mlangner

http://www.greenstreetinvestor.com

7 Comments

    • ON: Fri Jun 6th 13:03 PM
      Commented on:
      Green Bio-Refining Up, Solar Stocks Down
      Gebby - You are right. Its very rational to price a company at 30x revenues when it has manufacturing-like margins, a commodity product, is completely dependent on government policy to have a market, faces technology innovation which could make it obsolete and is tied to the housing and therefore debt markets. So it must be the investment bankers pulling the strings... </snark>

      The problem with investing in solar is that its a bubble - now that doesn't mean its going to go down - we were in a bubble with Internet stocks as early at 1997-8 and it took 4 years for the market to come to its senses...

      That is the challenge that investors face in today's market - we all know that these valuations are unsustainable - but that doesn't change the fact that there is money to be made owning them - right up until there is not...
      View article »
    • ON: Fri Jun 6th 12:47 PM
      Commented on:
      3 Expected Post-Election Changes - No Matter Who Wins
      Martin - I am not so certain I agree with your assesment that a Carbon Tax is the most efficient mechanism to reach our emission goals. Perhaps initially we can get similar performance, but over the long run a cap and trade system should work better.

      First off - Taxes are a notoriously poor mechanism for managing societal goals - mandate by legislation is much more direct - and thereby efficient mechanism. A cap and trade system is not a tax, its a mandate. The whole goal of cap and trade is to mandate how much carbon emissions we emit collectively in order to reach a common good. So when you say that the disadvantage of Obama's approach is that the government has to set the amount of carbon emitted - that's exactly what they are supposed to be doing because that's the whole reason we are doing this. Any Carbon Tax will be judged by the amount of carbon emissions we reduce anyway because thats the goal of the tax too - its just that its a much less direct mechanism to reach that goal because its a behavioral response approach. Take legislation to force auto manufacturers to put seatbelts in cars - the government (we the people collectively) determined that in order to protect the common good of Americans (not flying through your windshield in an accident) auto manufacturers were required to put seatbelts in cars - no funny business about taxing cars without seatbelts to encourage the availability - and then a review process to see if we were getting enough cars with seatbelts and then a tweak of the tax (all while lobbyist are busy corrupting the process) - just a direct mandate to solve that problem - boom, next piece of business.

      The trade part just allows a mechanism to accomodate those that cannot or will not cut emissions to their fair share (which effectively eliminates the externalities that business foists on competitors or the commons) or reward those that can operate below their fair share (which is a business by business decision).

      Taxes should be used to fund the operations of government - not as a behavioral "stick".

      Second - Even if you can set a carbon tax at the right level to elicit the behavioral response you seek (which in this case is a collective carbon output) - they are static - so they go out date quickly - which screws up the behavioral response. Non-indexed Social Security contributions are a perfect example...
      View article »
    • ON: Thu May 15th 18:39 PM
      Commented on:
      Green Power, Google, and StatoilHydro's New High
      I am not certain how much this investment can be considered a bellweather for all green investing. The firm discussed has cut a deal with PG&E (as part of PG&E fufilling its state mandate for purchasing green power) for a PPA which guarantees a buyer for its power at certain rates. Besides Google has always attached some social value to green issues when making investments.

      That being said its good to see money continue to be invested in this sector.
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Nov 2nd 20:57 PM
      Commented on:
      Alpha is Everything in Fund Management -- Or Is It?
      Isn't the right answer some combination of both... Which is what I believe you are trying to say. For instance our fund targets a particular profile - low beta/high alpha... We may not post as big an alpha number as some funds that have a much higher beta but we don't get whipped around the same either... My point is that we are trying to deliver a product that fits into an overall strategy - and our value is not only generating return but also insuring that we stay in our parameters so that investors can properly structure their portfolios...
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Nov 2nd 20:36 PM
      Commented on:
      Further Thoughts On Call-Writing Closed-end Funds (BEP, FFA, IGD, JPZ, JSN, MCN, NFJ)
      Geoff - I am struggling with your exact issue in my fund (and an ongoing battle with my administrator) - we have a strict price target methodology and occassionally sell out of the money covered calls at strikes at or above our price targets. If we get called in - no worries because we had that target anyway and would have been gone from the stock so the income is a bonus, if it expires worthless that's good too... Essentially we are trading gains in the stocks that we would never see for that income. If we get the underlying call on the stock wrong (not often but it happens) then selling the calls can be a hedge against a loss in that position...

      The problem I have is calculating the value of the position while its open. My admin wants to treat the two transactions as seperate - recording the value of the written call in the same fashion as you would account for a short position - marking the position to market at the end of the month... This has two problems for my NAV calcuation - first it gives investors that invest after I open a covered call position a "free ride" on risks that prior investors had taken when that position was taken (e.g,. the fund would still have the same absolute liability associated with that trade whether or not that later investor invested) and 2.) because we are betting that the stocks go up - we expect the value of the calls to increase (until they reach a point of time premium decay) in concert with the underlying stock position... so the covered call shows a phantom "loss" - artificially depressing the NAV of the fund..

      My goal is to find a proper way to value the premium in the interim between opening a position and when the call either expires, is called in or has to be bought back... no one has been able to give me a good answer on this - suggestions?
      View article »
    • ON: Thu Oct 5th 20:07 PM
      Commented on:
      At Current Low, WPT Enterprises Still Not Worth a Gamble
      A couple of questions:

      1. You state: <i>But will the World Poker Tour be affected by the ban, at least indirectly? Of course it will. If no one is allowed to play online poker anymore, interest in the WPT television shows will certainly wane.</i> Is this opinion or fact? If fact (which it appears given your use of the declarative) what is your source for making this assertion and to what degree should we expect it to wane? If its opinion - why do you hold this opinion, is there research that shows on-line gaming has been a driver of television ratings, or are you just guessing? I guess I don't understand the linkage between on-line poker on TV watching - or if there even is one - obviously there are other places to play poker, and one would assume that a certain number of users would watch it for the entertainment factor... is on-line poker playing a big driver of TV watching?

      2. Your comment about the potential profitability of the television show seems inconsistent with the new legal realities and your argument that WPT will suffer from the loss of on-line gambling watchers... The quote from Lipscomb that you boxed is from Sept. 6 which is pre-ban. One would assume that post ban the on-line companies that have been buying TV time to put their poker programming on US TV will stop, as will their sponsorship of U.S. based poker tourneys - as they would be advertising to customers that can't play so what's the point. That would leave less competition for WPT's programming both from a distribution standpoint (assuming that poker can draw more of an audience than other programming choices for the broadcasters or at the very least kick a negotiating leg out from under the broadcasters when they are renegotiating the next season of World Poker Tour) and from a product development standpoint... But you can't really say the programming will suffer from lost viewers due to the lack of on-line gambling at the same time that you argue that on-line gambling companies buying up TV time will impact the value of WPTE programming... so which is it? I suppose you could argue that the program will be less valuable becuase no on-line gamblers means less viewership - but then that goes back to the first question of what is the empirical evidence that viewership is tied to the number of on-line gamblers...
      View article »
    • ON: Mon Sep 11th 15:59 PM
      Commented on:
      The Short Case on Vonage: Why No Price is Cheap Enough
      True... our only concern is that somewhere below $3.00 it becomes possible that it will reasonable for someone to pick them up for the customer base - not for the brand. But even that assesment assumes that the business fundementals don't deteriorate from current levels.

      Already it looks like they are going to miss consensus line adds for the quarter (unless they have a monster Sept.)... It took them 2/3rds of the quarter to get to exactly half of where consensus has them for new additions...
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»