Seeking Alpha

spybreaker

spybreaker
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View spybreaker's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • The Seductive Warren Buffett [View article]
    He is a smart investor and business person but I don't agree with some of his recent public statements. But to each his own. I think he may be a nice person at heart (simple person for sure by looking at his lifestyle inspite of being a billionaire)

    But let's not act like he isn't a cunning fox too. He uses every tax code possible to maximize returns. And he can also find shelter under unrealized gains not being taxed and compares apples to oranges when comparing his tax rate with that of his salaried secretary (which is where I stopped wearing my rose tinted glasses on him). When people have to resort to such tactics, you know you are not dealing with someone who is entirely honest.

    But to each his own. He is entitled to his opinions and this is a free country to speak your mind.
    Dec 4 04:02 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Would I Not Sell Dividend Stocks Even After A 1000% Gain? [View article]
    The trick is to find good dividend growth stocks of stable companies which are fairly valued and hold on to those. Some of these quality companies have sizable dips in the event of bad news such as an earnings miss or bad forecast... One such example was McDonald's (MCD) last year which had a sizable dip from ~100 to ~83 in November. If you are going long and confident about how the company does business, then that was a good time to buy such a stock and accumulate. The stock price has recovered since then and for those who bougth in the low to mid 80s during that dip, they stand with an approximate 15% gain excluding dividend payments which were around ~3.8% at the time (it's ~3.2% now with the share price at ~101).

    As a rule of thumb, I avoid technical, financial and airline industries as there are too many complicated dependencies and risks that I can't contemplate. I had bought stocks in these companies earlier but when I decided to readjust my portfolio to a dividend growth model, I sold them off booking whatever gains I had got. Some of those stocks have gone further up since then but no regrets - any gain is a good thing.
    May 16 05:36 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Are Stocks Cheap? It Simply Doesn't Matter [View article]
    I think it's possible for the government to introduce a tax on savings if we are in a dire situation - such as runaway debt or inflation. Notice that I used the word "tax". Why would this be ever considered "illegal" considering the recent ruling on ACA by the supreme court?

    There are many marxist economists who are taken seriously (eg, Richard Wolf) that have been advocating a tax on savings for years.... I'm not referring to tax on interest from savings accounts but tax on actual savings in a bank account. I wouldn't be surprised if it starts with highearners or anyone who have over $100,000 balance in bank accounts. They will argue that this will increase revenues and encourage spending to stimulate the economy.

    The US debt is only going increase in an uncontrolled manner. People say that the US government controls the money supply so we have nothing to worry about but this is wrong. The Federal Reserve, a private bank owned by a consortium of private banks controls the money supply. At some point, future generations will have to pay for all the debt incurred. Along with many other measures, I would not be surprised that introducing a savings tax on high earners is definately within the realm of possibility. This is also a populist measure and will not face any resistance from the masses. The next time we have a banking crisis, there won't be any bailouts. A week before the cyprus crisis, did the thought even cross anyone's mind, including all the brainy wall street analyists that government could confiscate (read steal) money from every savings account? Ofcourse not. But they passed a bill on a weekend that no account was beyond their reach. They only changed it to people who had money above insured limits after pushing the envelop and then backing down a bit to sooth the masses.

    So let me ask you a simple question - if the government introduces a savings tax on anyone with a balance above $100,000, tell me who or what can stop them from collecting this tax?
    Apr 8 11:43 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The NYT's John Broder takes Tesla's (TSLA) Model S up and down the East Coast from Washington on Interstate 95, where the company has installed Supercharger stations 200 miles apart. Things start dandily enough, but then the weather cools, and Broder has to endure freezing feet and white knuckles because he has to turn the heating off to preserve power. Eventually, he needs a tow truck to pick him up because the car runs out of juice[View news story]
    If you need to do all that just to drive a damn car, then this aint ready for prime time in any stretch of imagination.
    Feb 10 05:44 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Should Apple Investors Really Expect Over The Next 3 Years? [View article]
    >>With all due respects, some say to buy on a down trend.

    I understand but read carefully to what they say... none of them tell to buy during a "down trend" (note the word "trend") but to buy during "dips" or "pull backs". There's a big diffference. A dip is the best time to enter a stock or load up on more. I buy during dips too and would avoid buying during a downtrend. Ofcourse, there are other factors to consider and nothing is simpleo or easy but if you're looking for a good entry point, a dip or a pullback is what your safest best... not a down trend. That's the worst time to enter second to only entering at the top and then being in a downtrend.
    Feb 7 04:56 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Should Apple Investors Really Expect Over The Next 3 Years? [View article]
    Don't buy a stock that's in a downtrend. Just going to a store and seeing it busy does not mean that meets the market's expectations... Apple stores are always crowded but how does the market react to that? I went to Apple stores during christmas and after and they were always crowded. Did that change anything with the share price? nope. The share price was affected by rumors and hedge fund mangers with analysts spreading bad news whenever they could hammering the stock.. A share price simply represents the worth the market assigns to it. The market has been brutal with very high expectations from Apple and even though the company has great growth, cash flow, zero debt, the market isn't impressed and needs a bigger catalyst (like a new killer iProduct to return to massive growth). Just using fundamental analysis and simple PE numbers hasn't changed the negative market sentiment.

    Until sentiment changes, the bearish trend will continue. I remember people saying that when the stock tanked from 700, they said that 600 was the bottom...then 550...then 500. Now they say 440 is the bottom. Wait for the uptrend once a bull sentiment sets in and then buy. If you take a look at the head and shoulders patterns since feb 2011, it seems to indicate that we fell off the right shoulder and if 440 is not the neckline, then it is possible that 360 is the neckline after which we will have to wait and see if the stock will pick up. Don't just buy because everyone is telling you to buy...that's what happened to a lot of people at 700.

    Now I hold AAPL stock too but I won't buy at these levels and I don't intend to. I'm a long term holder and I'll wait for the bear sentiment to end. Give it two quarters and then we'll see. In the mean time, I'll collect the dividends and look at other stocks. There are plenty of other stocks out there that are doing great during this spring rally. In case you didn't notice, Apple is one of those few favorite stocks that's been going down throughout the year. Some of the other stocks I bought are giving me nice double digit returns within a month. In the mean time, Apple needs to come out with its next killer product others companies like Samsung will eat their cake.
    Feb 7 01:50 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
    >>Why did you conveniently overlook the charge that you’ve blown up a minor exaggeration of zero weight in the sum total of evidence about climate change? <<

    I can make the same charge against you. Why do you keep ignoring the many falsifications, alarmism and lies perpertrated by the IPCC and other "climate scientists"? I did. But you ignored that. For you, it's a 'minor exaggeration'. That's where you loose all credibilty.

    >>You've impugned the honor and integrity of thousands of men and women who have devoted years of their lives to this topic. They’ve looked at millions of data points, analyzed satellite images, tested hypotheses, published results in peer reviewed journals, and defended their findings in front of skeptical audiences all over the world.<<

    Again, I can make the same charge against you. There are thousands of scientists who have done the very same things you boast of... just that they are skeptical about the alarmist tales from the AGW crowd. But they are what? climate "deniers" while the AGW crowd is the some glorified authority on science, right? "science settled" for something as complex as the climate. are you kidding me.

    >>So, let’s see what you can do besides grandstand on an investment web site for people who know even less about it than you. <<

    You might want to apply that to yourself first as someone who started the topic on an investment website with racist undertones and as someone who claims the AGW "science" is settled yet belittles the many exposed falisifications that were motivated by political ideology.

    >>If you have anything with a shred of credibility, Exxon Mobil, the American Enterprise Institute, the Heritage Foundation or a thousand others will fall all over themselves to showcase it on their web site. Go to it. I’ll be waiting hopefully. <<

    oh, what's that? I'll get paid by big oil to be a skeptic? I wish I did. Do you get paid by Big wind? Big sun? Big government? I don't have to add anything new to the discussion.. the evidence is already out there... and it's been out there for many years. And every alarmist prediction by the AGW crowd has failed. Emperically falsified. They have nothing emperically to stand on...and seeing this failure, they now make predictions well ahead 80 to 100 years. And ofcourse, the people who love science - the AGW crowd, like lemmings will gladly accept such predictions which I presume have been accurately made before too, right? They can't even get 5 to 10 to 20 years right and they think they've suddenly become experts on what the climate looks like 80 to 100 years out into the future. It's just that the AGW crowd conveniently will ignore the repeated alarmist failings and continue falsifying their data to ring the alarm bells - use whatever necissary - fake hockey stick graph, alarm bells on himalayan glaciers disappearing, 50 million climate refugees in 2010, now 50 million climate refugees in 2020, islands disappearing in 2010.

    So let us know all the alarmist predictions that are being made. We'll hold you guys to account and call you out. Here are a few ones from the past - the prophet of the global warming religion, James Hansen stated in 2009 that if nothing is done, the planet will face immenent peril in 2013. Well, guess what, it's 2013 to the day he said it. I'm waiting for the world to end. Oh, we've had atleast three "point of no returns" crossed since 2005. There's another one coming up in 2014. Hmmm, funny how they keep shifting the dates and these reports always come out a few days before a climate conference.
    Jan 22 06:40 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
    >>My understanding is that the dispute about Himalayan glaciers relates to one sentence in a 900 page working report that claimed, “glaciers in the Himalayas are receding faster than in any other part of the world.”

    Why did you miss out the part where the IPCC set alarm bells ringing when it claimed the Himalyalan glaciers WOULD DISAPPEAR BY 2035 based on their studies on the glaciers in the report? Is that a small statement for an international organization to make for you? So it's fine if the IPCC uses 5% of a study to set alarm bells ringing, right?

    Let's also conventiently ignore that Murari Lal, one of the authors of the paper admitted to being pressured to present such a slant and the unsubstantiated speculation used in the report were intentionally doctored for political purposes.

    Here's the thing - with all the doctoring and alarmism that has been consistantly proven to be a part of this movement, the skeptics will continue to be cynical until there is emperical verification of so called "settled science" (really?). Making 80 to 100 year predictions proves that the AGW crowd knows their gig won't work under scrutiny.

    It's pretty obvious that this is driven by political ideology.

    In the mean time, a moment of silence for the 50 million imaginary climate refugees predicted for 2010 by the UN in 2005 who had to flee from sea level rise, a large number of severe hurricanes, disappearing islands including the caribbean and disruption in the food supply.
    Jan 22 08:24 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
    You call the "peer reviewed" study regarding the disappearance of the Himalayan Glacers which was part of the reason the IPCC got the "Nobel" peace prize a "relatively minor" attempt to spin? Thanks for atleast acknowledging that the IPCC is politically motivated by ideology. That was just one example. There are plenty more. Here's another one - What happened to the 50 million climate refugees by 2010 that the UN forecasted in 2005 would flee from sea level rise increases in the numbers and severity of hurricanes, and disruption to food production. Well, as expected when it comes to these alarmist predictions, none of these predictions came to pass and infact, the populations from their climate disaster maps provided by UN infact increased.

    So what did the UN do for this "inconvenient truth"? THEY DELETED THESE STUDIES FROM THEIR WEBSITE.

    Just one problem or what you may call, a "relatively minor" problem - it's called GOOGLE CACHE. And many of us have saved copies of this botched attempt up by the UN to not look stupid.

    Fret not my dear climate alarmists... The American Association for the Advancement of Science now says that there will be 50 million climate change refugees by 2020.

    Give it 7 years and we'll poo poo the alarmists again and hold you to account. But we know that you guys will push for a carbon tax and carbon trading scheme on a global scale by then because this is the best tool the governments can use and the average person doesn't question these governments who care so much for the people.... governments like the one in Qatar which recently hosted the UN climate summit... you know, Qatar which has the highest per capita emission of green house gases? The dictatorial shieks who care so much about their people are worried that the climate will harm them.

    The alarmists are also learning...they now come with 80 to 100 year predictions. Wow! They can't even get 5 to 10 to 20 year predictions right and they are so smart to figure out what the climate looks like 80 to 100 years from now. Any wonder why the alarmists look like a joke to the skeptics.

    oh, but we're the "science deniers" because we questioned those UN reports and held their alarmist numbers to account right? Unfortunately for us, we didn't fall for political ideology over emperically verifiable data which have proved time and again that alarmist predictions are just that - alarmist.
    Jan 21 10:39 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Sense And Nonsense About Climate Change. What Do Investors Need To Know? [View article]
    >>Being a skeptic is the most moronic stance anyone can take.

    And that is exactly why you are gullible.
    Jan 21 03:35 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • McDonald's Profit Margins Are Going Down [View article]
    plassiter, hundreds of millions of people around the world eat from fast food places. It's great that the only thing you can ban from fast food places is yourself.
    Dec 19 11:04 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Seductive Warren Buffett [View article]
    But all high earners and low earners are not treated the same. There are various deductions and options available in different categories for different income earners.

    I can't avail a deduction on a student loan because I don't have one. But my cousin does and he does avail it. No probs. But if my billionaire cousin is berating everyone for not paying higher taxes and takes advantage of student loan loop holes himself, I would call him a hypocrite for taking advantage of student deductions when he is a billionaire. Talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.
    Dec 4 06:01 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Apple (AAPL -2.5%) has dived over the last 30 minutes of trading on heavy volume, without any news to explain the move. The decline comes with the NASDAQ still up 0.5% on the day. [View news story]
    Apple - great company. The stock? aaah not so great.

    If it doesn't cross $500 by the end of the year, I'm trimming my position to offset capital gains. All my other dividend growth stocks have been performing super great so far and the icing on the cake is the great dividends which I can reinvest. AAPL? what a party pooper. I went off my investing criteria and put some money in a tech stock like AAPL and I was thoroughly punished for it. I enjoyed watching the stock go up from 500 to 700 and added to my position on it's way down to the 400s. Well, inspite of all the fundamentals, the sentiment on this stock sucks so what else can you expect. It's the "boring" stocks that have been sound, faithful and rewarding. AAPL is like an albatross around my portfolio's neck - won't reach break even so I can rebalance it. That's why I'm thinking that if this stock acts like how EMC or Cisco following the dotcom bust, I'm definately going to sell for a loss and offset my capital gains from this year.
    May 14 06:07 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 Stocks With Solid Upside To Buy On Weakness [View article]
    Has AAPL really bottomed? If earnings are bad....as in, does not meet sky high analyst predictions, then you may see the stock go a lot lower. We'll have to wait and see if AAPL will raise the dividend...then only will we know if they are investor friendly. I don't know what happened to their buyback program. I would suggest they do three investor friendly moves to prop up the stock till they have a new killer iProduct release - increase dividend, increase buyback and split the stock... but it seems they are not really concerned about shareholder interests.
    Apr 19 08:35 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
    That's why I left that stupid state - taxes for everything. The control freaks wanted to even limit how much soda you can drink in a cup. Are you kidding me? What is this? USSR?

    I moved to Texas. Not just me, but a lot of people I know from NY and PA have moved down in the last two years. They sold their houses and bought similar homes with lots of extra cash after. Fairly growing economy here inspite of the state of the rest of the country and plenty of jobs in the professions we were in (IT, healthcare) compared to NY. Salaries are even comparable. You can buy three homes with the money you spend in NY for a house. No state taxes. And if you lived in NY city, there was another additional tax for that. Whatever. Never moving back to the north east again.
    Apr 5 11:47 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
235 Comments
290 Likes