Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bryce_in_TX's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    "To robiniv, bryce, try getting that from any auto major on custom ordered cars. Also my question still stands, why are you guys holding Tesla to a far higher standard with their first volume car than established 100 year old companies? "

    Let me rephrase, I would want a fairly accurate estimate as to when the car would be delivered. If you can't provide me with that, I may choose to look elsewhere for a vehicle. I am not expecting an exact date, but some estimate of when it can be delivered. I don't see how that is unreasonable, and I would want that from any car manufacturer, not just Tesla.

    That's all I have to say. You don't like that, there is nothing I can do about it. If Tesla's info is out of date, then that portion of their website is useless.
    May 29, 2015. 08:15 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    I have to agree with robin on this one. Tesla sells their cars via the internet and if I order one today and make a deposit, I want a fairly accurate time frame of when I will receive it. I think the website would need daily updating for that info. Someone updating it every few weeks really makes no sense at all. I don't see how website development plays into this. An employee inputs the info, like a data entry clerk. They don't need to understand how to program etc.
    May 29, 2015. 01:43 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    Tesla buster eh? I don't buy a car for the infotainment. I'm an odd one, no doubt, but I prefer to navigate the old fashion way, with paper maps and my ability to read them. I buy a car for TRANSPORTATION, performance, style, mpg, and comfort. If it has an infotainment system, ok, but that is last on my list. I would argue that having this "stuff" in the car will increase wrecks by being a distraction. Tesla buster. Damn, people are desperate, it sounds like to me. Another reason for not buying a GM. Gimmicks.
    May 28, 2015. 03:29 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turns Out A Tesla Supercharger Costs 2 Or 3 Times What Elon Musk Said [View article]
    The FIRST EVER recommendation from CR came in the first article you cite. Since it was the first recommendation, they included input from 2012 and 2013 owners. That survey was based on some 600 plus owners. Then in 2014, the second recommendation came from a survey base of 1300 plus owners. Reliability is not declining and Tesla is not "right on the cusp of pushing CR over the edge". Your statements are BS.
    May 26, 2015. 09:46 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turns Out A Tesla Supercharger Costs 2 Or 3 Times What Elon Musk Said [View article]

    I believe CR bases each year's reliability scores based on their subscriber base of actual users, not averaging two years together. Without a link to what you are saying I just don't find it credible.
    May 25, 2015. 02:39 AM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turns Out A Tesla Supercharger Costs 2 Or 3 Times What Elon Musk Said [View article]
    Also note in the link that the reliability rating, based on actual user experience, was average for 2013, not below average, as you state. Your statements are not credible.
    May 23, 2015. 10:33 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Turns Out A Tesla Supercharger Costs 2 Or 3 Times What Elon Musk Said [View article]

    " CR got to average last year by taking the reliability experience in 2013, which was below average, and combining it with the reliability experience in 2014 which was above average. I don't have a cite for this, I'm sorry, but I heard this from someone who spoke to CR. "

    Without a source to back up your statement, I don't find it credible. The link from CR states their reliability scores are based upon input from actual owners, over 1300 for 2013.

    So, I don't buy any of what you are saying about Tesla Model S reliability without some source to back it up. As stated in the article, other luxury cars such as the Mercedes-Benz S Class and Cadillac XTS have far worse reliability. And that is based on actual user experience.
    May 23, 2015. 07:01 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Einhorn's Fracking Concerns Are Nothing New - Part 2: Opportunities For Profit [View article]
    "The experience of the presence of God is not recognized as possible, while still in bodily form. "

    The last part of Ephesians 3:19 amplified:
    "that you may be filled through all your being unto all the fullness of God; that is may have the richest measure of the divine Presence, and become a body wholly filled and flooded with God Himself!"

    You know not of what you speak. I am done. Arguing if futile.
    May 23, 2015. 05:33 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Einhorn's Fracking Concerns Are Nothing New - Part 2: Opportunities For Profit [View article]
    Someone who has never searched for God is going to tell me what I experienced and how it all works. I think you are deluded.

    It was about 23 to 25 years afterward that I found Ephesians 3:19 in the amplified version. I didn't know that verse existed as is described in the amplified version for that time frame after the event.

    God's Presence was with me for three days, very intensely. Along with that came knowledge from God of an event that would take place several months later. The salvation of a young college student who I had tried to talk to about Christ a couple of weeks before. He was cold as a fish to what I was saying, so God telling me he was going to be redeemed was a surprise to me. Summer passed and it was time to get a dorm room for the fall semester of college. As I was signing in, this person I had talked to and who God told me would be redeemed walked up to me and began talking to me and telling me he had been saved over the summer. He wanted to get into Bible study and fellowship, so we became friends. I knew he was going to be redeemed. That didn't come from me. There are more events that have happened, but I tell you only about this one, and I have scripture to back up what I am saying.

    Someone knows exactly what I experienced, knows all about it even though he has never experienced it or searched for God. And reindeer really do fly.

    The scriptures (Bible) have led me into a relationship with the living God. It is by faith, but there are times when God reveals Himself to a person along the way in tangible ways.

    Bryce out.
    May 23, 2015. 05:08 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Effectively Admits To Misleading Investors And Announces Key Accounting Changes [View article]
    "LINE is heavily, heavily leveraged, and such is the case with MLPs. But, if the price of oil ever so much as hiccups and declines for an extended period that leverage is going to back fire on them, IMO. I view a highly leveraged company as HIGH RISK/HIGH REWARD. "

    Jan. 10, 2013.

    I'll stick with equity REITs and more traditional corporations.
    May 22, 2015. 01:30 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Effectively Admits To Misleading Investors And Announces Key Accounting Changes [View article]
    I forgot to put in the link to the last post of mine in the post above, sorry.
    May 22, 2015. 12:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Linn Effectively Admits To Misleading Investors And Announces Key Accounting Changes [View article]
    "Look at the numbers. Go to the SEC reports, 2006 through 2012. (You can forget 2013 and after because LINE doesn't provide sufficient information to calculate this anymore. Wonder why.)

    For each year, take GAAP Net Income, add to it unrealized losses on derivatives and all impairments. Subtract unrealized gains on derivatives. Once you've done that, you should get a number around $1.3 billion.

    Now, when you added back unrealized losses, you also added back the cost of the derivatives because these costs are net against the asset account. The resulting net unrealized loss, which was added back to Net Income, also has the costs of the put in that amount as well. So, you have to deduct this cost from GAAP Net Income. Likewise, when you subtracted unrealized gains, the cost of the option was netted against the gain, meaning the entire unrealized gain wasn't deducted from Net Income. So, you have to deduct the cost of the option from Net Income.

    I estimate about half of the options have expired at the end of 2012, meaning $700 million. Take the Adjusted Net Income of $1.315 billion and subtract $700 million. That yields $615 million in Net Income.

    The next thing you have to adjust for is depletion, depreciation, and amortization. How? You don't really have to. Just use common sense.

    Total DD&A taken on a GAAP basis, 2006 through 2012 was $1.7 billion (rounded). Total distributions made for the same time frame was $2.2 billion (rounded).

    Adjusted GAAP Net Income is $615 million. The difference between $615 million and total distributions of $2.2 billion is $1.585 billion. So, you'd have to back out $1.585 of $1.7 billion of DD&A to get Net Income to equal $2.2 billion, the amount of distributions paid out. Make sense?

    That leaves $115 million in DD&A for 6 years, totally unreasonable. And this accounts for ALL costs, every financial transaction, unlike calculating DCF. That tells you LINE is paying out a lot more in distributions than what they earn. The only way they can make up for this is if undepleted reserves have appreciated sufficiently to cover the deficit between actual economic earnings and distributions. If that doesn't make you shudder, I don't know what will. LINE is borrowing and issuing equity to make up the difference.

    Now, you imply I make up numbers. Go through the 10-Ks and calculate it for yourself. I've shown you and everyone else how to do it, with the exception of calculating expired puts. All the info is in the 10-Ks."

    " 'But, so what?'

    Paying out $2.2 Billion of cash flow to unitholders, which represents the cost of assets purchased, instead of retaining it for operations, paying off the debt borrowed to acquire the assets, causes the model to have to borrow more and more and issue more and more equity. It becomes a shuffle game, shuffling funds here and there, where ever needed to keep the company running. You like the model, great. I don't. How long can they keep it going? They have to acquire more and bigger acquisitions to keep it going, incurring more and more debt and/or diluting equity.

    'The bottomline seems to be that we are observing a timing issue and that it will only affect valuation metrics on a time value of money basis, thus properly reflected in Linn's numbers since they account for the costs of both borrowings and equity issuance, respectively, as interest or distributions.'

    You left out a small item: the cost of the assets. :)

    'I disagree adamantly with those who suggest than Linn requires new investors to fund current distributions or even to grow them a tad more, based on organic opportunities.'

    That's your choice. I predict LINE will be issuing more units, a lot more, prior to the end of 2013 because the cash flow isn't there to fund everything, including distributions, based solely on organic opportunities. I don't agree with your thesis

    'Now, any small shorts, who blindly followed Hedgeye et all are about to get squeezed. All sad and unnecessary, wouldn't you say?'

    I don't know how the SEC inquiry will turn out. It may go well for LINE or it may not. I have little faith left in the justice system after Enron, and other financial debacles, plus my own personal legal experience. It could go either way, pick a straw, long wins, short loses. :) "

    I haven't done an analysis of free cash flow (operating cash low minus capital expenditures) for LINE, but I would anticipate that the cumulative total would be very negative. I don't think that metric changes no matter what the capital structure of a company. Also, looking at the cash flow statement, I would assume that most years LINE borrowed more than the debt they paid off, a lot more. That by itself, IMO, has put them in a deep hole they find themselves in now.

    If always borrowing to acquire more assets is the standard mode of operation for MLPs, then I just don't care for the MLP model. Any company, no matter what the capital structure, has to generate sufficient earnings to pay for its debt, and any company has got to pay a sufficient amount of that debt off to keep it in good financial condition. I think the collapse in energy prices caught most of us with our pants down, including LINE. But LINE's management was ill prepared for it because it didn't pay down the debt over the years when it could have done so. Instead it chose to use those funds to pay out more distributions. So, I think, going forward, you can look to see if they are paying down debt to see if they are acting responsibly. (Check the cash flow statement quarterly to see if debt repayments exceed borrowings.) Doing so will require more earnings generation, more unit issuance (dilution), less distributions being paid out, or a combination of these.

    I don't think LINE earns enough to pay down its current debt load and maintain its current distribution. I think that is evident by the new equity issuance to pay off a very small amount of its debt load. If it cut the distribution altogether in order to try and use available funds to pay off its crushing debt load, its unit price would suffer tremendously. So, about its only option is to issue equity to accomplish this goal. I'm not sure I see this company surviving. If energy prices stay at this level, its assets may be worth less than its debt. I don't see another company coming in to acquire them, unless that company sees long term energy prices substantially higher, in which case LINE's assets may appear undervalued at current energy prices.

    But, I've always maintained that the company didn't earn enough to pay its distributions and complained about its debt load. If energy prices stay about where they are at to the end of the year, expect huge write downs in the value of LINE's assets. I see no basis, based on their prior business decisions, to trust the management. This company is a HUGE risk, IMO.

    No investment in LINE or LNCO.
    May 21, 2015. 11:07 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]
    SA's "new comments" software is messed up on my laptop. Anybody else have this problem? It is counting already reviewed posts as new. Sometimes it is counting new posts in the 100s, yikes. FUBAR
    May 20, 2015. 08:56 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tesla Vs. Porsche - Tales Of Growth [View article]

    "If you make these adjustments, ie. lets use non gaap, but then capitalize half of R and D, add back amortization of that R and D, and then take the charge for stock based compensation, would Tesla have been profitable in 2014? Would it be profitable in 2015? "

    I don't like non-GAAP leaving out stock based compensation. I am talking about adjusting GAAP for 2013. There would be a little amortization of prior years R&D in 2013, but the leasing revenues would still put them in the black, IMO. I don't care to use Tesla's non-GAAP numbers. Just adjust the GAAP numbers.

    I said nothing about 2014 or 2015, just 2013. The comment was that Tesla still hadn't made money, referring to annual net income or loss. I think they showed profitability in 2013.
    May 20, 2015. 08:22 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Hedge Bomb - Why Hedging Will Not Save Shale Oil [View article]
    I think what Warren Buffett said about earnings bears repeating here:


    Bear in mind--this is a critical fact often ignored--that investors as a whole cannot get anything out of their businesses except what the businesses earn. Sure, you and I can sell each other stocks at higher and higher prices. Let’s say the FORTUNE 500 was just one business and that the people in this room each owned a piece of it. In that case, we could sit here and sell each other pieces at ever-ascending prices. You personally might outsmart the next fellow by buying low and selling high. But no money would leave the game when that happened: You’d simply take out what he put in. Meanwhile, the experience of the group wouldn’t have been affected a whit, because its fate would still be tied to profits. The absolute most that the owners of a business, in aggregate, can get out of it in the end--between now and Judgment Day--is what that business earns over time."

    Earnings are better determined, IMO, by adjusting GAAP for distortions, rather than using the DCF formula. It certainly appears to me that in the case of LINE that the DCF formula failed them. Or maybe they just thought energy prices would go up forever and so spent every dime now, instead of putting some back. In any case, a conservative calculation of earnings, under adjusted GAAP, would have served them better than the DCF formula, IMO.
    May 20, 2015. 07:08 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment