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
  • Fracking study blames poor well construction for tainted water [View news story]
    "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"."

    Yes, really. I suggest you educate yourself before replying. It's not fracking, but the disposal of the waste water used in fracking. As, I said it's the increased use of fracking today and activities associated with it that is causing the problems. Educate yourself before shooting your mouth off, uninformed, and showing your ignorance on the subject.

    "Further, the federal agency reported that a statistical analysis indicates oilfield wastewater injected into deep geological formations is “a likely contributing factor” to the increased number of quakes."
    http://bit.ly/1tchc4u

    "New study links Oklahoma earthquakes to fracking"
    http://bit.ly/1oUq5t9

    The number of magnitude 3.0 or greater quakes in OK has increased at a very rapid pace since 2008, when fracking started to increase. As I said, the first earthquake I ever experienced in Texas occurred in 2012, when I was 62. The center was located close to Oklahoma City. I have doubts it was caused by normal seismic activity.

    "I work in the industry and have been upset by the general lack of knowledge about this subject."

    You don't sound like you know anything to me.
    Sep 17 03:59 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unthinkable, Unimaginable And Unspeakable: Why Wall Street Clings To The Herbalife Myth [View article]
    "America is just too corrupt to make it happen."

    As if China is better?
    Sep 17 03:37 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fracking study blames poor well construction for tainted water [View news story]
    You have one now, actually four, backed up by science.

    http://lat.ms/1mcOsrr

    I'm more concerned about earthquakes. First one I ever experienced happened in 2012 (located in northern Texas). I am 64 years old. It's the level or amount of fracking going on now, that started in 2008, IMO, causing the new problems.
    Sep 16 11:41 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Fracking study blames poor well construction for tainted water [View news story]
    When your rights begin to infringe upon mine (my right to breath clean air, drink unpolluted water, and have my property unharmed by earthquakes caused by disposed of well water from fracturing), then it is time to have more control on fracking.

    It's not the government calling for a ban on fracking in Denton County, Texas.
    Sep 16 10:43 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unthinkable, Unimaginable And Unspeakable: Why Wall Street Clings To The Herbalife Myth [View article]
    Here are a couple more: Arthri-D and the Body Wrap

    http://bit.ly/1liJrNZ

    http://bit.ly/1liJqtj

    http://bit.ly/1liJs4d

    The Market is filled with fake, fraudulent products, or products that may have some limited usefulness to a very small population. Most people buying such products are throwing their money away. They are getting robbed. How are these products any different than Herbalife? I bought some Amway products from a distributor on a consistent basis back in the late '70s. He did fairly well with Amway. I was pressured by this "friend" to join Amway. I did not. No one can pressure anyone unless they "allow" themselves to be pressured. Taking the Herbalife "bait" is the same as believing the crap advertised by these other products. How is Herbalife different than any of these other products? I say shut Herbalife down when you are ready to shut these other businesses down as well, but not until then.
    Sep 16 09:52 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Unthinkable, Unimaginable And Unspeakable: Why Wall Street Clings To The Herbalife Myth [View article]
    I am not a supporter of Herbalife, however, to say there are no real retail sales or sales staff seems dishonest to me. Health claims are another issue. Until the FTC shuts down businesses like the ones below, I don't support shutting down Herbalife. I don't agree with a lot of what the author has said, and I don't have a dog in this hunt.

    http://bit.ly/1piGbgp

    http://bit.ly/1piGhEM
    Sep 16 07:36 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    "We could also remove earnings from GHG Credits and ZEV Credits sale of 45 Millions in H1 2014, we arrive at ca. -10% Negative operative cashflow form H1 2014. Get your Elon Mush Hoods on."

    As I said GAAP cash flow from ops is a positive $57 million. You can try and spin whatever you wish, but it's not credible. Cash is cash.

    Mr. Musk has nothing to do with setting GAAP standards. And you apparently aren't up on them either.
    Sep 11 10:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    You shot yourself in the foot by the way you presented it.
    Sep 11 07:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    "In other words, it's priced to perfection and way beyond. "

    And I said that I agreed that the stock was highly over valued, IMO. But I could never call the company, and hence the stock, fool's gold.
    Sep 11 06:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    Not a fair characterization, no. I don't agree with Tesla recording ALL lease-sales as sales on their non-GAAP numbers. I would like to see them estimate returns under their non-GAAP numbers (I have always held this position).

    I don't agree with taking out stock-based compensation on their non-GAAP numbers, nor non-cash interest expense. Also their non-GAAP should include warranty accruals.

    I never agreed with their stating non-GAAP Net Income or Loss in the heading of their earnings releases and leaving out the GAAP number. I always felt Tesla was giving non-GAAP more emphasis than GAAP up until the SEC required them to stop giving non-GAAP more importance.

    There are a number of items that I disagree with Tesla on, but I view their non-GAAP numbers as being closer to economic reality than the current reported GAAP Net Loss. I don't think any of my positions have changed.
    Sep 11 06:18 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    You missed something, yes. What is it you are confused about, my posts on Tesla, which are both positive and negative? Not a bull or a bear is all I can say. I have been consistent in my positions.

    Not the words, "in effect", "practical and economic", etc. I agree with how GAAP is recording the transactions, but it looks to me like such recording is distorting the economic reality. This position I have held almost from the get go.
    Sep 11 06:02 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    "Tesla bulls dont seem to like GAAP much on other issues.

    It has positive cash flow because it (1) pays its employees with stock and (2) borrows cash from its customers, if you think its a sustainable scheme at 15x times higher scale, raise your hand. "

    It has positive cash flow (thanks for acknowledging that) because the GAAP standards have been met.

    Not a Tesla bull, but GAAP does currently distort actual economic (real) net income or loss, IMO. All residual guarantee cash received for lease sales is excluded currently from GAAP revenue. It's recorded as a liability on the balance sheet, currently. If you believe that Tesla will eventually have to pay that cash out, rather than record it as revenue, I will ask you what currently makes you think that. I don't believe that. I anticipate that most of that cash Tesla will keep and record as revenue when the leasee keeps the car at the end of the lease. In effect, those leases are actual sales with the revenue currently recognizable now, from a practical and economic perspective. That is why, although I agree with how GAAP is currently accounting for the residual guarantee, I say that I believe the GAAP Net Loss is a distortion of economic Net Income or Loss.

    The positive Cash Flow from Ops may be telling us the same thing.
    Sep 11 05:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    "So cashflow is actually negative by -80 Millions, you dont agree on above positions? "

    No, I do not. Cash flow from ops, per GAAP, is a positive $57 million for the first six month, period.

    When you become the authority on what to include in Cash Flow from Ops., rather than FASB, then I will agree.

    Stock based compensation is an accounting construct, btw, not a cash outlay. It belongs with accrual accounting, but has nothing to do with cash accounting.

    The cash deposits can be spent on current expenditures, I assume. No reason not to include it in Cash Flow from Ops. Again, you are referring to accrual accounting when you say it hasn't been earned, and I would agree. That has nothing to do with cash accounting. Cash accounting recognizes when cash is received or disbursed, not when it has been earned or when disbursed cash becomes an expense.
    Sep 11 04:46 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    Negative Free Cash Flow is not necessarily a bad thing as you are portraying it (anytime you have negative free cash flow it is a bad thing, says you). If the company is spending cash on ramping up operations for growth and expansion for future profit potential that can turn out to be a good thing, not bad.

    Again, the GAAP income statement and GAAP cash flow from ops are at odds. Which one is presenting a more accurate picture of current economic reality? The cash flow from ops.

    "However, a negative or falling free cash flow is not necessarily a sign of trouble provided it is temporary. A company may be gearing up for a product launch with high capital expenditures that will lead to future growth and free cash flow. It is important to look at the reasons for a company’s falling or rising cash flows."

    http://bit.ly/1nOGLDa

    Free Cash Flow includes expenditures whose benefits may not be realized until future accounting periods. To automatically assume that having a negative free cash flow is always bad, tells me you don't know what you are talking about.

    "so it actually lost money on operational basis"

    Not on a GAAP basis. That is totally bogus. You are trying to lump capital expenditures which provide benefits over many accounting periods, into one accounting period and say they lost money on a cash basis. Please refer to Cash Flow from Ops. That is your net income on a cash basis. You don't know what you are talking about.
    Sep 11 03:52 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Heavily-Promoted Shares Could Prove To Be Fool's Gold [View article]
    "Cash from ops does not equal FCF "

    My point is that you are using GAAP selectively, when it supports your short argument, but not when it doesn't.

    Cash from ops is a representation of Net Income for the period, on a cash basis. FCF includes capital expenditures, meaning expenditures which may be "expensed" over multiple accounting periods (Purchase of plant, property, and equip.). Cash from ops is a better barometer of how the company did on an income or loss basis for the accounting period, and is a check on the GAAP Net Income or Loss for the period. A GAAP Net Loss of $111,700,00 for the first six months of 2014 or a cash basis Net Income of $50 million plus per the Cash Flow Statement, which is it? I argue that the GAAP Cash Flow is more accurate because the GAAP Income Statement excludes all cash received for the guaranteed resale amount, currently listed as a liability on the balance sheet. Most of that cash will eventually be reported as revenue, IMO. Therefore, GAAP, in this instance, distorts actual earnings, IMO.

    "People react to headlines - 99% don't bother to read the GAAP / non-GAAP reconciliations at the end of a 10-page earnings release. BTW, when I said omitted I meant omitted from where they were supposed to appear in the PR according to the rules (not omitted from the entire PR). There are actual rules regarding these."

    That doesn't change the fact that what you said is factually not true. People don't know what you meant. All they have to go on is what you said, and what you said is factually wrong.

    ""I don't know you could term it a "reprimand""

    Then what is it if not a reprimand? A friendly request? A hopefully suggestion? Give me a break - bottom line was they weren't following the rules on non-GAAP disclosures and the SEC called them out on it. Period."

    I agree they were not following well defined rules and the SEC was "telling" them to start following the guidelines. I still don't know if you can call it a "reprimand".

    I agree Tesla's stock price is overvaluing the company. But I believe Tesla, the company, is the real deal, not a stock promotion with no substance. Fool's gold has no substance (value.) I think you have shot yourself in the foot by trying to paint Tesla in such black and white terms.
    Sep 11 01:46 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
2,622 Comments
3,344 Likes