aerius

Interest Rate Cut? Sleep it Off - Overall Things Look Good

You obviously spent a lot of time writing this so I’ll comment.

1) like you said, ‘everybody’ was into real estate speculation, that makes their voice louder than yours; people who want to get elected need to win the most votes possible

2) in a monetary system that is built on debt, deflation is the devil; they simply cannot risk equities + housing dragging everything down

3) wall street is the top contributor to election campaigns

While sad, if you had leveraged yourself to the hilt and relied on getting bailed out, you would probably be further ahead now. I agree with your article in general though.

Brave Face Masks Bold Lie: Questions For Citi's Chuck Prince

Total shot in the dark, but it seems like Ben gave them a call and asked them to take out some money to try to remove some of the negative stigma of borrowing from the central bank. This way if things do get worse and banks need to borrow for real, investors won't panic since 'last time they borrowed it was ok.' Getting the largest banks to all do it also lets the little guys know they can borrow as well with no repercussions.

A 1.25% spread on 500 million is nothing to these big guys.

Blackstone Seeks To Capitalize On Market Downturn

Nice one. BX buys when the market goes up, and then buys when the market goes down. They buy when credit markets are good, and will buy when credit markets are bad. Can’t go wrong with that argument.

Sort of sounds like global warming. If it’s too hot it’s global warming, if it’s too cold it’s global warming. If it’s normal temperature well, it has to be hot or cold somewhere else!

There was a neat article awhile ago on how all the top firms who deal with BX the most all have OP on it. 50% upside, can’t go wrong... right?

Gold's Value In the 21st Century: About As Real As the Myth of El Dorado

Are you serious? How many tons of copper and how many barrels of oil are you going to store in your safety deposit box or in your basement.

To reiterate the above, it’s a physical good that has shown that it can retain value well.

Wake Up and Smell the Coffee: Starbucks Still Doesn't Get It

While your article is interesting it contradicts itself. Why should you pay $5 for a coup of coffee when you can get it for cheaper? Why are McDonald premium coffee sales up 20% when they can pay less for the non-premium version? Does the 20% support your comment that "increasingly other folks" are not willing to pay more for coffee?

Since the inception of starbucks their strategy has been to provide a premium product with the associated perception (lifestyle/culture). Business 101, you create a competitive advantage through cost or differentiation; they chose the latter. While I agree that raising prices may reduce store traffic, I think it’s a bit more premature to declare that it is the losing strategy. In my opinion their problems is that competitors are branching out into their niche and they are doing a poor job of defending it. Why are people going to McD instead of Starbucks? Maybe the taste isn’t different enough, the brand isn’t powerful enough, the “random crap” that they sell is diluting the image, whatever. If Mercedes or BMW cut their prices today would that increase the number of people buying them? Probably, but it doesn’t mean that they are making more money or that investors are better off.

Corporate Buybacks: Party Now - Hangover Later

Some faulty math here.. using your own numbers, a corp with: 1 mil shares, $1 mil earnings, 15x P/E, so EPS is $1/share, each share worth $15, market cap = 1 mil shares x 15 = 15 million.

If the corp buys back 100k shares, then: 900k shares, $1 mil earnings, 15x P/E, thus EPS is $1.111 x 15 = $16.67 x 900k shares = 15 million. This is using the assumption that buybacks are using cash, if it's using debt then earnings would decreased from higher interest costs (though there may be multiple expansion).

Buybacks either distribute earnings to shareholders or change the capital structure. Despite your belief that companies can do buybacks forever they cannot because bankruptcy costs will exceed the cost of leveraging up. This is basic finance.

Saying that I'm not a big fan of buybacks since it raises share prices and makes stock options worth more, enriching management for doing little work. As a shareholder I don't know if CEOs should be making millions of dollars a year to buy back stock instead of figuring out ways to deliver lasting value. Netherless, as shown by private equity, there is some rationale to reduce equity and increase debt.

Why Oil Is Actually Cheap At $75

You explain why you expect oil to increase in price over time, not why "Oil Is Actually Cheap At $75."

Even a miniscule amount of valuation would have helped here. With the lack of firm numbers your headline could have been "Why Oil is Actually Cheap at $1000" and slapped a screaming buy on the sector. Six months ago these factors were in effect and oil was $55, not $75, so why is it worth that now if it wasn't before?

iPhone: Apple Making All the Wrong Moves

People like Thomas Barta is why I wouldn't short Apple. Why is it that any article that even tries to say anything negative immediately draws flames from the pro-mac crowd? Bottom line is that even if the iphone is a dismal product the same crowd will still buy into it, that is the risk in betting against AAPL. As some quick rebuttals:

"It looks like Verizon (according to "theStreet") is going with the LG Prada-- a 2nd rate phone from a third rate Korean company."
- Joke? The "2nd rate phone" is essentially everything the iphone is; a no button phone with a big pricetag and a nice/desirable name. The "third rate company" makes Apple LCDs (Apple LCDs are now third rate products?) and is way more experienced in the cell phone game than Apple.

"You REALLY believe Verizon could deliver a phone with anywhere NEAR the capabilities on the iPhone in this current decade?
- The real question is do you REALLY believe people will pay big bucks to buy a phone that is technologically average? I agree with jyung here, in many other countries you can get a phone that has can play mp3s, watch videos, listen to the radio, have a big screen, open locks, operate as a debit card etc - all for $50. The US has never been the leader in phone technology and the iphone isn't going to change that. Just do some research on what is available out there (internationally). Be objective here, the iphone isn't the smallest/thinnest, doesn't have the best battery, doesn't have the best camera, isn't the first to be button free, doesn't have all of the wireless features available on other phones, has subpar expansion capabilities, etc - what makes it so groundbreaking? Oh right.. if you spin it 90 degrees the picture on the screen will rotate - the $500 feature I was looking for!

I personally think that iphone will be below expectations but still do well. Though I don't agree with everything in the article I think 5-year lock-in mentioned means that the US will play a much smaller role than expected. I don't really understand why the successful marketing of one product automatically means that it is impervious in future plans, completely discounting decades of subpar performance.