Camelot Portfolios, LLC's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/470406/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/790711/comments?source=feed#comment-15518191 15518191 Tue, 26 Feb 2013 08:55:30 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/769081/comments?source=feed#comment-15197081 15197081 Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:53:38 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1003991/comments?source=feed#comment-11585261 11585261 Wed, 14 Nov 2012 08:52:06 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/933001/comments?source=feed#comment-10704851 10704851
Tax rates are lower than the average you cite, however the average is high due to some severe skewing (think WWII and for a decade or two post-WWI). When calling for higher rates, it is always important to note a couple things. First - Any government -Republican, Democrat, Whig, Tory, Labor, Communist- throughout history always wants more to spend. Second - The United States operated w/o an income tax for nearly half of our history. I am not saying that we abandon the income tax here, but for perspective reasons folks should know we had a 0% income tax rate for a long time.
Gov't spending is making up a larger percentage of the annual GDP as time goes by - proving we have a spending problem. In 10 yr increments starting in 1947 outlays as a % of GDP have been 16.3%, 18.1%, 19.8%, 22%, 21.4%, 19.2%, and now for the past five years 22.8%. So even in the days when we had these high tax rates you cite, the government did not spend as much as they do now. There is a point (I don't know the number) when such a phenomenon as gov't spending making up more of the GDP is counter productive.
Taxes could certainly be raised to offset some of that spending, but I fear history shows that when more money enters the gov't coffers, they just spend it.
Thanks for reading.]]> Fri, 19 Oct 2012 13:40:41 -0400
Tax rates are lower than the average you cite, however the average is high due to some severe skewing (think WWII and for a decade or two post-WWI). When calling for higher rates, it is always important to note a couple things. First - Any government -Republican, Democrat, Whig, Tory, Labor, Communist- throughout history always wants more to spend. Second - The United States operated w/o an income tax for nearly half of our history. I am not saying that we abandon the income tax here, but for perspective reasons folks should know we had a 0% income tax rate for a long time.
Gov't spending is making up a larger percentage of the annual GDP as time goes by - proving we have a spending problem. In 10 yr increments starting in 1947 outlays as a % of GDP have been 16.3%, 18.1%, 19.8%, 22%, 21.4%, 19.2%, and now for the past five years 22.8%. So even in the days when we had these high tax rates you cite, the government did not spend as much as they do now. There is a point (I don't know the number) when such a phenomenon as gov't spending making up more of the GDP is counter productive.
Taxes could certainly be raised to offset some of that spending, but I fear history shows that when more money enters the gov't coffers, they just spend it.
Thanks for reading.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/933001/comments?source=feed#comment-10698721 10698721
Agree that it is the incentive system that matters most. On the current course, however with the incentives taking a massively wrong turn, we'll be lucky to pull out of this.]]> Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:02:46 -0400
Agree that it is the incentive system that matters most. On the current course, however with the incentives taking a massively wrong turn, we'll be lucky to pull out of this.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/933001/comments?source=feed#comment-10677381 10677381 Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:57:20 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/933001/comments?source=feed#comment-10673911 10673911
Thanks for reading and caring. I'd be reticent to turn over more control to a bunch of fellas and gals who've proven they cannot be trusted with real money and power. It is for that reason I would be against socializing medicine. The negative impacts these programs have on incentives and liberty are a distant concern.

However, I have already said too much. My entire goal in writing the paper was to prove that we should debate only four things in this election cycle. Medicare, SS, defense, and our debt load (interest payments too). All else is worthless.]]> Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:28:48 -0400
Thanks for reading and caring. I'd be reticent to turn over more control to a bunch of fellas and gals who've proven they cannot be trusted with real money and power. It is for that reason I would be against socializing medicine. The negative impacts these programs have on incentives and liberty are a distant concern.

However, I have already said too much. My entire goal in writing the paper was to prove that we should debate only four things in this election cycle. Medicare, SS, defense, and our debt load (interest payments too). All else is worthless.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/933001/comments?source=feed#comment-10673571 10673571
I'd rather not address your Solyndra comments or the like because they are not immediately germaine to the three largest, fastest-growing spending culprits (medicare, SS, and interest). Commenting would get us both off in the woods like our politicians are wont to do.]]> Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:21:35 -0400
I'd rather not address your Solyndra comments or the like because they are not immediately germaine to the three largest, fastest-growing spending culprits (medicare, SS, and interest). Commenting would get us both off in the woods like our politicians are wont to do.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/933001/comments?source=feed#comment-10673081 10673081
Thanks for the comment. Yes. Since the math is so simple, it is a problem of political will, that is the fellas and gals who are sent to D.C. fail to govern and want only to give more entitlements (I include all here - corporate and personal welfare).

I guess I tried to make the point that the solutions are completely doable for rational people. Hopefully, once more voters appreciate that fact, they can get to the heart of the problem and elect responsible leaders.]]> Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:09:42 -0400
Thanks for the comment. Yes. Since the math is so simple, it is a problem of political will, that is the fellas and gals who are sent to D.C. fail to govern and want only to give more entitlements (I include all here - corporate and personal welfare).

I guess I tried to make the point that the solutions are completely doable for rational people. Hopefully, once more voters appreciate that fact, they can get to the heart of the problem and elect responsible leaders.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/918671/comments?source=feed#comment-10461131 10461131
Perfect. We are going to sell puts with laddered strikes.]]> Fri, 12 Oct 2012 10:24:39 -0400
Perfect. We are going to sell puts with laddered strikes.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/769081/comments?source=feed#comment-9664961 9664961 Thu, 20 Sep 2012 11:12:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/875921/comments?source=feed#comment-9631671 9631671
At this point I can't confirm ConvertClassic's assertion that CRM acquisitions are done exclusively to cover losses. I do know with certainty, however, that Howard Schilit has proven again and again in his books that serial acquirers have learned to glean all the inherent accounting benefits that come with buying other companies. I am sure CRM is no different in this regard.]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:25:50 -0400
At this point I can't confirm ConvertClassic's assertion that CRM acquisitions are done exclusively to cover losses. I do know with certainty, however, that Howard Schilit has proven again and again in his books that serial acquirers have learned to glean all the inherent accounting benefits that come with buying other companies. I am sure CRM is no different in this regard.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/875921/comments?source=feed#comment-9631471 9631471 Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:20:23 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/875921/comments?source=feed#comment-9631341 9631341
Also good question on my revenue assumptions. I actually wanted to show all my calculations easily on a webpage and so used some shorthand assumptions. It is clear that at some point revenue growth will fall - whether abruptly or gradually I do not know. I always encourage folks to change assumptions in their own spreadsheet and see what happens. One further assumption I made was that revenue grows at 10% forever. I think that is a pretty aggressive assumption (one I don't advocate) since I usually put a 3-5% growth rate on my terminal numbers.

Anyway, good comments! Ultimately, at these levels, mgmt must execute precisely . . . or else.]]> Wed, 19 Sep 2012 15:16:57 -0400
Also good question on my revenue assumptions. I actually wanted to show all my calculations easily on a webpage and so used some shorthand assumptions. It is clear that at some point revenue growth will fall - whether abruptly or gradually I do not know. I always encourage folks to change assumptions in their own spreadsheet and see what happens. One further assumption I made was that revenue grows at 10% forever. I think that is a pretty aggressive assumption (one I don't advocate) since I usually put a 3-5% growth rate on my terminal numbers.

Anyway, good comments! Ultimately, at these levels, mgmt must execute precisely . . . or else.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/865991/comments?source=feed#comment-9533571 9533571 Mon, 17 Sep 2012 08:56:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/833131/comments?source=feed#comment-8945171 8945171 Thu, 30 Aug 2012 12:29:48 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/833131/comments?source=feed#comment-8943101 8943101 Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:49:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/833131/comments?source=feed#comment-8942991 8942991 Thu, 30 Aug 2012 11:47:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/769081/comments?source=feed#comment-8244221 8244221
Sounds like you and your husband have been good stewards. We like the stock at these prices, but also acknowledge that if a company becomes too big a portion of your account, that it may lead to trouble for you and your heirs.

With capital gains rates set to change dramatically at year end, I would seriously consider checking in with a trusted advisor for advice. If you have none you would consider trusted, feel free to contact Camelot Portfolios in Maumee, Ohio and ask for me.

Thanks and best wishes.]]> Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:33:11 -0400
Sounds like you and your husband have been good stewards. We like the stock at these prices, but also acknowledge that if a company becomes too big a portion of your account, that it may lead to trouble for you and your heirs.

With capital gains rates set to change dramatically at year end, I would seriously consider checking in with a trusted advisor for advice. If you have none you would consider trusted, feel free to contact Camelot Portfolios in Maumee, Ohio and ask for me.

Thanks and best wishes.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/790711/comments?source=feed#comment-8243451 8243451
Depends on what your looking for. The company is liquid so going out of business is not really a concern right now. So if you want yield and a little safety. I think that could be had around 20 or below.

If you want to buy truly depressed stocks, I think this could see a yield grow to nearly 10% so I'd look for an entry around 17 based upon recent dividends.

Hope that helps.

Jason]]> Thu, 09 Aug 2012 10:21:30 -0400
Depends on what your looking for. The company is liquid so going out of business is not really a concern right now. So if you want yield and a little safety. I think that could be had around 20 or below.

If you want to buy truly depressed stocks, I think this could see a yield grow to nearly 10% so I'd look for an entry around 17 based upon recent dividends.

Hope that helps.

Jason]]>