Seeking Alpha

Bruce7b

Bruce7b
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Bruce7b's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Gilead Sciences: The Shorts Did Indeed Get Squeezed -- What's Next? [View article]
    Jssss: I will have to give you an old fashioned link. Hard copy of WSJ, page B2 for Sept 16. They make two statements so I am making an assumption. "In the U.S, a 12 week supply costs $84,000". "In india requires that patients take Sovaldi for 24 weeks, meaning that they would need six bottles for a total cost of $1,800...". Maybe Doctorx will tell me that the reason for the 24 weeks has to do with something other than half strength. But I like my assumption that it is half strength to limit black marketing in the developed markets.
    Sep 16, 2014. 07:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Shorts Did Indeed Get Squeezed -- What's Next? [View article]
    Steve: I'm not suggesting that the patient would be the buyer. Probably wouldn't know anything about it. I'm talking about the medical community buying and then charging full price to the patient. But after reading today's WSJ, Gilead might have that covered. It sounds like the generic version is only half strength so takes twice as many pills, twice as long to be effective. Guess that would make it obvious to the patient that they weren't receiving the developed market version. Pretty smart of Gilead, I would say.
    Sep 16, 2014. 08:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Shorts Did Indeed Get Squeezed -- What's Next? [View article]
    Jsss: It seems the big risk for Gilead is the cheap version of Solvadi coming from India to the U.S. and other developed countries. If a U.S. medical practice can buy a black market version for $20,000 for full treatment and turn around and charge $84,000 how many will do it? Will it even be illegal to do it? Seems very tempting for the generic makers to make a quick $15,000 and the U.S. medical to make $60K. Now we are told that Gilead has had to do this with other drugs but have those other drugs had a cost anywhere near $84,000? If someone wants to tell us that Doctors would never even think about it check out the Medicare fraud numbers.
    Sep 15, 2014. 01:37 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Learning To Dislike MLPs [View article]
    I wonder how important correlation with the S&P 500 is to the average MLP investor (I place zero importance on it)? I wonder how important accuracy of analyst quarterly DCF estimates are to the MLP investor? I can imagine that a trader of MLPs might be interested but as a buy and hold investor of MLPs they mean close to nothing--and because of the tax advantages of holding forever I am guessing most MLP investors fit into that category. Maybe I am missing something important but I am looking at current DCF growth and longer term project pipeline, along with analyst overall ratings
    Sep 14, 2014. 06:46 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead Sciences: The Shorts Did Indeed Get Squeezed -- What's Next? [View article]
    There seem to be multiple GILD articles every day on SA and just about all the comments are from supporters---many putting the stock in the no-brainer buy category. It is my largest position also but I would really appreciate hearing from some of the shorts. What are you seeing that we don't? Of all the stocks out there that are overpriced and ripe for a correction why would you take the risk of buying a stock that could double in the next year?
    Sep 12, 2014. 08:33 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Green Vs. Greed: The Difference Between Speculating And Investing [View article]
    Seems like your quote from Buffett is totally forward looking (five, ten and twenty years from now) and somehow you have turned that around to support your argument about past earnings and current PEs. I guess selection bias applies to quotes as well as investments.
    Sep 11, 2014. 01:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Performance Nonsense: Why Past Performance Is A Poor Indicator And How To Do Better [View article]
    Margie: I think you are totally correct. I can't imagine buying an actively managed mutual fund without looking at past performance. One or three year's performance numbers can be based on some luck for sure but looking at 5 and 10 year performance should tell us quite a lot about the skills of the managers (and the medal ratings provided by Morningstar are forward looking and in combination with the past performance ratings are a valuable guess at future performance). Of course, all managers get old just like investors and not too many are wise enough to pull the plug like Peter Lynch did. Author--look at the past performance of two of my funds --Dodge and Cox International (DODFX) and Prime Cap Odyssey (POAGX) and tell me the past performance is not a good indicator of future performance. Active share might help us eliminate the closet indexers but looking at the number of holdings does that. If a large cap fund has 450 holdings it is an indexer if it contains 75 it should indicate that the manager is using his best ideas but without past performance how do we know her best ideas are any good?
    Sep 7, 2014. 12:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Tax Inversions Are Immoral, Signal Need For Reform [View article]
    User 395629:

    Since the author of this article is unwilling to defend his article you might do the rest of us making comments a favor and take on that role. I'm not sure if the difference of opinion is a knowledge issue or just a philosophical difference. How about I raise some questions and you share your opinion.

    (1) Do you realize that the tax savings of inversion are almost totally related to U.S. tax on foreign earnings?
    (2) Do you realize in a globalized world that the US is about the only country that taxes foreign earnings?
    (3) Do you realize that US multinationals can accomplish much the same thing by just leaving the cash overseas (awaiting a tax holiday similar to what happened in the past)? I believe there is $2 trillion in this limbo.
    (4) Do you realize that C Corp conversion to REIT status eliminates all Federal and State tax (think Weyerhauser and Iron Mountain)? Would seem to be a far greater issue than inversions.
    (5) Do you realize that C Corp conversion to MLP status not only eliminates all Fed and State tax but defers taxes to the holders of the units until sale (think Devon and Phillips 66). And if held to death often result in zero tax? Would seem to be a far greater tax avoidance than inversions.
    (6) I have never heard any complaint about use of REITs and MLPs to avoid taxes (probably since the media doesn't understand the tax impacts)--do you have the same issue with them and are you going to boycott those businesses (most of the rental property in the country and all the pipelines until Kinder does their changeover).

    Seems like the main benefit of SA is exchange of views to help us all learn about investing so hopefully you will answer these questions.
    Aug 27, 2014. 09:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tax Inversions Are Immoral, Signal Need For Reform [View article]
    User: That is how it works now.
    Aug 26, 2014. 11:11 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Tax Inversions Are Immoral, Signal Need For Reform [View article]
    Orange Peel: Not clear from your article if you understand the issues or not. I see tax inversions as little different from companies converting to REIT status or MLP status (check the growth of those in the last 20 years). In all three cases corporations are working within tax law to reduce tax liabilities. How do you determine that only the inversion is immoral? C-corporations are the only form of business in this country to pay business taxes--and at the outrageous (nominal) rate of 35% Fed plus about 4% state. Compare those rates with what the rest of the world charges . Then to top if off we want to double tax the overseas earnings of our C-corps if they want to bring the funds home. Just about every other country uses a territorial system of taxing only the income derived in that country--but no, that isn't good enough for us so we will also tax the earnings of US companies derived from other countries (for any amount taxed under the 35%--which is all of it). So to avoid that double tax companies have been leaving that cash overseas--another form of tax avoidance--is that immoral also? Now the overseas cash has grown so large these companies are forced to either bring it home and pay the double tax or change HQ to avoid the double taxation--they will continue to pay US taxes on US derived income just like every ADR listed on our exchanges or any other foreign company earning money in the US. What is immoral is our business tax code so take the time to understand it before writing pointless articles. Make a list of all the REITs, MLPs, and C-corps with overseas cash and you have a list that is almost every large U.S. based stock listed on our exchanges. Are they all immoral?
    Aug 25, 2014. 12:15 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Religion Of Doom And Gloom [View article]
    My guess is that of the articles on SA that discuss specific stocks, some 70% are totally positive and 20% totally negative and maybe 10% balanced. Balanced doesn't sell. Macro articles are more balanced but less read (and as Wall St. Debunker says above should mostly be ignored). So maybe we shouldn't blame "Wall Street". Small investors (most of them anyhow) get what they want (confirmation bias at its most obvious).
    Aug 16, 2014. 12:32 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Gilead Is The Most Exciting Growth Opportunity In 2014 [View article]
    Earnings yield? Isn't that just the inverse of the PE ratio? I want real yield. I want a cash dividend. I won't buy a stock without a dividend of at least 3%. And growing. This turkey has ZERO real yield! I have bills to pay. And the fools are buying back shares. Management only buys back shares to fatten their option income--everyone knows that. What happened to the Chuck we used to know?
    Aug 15, 2014. 08:03 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Gilead: Rising Short Interest Provides Yet Another Reason To Own The Stock [View article]
    DoctoRx: I saw mention that Gilead is going to allow an Indian company to develop a generic version of Sovaldi for sale in India. On the surface this seemed very risky--how to keep control of the output to make sure it doesn't end up in the black market in the developed markets (maybe at 10% the cost). Is allowing generic production in the developing market standard procedure for an expensive drug like this? Is the formula for a drug like this public information or is it more similar to the secret formula for Coke?
    Aug 15, 2014. 03:42 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taxes Don't Lie [View article]
    Taxes do lie. Changes in tax law occur and taxpayers avoidance occur. Payroll taxes have increased over the last year in part because of the end of the social security temporary tax reduction. Corporate taxes have been impacted by a growing conversion of C-Corps to REIT status (think Iron Mountain and Weyerhauser) much greater use of MLP status, and tax inversions that have been in the news lately. Individual tax collections have been greatly impacted by the FED keeping interest rates low--pushing investors into MLPs and dividend stocks--which reduce tax compared to interest income.
    Aug 13, 2014. 07:37 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What Is The Proper Way To Measure Your Portfolio's Performance? [View article]
    Seems to me the paragraph that you quoted from Sharpe is so generic as to be meaningless. What does it really say? I think there is no perfect benchmark since the typical portfolio has a constantly changing makeup. A mutual fund like those of FPA might have 40 or 50 % cash at times in the cycle--surely that cash reduces the risk of the portfolio and comparing such a fund to a 100% stock portfolio makes no sense, at least in the short term. Many mutual funds have large, small and mid cap stocks, might even have a few REITs and MLPs (which aren't included in most indexes) as well as foreign stocks and cash. I have finally decided on something simple--I use the Vanguard Target Term 2020. It has a blend of bonds, large and small cap US and international stocks that changes as I get older and it even might be similar in makeup to my own portfolio at least once a year. It's not perfect, especially since it doesn't consider tax efficiency, but is close enough for me--if I can't beat it on a regular basis I should (but won't) concede defeat and just buy the benchmark.
    Aug 11, 2014. 04:15 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
619 Comments
917 Likes