PeterScriabin's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/user/978864/comments http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/1044761?source=feed#comment-19188611 19188611
The price of steel falls, quantity demanded increases, so quantity of iron required also increases.]]> Thu, 23 May 2013 21:03:42 -0400
The price of steel falls, quantity demanded increases, so quantity of iron required also increases.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1404831/comments?source=feed#comment-18487091 18487091 Mon, 06 May 2013 08:55:11 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1375201/comments?source=feed#comment-18215871 18215871
Quite apart from all that, QonQ net sales decreased 19%, and diluted earnings per ADS (non-GAAP) decreased to $0.17 from $0.36. Q1 2013 earnings were also sharply below the 2012 Q1 result.

I am not disputing the ameliorating and more hopeful considerations you adduce, merely commenting that you might have been a little more forthright about the reasons for the fall in the stock from 16 to 10 in the last 3 months (and - yes - it is pretty clear that the LTE news was leaked to most everyone but the retail investors, some time ago).]]> Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:26:34 -0400
Quite apart from all that, QonQ net sales decreased 19%, and diluted earnings per ADS (non-GAAP) decreased to $0.17 from $0.36. Q1 2013 earnings were also sharply below the 2012 Q1 result.

I am not disputing the ameliorating and more hopeful considerations you adduce, merely commenting that you might have been a little more forthright about the reasons for the fall in the stock from 16 to 10 in the last 3 months (and - yes - it is pretty clear that the LTE news was leaked to most everyone but the retail investors, some time ago).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1371231/comments?source=feed#comment-18172041 18172041
In addition to the educational material in Michael Fuller's articles on SA, those wishing to learn about Questcor and QCOR should make a point of researching the original posts of pharmaman58 and mikeylikesit33_99, on the QCOR Yahoo Message Board. This is NOT the usual dross you find on that site, but top class investor-education material on ALL phases (medical, economic, health-industry, technical), and is a resource NOT to be overlooked.]]> Sat, 27 Apr 2013 12:41:25 -0400
In addition to the educational material in Michael Fuller's articles on SA, those wishing to learn about Questcor and QCOR should make a point of researching the original posts of pharmaman58 and mikeylikesit33_99, on the QCOR Yahoo Message Board. This is NOT the usual dross you find on that site, but top class investor-education material on ALL phases (medical, economic, health-industry, technical), and is a resource NOT to be overlooked.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1371231/comments?source=feed#comment-18156771 18156771
Basically - when a company invests time and money for many years, enduring risk, uncertainty and multiple defeats and disappointments, then they expect to be able to recoup, if and when finally successful.

This basic scenario is multiplied when the indication (IS) has a (relatively) VERY low # of potential sales. That is why the US governments offers incentives like ODD, so that these babies can actually get good treatment. Even young Socialists had better understand these matters (or find life frustrating, as Socialists long have, in our era).

Please understand that Q's tribulations involved, among other things, solving multiple problems in controlling manufacturing quality, that Novartis apparently could not, and was ready to give up on. QCOR's 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness were basically 2001-2010. You try it sometime.

If it turns out that prednis(ol)one is really "just as good", then IS will become just like Questcor's other indications, where - as I'm sure you know - Acthar is given only when much or all else have failed.

As already discussed, your callow notion - that Q is holding poor, sick people to ransom - does not hold up. It is often an "argument" used by shorts (ask Nomad!).

Peace...]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2013 19:46:28 -0400
Basically - when a company invests time and money for many years, enduring risk, uncertainty and multiple defeats and disappointments, then they expect to be able to recoup, if and when finally successful.

This basic scenario is multiplied when the indication (IS) has a (relatively) VERY low # of potential sales. That is why the US governments offers incentives like ODD, so that these babies can actually get good treatment. Even young Socialists had better understand these matters (or find life frustrating, as Socialists long have, in our era).

Please understand that Q's tribulations involved, among other things, solving multiple problems in controlling manufacturing quality, that Novartis apparently could not, and was ready to give up on. QCOR's 40 days and 40 nights in the wilderness were basically 2001-2010. You try it sometime.

If it turns out that prednis(ol)one is really "just as good", then IS will become just like Questcor's other indications, where - as I'm sure you know - Acthar is given only when much or all else have failed.

As already discussed, your callow notion - that Q is holding poor, sick people to ransom - does not hold up. It is often an "argument" used by shorts (ask Nomad!).

Peace...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1371231/comments?source=feed#comment-18120411 18120411
If you just can't stand the thought of ANYONE paying that much money, you can always prescribe steroids, though the cure-rate is only about 1 in 3, and such treatment is not recommended 1st-line by the FDA.

The companies that provided Acthar before Questcor were universally planning on quitting doing so, for well-documented reasons, which is how Questcor became involved in the first place. As you should know, Questcor had many years of trial and experimentation, rejection by the FDA, and unproductive investment spending, until finally gaining the ODD and indications - so it is ridiculous to cite the uneconomic prices previously charged.

But then you're just another short in quack's clothing, right?]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2013 07:02:34 -0400
If you just can't stand the thought of ANYONE paying that much money, you can always prescribe steroids, though the cure-rate is only about 1 in 3, and such treatment is not recommended 1st-line by the FDA.

The companies that provided Acthar before Questcor were universally planning on quitting doing so, for well-documented reasons, which is how Questcor became involved in the first place. As you should know, Questcor had many years of trial and experimentation, rejection by the FDA, and unproductive investment spending, until finally gaining the ODD and indications - so it is ridiculous to cite the uneconomic prices previously charged.

But then you're just another short in quack's clothing, right?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1371231/comments?source=feed#comment-18115341 18115341
. when compared to other ODD drugs, Acthar's price is middling: how would you justify "excessively expensive", ie. in relation to what - its utility to its consumers (life-saving)?
. I know you are too sophisticated an investor in the biopharma space really to suppose that either a generic or synthetic competitor could emerge "overnight". In most cases literally years of FDA-monitored testing would be required. All this begins with a Phase 1 announcement (if not before), and there has been none. The Cerium short-story seems to have ended in the dustbin of history. Do you have some other evidence we are all missing?
. while benzylalcohol could surely be omitted/replaced, would there not be a need for new clinical testing? Why hasn't Novartis already announced an effort? Perhaps they haven't heard about the US market and the immense and growing success of Acthar?

While your investments are your own concern, and though arguably the main risk to investing in QCOR seems to be precisely the kind of ignorance and irrational fear evinced in posts like yours, I venture to suggest you're missing a historic opportunity at least to double your money within a year. I recommend the 2014 and 2015 LEAPs for your perusal, if you still feel the common is too risky.]]> Fri, 26 Apr 2013 00:36:54 -0400
. when compared to other ODD drugs, Acthar's price is middling: how would you justify "excessively expensive", ie. in relation to what - its utility to its consumers (life-saving)?
. I know you are too sophisticated an investor in the biopharma space really to suppose that either a generic or synthetic competitor could emerge "overnight". In most cases literally years of FDA-monitored testing would be required. All this begins with a Phase 1 announcement (if not before), and there has been none. The Cerium short-story seems to have ended in the dustbin of history. Do you have some other evidence we are all missing?
. while benzylalcohol could surely be omitted/replaced, would there not be a need for new clinical testing? Why hasn't Novartis already announced an effort? Perhaps they haven't heard about the US market and the immense and growing success of Acthar?

While your investments are your own concern, and though arguably the main risk to investing in QCOR seems to be precisely the kind of ignorance and irrational fear evinced in posts like yours, I venture to suggest you're missing a historic opportunity at least to double your money within a year. I recommend the 2014 and 2015 LEAPs for your perusal, if you still feel the common is too risky.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1361251/comments?source=feed#comment-18067431 18067431
So if cavemen really had to contend not only with low living standards and life without ESPN, but also soullessness - when and how do you think it was that mankind acquired souls? :)

[You and I are both old enough to remember how galvanized the cavemen in the movie "2001" were by fire - if they had only seen Haswell, they might have invented back-flips.]

That said, I am inclined to forgive you your strange metaphysics, because nobody ever explained tick-tock to me before.]]> Thu, 25 Apr 2013 05:33:10 -0400
So if cavemen really had to contend not only with low living standards and life without ESPN, but also soullessness - when and how do you think it was that mankind acquired souls? :)

[You and I are both old enough to remember how galvanized the cavemen in the movie "2001" were by fire - if they had only seen Haswell, they might have invented back-flips.]

That said, I am inclined to forgive you your strange metaphysics, because nobody ever explained tick-tock to me before.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1351361/comments?source=feed#comment-17815321 17815321 Thu, 18 Apr 2013 21:24:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1320881/comments?source=feed#comment-17243601 17243601
However, would appreciate some clarification of the "AIG is undervalued by book value" thesis. I am not an accountant by training.

Is $60/share based on (1) the assets' original purchase prices, or on (2) a DCF capitalization of their current earning power, or on (3) what the assets could (theoretically) fetch on the market if sold today (AIG break-up)?

In 2012, AIG made about $4/share (giving them a pass on the Q4 charges). If $60 of asset value can produce only $4 of net income then P/E is ~15, which seems about in line with the S&P. If the income-producing power of the assets is somehow temporarily impaired (case (2) above), then I can understand the undervaluation thesis, but is this in fact the case?

If the above is NOT the case, and we go for case (3), then why would anyone pay the equivalent of $60/share if the assets can only produce $4? And if (1) is the BV basis, then it seems irrelevant to the PPS.

I'm trying to keep this as conceptually clear as your fine article, but not sure if I succeeded. I guess the BASIC question I have is that the BV argument is getting long-in-the-tooth now, and one wonders why Mr Market is so stubborn as not to give AIG its due, now that the Treasury is way in the rearview mirror? Could this latter thought perhaps help explain why Ben is not as eager as you to gorge on B/Bs? Just trying to provoke you into a caustic response. Knock this down, please.]]> Thu, 04 Apr 2013 21:03:33 -0400
However, would appreciate some clarification of the "AIG is undervalued by book value" thesis. I am not an accountant by training.

Is $60/share based on (1) the assets' original purchase prices, or on (2) a DCF capitalization of their current earning power, or on (3) what the assets could (theoretically) fetch on the market if sold today (AIG break-up)?

In 2012, AIG made about $4/share (giving them a pass on the Q4 charges). If $60 of asset value can produce only $4 of net income then P/E is ~15, which seems about in line with the S&P. If the income-producing power of the assets is somehow temporarily impaired (case (2) above), then I can understand the undervaluation thesis, but is this in fact the case?

If the above is NOT the case, and we go for case (3), then why would anyone pay the equivalent of $60/share if the assets can only produce $4? And if (1) is the BV basis, then it seems irrelevant to the PPS.

I'm trying to keep this as conceptually clear as your fine article, but not sure if I succeeded. I guess the BASIC question I have is that the BV argument is getting long-in-the-tooth now, and one wonders why Mr Market is so stubborn as not to give AIG its due, now that the Treasury is way in the rearview mirror? Could this latter thought perhaps help explain why Ben is not as eager as you to gorge on B/Bs? Just trying to provoke you into a caustic response. Knock this down, please.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1306011/comments?source=feed#comment-16941901 16941901
The one stock in the list, the #4, that I really follow, is QCOR. There is no, repeat NO, rational reason to go short this stock. Quite the reverse, actually. The ONLY reason this stock goes down is precisely because shorts produce lying reports that are subsequently shown up as 100% false (CitronResearch, Lafferty, flyonturd, etc.). People used to say a lot of the short interest was boxed, ie. institutions hedging the short attacks, but I doubt it. They've had plenty of time to clear their positions now, with a change of year, and months of churning in the 20s and low 30s.

If someone can produce a valid reason to short QCOR, then my challenge is: post it hereunder! Convince more people, and we'll all go short too! [Deafening silence ensues...]]]> Thu, 28 Mar 2013 13:09:16 -0400
The one stock in the list, the #4, that I really follow, is QCOR. There is no, repeat NO, rational reason to go short this stock. Quite the reverse, actually. The ONLY reason this stock goes down is precisely because shorts produce lying reports that are subsequently shown up as 100% false (CitronResearch, Lafferty, flyonturd, etc.). People used to say a lot of the short interest was boxed, ie. institutions hedging the short attacks, but I doubt it. They've had plenty of time to clear their positions now, with a change of year, and months of churning in the 20s and low 30s.

If someone can produce a valid reason to short QCOR, then my challenge is: post it hereunder! Convince more people, and we'll all go short too! [Deafening silence ensues...]]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/912611?source=feed#comment-16899741 16899741 Wed, 27 Mar 2013 17:04:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1289951/comments?source=feed#comment-16581571 16581571
One reads that a basic, basic difficulty with designing and executing double-blind research, in the case of a drug that patients and doctors alike strongly suspect works better than the competition, is getting half the guinea-pigs to accept that they might not be receiving the best treatment.

But, to a layman (like me) the hearsay evidence around the superior efficacy of HP Acthar Gel seems to be building all the time.]]> Wed, 20 Mar 2013 21:24:58 -0400
One reads that a basic, basic difficulty with designing and executing double-blind research, in the case of a drug that patients and doctors alike strongly suspect works better than the competition, is getting half the guinea-pigs to accept that they might not be receiving the best treatment.

But, to a layman (like me) the hearsay evidence around the superior efficacy of HP Acthar Gel seems to be building all the time.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1289951/comments?source=feed#comment-16565141 16565141
AETNA (arms folded): Hmm, we can't find much evidence Acthar is more effective than steroids, so there's mostly no need for us to waste our profits on it.

QUESTCOR (palms up in supplication, mouth open wide in protest): we only want to sell to folks who don't get better on steroids, we're not claiming to be better in a head-to-head!!

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY: Ahem. Acthar IS TOO better in a head-to-head.

Thanks so much, Life Sci Advisors, for - once again - bringing immensely interesting QCOR news to our attention on SA.

Confession: I just bought even more Jan 18 2014 calls. $30 this time, and had to pay 7.70, most expensive deal I've yet done on QCOR - but I bet you I'll make a TON of money. Must stay diversified...must stay diversified....]]> Wed, 20 Mar 2013 15:49:52 -0400
AETNA (arms folded): Hmm, we can't find much evidence Acthar is more effective than steroids, so there's mostly no need for us to waste our profits on it.

QUESTCOR (palms up in supplication, mouth open wide in protest): we only want to sell to folks who don't get better on steroids, we're not claiming to be better in a head-to-head!!

AMERICAN ACADEMY OF NEUROLOGY: Ahem. Acthar IS TOO better in a head-to-head.

Thanks so much, Life Sci Advisors, for - once again - bringing immensely interesting QCOR news to our attention on SA.

Confession: I just bought even more Jan 18 2014 calls. $30 this time, and had to pay 7.70, most expensive deal I've yet done on QCOR - but I bet you I'll make a TON of money. Must stay diversified...must stay diversified....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1286661/comments?source=feed#comment-16507441 16507441
But something you wrote near the end is rather disquieting...

Since the basic evidence you adduce shows that insiders can't predict worth-a-sh*t, and are, if anything, valuable as a contrarian indicator - shouldn't we be worried that if a few mega-sales are subtracted out: "...the ratio of insider selling to buying is actually 10% below its average level of the past 12 months"?

Sounds like we're in for a rout after all! :)]]> Tue, 19 Mar 2013 14:49:50 -0400
But something you wrote near the end is rather disquieting...

Since the basic evidence you adduce shows that insiders can't predict worth-a-sh*t, and are, if anything, valuable as a contrarian indicator - shouldn't we be worried that if a few mega-sales are subtracted out: "...the ratio of insider selling to buying is actually 10% below its average level of the past 12 months"?

Sounds like we're in for a rout after all! :)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1256071/comments?source=feed#comment-15997861 15997861
Seeing the apparently low proportions of MDs that responded to the surveys, I fell to wondering whether these were normal, or different for these surveys? Do you feel that MDs that did respond would self-select in any way relevant for the validity of the conclusions? For example, would MDs that had either a very positive or negative experience of drug effectiveness, or the reimbursement process, tend to reply? Are MDs that do not respond at all those that never use, or would want to use, Acthar?

In addition, may I ask who finances Life Sci Advisors, and these surveys in particular?

Finally, in case these questions sound skeptical or even hostile, I am only wanting to understand just how favorably I can interpret your welcome news. QCOR is altogether a larger proportion of my long portfolio than perhaps it ought to be.]]> Thu, 07 Mar 2013 15:52:37 -0500
Seeing the apparently low proportions of MDs that responded to the surveys, I fell to wondering whether these were normal, or different for these surveys? Do you feel that MDs that did respond would self-select in any way relevant for the validity of the conclusions? For example, would MDs that had either a very positive or negative experience of drug effectiveness, or the reimbursement process, tend to reply? Are MDs that do not respond at all those that never use, or would want to use, Acthar?

In addition, may I ask who finances Life Sci Advisors, and these surveys in particular?

Finally, in case these questions sound skeptical or even hostile, I am only wanting to understand just how favorably I can interpret your welcome news. QCOR is altogether a larger proportion of my long portfolio than perhaps it ought to be.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1216531/comments?source=feed#comment-15384691 15384691
I've become curious about defect rates but have not been able to come up with any hard statistics by Googling (you can bet Amazon.com isn't telling). My impression from the forums is that model upgrades have by no means eliminated the problem.

I won't be replacing my Kindle, though Amazon offered a refurbished one at a discount to the new price, and provided a link to my library such that I can at least read on a laptop or a phone.

Does anyone have any confirmable info? I'm curious whether this adds materially to a short thesis, or if I was just unlucky.]]> Fri, 22 Feb 2013 15:35:48 -0500
I've become curious about defect rates but have not been able to come up with any hard statistics by Googling (you can bet Amazon.com isn't telling). My impression from the forums is that model upgrades have by no means eliminated the problem.

I won't be replacing my Kindle, though Amazon offered a refurbished one at a discount to the new price, and provided a link to my library such that I can at least read on a laptop or a phone.

Does anyone have any confirmable info? I'm curious whether this adds materially to a short thesis, or if I was just unlucky.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1201321/comments?source=feed#comment-15186091 15186091 http://bit.ly/Y0EOcs.

The recent quarter showed non-GAAP EPS of 0.35, based on ~ 40M net income. Using a PPS of 160, this is a P/E of ~114. So far so good.

About 27.5m of that 40m (say 2/3) was stock-based compensation, which those persnicketty purveyors of GAAP, drat them, consider as an expense (er, like wages.) All-in-all, GAAP EPS was 0.10, for a P/E of 400.

Makes a difference, doesn't it? Seems we cannot have a quantitative discussion until/unless we state, upfront, whether we think stock-based compensation is just noise, or is going to be a drag on the earnings and PPS of LNKD in future.

As James Sands and others have argued in recent comment sections on LNKD, the crucial thing is to measure the likely growth rate of candidate-provision and general HR services INTERNATIONALLY, since the US market for such is probably largely monetized by LinkedIn already.

Until someone can show that the latter is likely to double each year for the next 2 or 3 years, it's hard to see how LNKD can "grow into" a P/E of 400, even assuming there is no further PPS increase at all.

Alternatively, we can lower the required growth targets, as long as we can justify the market's apparent hook-line-sinker swallowing of non-GAAP, precisely for those companies where it seems least relevant (ie. where GAAP and non-GAAP earnings show the greatest proportional discrepancy, because wages are paid in-kind as stock).]]> Tue, 19 Feb 2013 01:23:38 -0500 http://bit.ly/Y0EOcs.

The recent quarter showed non-GAAP EPS of 0.35, based on ~ 40M net income. Using a PPS of 160, this is a P/E of ~114. So far so good.

About 27.5m of that 40m (say 2/3) was stock-based compensation, which those persnicketty purveyors of GAAP, drat them, consider as an expense (er, like wages.) All-in-all, GAAP EPS was 0.10, for a P/E of 400.

Makes a difference, doesn't it? Seems we cannot have a quantitative discussion until/unless we state, upfront, whether we think stock-based compensation is just noise, or is going to be a drag on the earnings and PPS of LNKD in future.

As James Sands and others have argued in recent comment sections on LNKD, the crucial thing is to measure the likely growth rate of candidate-provision and general HR services INTERNATIONALLY, since the US market for such is probably largely monetized by LinkedIn already.

Until someone can show that the latter is likely to double each year for the next 2 or 3 years, it's hard to see how LNKD can "grow into" a P/E of 400, even assuming there is no further PPS increase at all.

Alternatively, we can lower the required growth targets, as long as we can justify the market's apparent hook-line-sinker swallowing of non-GAAP, precisely for those companies where it seems least relevant (ie. where GAAP and non-GAAP earnings show the greatest proportional discrepancy, because wages are paid in-kind as stock).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1188451/comments?source=feed#comment-15064371 15064371
It's not clear that the _recent_ upsurge in shorting has the same "relatively sane" basis as in the September-October period. Lately, shorts seem to be smaller investors, and basing their moves on relatively insubstantial allegations (a la Motley Fool) and already-refuted, older claims.

I've never been more confident of the fairly rapid rise of a stock, and even binged on Jan 18 2014 calls, which I usually think of as a mug's game (buying calls that is).]]> Fri, 15 Feb 2013 17:37:42 -0500
It's not clear that the _recent_ upsurge in shorting has the same "relatively sane" basis as in the September-October period. Lately, shorts seem to be smaller investors, and basing their moves on relatively insubstantial allegations (a la Motley Fool) and already-refuted, older claims.

I've never been more confident of the fairly rapid rise of a stock, and even binged on Jan 18 2014 calls, which I usually think of as a mug's game (buying calls that is).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1171211/comments?source=feed#comment-14834171 14834171
I am already preparing mentally for the sight of zombies walking slowly down the street, apparently permanently checking the time on something on their arms, and sometimes raising it to their ears, as if checking for a ticking sound.]]> Mon, 11 Feb 2013 07:43:52 -0500
I am already preparing mentally for the sight of zombies walking slowly down the street, apparently permanently checking the time on something on their arms, and sometimes raising it to their ears, as if checking for a ticking sound.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1122271/comments?source=feed#comment-13956271 13956271
That said, I notice ARMH is up 50% since early last November (~28 --> ~42), whereas the IoT seems to have been thought of quite a bit before then. So, do you think the IoT is helpful in understanding that recent wind-busting run-up? Or is there something else at play here?]]> Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:16:32 -0500
That said, I notice ARMH is up 50% since early last November (~28 --> ~42), whereas the IoT seems to have been thought of quite a bit before then. So, do you think the IoT is helpful in understanding that recent wind-busting run-up? Or is there something else at play here?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/736481?source=feed#comment-13046991 13046991
Lost count of the # of times I wanted to Dislike a post, but could not!]]> Thu, 27 Dec 2012 21:18:11 -0500
Lost count of the # of times I wanted to Dislike a post, but could not!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/currents/post/722121?source=feed#comment-12643631 12643631 Sat, 15 Dec 2012 21:03:09 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/1051931/comments?source=feed#comment-12411141 12411141
In the Keynsian liquidity-trap, the money "injected" goes to holders who are unmotivated either to spend or "invest" their additional balances - perhaps like the European banks one read about, who simply allowed low-interest balances to accuimulate with the ECB. From the empirical viewpoint, this looks like velocity (V) in MV = PT has fallen pari-passu with the rise in M, so that aggregate spending (PxT) is constant.

To me, this is all so much mumbo-jumbo.

If there was really a Helicopter Ben, who flew around dropping fresh-printed $20 bills on Main Street, obviously most newly-enriched folk would rush to either spend or invest (though excessively fearful types really might just deposit in their bank accounts). This is just like a public-works policy (build the Interstates) but no need even to work for it.

Of course, there really might be institutions with MBS, who are so fearful that they will just hoard the cash they receive from MBS or Treasury sales. If so, and they pick up the bills, then monetary policy fails. (Below, 1234gel cites a scenario where "The banks are using this additional liquidity to purchase Treasury bonds at a 3% spread, and do very little lending" but this may not be the end of the story if the sellers of the TBs do something useful with their receipts...)

And, of course, there are lots of other intermediate scenarios, where the spending/investing spills into foreign economies via the balance of payments - but I'd best shut-up, this is already getting like a first-grade economics text ;).)

Helicopters aside, monetary policy works via wealth effects, which are supposed to be weak.

FWIW, I am grateful to Eric for the article, and also think there is some empirical merit in what he says, and forecasts - I'm optimistic for US stocks in the New Year (AMZN, ARMH, CRM and LNKD aside).]]> Sun, 09 Dec 2012 04:01:11 -0500
In the Keynsian liquidity-trap, the money "injected" goes to holders who are unmotivated either to spend or "invest" their additional balances - perhaps like the European banks one read about, who simply allowed low-interest balances to accuimulate with the ECB. From the empirical viewpoint, this looks like velocity (V) in MV = PT has fallen pari-passu with the rise in M, so that aggregate spending (PxT) is constant.

To me, this is all so much mumbo-jumbo.

If there was really a Helicopter Ben, who flew around dropping fresh-printed $20 bills on Main Street, obviously most newly-enriched folk would rush to either spend or invest (though excessively fearful types really might just deposit in their bank accounts). This is just like a public-works policy (build the Interstates) but no need even to work for it.

Of course, there really might be institutions with MBS, who are so fearful that they will just hoard the cash they receive from MBS or Treasury sales. If so, and they pick up the bills, then monetary policy fails. (Below, 1234gel cites a scenario where "The banks are using this additional liquidity to purchase Treasury bonds at a 3% spread, and do very little lending" but this may not be the end of the story if the sellers of the TBs do something useful with their receipts...)

And, of course, there are lots of other intermediate scenarios, where the spending/investing spills into foreign economies via the balance of payments - but I'd best shut-up, this is already getting like a first-grade economics text ;).)

Helicopters aside, monetary policy works via wealth effects, which are supposed to be weak.

FWIW, I am grateful to Eric for the article, and also think there is some empirical merit in what he says, and forecasts - I'm optimistic for US stocks in the New Year (AMZN, ARMH, CRM and LNKD aside).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1051761/comments?source=feed#comment-12410991 12410991
I am leery of investing in Chinese ADRs, not so much because of the difficulty of verifying accounting probity, but because - so I understand it - any company, whose ADR is constituted as a VIE, can legally expropriate the stockholder at any time.

BIDU is subject to a VIE. XIN, for example is not, which is why XIN is the only Chinese ADR I will own, presently.

Any comments? I would think that any delisting order would be a smashing excuse for invoking the VIE clauses, notwithstanding Charlie's very plausible argument that the delistings are in NOBODY's interest.]]> Sun, 09 Dec 2012 03:25:26 -0500
I am leery of investing in Chinese ADRs, not so much because of the difficulty of verifying accounting probity, but because - so I understand it - any company, whose ADR is constituted as a VIE, can legally expropriate the stockholder at any time.

BIDU is subject to a VIE. XIN, for example is not, which is why XIN is the only Chinese ADR I will own, presently.

Any comments? I would think that any delisting order would be a smashing excuse for invoking the VIE clauses, notwithstanding Charlie's very plausible argument that the delistings are in NOBODY's interest.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1051931/comments?source=feed#comment-12386881 12386881
The Fed, in this case, bids up the prices of MBS relative to cash and other assets (such as stocks). The institutions that sell the MBSs review asset-class ratios on their balance sheets, and.... Do you know something different about this case?

Of much more interest, to me personally, would be if you (or someone) could explain why the Fed's music is in the key of F? F is for Fed, or Fail? Bb would have been slyer, since it's BB conducting.]]> Fri, 07 Dec 2012 23:58:38 -0500
The Fed, in this case, bids up the prices of MBS relative to cash and other assets (such as stocks). The institutions that sell the MBSs review asset-class ratios on their balance sheets, and.... Do you know something different about this case?

Of much more interest, to me personally, would be if you (or someone) could explain why the Fed's music is in the key of F? F is for Fed, or Fail? Bb would have been slyer, since it's BB conducting.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1039401/comments?source=feed#comment-12195401 12195401
I don't think "Modernist" is going to answer the challenge for the evidence he used in making the assessment.

My only regeret is that in my violent urge to hit the Reply text on his latest, and most condescending, message - I first hit the Like button!]]> Mon, 03 Dec 2012 10:48:55 -0500
I don't think "Modernist" is going to answer the challenge for the evidence he used in making the assessment.

My only regeret is that in my violent urge to hit the Reply text on his latest, and most condescending, message - I first hit the Like button!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1039401/comments?source=feed#comment-12187951 12187951
What is required here (to be helpful) is to show how the "chasing momentum strategy" applies to the author's investments and/or the changes in their levels. Don't you think?]]> Mon, 03 Dec 2012 06:09:07 -0500
What is required here (to be helpful) is to show how the "chasing momentum strategy" applies to the author's investments and/or the changes in their levels. Don't you think?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1019651/comments?source=feed#comment-11874071 11874071
You would not willingly sell a stock a month or 2 back for about $4 when you think it will more likely than not be a double within a year - right? So have you changed your opinion since you sold?

Please do not misunderstand the purpose of my questions. As against all the people who commented here, displaying their vexation with your selling ATRS, I take it for granted you have a perfect right to write interesting articles and insights about any damn thing you like, and buy/sell as you damn well please. What you do with your $$ is just none of my business (or theirs).

I am just trying to get you to explain your position a little more. You generally have very interesting info and perspective to offer, and that is of great value to ATRS investors.]]> Thu, 22 Nov 2012 02:56:06 -0500
You would not willingly sell a stock a month or 2 back for about $4 when you think it will more likely than not be a double within a year - right? So have you changed your opinion since you sold?

Please do not misunderstand the purpose of my questions. As against all the people who commented here, displaying their vexation with your selling ATRS, I take it for granted you have a perfect right to write interesting articles and insights about any damn thing you like, and buy/sell as you damn well please. What you do with your $$ is just none of my business (or theirs).

I am just trying to get you to explain your position a little more. You generally have very interesting info and perspective to offer, and that is of great value to ATRS investors.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/1012961/comments?source=feed#comment-11673851 11673851
Do you (or does anyone) know of similar, relevant cases (where a drug was adjudged effective by the advisory committee, but they also said there was insufficient evidence of safety), yet the FDA overrode with a PDUFA approval, based on an agreement to gather further data after the drug went into use?

More generally, is there any reasonably objective way for an investor to assess the likelihood of a PDUFA approval in this (kind of) case? What are we looking at: 50-50, 70-30 or 10-90?

One hates to sell in a panic (I did not) but one also hates to hang around, waiting for the players to come back out and play OT, when one's team has in fact already lost in regulation.

There's another fellow, Jack Holland, also writing a blog with a similar perspective ("it ain't over..."), but no particular evidence.]]> Fri, 16 Nov 2012 02:58:05 -0500
Do you (or does anyone) know of similar, relevant cases (where a drug was adjudged effective by the advisory committee, but they also said there was insufficient evidence of safety), yet the FDA overrode with a PDUFA approval, based on an agreement to gather further data after the drug went into use?

More generally, is there any reasonably objective way for an investor to assess the likelihood of a PDUFA approval in this (kind of) case? What are we looking at: 50-50, 70-30 or 10-90?

One hates to sell in a panic (I did not) but one also hates to hang around, waiting for the players to come back out and play OT, when one's team has in fact already lost in regulation.

There's another fellow, Jack Holland, also writing a blog with a similar perspective ("it ain't over..."), but no particular evidence.]]>