behaving irrationally there's just no limit to what might happen. ]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:40:25 -0400
I've heard lots of great arguments for why stocks can't get much lower. The points made in this article are, for the most part, reasonable. However, when people are behaving irrationally there's just no limit to what might happen. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124771-the-andrew-jackson-portfolio-nine-stocks-for-20?source=feed#comment-418616 418616
In this market, there are bargains everywhere for somebody looking to make a few speculative investments. IMHO, it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus on companies with known problems, poor forecasts, and a real possibility of bankruptcy. I'm sure there are better opportunities out there with less "baggage". ]]> Sun, 08 Mar 2009 22:14:25 -0400
In this market, there are bargains everywhere for somebody looking to make a few speculative investments. IMHO, it doesn't make a lot of sense to focus on companies with known problems, poor forecasts, and a real possibility of bankruptcy. I'm sure there are better opportunities out there with less "baggage". ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124771-the-andrew-jackson-portfolio-nine-stocks-for-20?source=feed#comment-418200 418200 Sun, 08 Mar 2009 14:31:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/124632-ten-stocks-to-hold-long-term-barron-s?source=feed#comment-417574 417574 Sat, 07 Mar 2009 22:01:49 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/123745-jeff-immelt-buys-50-000-ge-shares-whoop-dee-doo?source=feed#comment-410710 410710
It's nice to hear the CEO is buying their own stock. Your complaint is that he didn't buy enough shares? How much should he have bought?




]]> Tue, 03 Mar 2009 08:08:36 -0500
It's nice to hear the CEO is buying their own stock. Your complaint is that he didn't buy enough shares? How much should he have bought?




]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/123782-obama-effect-creates-opportunities-in-defense-stocks?source=feed#comment-410690 410690
However, the fear that Obama may cut defense is real, not imagined. I think you look at which companies have very long term, high dollar value contracts. In these cases, the gov't may not be able to easily back out of it (without getting hit with high costs), and the contracts don't end until Obama's term is practically over. ]]> Tue, 03 Mar 2009 07:46:43 -0500
However, the fear that Obama may cut defense is real, not imagined. I think you look at which companies have very long term, high dollar value contracts. In these cases, the gov't may not be able to easily back out of it (without getting hit with high costs), and the contracts don't end until Obama's term is practically over. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114173-wars-and-rumors-of-wars-time-to-look-at-defense-stocks?source=feed#comment-353154 353154
1) Trying to anticipate war is no reason to be buying defense stocks. They will go up if the US suddenly gets involved in a conflict, but this is only because of the speculators. Enough people have the same misinformed point of view that it actually creates demand in the stocks. See #2 below.

2) The most profitable time for defense stocks is NOT when we go to war, it is when we are in sort of a cold-war mindset and do not have significant numbers of troops engaged anywhere. If we suddenly decide to send troops somewhere, then this takes up resources. When you need money to fund day-to-day troop operations, your not going to spend money developing the next generation aircraft carrier, fighter jet, or submarine. I remember right after 9/11 a lot of the programs we had got shut down because money had to be used to fund troops on the ground.

3) During times of war, the only companies that benefit are the ones that make the supplies troops need on a day-to-day basis, or ones that have some emerging technology that the military thinks could be a 'game-changer'. The larger companies don't see any added benefit.

4) Defense contracts can often span 5 years of more. So in many cases the work that will be performed while Obama is in office has already been negotiated by the Bush administration. It may be several years before the new administration gets a chance to increase/decrease funding levels. In these cases, going to war is the worst thing for the industry. No significant new contracts are awarded, and the funding we already have is put in jeapardy. ]]> Mon, 12 Jan 2009 09:07:58 -0500
1) Trying to anticipate war is no reason to be buying defense stocks. They will go up if the US suddenly gets involved in a conflict, but this is only because of the speculators. Enough people have the same misinformed point of view that it actually creates demand in the stocks. See #2 below.

2) The most profitable time for defense stocks is NOT when we go to war, it is when we are in sort of a cold-war mindset and do not have significant numbers of troops engaged anywhere. If we suddenly decide to send troops somewhere, then this takes up resources. When you need money to fund day-to-day troop operations, your not going to spend money developing the next generation aircraft carrier, fighter jet, or submarine. I remember right after 9/11 a lot of the programs we had got shut down because money had to be used to fund troops on the ground.

3) During times of war, the only companies that benefit are the ones that make the supplies troops need on a day-to-day basis, or ones that have some emerging technology that the military thinks could be a 'game-changer'. The larger companies don't see any added benefit.

4) Defense contracts can often span 5 years of more. So in many cases the work that will be performed while Obama is in office has already been negotiated by the Bush administration. It may be several years before the new administration gets a chance to increase/decrease funding levels. In these cases, going to war is the worst thing for the industry. No significant new contracts are awarded, and the funding we already have is put in jeapardy. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113183-an-etf-package-that-outperforms-the-s-p-500-update?source=feed#comment-346899 346899
If you wouldn't mind continuing the discussion...I have analyzed your HMF, and had a few other comments. You have chosen sector based ETFs representing all the major sectors. Between all your ETFs you basically have every stock in the S&P and then some. However, the return seems to outpace the S&P (at least for the years you were able to track). I believe the key difference is that you are equal weighting each sector. If we look at the S&P it is usually not close to being equal weighted between sectors. At present, SPY has about 15% financial services and less than 4% utilities. Your HMF has 11% everywhere (I'm assuming you would rebalance once every year or two). I would suggest that your HMF is doing better because the sectors where the S&P is weighted over 11% have recently been performing worse than sectors where the S&P is weighted less than 11%. In a nutshell, the equal sector weighting provided a little less exposure to underperforming sectors and more exposure to the better performing sectors.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is still a better approach than just simply putting everthing into SPY or RSP. It certainly results in a more diversified portfolio.

Any thoughts?


On Jan 05 10:53 AM Gary Hickman wrote:

> Thanks for your comments. Actually, there is only one financial ETF
> in the portfolio- IYG. XLV is health care.]]> Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:38:14 -0500
If you wouldn't mind continuing the discussion...I have analyzed your HMF, and had a few other comments. You have chosen sector based ETFs representing all the major sectors. Between all your ETFs you basically have every stock in the S&P and then some. However, the return seems to outpace the S&P (at least for the years you were able to track). I believe the key difference is that you are equal weighting each sector. If we look at the S&P it is usually not close to being equal weighted between sectors. At present, SPY has about 15% financial services and less than 4% utilities. Your HMF has 11% everywhere (I'm assuming you would rebalance once every year or two). I would suggest that your HMF is doing better because the sectors where the S&P is weighted over 11% have recently been performing worse than sectors where the S&P is weighted less than 11%. In a nutshell, the equal sector weighting provided a little less exposure to underperforming sectors and more exposure to the better performing sectors.

Don't get me wrong, I think this is still a better approach than just simply putting everthing into SPY or RSP. It certainly results in a more diversified portfolio.

Any thoughts?


On Jan 05 10:53 AM Gary Hickman wrote:

> Thanks for your comments. Actually, there is only one financial ETF
> in the portfolio- IYG. XLV is health care.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113183-an-etf-package-that-outperforms-the-s-p-500-update?source=feed#comment-346307 346307 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 10:11:08 -0500