Seeking Alpha

Bryce_in_TX

Bryce_in_TX
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    I should have said, "Unless you want to argue that 2 (cash settlement) - 1 (cost of asset) = 2, as LINE is arguing.
    Mar 15 05:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    "If the IRS did not let them roll the cost into the asset purchase, then they would have to do it the way you want it. "

    The IRS doesn't allow them to, no one does. This is non-GAAP only. No institution, IRS or FASB, allows them to do this. The SEC requires equal or greater weight to be given to GAAP.
    Mar 15 05:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    "The original oil is Not maintenance if it came with the vehicle."

    You are speaking of tangible, physical property, necessary for the proper functioning of the vehicle, not of investment assets. A put option is an investment asset, and they are not necessary in order to acquire oil and gas reserves. Puts are not part and parcel of oil and gas reserves, they are risk insurance investment vehicles, separate and distinct from the reserves.

    Your analogy makes no sense to me. The oil, antifreeze, bullets, whatever, all have a cost to the manufacturer and are included as part of the sales price to a wholesaler or retailer of such goods. That means that all costs of manufacture are passed on. The oil, antifreeze, bullets, etc. do not come free. They are included in the total sales price of a car or a gun. So, when the good is sold, the net cash profit is the sales price (cash settlement) less the cost of the good sold. You HAVE TO recover your cost before you can claim any profit or cash in excess of your cost. LINE has to recover the cost of the options before they can claim any profit (cash in excess of cost) on the cash settlement. It's simple math. Unless you want to argue that 2 + 2 = 6.
    Mar 15 05:20 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer Dumps Linn, Should You? [View article]
    "@Bryce - I will have to check something on the balance sheet or the notes, but they Can disconnect the cost of the put from the exercise of the Put. They can record the entire amount from the put as revenue, ie as a sale. With No deduction from the cost of the put. The cost of the Put is somewhere else, ie in the price paid for the asset."

    Revenue is the proceeds received on a sale. But, there is also the cost or expense of the sale. Revenue minus expense equals the net income or net profit received from the sale. In my example of Company B share options exercised at $33 per share, then sold at $40 per share, the net cash settlement or revenue of the sale was $2,800 calculated as: ($40 X 400 shares = $16,000) less ($33 X 400 shares = $13,200) = $2,800.

    So, $2,800 is the cash settlement and revenue of the transaction. However, $360 is the cost of the option, what you paid to acquire the option. Net Income or net profit of the transaction is $2,440 = $2,800 less $360. From a cash perspective, you have $2,440 more in cash after the transaction, not $2,800.

    LINE's calculation of DCF counts the cash settlements or revenues of the put transactions (the $2,800 from my example), but it does not include or deduct the cost of the options acquired (the $360 from my example). The net result is that they are overstating cash available for distribution. It is simple math.

    For taxes, it is the same. The cost of the put becomes your "basis" in the asset:

    "If you sell the put or the call before you exercise it, the difference between its cost and the amount you receive for it is either a long-term or short-term capital gain or loss, depending on how long you held it.

    If the option expires, its cost is either a long-term or short-term capital loss, depending on your holding period, which ends on the expiration date.

    If you exercise a call, add its cost to the basis of the stock you bought. If you exercise a put, reduce your amount realized on the sale of the underlying stock by the cost of the put when figuring your gain or loss. Any gain or loss on the sale of the underlying stock is long term or short term depending on your holding period for the underlying stock." (See page 60, the put and call chart)

    http://1.usa.gov/Y1Wqqc

    In my example, the put is exercised. The tax code is clear: you reduce the cash settlement (amount realized on the sale) by the cost of the put, as I have explained.

    For tax, GAAP, or cash accounting purposes, the end result is the same - cash available for distribution is $2,440, not the cash settlement of $2,800. LINE is overstating its DCF.

    There is no provision in the tax code for combining put options with physical property purchased, to count it all as one unit. A put option is an asset, an investment vehicle, not PP&E.

    http://bit.ly/1cKtM5m

    http://bit.ly/1cKtKum
    Mar 15 04:55 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    I second that.
    Mar 15 02:36 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    "The author's bio seems very impressive except for the fact that he is also a part of the generally corrupt financial industry that he so correctly decries."

    I also belong to that community, as an accountant. This is like calling all German people Nazis. It is offensive and inappropriate. I can't speak for Mr. Pearson, but I can speak for myself and many other people who are accountants or in finance. This is plain, ugly bias, without any justification whatsoever. Some wrongs committed by people in the financial industry have angered you and distorted your thinking to the point you automatically think all are guilty. It is you who's thinking is distorted and needs adjustment.

    The "generally corrupt financial industry" is made up of individuals, all of whom have varying backgrounds and levels of integrity, just like any other industry.
    Mar 14 05:16 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Not unsure at all. I sold my GALE shares yesterday. GALE needs to jettison the officers and directors and bring in fresh management who have integrity, for the sake of the patients and doctors conducting the trials, and the sake of other cancer patients who may eventually benefit from the drugs in trial.

    My post stands on its own.
    Mar 14 05:07 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    If you are going to throw names around at least have the courtesy to have a profile and a pic.
    Mar 14 04:11 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Keith,

    Ahn said that they had a 9 month window where they couldn't sell stock due to the Mills acquisition in process. That culminated on Jan. 13th. Mills was acquired then. Risi and Kriegsman made their first sales on Jan. 17th, then Ahn 10 days later, and other sales after that. I don't see them holding, but selling soon after Mills was acquired.
    Mar 14 12:24 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    I don't agree with you, Alex, in regards to tampering with the trial results or the accounting. You have physicians who would have to be in collusion in tampering with trial results. Not just the physicians leading the trial, but the patients' physicians as well. On the accounting end, you have CPAs, people who have their livelihood invested in that profession. You don't sacrifice or risk your certification and livelihood for sleaze like this or anyone.
    Mar 14 12:10 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Yes, but if you look at what GALE stock did from Aug 1 through Nov. 6, it was up 1.63% more than the Nasdaq Index for that time frame. Not significant.

    July 30 and 31 looks like they could have made some impact, not sure.

    But then, after Nov. 6, it's mostly news releases about legitimate positive GALE catalysts such as the 3rd qtr Abstral sales viewed in a favorable light, the Folate Binding Protein Vaccine Phase I Trial positive results, institutions buying into GALE. Then in January, 2014 you've got the Mills Pharma acquisition, a NY Times Jan. 7 article, the Dr. Reddy's contract, and a Barron's article on the 16th. All of these are catalysts by GALE, not DTG.

    I think the DTG is trying to claim more credit than they deserve, unless there is still more marketing I am not aware of.
    Mar 14 12:02 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Anonymous user 343201, no profile, and only 14 comments. Looks very suspicious to me.
    Mar 14 11:56 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    One thing that does bother me about Mr. Pearson is that he has not made any replies to the comments. That in my eyes reduces his credibility. He's not willing to address anything about his article, including an explanation for his Jan. 27, 2014 positive "Street.com" article on GALE. That gives him and the article the appearance of a "hit and run" and being more "anonymous" and "aloof" and not as trustworthy.

    I think authors have a responsibility to enter into some exchange with their readers. There are legitimate questions presented in the comments that need amplification and or clarification. (What's with seeking alpha cutting short words when I put a slash between them like amplification/clarific... That is frustrating as all get out. )
    Mar 14 11:39 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    Alex,

    What I am saying is that the pumpers were not only associated with DTG and its affiliates, but also with the Wall Street CheatSheet and most importantly, the Motley Fool, and Forbes. Those last two brands shock me. So, that makes me wonder if there is more pumping associated with what I thought were reputable companies. The pumping now appears more widespread than it did when I did my research, and it appears to have had more of an effect than what I thought.

    If there had been a disclaimer on these articles, a third, at least, of which my research articles are composed of, those articles would have been discounted.

    It simply appears now that DTG marketing was more widespread than what it appeared.
    Mar 14 11:28 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Behind The Scenes With Dream Team, CytRx And Galena [View article]
    tommy1954,

    A disclaimer on what? Where?
    Mar 14 11:19 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,571 Comments
3,277 Likes