Seeking Alpha

cpa28761

cpa28761
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View cpa28761's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Why Tesla's Competition Does Not Have A Lead Over Tesla [View article]
    Apples and oranges. The subsidies you mention are to incentivize the production of a product for which there is a demand in a particular location. They are not to produce an illusion that a product that is not economically viable no matter where it might be produced is viable.
    Jun 14, 2015. 12:36 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Competition Does Not Have A Lead Over Tesla [View article]
    Wulfer, have you ever considered that even if electric vehicles replaced all gasoline and diesel vehicles, the power grid is insufficient to charge all the batteries?
    Jun 14, 2015. 12:26 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Tesla's Competition Does Not Have A Lead Over Tesla [View article]
    Toyota, Honda, Nissan, Hyundai/Kia, Subaru, VW, etc. did not require government subsidies. GM and Chrysler needed bailouts so they could continue to support the UAW, which, in turn, supported and continues to support the Democratic party. GM and Chrysler needed bailouts, not because they produced gasoline-powered vehicles. They needed bailouts because they produced gasoline-powered vehicles of a design that consumers did not want.
    Jun 14, 2015. 08:26 AM | 14 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Investing In France: Yes, You Can [View article]
    >>>...that doesn't mean all French stocks are bad, far from it, especially those that don't rely on growth in France (most of the CAC 40).<<<

    Absolutely correct. Practically all major corporations are trans-national. SNY is incorporated in France like PFE is incorporated in the USA. Both are global in the operations.

    Long: PFE, SNY
    Jun 13, 2015. 01:55 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My 30 Stocks For 30 Years: Q2 2015 Buys [View article]
    Opera1, you should really look into what is in those CEF's. They do not yield ON INCOME anywhere near what they pay out. HQH is distributing capital gains on biotechnology companies. Those companies have done well, but you're betting that those gains are sustainable over the long-term.

    GDV holds some solid companies. However, even with the leverage they use, they cannot be paying out over 11% (on market) without taking a chunk of it out of principal. I strongly suspect that is why the fund trades at an 11% discount to its NAV.

    Ditto for GRX, which trades at a 12% discount to NAV.

    If in this market an investment is yielding 7.8%, there is more to it than what meets the eye at first sight.
    Jun 13, 2015. 01:46 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • My 30 Stocks For 30 Years: Q2 2015 Buys [View article]
    Freddy:

    The issue that never seems to get addressed by those who would never sell is the life-style they choose to lead in retirement. I may be all well and fine for someone to admire his 9% yields on cost while his current yield is less than 2%. However, if he or she has a multi-million dollar portfolio, at current values, but must limit vacations to bus trips with stops at budget motels because he or she would never sell a stock, I don't know what to say.
    Jun 13, 2015. 01:31 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 2 Tips For Better Dividend Stock Selection [View article]
    bjdrn98, have you ever run a spreadsheet comparing high yield/low dividend growth investments with lower yielding/high dividend growth investments? I have done this several times during my involvement with Seeking Alpha.

    If "the rate of dividend growth (is) a central factor" in your selection, you'll be correct in the long run over selecting current yield. The only issue is that it may take decades for cumulative dividends on the DG investment to surpass cumulative dividends on the higher yielding investment.
    Jun 13, 2015. 08:58 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Chicago's Downgrade: What Investors Need To Know [View article]
    It may depend on politics. Had the banks not been made liquid, commerce would have ground to a halt as it did in the 1930's. If NYC had been allowed to sink in the 1970's as a consequence of its organized corruption, there would have been a far less onerous and far-reaching impact.
    Jun 12, 2015. 11:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Ways Wal-Mart Can Become Relevant Again [View article]
    curious, I shop both. I cannot see, even with automation, how AMZN can compete or even be a viable competitor in the products typically sold in grocery stores. Picking, packing, and shipping non-uniform orders with an unpredictable mix of high density and high volume items in an order has to be expensive. Then there is the cost of freight. Fresh items (meat, dairy, and produce) and frozen items (ice cream and vegetables) cannot be shipped to be table ready the same day or even fresh when delivered.

    More specifically, WMT operates with EDLP. Also, AMZN's cap ex is not that great and does not affect cash flow, let alone its profitability. I say that because cap ex does not enter into P&L. Furthermore, their cap ex of $4.9 million in 2014 is nominally more than their depreciation.
    Jun 11, 2015. 10:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Ways Wal-Mart Can Become Relevant Again [View article]
    Peace, your concept is as valid as the theory of a politician who wanted to outlaw self-service elevators as they damage the economy by eliminating jobs.

    Because Walmart is a highly cost-effective logistics company, they can bring product to market at the lowest possible price. Therefore, people at the lower end of the economic spectrum can afford things they otherwise could not afford.
    Jun 11, 2015. 03:41 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 3 Ways Wal-Mart Can Become Relevant Again [View article]
    People shop at Walmart for their low prices. The Walmart customer does not expect an upscale retail experience. He or she does not pay for it either.
    Jun 11, 2015. 08:24 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • General Motors: Just Say No To Italian Nightmares [View article]
    >>>@ CPA How do you know a UAW person put the label on the box,and who would believe what a Dodge service manager said?<<<

    Because all production facilities were controlled by the UAW. Do you think people do not know about work rules?

    >>>(you) didn't explain why you couldn't find another model of car that was better then the Dodge or the Olds

    In the 1970's, there were no alternatives to "the big three" available. In the 1970's, GM itself controlled over 60% of the American car market.
    Jun 11, 2015. 07:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • General Motors: Just Say No To Italian Nightmares [View article]
    Lemm, I believe I explained that I purchased an Oldsmobile after my experience with a Dodge. Additionally, I called Chrysler HQ for assistance and I was told that they had no obligation to stock replacement parts and that they would replace my defective springs when they could get them in stock.

    Therefore, as bad as my Oldsmobiles (1968 and 1971) had been, my experience with Dodge was far worse.

    BTW, the service manager at the Dodge dealer told me that with the caliber of people the auto manufacturers had working for them (UAW), he could open a box labeled "springs" and there could be a muffler inside.
    Jun 10, 2015. 06:29 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • General Motors: Just Say No To Italian Nightmares [View article]
    Because, lemm, there were no alternatives in those model years of 1968, 1971, and 1975. I dumped a 1973 Dodge as it was an even worse piece of junk than the 1971 Oldsmobile.

    In the first year of ownership, the 1971 Olds was towed three times for major issues. Minor issues included knobs falling off the dashboard.

    However, the Oldsmobile would at least start when I turned on the ignition. The Dodge started about 90% of the time. It also needed new springs and a few other things in its second year.
    Jun 10, 2015. 09:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Procter & Gamble: Almost A Buy, But Not Just Yet [View article]
    Yes, but retired investors who stand on principle are living on principal.
    Jun 9, 2015. 06:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
3,377 Comments
5,046 Likes