MarkGillCPA's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/7930/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/180083-johnson-johnson-a-compelling-investment-opportunity?source=feed#comment-825018 825018 Tue, 29 Dec 2009 11:37:05 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175166-apple-s-at-t-deal-setting-the-record-straight?source=feed#comment-777326 777326 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 12:48:31 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/175062-berkshire-hathaway-stock-portfolio-at-risk-of-resembling-an-index-fund?source=feed#comment-777159 777159 TY), a closed-end fund that invests in blue chip stocks ]]> Wed, 25 Nov 2009 11:07:00 -0500 TY), a closed-end fund that invests in blue chip stocks ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/167306-freeport-mcmoran-for-copper-s-comeback?source=feed#comment-722014 722014 I've been hearing that the move from $1.25/lb to 2.85 was due to Chinese stocking up on copper while it was cheap. How much has China accumulated? Will they keep buying? Maybe the chinese see this a an alternative to buying U.S. treasuries.

On a longer term basis, Barclays (the ex-Lehman analyst actually) has done some interesting research on the idea that there is a long term shortage in copper developing due to existing mines depleating faster than new mines can come online. New projects are often out in the middle of nowhere and take upwards of 5-10 years to develop. Any thoughts on this?]]> Tue, 20 Oct 2009 10:22:03 -0400 I've been hearing that the move from $1.25/lb to 2.85 was due to Chinese stocking up on copper while it was cheap. How much has China accumulated? Will they keep buying? Maybe the chinese see this a an alternative to buying U.S. treasuries.

On a longer term basis, Barclays (the ex-Lehman analyst actually) has done some interesting research on the idea that there is a long term shortage in copper developing due to existing mines depleating faster than new mines can come online. New projects are often out in the middle of nowhere and take upwards of 5-10 years to develop. Any thoughts on this?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/166643-invest-using-stocks-price-to-free-cash-flow?source=feed#comment-716669 716669
]]> Thu, 15 Oct 2009 15:05:30 -0400
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/156018-cisco-s-fortune-could-be-turning?source=feed#comment-630105 630105
Why on earth do you care what the CAPS crowd thinks? I used to participate in CAPS back when it began but lost interest after I saw that for every well-reasoned vote, a thousand "ditto" like votes would follow. CAPS strikes me as a herding tool, not a forcasting tool.

And, there's no need to quote Cramer. If you're an analyst, you should already know that CSCO is the backbone of the internet. I would be more concerned about Kass' comments. He's one of the smarter hedgies out there.

BTW, my FMV for CSCO is $30 (based on DCF analysis). If you can buy it at $20 or below (an opportunity you might get in the next few weeks), I think you have a solid margin of safety and will make a 50% return sometime over the next 1-3 years.


]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 12:49:01 -0400
Why on earth do you care what the CAPS crowd thinks? I used to participate in CAPS back when it began but lost interest after I saw that for every well-reasoned vote, a thousand "ditto" like votes would follow. CAPS strikes me as a herding tool, not a forcasting tool.

And, there's no need to quote Cramer. If you're an analyst, you should already know that CSCO is the backbone of the internet. I would be more concerned about Kass' comments. He's one of the smarter hedgies out there.

BTW, my FMV for CSCO is $30 (based on DCF analysis). If you can buy it at $20 or below (an opportunity you might get in the next few weeks), I think you have a solid margin of safety and will make a 50% return sometime over the next 1-3 years.


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/142873-illumina-boomerangs-up-announces-genome-sequencing?source=feed#comment-571501 571501 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 10:56:56 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/143558-doug-kass-updates-his-model-portfolio?source=feed#comment-555287 555287 Sat, 20 Jun 2009 11:50:42 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/141722-reality-checks-for-the-billowing-cloud-computing-fantasy?source=feed#comment-537195 537195 Mon, 08 Jun 2009 11:46:31 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/140858-new-additions-dow-jones-listens-to-bloggers?source=feed#comment-529857 529857 Citigroup will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "C". It just will not be included in the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.]]> Wed, 03 Jun 2009 11:10:23 -0400 Citigroup will continue to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "C". It just will not be included in the 30 stocks that make up the Dow Jones Industrial Average.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/136087-why-are-insiders-losing-their-taste-for-chipotle?source=feed#comment-493785 493785
CMG's a good company, but at 27x forward earnings, it isn't cheap.

I don't normally short stocks, but I could see how a hedgie might short this on a break below 80 for a potential move back to 65 (Jan high) or 60 (200 day MA).

]]> Thu, 07 May 2009 10:56:35 -0400
CMG's a good company, but at 27x forward earnings, it isn't cheap.

I don't normally short stocks, but I could see how a hedgie might short this on a break below 80 for a potential move back to 65 (Jan high) or 60 (200 day MA).

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126081-adding-to-my-short-position-in-potash?source=feed#comment-429452 429452
On a weekly chart, the severe downtrend appears to be broken in December. On a daily chart you could draw a support line starting at the 47.47 low in December and the 63.65 low in March. Then you could draw a resistence line at 95, which goes back to November. The result would be an ascending triangle, a bullish pattern that covers the last 4 months.

Also, before buying any of the fertilizer producers, check out DBA, an ETF of ag crops. It appears to be putting in a head and shoulders bottom. At stockcharts.com you can overlay POT on the DBA chart and see that there is a tight correlation. Crop prices need to improve before farmers will use more fertilizer. If DBA breaks 27, POT will break 95 to the upside.

From a fundamental basis, a word of caution. POT likes to claim that farmers are not that sensitive to fertilizer prices because of the yield improvement. But that's not true. Farmers will pay up for fertilizer only when crop prices are high enough to cover their input costs. That's why I link POT to DBA.

Last year, when fertilizer prices were so high, some farmers here in the Texas Panhandle began using cattle manure as a substitute to save money. Not as effective as chemcal fertilizers (and comes with a different set of issues like weeds) but it will work.

Now that fertilizer prices are lower and crop prices appear to be putting in a bottom, there might be a nice upside opportunity in POT.]]> Tue, 17 Mar 2009 13:47:31 -0400
On a weekly chart, the severe downtrend appears to be broken in December. On a daily chart you could draw a support line starting at the 47.47 low in December and the 63.65 low in March. Then you could draw a resistence line at 95, which goes back to November. The result would be an ascending triangle, a bullish pattern that covers the last 4 months.

Also, before buying any of the fertilizer producers, check out DBA, an ETF of ag crops. It appears to be putting in a head and shoulders bottom. At stockcharts.com you can overlay POT on the DBA chart and see that there is a tight correlation. Crop prices need to improve before farmers will use more fertilizer. If DBA breaks 27, POT will break 95 to the upside.

From a fundamental basis, a word of caution. POT likes to claim that farmers are not that sensitive to fertilizer prices because of the yield improvement. But that's not true. Farmers will pay up for fertilizer only when crop prices are high enough to cover their input costs. That's why I link POT to DBA.

Last year, when fertilizer prices were so high, some farmers here in the Texas Panhandle began using cattle manure as a substitute to save money. Not as effective as chemcal fertilizers (and comes with a different set of issues like weeds) but it will work.

Now that fertilizer prices are lower and crop prices appear to be putting in a bottom, there might be a nice upside opportunity in POT.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124856-james-colby-muni-etfs-gain-assets-in-face-of-credit-crisis?source=feed#comment-419133 419133
However, for those of us in states with no state income tax, we can buy muni funds and ETFs that are nation-wide.

ITM looks pretty good. Should I be concerned that it holds only 97 positions and has only $39 million in assets?

I have been buying FHIGX (Fidelity Muni Income) for clients. It's up 3.68% YTD. Holds over one thousand bonds, has a 44 basis point expense ratio and has a 30-day yield of 4.30% as of 3-5-09. For someone in the 25% tax bracket, that's a tax-equivalent yield of 5.73%.

However, note that FHIGX is able to offer a higher yield by going down one step in quality. Instead of holding a large percentage of AAA bonds as ITM does, it holds a larger percentage of AA and A bonds. In that sense FHIGX is riskier than ITM.

Good article. Thanks.]]> Mon, 09 Mar 2009 11:00:30 -0400
However, for those of us in states with no state income tax, we can buy muni funds and ETFs that are nation-wide.

ITM looks pretty good. Should I be concerned that it holds only 97 positions and has only $39 million in assets?

I have been buying FHIGX (Fidelity Muni Income) for clients. It's up 3.68% YTD. Holds over one thousand bonds, has a 44 basis point expense ratio and has a 30-day yield of 4.30% as of 3-5-09. For someone in the 25% tax bracket, that's a tax-equivalent yield of 5.73%.

However, note that FHIGX is able to offer a higher yield by going down one step in quality. Instead of holding a large percentage of AAA bonds as ITM does, it holds a larger percentage of AA and A bonds. In that sense FHIGX is riskier than ITM.

Good article. Thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/124623-berkshire-hathaway-proof-that-the-cds-market-is-irrational?source=feed#comment-417316 417316
Mr. Lanthrop, hedge funds are not buying CDSs to hedge against bond portfolios. They buy them at the same time they are shorting common. They do this to incite fear in the markets. Last I checked market manipulation was supposed to be illegal. If the SEC was doing its job, these things would have been made illegal over a year ago.

I have no problem allowing anyone to short a stock. An argument against CDSs is not an argument against shorting. But we cannot allow someone to link a short position with a CDS to manipulate markets.

We need to get our financial markets back to the basics of buying and selling stocks and bonds. Its the derivatives that are destroying us.]]> Sat, 07 Mar 2009 13:50:46 -0500
Mr. Lanthrop, hedge funds are not buying CDSs to hedge against bond portfolios. They buy them at the same time they are shorting common. They do this to incite fear in the markets. Last I checked market manipulation was supposed to be illegal. If the SEC was doing its job, these things would have been made illegal over a year ago.

I have no problem allowing anyone to short a stock. An argument against CDSs is not an argument against shorting. But we cannot allow someone to link a short position with a CDS to manipulate markets.

We need to get our financial markets back to the basics of buying and selling stocks and bonds. Its the derivatives that are destroying us.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115752-buffett-s-latest-headache-u-s-bancorp?source=feed#comment-363053 363053
I'm not familiar with Bespoke either, other than I notice that they publish a lot of articles. Some of them are very good, and some, like this one, are a little below par. Putting out lots of articles appears to be a part of their marketing program. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully, critical comments on the poor articles will encourage more of the good ones. I would expect the same treatment.


On Jan 21 07:57 PM williemo wrote:

> To : Daniel B
> I would think twice before I made a piercing comment like you did
> about the authors of the article. You obviously aren't familiar with
> Bespoke.]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:19:28 -0500
I'm not familiar with Bespoke either, other than I notice that they publish a lot of articles. Some of them are very good, and some, like this one, are a little below par. Putting out lots of articles appears to be a part of their marketing program. Nothing wrong with that. Hopefully, critical comments on the poor articles will encourage more of the good ones. I would expect the same treatment.


On Jan 21 07:57 PM williemo wrote:

> To : Daniel B
> I would think twice before I made a piercing comment like you did
> about the authors of the article. You obviously aren't familiar with
> Bespoke.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/115752-buffett-s-latest-headache-u-s-bancorp?source=feed#comment-363036 363036
The only fundamental statement Bespoke makes is that USB Q4 EPS is down 65%, and that's due to the large loan loss provision. After reviewing the earnings report, it appears they (USB) are being realistic with their provision. Deposits were up, loans were up, and net interest income was up 23%. I suspect there is still a quarter or 2 of big provisions, but when those level off, earnings will take off.

Also, I suspect there will be further cleaning up to do with respect to Downey and PFF acquisitions, and I would not be suprised to see the dividend cut. So I don't think I'm being pollyannish about USBs prospects.

However, I'm kicking my self for not loading up the boat when the stock briefly traded below $12, and may do so anyway if it pulls back to $14. Did you notice that buyers went wild when this stock hit 12? At that price, who cares what it does over the next 3 to 6 months. If I can buy this at 14, I have no doubt that sometime over the next 3 years that it will be trading at 28 or higher.

I agree with ArtfulDodger above. I've seen too many stocks round trip to be a buy and hold forever investor. But I am a value investor and I think Mr. Market is offering us an opportunity.]]> Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:08:20 -0500
The only fundamental statement Bespoke makes is that USB Q4 EPS is down 65%, and that's due to the large loan loss provision. After reviewing the earnings report, it appears they (USB) are being realistic with their provision. Deposits were up, loans were up, and net interest income was up 23%. I suspect there is still a quarter or 2 of big provisions, but when those level off, earnings will take off.

Also, I suspect there will be further cleaning up to do with respect to Downey and PFF acquisitions, and I would not be suprised to see the dividend cut. So I don't think I'm being pollyannish about USBs prospects.

However, I'm kicking my self for not loading up the boat when the stock briefly traded below $12, and may do so anyway if it pulls back to $14. Did you notice that buyers went wild when this stock hit 12? At that price, who cares what it does over the next 3 to 6 months. If I can buy this at 14, I have no doubt that sometime over the next 3 years that it will be trading at 28 or higher.

I agree with ArtfulDodger above. I've seen too many stocks round trip to be a buy and hold forever investor. But I am a value investor and I think Mr. Market is offering us an opportunity.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112796-is-buying-bonds-really-a-good-idea?source=feed#comment-342549 342549
However, high quality corporate bonds may be one of the best buying opportunities seen in years (or decades). Yields are high, and yield spreads to treasuries are at all time highs. The easy way to play this is to buy Vanguard's Intermediate Term Investment Grade Fund (VFICX), yielding over 6%. If your willing to take on a little more risk, I like Loomis Sayles Bond (LSBRX) yielding almost 10%.

As corporate bonds recover in value, there a good opportunity to make solid capital gains on these funds. ]]> Wed, 31 Dec 2008 11:15:50 -0500
However, high quality corporate bonds may be one of the best buying opportunities seen in years (or decades). Yields are high, and yield spreads to treasuries are at all time highs. The easy way to play this is to buy Vanguard's Intermediate Term Investment Grade Fund (VFICX), yielding over 6%. If your willing to take on a little more risk, I like Loomis Sayles Bond (LSBRX) yielding almost 10%.

As corporate bonds recover in value, there a good opportunity to make solid capital gains on these funds. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/111567-ge-finally-enters-the-zone-of-the-unknown?source=feed#comment-333947 333947 Fri, 19 Dec 2008 11:14:32 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/103869-deflation-the-fed-s-ugly-pit-bull?source=feed#comment-298711 298711
Mark, I'm not disagreeing, but your article doesn't explain how the Fed's actions are deflationary. Also, why does that make the UYG a buy? (note - I'm long UYG as well, but for different reasons).

Isn't lowering the fed funds rate to 1 percent inflationary? Or showering cash on the financial sector? Sure, the current unwinding of leverage is deflationary, but are we setting ourselves up for a new cycle of inflation down the road?

]]> Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:47:05 -0500
Mark, I'm not disagreeing, but your article doesn't explain how the Fed's actions are deflationary. Also, why does that make the UYG a buy? (note - I'm long UYG as well, but for different reasons).

Isn't lowering the fed funds rate to 1 percent inflationary? Or showering cash on the financial sector? Sure, the current unwinding of leverage is deflationary, but are we setting ourselves up for a new cycle of inflation down the road?

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/97768-wabtec-chugs-ahead?source=feed#comment-270431 270431 Wed, 01 Oct 2008 11:14:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/85248-why-i-m-committed-to-the-ultrashort-financials-etf?source=feed#comment-207195 207195 Wed, 16 Jul 2008 16:27:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/48292-tidewater-inc-setting-itself-up-for-the-future?source=feed#comment-96999 96999 Good article. However, when I see an unusually low PEG ratio, I suspect something is wrong. In this case, the forward PE of 9.5 looks good, but the 5 year growth rate of 56% per year for the next 5 years is not realistic. That would imply EPS of $62 per share 5 years out! If EPS are growing 5-10% this year, how are they suddenly going to grow +60% in the 4 years after that?]]> Thu, 27 Sep 2007 11:41:13 -0400 Good article. However, when I see an unusually low PEG ratio, I suspect something is wrong. In this case, the forward PE of 9.5 looks good, but the 5 year growth rate of 56% per year for the next 5 years is not realistic. That would imply EPS of $62 per share 5 years out! If EPS are growing 5-10% this year, how are they suddenly going to grow +60% in the 4 years after that?]]>