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
  • Tesla's 'D', A Disappointment And Huge Financial Risk [View article]
    Not accruing for returns is plain foolish.
    Oct 26, 2014. 03:15 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's 'D', A Disappointment And Huge Financial Risk [View article]
    About 10% of Tesla's were "leased" in the first 6 months of 2014. That is a material amount, even if you call it a small percentage.

    Tesla non-GAAP Net Income for the same time frame was was $33.16 million. $109 million in buyback guarantees was included in that non-GAAP Net Income as best as I can determine. So, a return rate of just 30% (30% OF $109 MILLION) would ESSENTIALLY wipe out all n0n-GAAP Net Income, if you don't count stock based compensation, and a return rate of just 5% (5% of $109 million) would make the non-GAAP Net Income materially distorted.

    Please use numbers to support your argument, not unsubstantiated statements.
    Oct 26, 2014. 03:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's 'D', A Disappointment And Huge Financial Risk [View article]
    From the article:
    " Another Revenue Stream

    Cars.com Manager of Advertiser Insights David Greene echoed similar sentiments to Feinseth, saying that Tesla has to do something with cars that come back from leasing and buyback guarantee programs.

    “A certified pre-owned program will boost profit margins for every vehicle resold, and pre-owned vehicles traditionally have higher margins than new sale,” he told Benzinga.

    In general, a CPO program both helps to support new car prices, and creates a second market for used models, AutoTrader Group Director of Automotive Relations Michelle Krebs told Benzinga.

    “In Tesla’s case, it has an extra benefit because they reap the profits of those vehicle sales because they don’t have dealers,” she said."

    What they don't mention is that used Teslas returned to Tesla for the buyback guarantee money have already been counted as "sold" under their non-GAAP numbers. Any returns like this makes that "revenue" a liability, and not revenue. If this happens, Tesla's current practice of not accruing for returns (accruing more expense) will look as it is, foolish and very aggressive accounting. They will need boosted profit margins for resold vehicles to make up for the inaccurate and probably material overstatement of revenue under non-GAAP. My question is: how do obsolescing, less advanced cars demand a higher profit margin?
    Oct 25, 2014. 08:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla's 'D', A Disappointment And Huge Financial Risk [View article]
    " Those who already owned the model s can now buy a better version, pay Tesla (and us stockholders) and sell the old one back to tesla and the certified pre-owned division will get started!!"

    If it is the case of large sales of used Teslas back to the company, then the non-GAAP numbers being put out each quarter are likely materially overstating revenue. Instead of non-GAAP revenue, that cash will be paid back to the lessee = a liability to be paid and not revenue.

    The resale price of these non-AWD Teslas will have to be lower due to obsolescence.

    It will be interesting to see how the resale value of these older, less advanced Teslas holds up under the new scenario of more advanced Teslas being produced.
    Oct 25, 2014. 08:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gulf Arab states face cutbacks on oil price drop [View news story]
    We are seeing $2.69/avg prices today in Wichita falls, TX. $70 oil would yield $2.40 per gallon, or there about.

    http://bit.ly/1wsllla
    Oct 25, 2014. 07:48 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fracking study blames poor well construction for tainted water [View news story]
    I did not say fracking causes the earthquakes. I said it appears that the disposal of the waste water associated with fracking is causing them, and causing significant damage. I have misinterpreted nothing. You said: "With respect to the fracking induced Earthquakes... come on, really! When I was in graduate school for Geology, we had a seismograph in the department, and every time the University bus drove by it went off. So yes, a bus also can cause an "Earthquake".

    You implied that I was saying that fracking itself induced the earthquakes. Wrong, I never said that or implied it. What I said was: "If you update your knowledge of what is happening today, versus prior to 2008, you will see that scientists are more and more of the opinion that the increase in quakes in states where fracking has increased significantly since 2008 is due in large part to the disposal of the huge amounts of waste water from the fracking."

    The article is about what is causing the contamination of ground water, true. I was trying to bring up the point that the disposal of waste water, associated with the huge increase in fracking in the last 6 years appears to be a bigger problem. The data is pointing to the huge increase in earthquakes as being caused by the disposal of waste water associated with fracking.

    Drilling for oil and gas and the use of electricity from these sources is not the problem, clearly. It is the disposal of the waste water associated with fracking that is. Your last comment is simply ridiculous. You don't appear concerned about the increase in quakes at all and this comment proves it: "Furthermore, this is a financial forum, not a place to vent your concerns about world order, the environment, your dog, hot dogs, corn dogs... whatever."

    My comments have to do with the financial costs to energy companies of having to change their way of disposing of the waste water and of respecting the rights of cities in regards to where the waste water may be disposed. Those are legitimate items to be discussed on a financial forum.

    I am not someone opposed to fracking or drilling for oil and gas, as long as it doesn't infringe on the legitimate rights of others by causing damage to their property.
    Oct 22, 2014. 02:50 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fracking study blames poor well construction for tainted water [View news story]
    Updated info on earthquakes created by the disposal of well waste water, "Really":

    http://bit.ly/1t39L1d
    Oct 19, 2014. 04:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Cramer's Lightning Round - Ensco Is One Of The Worst Stocks I've Owned In My Life (10/17/14) [View article]
    If the DCF formula is worth anything, LINE is counting as growth cap ex the roll over of puts and other expenses on "old" reserves. That is, if they have 1,000 acres they have owned or have had rights to that acreage production for, say 3 years (as an example), any hedging costs on it are counted as "growth cap ex", rather than maintenance cap ex. As a result those costs are excluded from their calc of what is available for partnership distributions, effectively overstating DCF. That is what concerns me about LINE's management accounting. They've also ditched the traditional way of calculating DCF. They no longer use the terms "Adjusted Ebitda" and "maintenance cap ex".
    Oct 19, 2014. 03:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Safer Alternative To Annaly Capital Management Common Stock [View article]
    Good point to consider for many, the Qualified tax status treatment of dividends. However it doesn't apply to me. My overall average tax rate is about 12.8%. 12.8%of 6.06% is .775%, making my total yield on CGF, with Qualified Tax Status, 6.835%. That's still 1 percent below what I earn with the Annaly preferred.

    However, your point is a good one for those in higher tax brackets.
    Oct 19, 2014. 12:45 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Safer Alternative To Annaly Capital Management Common Stock [View article]
    My actual yield is 7.8%.
    Oct 18, 2014. 09:31 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • A Safer Alternative To Annaly Capital Management Common Stock [View article]
    If Annaly eventually redeems the preferred the stock price won't deflate. Why issue new preferreds at materially larger yields if rates are not going to rise that much over the next few years, at least until 2017? Doesn't make sense. Anytime I can get a 7% yield on a relatively safe investment, I consider it a good deal.
    Oct 18, 2014. 09:28 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • A Safer Alternative To Annaly Capital Management Common Stock [View article]
    How is a 6.06% yield equivalent to my 7.625% yield on my NLY-C preferred?
    Oct 18, 2014. 08:04 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Energy exposed to deteriorating oil prices, analyst warns [View news story]
    I'd also read this article:

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    Oct 17, 2014. 07:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Energy exposed to deteriorating oil prices, analyst warns [View news story]
    You seem to take a negative view of my explaining to Stubsixby that GAAP earnings are not important to Linn because revenues for an accounting period are not matched with the expenses of the same period, which generated those revenues, thus making the GAAP results distorted and wrong. What I said mirrors your comments on GAAP, yet you take my comments as wrong. Doesn't make any sense. I have to conclude you misinterpreted what I said.

    As far as LINE having a coverage ratio above one is debatable. LINE counts all expenses paid for hedges as "growth cap ex" in its calc of DCF, yet expenses paid for hedges which are rolled over to cover existing reserves, not newly acquired reserves, are clearly maintenance cap ex, rather than growth cap ex. Those rolled over hedges are for maintaining cash flow on reserves and production that may be 3 or more years since they were acquired. I don't see how you can defend that as newly acquired reserves and growth cap ex by any measure. That's my beef. Yet LINE counts the rolled over hedges as growth cap ex. I say their calc of DCF is inflated as a result. Earnings won't cover that, rather it will have to be covered by debt, equity issues, or asset sales.
    Oct 17, 2014. 06:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Energy exposed to deteriorating oil prices, analyst warns [View news story]
    The reality is that a drop in oil prices may cause a GAAP revenue increase. However, because Linn does not "designate" their hedges as hedges for accounting purposes the loss in FMV of their reserves is not matched in the same period with the gains in their hedges. The result is volatility in their earnings and nonmatching of a period's revenues with the expenses that generated them. This causes the GAAP results to be materially distorted and "wrong".
    Oct 16, 2014. 09:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,999 Comments
3,910 Likes