Michael B. Krause

Comment Stream

Michael B. Krause picture
17
Profile Articles (29)
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
    • Money for Nothing: Just Buy S&P 500 Puts
      yes. the near term visibility is too low. Take a look at this.

      scriabinop23.blogspot....

      Corporate defaults are still way too low. This is going to take a while to bottom.
      Apr 03 21:56 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Apple's Move: Institutional Run-Up or Rebound?
      This is a perfect bear market short, guys. I love AAPL, but its priced right. (not frothy nor too cheap) AAPL will have a hard time moving far from 120-150 unless the broad market does the same.

      Still too much bad news ahead ...
      Mar 27 18:53 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • U.S. Dollar Paradigm Shift Underway
      correction: low interest rates ARE not significantly ramping up money supply.

      typed a little too quick.
      Mar 25 02:24 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • U.S. Dollar Paradigm Shift Underway
      Yes. This 'bail-out' just prevented, as Meredith Whitney of Oppenheimer speculated, a 2.5T forced unwind (imagine the cascade) of credit default swaps.

      The err here is that of the masses blindly following the quants in the quest that greed guides. That, by the way, is capitalism. Judge for yourself the errors of capitalism.

      As far as John's arguments of money supply: My point is that there has been a gigantic amount of monetary destruction going on. The reigning of credit is monetary destruction. When the reserve base falls (as it has due to these bank losses), the total money outstanding is significantly less. Its just like a multiplier reduction. Now even with a new risk assessment mentality, w/ banks being afraid to even loan to each other, low interest rates is not significantly ramping up money supply. Its just helping reduce a barrier of functionality in the system.

      A deflationary environment provides no incentive to run a business. Why invest if your future returns on investment will not pay for your current investment? If you want gold standard, no fractional reserve, etc. then you want a socialist system. Capitalism vs. socialism is another argument for another place.

      But certainly, a strong currency with little innovation is fundamentally sound from the point of view of the fact that no progress yields little in the way of health care tech advances. You're right: you won't need to worry about retirement with a gold standard currency because you won't live more than a few years past working age.
      Mar 25 02:23 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Apple and United Technolgies: Bargains Amidst the Recession News
      Thats a little too aggressive on the AAPL I think. Of course anything can happen, but this stock is priced fairly. Long term, fine. But why should AAPL be trading at a forward 32 PE (200) with a 22% growth rate in a battered economy?

      This is a buy at 115-125 and a sell at 140+ until the clouds are gone.
      Mar 25 00:36 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • U.S. Dollar Paradigm Shift Underway
      This is a great provoker ... I was wrong about the depth of the credit crisis. I'll admit that. But if you read further in the same article, I go on to say:

      If $90+ oil is here to stay, we're only at the beginning of the food commodities rally. Watch corn go to $6.00/bu, soy to $13.00, and forced out wheat acres will repeat this past season's ascent to an even more ridiculous level. Then comes the more expensive to feed pigs, cattle, and resulting milk.


      And to the first writer: The average middle class lives more comfortably (minus the servants) than Rockefeller did at the turn of the century. A move away from gold standard facilitated this.

      To the last poster, you say:

      " For those of you that say innovation has created economic "booms"...I guess there is a sucker born every day. Booms are created by the FED. "

      You are getting it backwards. The flexibility of the money supply helps and does not hinder gigantic productivity and technological increases. It is the fuel to our innovative spirit in the US. Sure it leads to excesses and busts like this, but this cycle is necessary. Greed, fear and risk taking are inherent in capitalist mentality systems; a move to a system that removes the cyclical element takes away the capitalist 'oxygen' so to speak.

      On the other hand, I'm in no way condoning the giant 'herd' screwup that subprime became (not just in the US scene, but the world scene). It is a story of collusion between i-bankers, ratings agencies, and blind faith into flawed statistical models. Perhaps the lesson here is everyone in finance should be required to take 4 semesters of statistics and econometrics to not function like the herd and think for themselves.
      Mar 24 20:09 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • How Bad Is the Dollar's Fall?
      Take a look here.. This is coming to seekingalpha - a pro-USD argument.

      scriabinop23.blogspot....
      Mar 24 02:36 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Alan Greenspan Loses His Mind
      Everyone likes a good scapegoat.

      The reality is that while fed rates too low for about 1.5 years, they did NOT create this credit bubble.

      It was the 'flawed model' that created the credit bubble. Everyone went quant, followed models based on a low volatility standard deviation, and they worked long enough to make them 'right' in everyone's eyes.

      This was a function of not just money supply and poorly thought out consumption based fiscal policy (blame Mr. Bush for that), but the result of technology and math making their way into the markets as a justifying force as what is right.

      Guys: If subprime CDO tranches were more properly rated in the first place, subprime would have never happened. Subprime loans would have cost 9%-12% to the end buyer, not half of that.

      From there, its a cascading waterfall.

      And like the perennial bears say: Even low rates won't fix an overlevered consumer. So why did low rates allow the consumer to be overlevered before? They didn't because they were low rates; they did because someone (ratings agency in possible collusion with Wall street banks?) was modelling unrealistic loss levels on everything from junk debt to subprime.

      Simply put, increased money supply didn't help, but it was not the primary cause of our maladies. The primary cause was risk free euphoria associated with anything to be bought - houses, commodities, junk bonds ... (with the most ironic exception: stocks, we have a financial memory from 2000 what that leads us to).

      At least healthy risk models are coming back to the markets. We'll have an era of real returns coming up for investors worth the risk taking.
      Mar 23 12:00 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Market Sentiment: Eye-Poppingly Bearish
      Interesting about sentiment. I went to the UTC (near UCSD) mall here in San Diego yesterday. Mall full. Apple shop packed. I didn't expect it. Maybe a holiday weekend anomaly.

      But I tell you this: In a real depression/recession, the malls are empty on the weekends. This is not nasty yet. So who knows ...
      Mar 23 11:17 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • What's With This Volatility?
      Here. Here's the exact same data on S&P since 1950. Its good data.

      krausecomputer.com/per... (its in Excel zipped up)

      Mar 20 23:02 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Visa: Already Priced to Perfection
      Lot of euphoric posting in this thread. Interesting. I do stand corrected about allocation of cash; from what I hear there is some more complex distribution methodology rather than sitting in a big bank account. (a portion will go to the litigation escrow account, another portion goes to share redemption ... this ultimately nullifies my 'value' call of V over MA shares on a cash vs cash analysis)

      But this is a conversion to liquid stock of Visa assets for the hundreds of banks that hold an interest in this ... The cash raised in the IPO goes to the company itself. The banks that own it are just shareholders with a now liquid position.
      Mar 20 18:56 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Visa Already Twice MasterCard's Market Cap
      I deal with the valuations in my upcoming seekalpha article. Here's the original link. Your numbers are pretty spot-on though.

      scriabinop23.blogspot....
      Mar 19 17:49 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Visa Already Twice MasterCard's Market Cap
      Market cap = Total outstanding shares * price.

      Not = float * price.
      Mar 19 16:41 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Visa Already Twice MasterCard's Market Cap
      The float reflects 52% of the total capital stock. So if you could buy all of the 406M shares, you would only own 52% of VISA.

      Same goes for BX. They only sold a fraction of the company at IPO; the float is smaller than total outstanding shares.

      Mar 19 16:41 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Visa Already Twice MasterCard's Market Cap
      www.sec.gov/Archives/e...
      Mar 19 15:51 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

Michael B. Krause's Comments Stream Stats

  • 68 Comments, 5 , 0
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 5