logicalthought

Comment Stream

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • My 8 Value Plays for '08: The Results
    Those are some of the worst, most inaccurate predictions I've ever seen, but at least I give you credit for not hiding from them, unlike some of the schmucks on this site who never fail to mention the few times they were right about something while ignoring or downplaying all the times they were wrong.
    Dec 26 23:59 pm |Rating: +9 -2 |Link to Comment |View article
  • 12 CNBC Pet Peeves
    1) Yes, Dennis Kneale is an absolute idiot.
    2) Maria is equally stupid.
    3) Their use of the "Breaking News" graphic for stories that are 12 hours old is nauseating.

    In DEFENSE of CNBC:

    Joe Keirnan is the absolutely the most drily funny guy on television, period. He's absoluteyl entertaining as hell.
    Dec 12 09:16 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Why I Expect a Year End Bear Market Bounce
    This is a very useful column to write when the market is already up over 20% from its intra-day low of a few weeks ago. Where was your prediction on THAT day? Today you write that there will be a lot of resistance at S&P 960 (around 5% from now), and don't predict whether or not the market can exceed that point. You, sir, are a true seer.
    Dec 09 06:40 am |Rating: +2 -1 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Negative Real Rates Will Drive Gold Prices Up
    You have no idea what you're talking about. Just as the CPI failed to measure "real world" inflation for a long period of time, it's currently failing to measure real world DE-flation, which I'd guess is currently running at around 10% annualized when one considers price drops in housing, energy, big-ticket consumer items, etc., and lack of service industry and industrial product pricing power. Real rates are, in fact, MASSIVE right now.
    Dec 07 08:59 am |Rating: +2 -3 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Help the Housing Market with a Buyback Program
    You are insane.
    Nov 28 09:02 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Don't Follow the Wall Street Crowd - Prepare for Market Rollover
    One thing to keep in mind is that the survey was emailed in late-September, and most of the results came in soon thereafter. Thus, we don't really know how those money managers would've felt by later in October.
    Nov 06 11:42 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • A $40 Bottom in Oil?
    Your "analysis" makes no sense. The price that an oil producer "needs" to run its government programs has nothing to do with where the price of oil will go. Assuming that worldwide demand plunges below production, the price of oil will fall until the market once again reaches a state of balance. No oil producer would "settle" for $40 if it had any control over the situation and, in fact, if demand falls off badly enough, they might pump more and more in order to make up the lost revenue, sending the price all the way down to the marginal cost of production. I'm not saying demand will necessarily evaporate to that degree; all I'm saying is that once there's a glut of oil, OPEC-- due to its own capital needs-- can kiss its pricing power goodbye.
    Nov 05 21:35 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Why Jim Rogers Is Still Bullish on Grains and Gold
    Rogers has got to be down HUGE, between his commodity bets and his bets on the Chinese stock market. Will it all eventually come back? Sure, probably, but a great money manager doesn't keep you long at the top of a bubble.
    Oct 31 06:07 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • CNBC's Gasparino Problem
    The funniest part is that Gasparino's "sources" are wrong much more often than they're right.
    Oct 13 13:09 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Was Friday's Rally Just a Hedge Fund Short Squeeze?
    fatcat:

    Blaming these crazy moves on the "lack of specialists" is just wrong. In the crash of '87, almost all of the NYSE action went through "specialists"... and yet the market was down 20+% in a single day. When things are bad, those guys (just like the Nasdaq market makers who stopped answering their phones) will step back in a hurry.
    Oct 12 08:28 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Profiting from the $700 Billion Bailout
    You've got at least one thing backwards: doing nothing would trigger a "surge of DE-flation."
    Sep 25 06:23 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Convertibles: Collateral Damage of the Shorting Ban
    upndown1313: What if "the idea" is to stop the company from running out of money and thus wiping out the common shareholders?
    Sep 20 16:57 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Convertibles: Collateral Damage of the Shorting Ban
    Big Al45: It's incorrect to say that the issuance of convertible bonds necessarily "abuses the equity position of existing stock holders". Presumably, your company is issuing these bonds because it needs money. in that case, it can either issue stock or debt, and if it issues stock, it's going to have to do it at a price that's probably at some discount to where it's currently trading (or, at least, to where it was trading before the company announced that it was going to sell stock). On the other hand, most convertible bonds convert at a premium to market, and some of them quite significantly so. Thus, a convert can wind up being much less dilutive to the common stock shareholder than selling more common stock. However, if you've got a company that issued a convertible with little or no premium in the conversion price (or, even worse, convertible at a discount), then you've got a company that no one was willing to finance in any other way, and you should be asking yourself what the market is seeing that you're not.
    Sep 20 08:59 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Convertibles: Collateral Damage of the Shorting Ban
    Big Al45: It's all built into the pricing. Sure, you can make an interest rate that's attractive enough to price an unhedgeable transaction. Do you know how you do that? You raise the borrower's cost of capital. That's the unintended consequence of this moronic ruling by the SEC. (Yes, enforce the laws against naked shorting, and yes, reinstate the uptick rule, but no, don't ban short-selling altogether.) And even after shorting of the financials is reinstated, I wouldn't be surprised if investors demanded a bit of a "risk premium" to protect themselves against the possibility that the government will once again arbitrarily prevent them from hedging.

    To answer your second question: in a 144a transaction (which is what most big converts are), there's a press release put out announcing that a transaction will soon take place; this permits the investors to short the stock concurrent with-- or ahead of-- the transaction. In a privately marketed deal, the investors can't short the stock until after the deal is priced and announced.
    Sep 19 22:52 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • How Much Have our Real Estate Assets Gone Down?
    Can someone please help me interpret that chart? I'm guessing that this is in constant dollars with the "0" line menaing one is just keeping pace with inflation, yes? So if I'm right, then a normal housing peak provides a 150% gain, after which inflation and/or the ensuing nominal decline means a reversion to the "0" line, yes? So does this now mean that it's time for "mean-reversion&q... in a positive sense?
    Sep 14 09:04 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

logicalthought's Comments Stream Stats

  • 34 Comments, 15 , 6
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 9