<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
  <channel>
    <title>JonasClinton's Comments</title>
    <description>JonasClinton's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com</description>
    <link>http://seekingalpha.com/user/601800/comments</link>
    <item>
      <title>Listen Up - Home Builder Stocks Are Cheap</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/493301/comments?source=feed#comment-4405221</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">4405221</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Home ownership rates were approximately 47% from 1890 to the start of the Great Depression, then dropped by about 4% points thru WWII- Census Bureau.  Post WWII, ownership rates escalated, peaking at 65%.  Subsequent to the housing market crash, facilitated by Federal policies, ownership rates have dropped to ~61%.  Quote from Robert Shiller's stats: &quot;it still will take a further 22% decline to return home prices to their flat 1890-2000 long-term trend.&quot; From economist Gary Shilling: &quot;demand of 900,000 housing units and net supply of 400,000 (discounting homes taken out of service) per year will absorb 500,000 of the excess inventory annually. So the 2 million surplus of housing units will take four years to work off. That would extend the bear market in housing to 2015, a full 10 years after it started in early 2006.&quot;  &quot;Many are beginning to realize that it may be many years before house prices stop falling and stabilize, much less revive&quot;.  For the foreseeable future it's now more cost effective to rent than own!]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 14:14:44 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Home ownership rates were approximately 47% from 1890 to the start of the Great Depression, then dropped by about 4% points thru WWII- Census Bureau.  Post WWII, ownership rates escalated, peaking at 65%.  Subsequent to the housing market crash, facilitated by Federal policies, ownership rates have dropped to ~61%.  Quote from Robert Shiller's stats: &quot;it still will take a further 22% decline to return home prices to their flat 1890-2000 long-term trend.&quot; From economist Gary Shilling: &quot;demand of 900,000 housing units and net supply of 400,000 (discounting homes taken out of service) per year will absorb 500,000 of the excess inventory annually. So the 2 million surplus of housing units will take four years to work off. That would extend the bear market in housing to 2015, a full 10 years after it started in early 2006.&quot;  &quot;Many are beginning to realize that it may be many years before house prices stop falling and stabilize, much less revive&quot;.  For the foreseeable future it's now more cost effective to rent than own!]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>5 Energy Dividend Stocks: Which Should You Buy</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/338961/comments?source=feed#comment-2922041</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2922041</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[exactly right reader! Also, a trip to Investopedia helps one understand the tax consequences of investment in MLPs better. Thanks to Bruce &amp; alfre for the real enlightenment on how to evaluate MLPs]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Sat, 25 Feb 2012 08:37:26 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[exactly right reader! Also, a trip to Investopedia helps one understand the tax consequences of investment in MLPs better. Thanks to Bruce &amp; alfre for the real enlightenment on how to evaluate MLPs]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Keynes, Lindauer, And Restoring Prosperity</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/360921/comments?source=feed#comment-2620801</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2620801</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[you had me at &quot;lower taxes&quot;....seems like the most effective &amp; efficient way to generate a proper free market response]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 13 Feb 2012 23:37:59 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[you had me at &quot;lower taxes&quot;....seems like the most effective &amp; efficient way to generate a proper free market response]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>3 Reasons To Short U.S. Treasuries</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/356891/comments?source=feed#comment-2541121</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2541121</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[ditto to Will, Thomas, John1940...don't fight the Fed...Bill Gross caved after tremendous losses fighting the Fe]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:15:45 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[ditto to Will, Thomas, John1940...don't fight the Fed...Bill Gross caved after tremendous losses fighting the Fe]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Has McDonald's Become Too Pricey To Buy Or Hold?</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/333462/comments?source=feed#comment-2315602</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2315602</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Larry, I understand perfectly what you're saying.  CC does a good job with his analysis, but I understand the desire to review an array of competitors; I feel the same.   I use the E*Trade platform with access to Thompson-Reuters analytical reports 12 pages long that gives a full rundown on the target company &amp; compares peers.  I just pulled one up and DRI (Red Lobsters, Longhorns, Olive Gardens, etc) is the closest competitor to MCD on this report.  It's selling for ~$46, pays a 3.8% div yield vs MCD at 2.8% , has a slightly better reported projected forward price earnings growth rate than MCD's with similar projections on earnings increase for both.  It's got a projected 10% upside price potential at this time.  Negative is there's not been the same price appreciation as MCD over last year. But it does have a &quot;buy&quot; rating. Check out capabilities/stats available from your brokerage, then no one could ever lump you in the category of investors that only look at price movement. You're being challenged as one guilty of questioning a SA guru's methodology.  ilegitum non carborudum.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 20:35:51 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Larry, I understand perfectly what you're saying.  CC does a good job with his analysis, but I understand the desire to review an array of competitors; I feel the same.   I use the E*Trade platform with access to Thompson-Reuters analytical reports 12 pages long that gives a full rundown on the target company &amp; compares peers.  I just pulled one up and DRI (Red Lobsters, Longhorns, Olive Gardens, etc) is the closest competitor to MCD on this report.  It's selling for ~$46, pays a 3.8% div yield vs MCD at 2.8% , has a slightly better reported projected forward price earnings growth rate than MCD's with similar projections on earnings increase for both.  It's got a projected 10% upside price potential at this time.  Negative is there's not been the same price appreciation as MCD over last year. But it does have a &quot;buy&quot; rating. Check out capabilities/stats available from your brokerage, then no one could ever lump you in the category of investors that only look at price movement. You're being challenged as one guilty of questioning a SA guru's methodology.  ilegitum non carborudum.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>U.S. Deleveraging: Facts, Figures And Thoughts</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/330922/comments?source=feed#comment-2303832</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2303832</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Nicely laid out article.  Your article is IMO, from what I've read elsewhere, very consistent with the US &amp; global macro-econ outlook of many savvy analysts.  I, also, believe Fed will continue to push liquidity to support/replace losses in GDP due to debt delerving processes likely to be ongoing for several more years to come.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Wed, 01 Feb 2012 13:48:28 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Nicely laid out article.  Your article is IMO, from what I've read elsewhere, very consistent with the US &amp; global macro-econ outlook of many savvy analysts.  I, also, believe Fed will continue to push liquidity to support/replace losses in GDP due to debt delerving processes likely to be ongoing for several more years to come.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Why Investors Should Be Fully Invested In U.S. Markets For 2012</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/327022/comments?source=feed#comment-2278302</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">2278302</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[I'm certainly not an economist, and don't have the author's bona fides but the statement made in the article about &quot;making macro predictions based upon indicators developed from insights on investor psychology&quot; seems like a pretty thin thread to use in offering projections about macro-economic fundamentals. I'm not convinced.]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:10:26 -0500</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[I'm certainly not an economist, and don't have the author's bona fides but the statement made in the article about &quot;making macro predictions based upon indicators developed from insights on investor psychology&quot; seems like a pretty thin thread to use in offering projections about macro-economic fundamentals. I'm not convinced.]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>The Perfect Storm In A Kondratieff Long Wave Winter</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/295783/comments?source=feed#comment-1934932</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1934932</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Pigdog, sounds like you intuitively understand the concepts contained in Strauss &amp; Howe's trilogy of works on theory of historical cycles.  First book is Generations, second one was a book called Fourth Turning.  At any one point in time there are 4 generational cohorts in play: youth, 0-21 age are dependents;  rising adults, 22-43, provide the activity &amp; power to build the cultural institutions (my parents, the GI generation) ; midlifers, 44-65, provide cultural leadership; elders, 66-87+, provide stewardship, mentorship &amp; pass on culteral values.  Theory is that there are 4 &quot;generational archetypes&quot;, or cohort profiles of personal behavior that repetively recurred, in sequence, occupying the times covered in the 5 generational cycles (lasting ~80 years each cycle) since the Puritans came to America: cycles are Colonial, Revolutionary, Civil War, Great Power (1865-1945), and Millenial cycle (1945-2015).  Fascinating study of the cycles of history.  Strauss &amp; Howe speak of the many facets of historical cycles, even mentioning the work on the Kondratieff economical cycle as another example of the &quot;seasonality of life&quot;: spring, summer, fall, winter.  Ancient cultures all understood the seasonality of life.  Spring, a &quot;First Turning&quot; is a cultural, rising/high period such as the rise to power/rebuilding the world after WWII; Second Turnings are Awakening periods (1960s age of Aquarius, &quot;baby boomers&quot; like me), when a rising generational cohort challenges beliefs of the previous dominant generation's ideas concerning how the society is to be structured; a &quot;Third turning&quot; period of the  cycle, is the Fall &amp; the &quot;old orders&quot;  then enter a period of &quot;unraveling&quot;;  Fourth Turnings are the the &quot;crisis periods&quot;, such as global war, global economic crisis. History repeats is the thesis, so one would do well to know always know where you are in the historical cycle...which I believe is the point (from an economics perspective) of the author's post!]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:08:18 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Pigdog, sounds like you intuitively understand the concepts contained in Strauss &amp; Howe's trilogy of works on theory of historical cycles.  First book is Generations, second one was a book called Fourth Turning.  At any one point in time there are 4 generational cohorts in play: youth, 0-21 age are dependents;  rising adults, 22-43, provide the activity &amp; power to build the cultural institutions (my parents, the GI generation) ; midlifers, 44-65, provide cultural leadership; elders, 66-87+, provide stewardship, mentorship &amp; pass on culteral values.  Theory is that there are 4 &quot;generational archetypes&quot;, or cohort profiles of personal behavior that repetively recurred, in sequence, occupying the times covered in the 5 generational cycles (lasting ~80 years each cycle) since the Puritans came to America: cycles are Colonial, Revolutionary, Civil War, Great Power (1865-1945), and Millenial cycle (1945-2015).  Fascinating study of the cycles of history.  Strauss &amp; Howe speak of the many facets of historical cycles, even mentioning the work on the Kondratieff economical cycle as another example of the &quot;seasonality of life&quot;: spring, summer, fall, winter.  Ancient cultures all understood the seasonality of life.  Spring, a &quot;First Turning&quot; is a cultural, rising/high period such as the rise to power/rebuilding the world after WWII; Second Turnings are Awakening periods (1960s age of Aquarius, &quot;baby boomers&quot; like me), when a rising generational cohort challenges beliefs of the previous dominant generation's ideas concerning how the society is to be structured; a &quot;Third turning&quot; period of the  cycle, is the Fall &amp; the &quot;old orders&quot;  then enter a period of &quot;unraveling&quot;;  Fourth Turnings are the the &quot;crisis periods&quot;, such as global war, global economic crisis. History repeats is the thesis, so one would do well to know always know where you are in the historical cycle...which I believe is the point (from an economics perspective) of the author's post!]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Crown Holdings' CEO Discusses Q2 2011 Results - Earnings Call Transcript</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/280516/comments?source=feed#comment-1778768</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1778768</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[any production capacity expansion plans for North America?]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2011 23:44:42 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[any production capacity expansion plans for North America?]]>
      </description>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Dividend Seekers Can't Go Wrong With Coke</title>
      <link>http://seekingalpha.com/article/280199/comments?source=feed#comment-1773305</link>
      <guid isPermaLink="false">1773305</guid>
      <content>
        <![CDATA[Now that they've repurchased the CCE filling locations they're back into operations management, again. There is room for them to create economy in operations with careful execution. Currently their filling volumes are down about 5-6% to plan this year. ]]>
      </content>
      <pubDate>Tue, 19 Jul 2011 17:29:07 -0400</pubDate>
      <description>
        <![CDATA[Now that they've repurchased the CCE filling locations they're back into operations management, again. There is room for them to create economy in operations with careful execution. Currently their filling volumes are down about 5-6% to plan this year. ]]>
      </description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
