Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View jnpfl's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Keep An Eye On Phillips 66 [View article]
    If one is willing to buy at the current price but would like to wait for a market pullback to offer a lower entry point, perhaps selling a put would be a useful technique. Of course, if the stock doesn't slide to the strike price no purchase would result, but you would pocket the put premium. If the stock declines such that the put is exercised, you would purchase the shares at a lower price than currently available and the put premium would reduce your cost further. For example, yesterday the Aug 2015 $75 put was selling $2.15.
    Jun 18, 2015. 08:23 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Wall Street Breakfast: Markets Rattled After Greek Talks Collapse [View article]
    Aren't we all tired of this phony Greek drama? We know that at the last minute a new "kick-the-can" deal will be reached to rollover and extend the debt. I can't believe anyone is considering this Greek tragedy as part of their investment planning.
    Jun 15, 2015. 08:53 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deere: Quantifying The Long-Term View [View article]
    DE has invested in foreign production facilities. Years ago the foreign sales were largely exports, which were quite susceptible to currency swings and global labor rates, etc. Not the same business today. Are you suggesting that DE didn't build production facilities abroad over the last five years?
    Jun 3, 2015. 12:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deere: Quantifying The Long-Term View [View article]
    Thanks for your interesting article. I also read with interest the thoughtful Blue Pacific Partners articles you highlighted. Of course, Blue Pacific disclosed that they were (when their analyses were published) short DE. There is nothing wrong with them talking their book, just as long investors very frequently do. I tend to discount the reliance on long past earnings in our era. If we harken back into the 90's and the early 2000's we should realize that DE was then almost totally a domestic business. Since those days the company has invested heavily (maybe too heavily?) in Asian and Latin America production and sales. Moreover, the recurring criticism of DE's lucrative financing program mystifies me. It appears to me that DE is quite astute in matching the duration of its debt with its receivables portfolio. Banks and insurance companies do no better. I just haven't seen anyone focus on the productivity enhancement that modern DE products offer. If crop prices fall, wouldn't farm managers want to produce more per acre and per dollar invested (which is where the DE technology and financing advantages kick in)? Are there better agriculture equipment manufacturers than Deere? If there is some competitor eating their lunch I will worry. If not, I will stick with the best quality manufacturer, which I believe is Deere. Where am I going wrong?
    Jun 3, 2015. 11:14 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deere & Co. - Higher Financings And Sales To Deere Finance Boost Revenue And Margins [View article]
    With the stock price rising I am wondering if Blue Pacific has closed it short position. It certainly can be painful for a short to hold out when the market fails to see things correctly. Perhaps when the short covering subsides the share price will weaken.
    May 27, 2015. 12:15 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deere & Co. - Higher Financings And Sales To Deere Finance Boost Revenue And Margins [View article]
    So will Buffett. Maybe Blue Point can sit on its short position after the rally this week. After all, short sellers often console themselves with the confidence that they are merely "early", not "wrong". Shorting Deere has been a very crowded trade. All the analysts love to hate this stock. Most of their analyses seem to fall into either of two theories: either they don't like the customer financing (though Deere uses it to produce a profitable competitive advantage) or crop prices are low. Certainly low crop prices discourage farmers' investment but since Deere's products enhance productivity at any crop price, some analysts might consider that Mr. Buffett sees this premier company's management different than they do. I do too.
    May 25, 2015. 11:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Deere & Co. - Higher Financings And Sales To Deere Finance Boost Revenue And Margins [View article]
    The disclosure at the end of this piece points out that the writer is short DE. That note is as illuminating as the article itself. Some people dig very deep to find negatives. The author apparently believes that Deere's management has sharply deviated from a long tradition of conservative business operation and projections. The "Street" always distrusts Deere's lucrative financing program despite recurring its success and low bad debt history. Most people realize that equipment leasing is simply a form of financing. Deere has proven over many years and business cycles that it knows how to conduct financing very effectively. Indeed, this complements the equipment sales and provides a competitive advantage. Today's surge in DE stock price must have seriously hurt the author. I would tend to view this quarter as evidence that Management is working through this difficult downturn very impressively. When the agriculture cycle turns up again (who thinks that it won't?) this company will be a major beneficiary. Its always useful to consider alternative theories, but I will stay long.
    May 22, 2015. 10:49 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Lanny's Recent Purchase - Johnson & Johnson [View article]
    I happily own JNJ and I enjoyed your article except your item 6 concerning stock buy backs. You rave about the $7B, $3.5B and $12.9B repurchased during 2014, 2013 and 2012, respectively, as if that reduced the share count outstanding. It did not. At the end of 2014 there were slightly more shares outstanding that at the end of 2011. Purchasing stock to use in acquisitions or executive compensation does nothing for the shareholders. These buybacks may be good business, and they certainly can mask the magnitude of executive compensation, but they are not a reason to buy the shares.
    Apr 26, 2015. 03:20 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • ConocoPhillips: Protecting The Dividend Without Cash Flow [View article]
    You carefully and correctly limit your negativity to, "the stock isn't attractive to new investors." Current investors who are enjoying a 4.3% dividend are not inclined to re-deploy their COP investment at what may be substantial tax cost to invest in something else that pays a much lower dividend. Investing say, 80% of net sale proceeds, in a 2% dividend payer (even a growing dividend payer) can take many years to recoup the dividends one could collect simply sitting on COP shares indefinitely. Thank you for a reasoned analysis that, suggests not buying COP but does not overshoot by recommending a sale of COP.
    Apr 26, 2015. 08:21 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Waste Management's Secret To Growth [View article]
    I seldom make it all the way through a SA article before I get frustrated with an analysis. This one was a pleasant exception. Thank you for a relevant comparison of of major players in the same industry. I would not put much weight on the price-to-book value metric (since book value only speaks to historical cost of purchased assets, typically omitting intangible asset values), but the rest of your article was thoughtful and informative.
    Apr 26, 2015. 08:06 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Coca-Cola: Strong Company, Weak Earnings - Is It Time To Re-Fill Your Portfolio? [View article]
    I agree. However, I resent calling this portion of a share buy back, "returning cash to shareholders". Call it what it is, maybe cash spent to purchase shares for management.
    Apr 26, 2015. 07:34 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coca-Cola: Strong Company, Weak Earnings - Is It Time To Re-Fill Your Portfolio? [View article]
    This is a well thought out article. However, you are falling for the same ruse as many other analysts when you refer to the Company's share repurchases as returning cash to shareholders. In fact most of those shares are merely distributed to management as compensation. You point to $2.5B of share repurchases in 2014 alone. That was enough to buy about 62 million shares, but the share count was only reduced by a net 36M. The rest went to management. The net repurchases did reduce share count by an amount needed to show flat EPS. Debt went up $4B to fund the repurchases and the dividend boost. You may be missing some of the most blatant financial engineering among major companies. There are several other candidates for that dubious distinction, since this is a popular practice these days.
    Apr 24, 2015. 04:29 PM | 13 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coca-Cola Reports Earnings, And Why I Was Pleasantly Surprised [View article]
    "If they can find something,...,"
    Apr 23, 2015. 08:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Coca-Cola Reports Earnings, And Why I Was Pleasantly Surprised [View article]
    These guys can spin so well they should be working for Hillary.
    Apr 23, 2015. 06:38 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why I Said Don't Buy Procter & Gamble, And Why I Changed My Mind [View article]
    If you are still considering the share buyback as a shareholder benefit take a look at how many of those shares PG handed out to management. Buyback programs like this do not "return cash to shareholders"; this is merely disguised executive compensation. PG is not alone.
    Apr 22, 2015. 08:33 AM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment