Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View yaddayadda's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Learning From The Masters: Q&A Session With Buyandhold 2012 [View article]
    It seems to me that B&H would be wealthier if he had sold Avantek, though. ;)
    May 2, 2015. 07:58 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tekmira: Bad Idea Genes [View article]
    "Michael Sofia, chief scientific officer and co-Founder of OnCore, had also been at Gilead as SVP and senior advisor. This is interesting only given Gilead's history of regulatory troubles for allegedly selling contaminated and defective drugs"

    Timeline issues here. Michael Sofia was at Gilead in 2012. Gilead's alleged selling of contaminated and defective drugs took place "since 2001." The link notes that there has not been any resolution yet, but also notes that GlaxoSmithKline and Ranbaxy Laboratories have had to settle similar disputes, making it clear that while it's poor practice and seemingly wrong morally, this practice is not unique to Gilead.

    On the paragraph on the SEC sending requests for information/clarification from Tekmira:

    - Snarky comments like the SEC having sent TKMR a 'nice' letter are unnecessary and delegitimize the author in my view

    - The fact that TKMR took more than a month to reply does not sound awful to me. What if the SEC letter wanted clarification within the quarter? Or what are other smaller companies' response time frames like? Perhaps they have a shoestring budget and no internal lawyer to use? Or it wasn't prudent to respond quickly? The implication is that this is really suspicious behaviour, when it's potentially very innocent and normal. And this is the argument for most allegations/inferences made in the article: we are given no barometers for whether this is normal practice or not.

    - The fact that the SEC then sent a second letter doesn't add any to the suspicion for aforementioned reasons. Perhaps that's normal. And for the SA author to then say TKMR 'got around to replying' implies that it took a long time -- but then if you look at the dates, it took them only a week! That's not long at all, I'd imagine, and the shortened response time from the first letter to the second is perhaps indication that TKMR was taking it seriously.


    I also take issue w/ the author's repeated reference to Tekmira being fairly valued at about $7. He opportunistically took a January 3rd, 2014 52-wk low of $7.80 and inferred that this represented fair value for Tekmira pre-ebola hype. And then he proceeded to round down that $7.80 52-wk low to $7. What about the $28.43 peak reached in March, well before the ebola hype? Or the next trough, which hit $9.34 at its low? How is $7 representing this?


    I'm not on the Tekmira hype-train. I think the author is a good writer, and has done some potentially good research, but the research is hollow without barometers to determine whether any of the suspicious behaviour is, in fact, suspicious. Snarky remarks and inferences to suspicious behaviour does not lead to quality investigative, or illuminating, research.

    I think it would be interesting to break down these points of research, tie it into a valuation of the company, and discuss more prudent notes today, such as the high short interest in the company. The fact that a young biopharm has pivoted multiple times is not particularly unique either.
    Feb 3, 2015. 05:42 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How And Why I'm Averaging Into Energy Names On Sale [View article]
    I added RDS and CVX for similar reasons.

    Question, though: your FAST graphs show declining earnings for 2015 for CVX and BP. By those graphs, current price doesn't seem to be at that much of a discount at all. What am I missing here?
    Dec 22, 2014. 11:53 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My 10 Stocks And Big Trends For 2014 [View article]
    I enjoyed this article, and while I know you added a reasonable caveat to judging the top-10 list at the arbitrary date of calendar year-end, the picks haven't done all that well.

    However, one major consideration:

    All but 2 of the top 10 did very well in the 2 months following this article. In fact, after just a quick look, had one invested equally in all 10 companies, by end of Feb could have sold out at a good ~15%+ gain.
    Dec 14, 2014. 10:05 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • CNBC's Rick Santelli Is Right: Stock Buybacks Are Obfuscating Financial Results [View article]
    Just so you know, you've linked Blackberry's stock symbol when discussing Bed Bath & Beyond.
    Jul 27, 2014. 09:08 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Don't Let Tesla Bears' Cage-Rattling Knock You Off Course [View article]
    You need to edit carefully. There are too many mistakes for this article to be taken seriously -- at least for me.

    Further, while you claim Santos' piece was misinformed in its criticism of Tesla's numbers, you don't refute any of his evidence. It'd be nice if you did some research into disputing his numbers and account for them somehow. Otherwise, it amounts to a simplistic response: "you're wrong!"
    May 13, 2014. 10:36 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coach's Recent Quarter And The Falling Industry [View article]
    "The blame is to be put on the challenging European economic climate, shifting consumer behavior in emerging markets, and the new anti-corruption campaigns that ban lavish gifts."

    What new anti-corruption campaigns? And how does this impact Coach?
    Apr 17, 2014. 10:40 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Same Stuff, Different Year: Should Shareholders Stick With IBM? [View article]
    DoctoRx: IBM has multiple moving parts, right? And not every moving part is in a growth industry. Aren't the jobs being slashed in areas where IBM is shedding its underperforming parts?
    Apr 17, 2014. 09:18 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Veeva Systems: Digging Deeper Into The Madness [View article]
    what was the technical bounce?
    Jan 4, 2014. 10:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Nam Tai: A $7 Play On Apple And China With An Analyst Price Target Of $20 [View article]
    Great comments, Bernanke101.
    Jan 3, 2014. 04:56 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 4 Cheap Mining Stocks Trading At Fractions Of Classic S&P 500 Value Stocks [View article]
    Barrick seems to measure decently in your table. At these levels, it looks intriguing, and its all-in costs aren't bad, per your previous article on Barrick.
    Dec 21, 2013. 06:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Challenge-Do Not Overlook These Future Dividend Challenger Stars-Part 3 [View article]
    Thank you for an insightful and well-written article. One quick question: I'm a new FAST Graphs user, and on CSX, the graph you've shown here has an operating earnings growth rate of 18.8% and a normal P/E ratio of 15. My default look in FAST Graphs has operating earnings growth rate at 11.8% and normal P/E at 16.5. Just wondering why the discrepancy, and what am I not seeing here?

    Thank you again.
    Dec 2, 2013. 11:55 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coach's Ultimate Problem Is Its Brand [View article]
    One small point to make here: I entirely agree with the premise that Coach is sacrificing its brand image in favour of shorter-term sales, I don't believe that this is a new, or even relatively new, phenomenon. This 'feedback from females' in your respective lives is the precise feedback I had from my fiancee, among others, over 5-6 years ago. And yet Coach has still grown significantly over that time.

    I also question the premise that Coach is relegated to tier-three cities in China. I go to China regularly, and I see Coach in premium locations in wealthy neighbourhoods and malls. And on holidays, I see the Coach store packed -- far more than any other store there. That's a good and bad thing, of course: everyone's getting a Coach bag, dilutes the brand image. Flip side: that brand image has never been good among the wealthier classes. It's a middle of the road line and it has always been avoided by the wealthy. Its customer base is less concerned by having a premium image than it is by having a sturdy, good, pseudo fashionable bag that is a recognisable name -- even if that 'name' would be shunned by the rich, it's better than no name at all.

    I suspect Coach is, as jinchoice noted above, intentionally targeting a class that is not brand conscious, insofar as caring about exclusivity, but is wealthy enough to want a brand period (in other words, middle class). And while Kors is a new challenge, Kors is a slightly higher brand name with slightly higher prices, and it doesn't enjoy the same international recognition. I suspect Kors will be targeting upper-middle while Coach continues to target middle, younger, and emerging markets. Think of Coach as a teenage girl's first bag, for example, while Kors is the first bag one gets after landing a job after university.
    Oct 24, 2013. 07:12 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • The Strange Story At Nam Tai Will Go On [View article]
    1sd: considering that he himself is a shareholder, I suspect that self-interest still plays a role.
    Sep 11, 2013. 11:59 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • How Much Should Philip Morris Raise Its Dividend? [View article]
    Bill, I hope you didn't get frustrated by the discussion here. I found it very fruitful and appreciate your taking the time to respond to commentators as well.
    Jul 13, 2013. 04:03 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment