newbietech

U.S. Debt Hysteria Is Getting Ridiculous

You need to get your facts straight.
It was Reagan administration officials who first asserted that deficits do not matter. You are right in that it was deliberate deceit to assert such drivel.
You were however, suspiciously absent when W. Bush was cutting taxes and increasing deficits at the same time.
Why, I wonder.

On Nov 20 04:23 PM Jeff Nielson wrote:

> Not only is this just more Keynesian tripe ("deficits don't matter"),
> but the author has the audacity to accuse someone ELSE of "empty
> rhetoric" - in his own piece of intellectual "fluff", with nary a
> fact to be seen.
>
> Deficits DO matter. The $60 trillion in total public/private is already
> enough to drown this economy. Not a penny remains for the OTHER $70
> trillion (or so) in "unfunded liabilities" which are NOW starting
> to come due with the retirement of the "baby-boomers".
>
> It was economic heresy, and simply poor arithmetic for U.S. "economists"
> to argue that "deficits don't matter" 30 years ago. For people like
> you (and DeLong) to CONTINUE to spout such drivel is either a case
> of hopeless self-delusion or deliberate deceit.

Why Warren Buffett Loves Wells Fargo

ad quad intellectus?


On Nov 15 10:38 PM Amit Shah wrote:

> Stop posting the same statements again.

Why Warren Buffett Loves Wells Fargo

The Gates foundation has to keep selling Berkshire shares.
There are limits to how much of a company they can own.
This selling is more for purpose of complying with regulations than it is for reallocating assets though it would make sense from that angle also considering the amount of shares are with the Foundation currently.


On Nov 15 09:16 PM Karldean wrote:

> Article was well written and insightful, but I am biased, I love
> Warren! I don't think spit of Gates, he sold 600 shares of Berkshire
> the day Buffet bought the railroad, seems to me a vote of no confidence
> on his part, sold stock Warren gave him. I never sell a gift, it
> just ain't done where I come from. Think I will buy some Wells stuff
> just because I like stagecoaches and maybe some train stuff, besides
> I already own an antique red and green Santa Fe signal light, original
> bulbs and it still works, that ought to tell ya something.

What if U.S. Social Fabric Tears?

More tax cuts!

Cel-Sci: Why I'm Buying if the Price Dips

My previous post actually got posted before I finished it. I seem to be having browser issues.
I usually find SA posts from VFC's Stock House to be informative. I also appreciate his interest in bringing a large number of biotech stocks to our attention.
But I found it curious that he does not make it a habit of questioning official Press Releases that are released by a company.
What is this, the Bambi school of investing?
Investing in Biotech is hazardous not only because of the small cap nature of the stocks but because the volatility is heightened by every small news item out there. Sometimes volatility is heightened on non-news also. Stocks can boom but also bust in no time at all. People should get their reasons for investing in Biotech straight before they put money in these stocks. And fix beforehand how much you can stand lose. This might all sound basic but the basics must be followed twice over when looking at such speculative investments like small cap biotech. An interesting mind exercise might be find a busted biotech stock for every stock that we have seen booming in recent times. Do this and see if that re-calibrates your appetite for small cap biotech.
So, to summarize I find it really useful to read both VFC's Stockhouse. I also like reading Adam F. It is educational to read both of them.
I assign ulterior motives to neither of them. There is no reason to.

Cel-Sci: Why I'm Buying if the Price Dips

You may not realize it but your question has been answered in advance by the author.

"I don't make it a habit of questioning official Press Releases that are released by a company"
and
"Nuff said on that."

On Oct 19 06:14 PM User 429882 wrote:

> What are your thoughts on today's article by our good friend Adam
> F. in The Street .com? If he's providing facts (i.e., past SEC history
> and company's gift of restricted stock to tout stock), I'm not sure
> how we can dispute what he's saying or make a legitimate counterargument.
> I like this company and what it brings to the table; I think LEAPs
> and the clinical trials (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) provide
> very exciting (and life saving) opportunities. I just don't like
> the fact that the company provided restricted stock as part of consideration
> for touting the stock (if in fact this allegation is true). Thoughts?
> Thanks and keep up the good work.

Regarding Osinski, Toxic Assets, and Felix Salmon

"So how can you consider joining Michael Osinski and invest in toxic assets?"
It is quite disingenous of you to say you are not offering investment advice.

Somewhere in your piece you write, "The best options for small investors are via the closed-end fund market and exchange-traded funds (ETFs)". So even though you deny it here I will take this to mean you are addressing 'most investors' since small investors are much larger in number than institutional and professional investors.

There is no point to writing your piece if it is not to point out how small investors can invest in something approaching the kind of investments that Osinski was talking about.

Felix's post is quite clear in saying that small investors should not even try. This is much more categorical than what you were saying and it's good advice.

Provenge and the actual patient

Do you think that you might want to give him OGX-011 from OncoGenex Pharmaceuticals (OGXI) instead?

Retail ETFs: Are September Numbers Foreshadowing the Holidays?

Thus far the evidence is that people will scrape savings during the year to buy their kids and significant others some gifts during Holidays.
It happened last year and expect the same to happen this year.
So if the expected bounce does not arrive then something is definitely wrong.

8 Capital Gains Considerations for ETF Investing

If an ETF has both Capital gains and dividends from underlying security, how is it decided what portions of the Capital gains and dividends go towards paying for expenses of running the ETF?

Cochrane Lambasts Krugman's View of Macroeconomics

Cochrane doth protest too much!
A simple point by point refutation of issues raised and concluded in Keynes favor by Krugman would have been better.
Cochrane seems to take offence at personal attacks from Krugman and yet to read his response was an exercise in prising out the balanced dialogue from the rants against Krugman.
I helps a lay person like me very little if one side is going to accuse the other of some behaviour and then itself engage in it.
How do I know where calumny ends and intellectualism begins unless the author makes a concerted attempt to stay with intellectualism? Cochrane's response was far too angry.

U.S. Banks Face Chinese Resistance over Derivative Losses

I'm waiting for howls of protests about how violating contract law will reduce investment in China.
You know, from those same people that howled about GM Bond holders being forced to compromise threatened investments in US.
.
.
.
Any minute now.

Has the time come to wind down Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE)?

Do you want Great Depression 2?

Mezzanine Seating with Apollo Investment Corp.

"Zacks now expects 2009 – 2010 earnings of $1.38 and $1.40 respectively."

So, if they payout dividends at the rate of $0.28, they will be paying out approximately 81 percent of earnings. While it is nice that they recently increased the dividend, given the high payout ratio, can we view the dividend as secure? I'm asking because equity holders usually dump the stock on any dividend cuts. Is there anything special in the way that AINV corporate structure that supports such a high payout ratio? Is it that they are a regulated investment company? How does this payout ratio compare to other regulated investment companies?
I don't know one way or the other, I'm just asking.

Roubini, Oil and a Double Dipstick

Wonder if corporations in the future will start treating oil prices like airline companies do today. Will there be industrial companies that eke out competitive advantage through better hedging? This hedging could simply take the form of supply chains that are formed over smaller distances to reduce the expense from transportation.