nooneimportant

A Leverage-Wary Partridge in a Pair Tree

you lost me at effective pair trading

Home Healthcare Industry: Systemic Breakdown

Daryl, can you please speed up your article production? I enjoy to the 3%-4% bump in stock price on AFAM with their release.

Home Healthcare Industry: Ghosts in the Demographic Machine

I may have a very similar user name which would be highly coincidental, but this was my first post so I do not know what you mean about GTIV. I do not follow nor have I ever purchased that company.

You should not make any apology for shorting a stock as it is a legitimate position to take. My comment relates to what I consider to be your passing comments that do not offer justification or logic. I am not saying they are not logical but you do not offer the logic behind them. It is easy to add flippant comments about anyone's position but they have no value. I still challenge you to provide the value behind the comments.

By the way, I NEVER rely on any government action to be the most logical or rational decision. There are far too many influences and factors at play. But I also NEVER count on government action to have completely irrational logic. I may not agree with the position but it will be a position that can be defended in public debate. That is simply how it works.

Finally, this and previous articles on this subject are for the perspective of long term VALUE investing. That is clear if you glance at the writer's profile. Making short term plays on one side or the other and trying to time the movements are not germane to the conversation for anyone following this philosophy. So, again, without backing up such comments with the logic that contradicts the long term perspective of this article, it is simply noise.

I hope I have made my point. I understand your objective as it is a common practice in the investment community. My intention was not to openly debate against your position, especially in a useless forum such as this. My intention was to invite you to articulate your position in deference to the objective of the article without the passing comment.

Home Healthcare Industry: Ghosts in the Demographic Machine

"Those shorts saw the budget cuts coming as soon as MedPAC made their recommendations. "

Wow, that is profound. I guess anyone holding this stock at that time assumed that the recommendations would mean a rise in margins over the timeframe.

"Long on any of these is a gamble until the future is more clear."

What do you offer as indications that the future would be more clear? To suggest that there will be no adjustment in reimbursements which would either improve or degrade this industry's prospects over any period of time would be pretty reckless. To me, it would make more sense to evaluate the possibility that it is not the government's intention to destroy this industry. On the contrary, I would expect that as health care reform materializes, removing cost from the system will become an enabler of expanding care to a greater portion of the population. Can you make any argument that in the long term, expensive care will win out over low cost viable alternatives? Surely you would agree that it will always be less expensive to provide care in a home setting over a hospital.


Generally, I am perplexed at your motivations in this and other venues (Motley Fool) where you see the need to skim articles and then make drive-by "short this stock" comments. I challenge you to contribute your own equally articulated article to make your case in more thorough context. Otherwise, this type of contribution does nothing for your point other than produce noise.