robert99

An Early Call on ClickSoftware's Manchitra Acquisition

I was long CKSW. Got in at $2.5, sold recently at $4.1. Might get back in at some point. If it drops back down below $3.5, I'll probably start biting.

Tupperware Brands: Well Contained

At a glance, TUP looks like a good company, but I want it at $15 or better.

Chesapeake Energy CEO in Questionable Compensation Deal

Aye, CHK is great because of McClendon, no question about it. As long as he keeps running CHK as he was running it, I don't mind that the BOD gave him $75 million to keep him there. Although I can see the author's very valid points, the world today is different than it was 30 years ago. It is more selfish, more greedy, less ethical, and less principled. Maybe McClendon is greedy and selfish, maybe not. What I know as a CHK shareholder is that, judging from his track record, I want McClendon to stay, and if $75 million is what is required to keep him at CHK, that's fine with me.

The Government's Massive Cover Up of the Economic Crisis

Thanks for highlighting this article. I visit reddit every day, but I missed this article.

Gold and Silver: To Buy or Not to Buy?

Yep, that's what I'm waiting on. I'm already 15% in gold and silver, and 30% is my target. The massive accumulation of GLD seems like another bubble waiting to burst to me. Too many traders and weak hands right now. At some point very soon, I think many of them will move elsewhere, and that is when I will buy.


On Apr 05 12:08 PM Gigem77 wrote:

> When the GLD holders decide that they would rather have some solar
> stocks or some biotech, look out below.

Faber and Schiff: Inflation Inevitable (So Here's What to Do)

In an inflationary environment, one must take into account the destructive effects of inflation in order to determine real gains or losses on assets. In nominal terms, your assets *may* hold their value or even increase in value due to a weaker currency, but in real terms, your assets (unless they are precious metals, which, ostensibly, everyone is flocking to) will almost certainly decline. A highly inflationary environment is an uncertain environment, and uncertainty sucks the confidence out of markets, which results in economic malaise or panic (if inflation becomes bad enough), and thus lower real profits.


On Apr 05 11:14 AM curious cat wrote:

> i'm curious. why do things, like stocks, have to go down in an
> inflationary environment? it seems as if anything of value will
> be worth more dollars. doesn't that include companies? even if
> you think our dollar buys less gold and silver, isn't there room
> for companies charging more, too. that's not even considering
> the currency differentials that large internationals will translate
> into more dollars from their profits overseas, nor the increased
> competitiveness of our corporations as we sell into their markets.
> furthermore, in an inflationary environment, won't houses be worth
> more dollars? someone please explain the thinking on this issue.

A Bright Morning for Corning - Barron's

Bought GLW @ $8, sold @ $12 the day before the FED announced the PPIP and the markets rallied 7%. Bah. Trading would be so much easier without government intervention....

What $1 Trillion Looks Like

Exponential functions are fun!

Banking on Energy (Rather than Currency or Gold)

This is an interesting proposal, but what would be the implications of an energy-based currency on the global balance of power?

An Open Letter to John Galt

An absolutely fantastic response to an excellent letter. I can add nothing.

$

On Apr 05 09:15 AM Francisco d'Anconia wrote:

> Mr. Chandler,
>
> John and I disagree as to whether a response to your letter constitutes
> sanction of your ideas. Only I shall reply. Your misrepresentation
> of Rand, (and by extension, John) deserves no answer except to say
> "check your premises". The candlestick maker produces a value, but
> not the SAME degree of value as the inventor of the candle or the
> inventor of fire. Your egalitarian impulse evades this fact. Justice
> requires that Prometheus be praised, the candlestick maker be respected,
> and the destroyers of industry be damned. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>
> Speaking of destroyers, what is the 'flaw' Mr. Greenspan says he
> has found in what he claims is still his philosophy? That he counted
> on businessmen to act in accordance with their ration self interests?
> Did he? Businessmen have not pursued their objective interests, only
> their range-of-the-moment whims, and their businesses are failing
> as a result. Is this inconsistent with reason? What motivated their
> irrationality? Why were their actions perceived by them to be justifiable?
> What persuaded them that they would be protected from the consequences
> of running a business on whim? What, or rather, who?
>
> Mr. Greenspan evades the fact that loss is a corrective, just as
> profit in an incentive. He strove for years to create a lossless
> economy, much like a modern environmentalist 'protecting' a forest
> from logging. He artificially propped up corrupt and incompetent
> men for years. They collected like brush around the roots of the
> healthier trees. When a spark ignited this brush, they all went up
> together- burning corrupt plants and healthy alike. Is this a flaw
> in the philosophy of freedom? Or is it the most eloquent demonstration
> of its truth in modern times?
>
> Forests do not burn wild in their natural state, and neither do economies.
> When you attempt to set men free from the consequences of their actions,
> when you assure them that they are protected by an unlimited account,
> when you tell them daily that they have friends in Washington, friends
> with guns who are ready to extort from taxpayers whatever sum is
> necessary to ensure that they, the protected businesses, will never
> fail- when you put the power of the gun as enabler of their whims
> and their defense against reality- you may know that you have doomed
> them.
>
> Let corrupt businesses fail, let their fields and forests burn. The
> generation of businessmen that will emerge afterwards will know the
> danger of fire, and the nature of those looters and moochers who
> play with matches.
> -Francisco d'Anconia
>
> Postscripts:
> Geithner is a mediocrity.
> -Midas Mulligan
>
> I would burn General Motors before I allowed Obama to run it.
> -Lawrence Hammond
>
> "When Cain asks, “Am I my brother’s keeper?” the answer the resounds
> through human history is yes, unwaveringly yes." This is true, and
> look at human history.
> -Hugh Akston

Equity Market Rally May Be Short-Lived

I think that 'sell in May and go away' will be good advice to follow this year. I'm 70% long, with my finger on the trigger to buy a substantial position in SDS if the market's temperament turns.

Two Economies, And One Must Die

www.politico.com/news/...

"My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks."

This was as much a veiled threat as it was a warning. Obama has the power right now to turn the tables on the financial sector with a few choice words to the American public. I doubt he will do it, but the possibility exists. Depends on how bad things get, I suppose. We'll see.

U.S. Government's Widening Deficits

An excellent article. From an objective standpoint, this seems to be the most plausible scenario. Emotionally, it's difficult to accept that this will happen because of such a scenario's obvious consequences for the US. However, emotions are generally not very helpful while investing, and if one wishes to preserve one's wealth, one must follow the logical path to it's conclusion and act accordingly, no matter how painful it may be. We may have seen the bottom for a few months or even through the rest of 2009, but I do not believe that America's problems can be solved so quickly, and I do believe that at some point in the next few years, buyers will have an opportunity to buy again at the DOW 6k level - and likely lower. Approximately 15% of my portfolio is in gold and silver stocks, and I am hoping for another sell-off in gold to below $800 so I can increase that percentage to 30 or better. I am nearly 70% long equities right now, but that can change in a flash if the market's temperament takes a turn for the worst. For the next few years, it will be a trader's market, and at some point, buy and hold investors will have the opportunity of their lives, but I don't think we've seen that point just yet.

Why We Went to Cash

I tend to agree. Governments around the globe are intervening in a massive way. These efforts blow all historical precedents out of the water. Goldilocks could well be back, at least for a year or two.


On Apr 02 01:19 PM Cetin Hakimoglu wrote:

> I would not rely on the charts too much. This bull market still has
> a long way to go. Long term the market is driven by fundamentals,
> not technicals and the fundamentals are very bullish because we're
> entering a new Goldilocks economic phase. dow 14,000 within 2-3 years
> Dow 10,500 by end of year.
>
> The Return of the Goldilocks Economy: imaned.com/blog/

Brazil: Well Poised for Growth

EWZ is one of my top picks.