dmnieren

Comment Stream

Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
  • Muni Bonds: Constructive in Current Portfolio Asset Allocation
    I hate to play political angles when investing, but my bet would be on no changes to the tax structure...why?

    1) It would kill cities and states that issue large amounts of munis.
    2) These cities and states tend to vote Democratic (see: CA, NY, MA, IL)
    3) Next admin, and certainly Congress is likely to be Democratic.

    As always, the Democrats might state they want to "target" the rich, but what they really mean is that they want to "target" their political adversaries, meaning "rich" businessmen/workers, not largely Democratic states with bloated budgets & high state taxes that are partly subsidized by the tax breaks on munis and the state income tax deduction. Not being partisan, just reading what actually happens (like last time they ran the gov't--taxes were raised down to couples making $40K or whatever it was, but there was no touching of the muni exemption, homeowners subsidy, etc)
    Oct 23 11:21 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Anesiva 'Pain-free' High Growth
    What insurance company will pay for this?
    I'm skeptical that payers view needlestick pain as a problem they need to reimburse for.
    Aug 20 12:53 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • What's Going On at Roche Palo Alto?
    scuttlebutt is that roche palo alto will close. biologics will of course stay at Genentech/Roche. Everything else will be transferred to Nutley, New Jersey
    Aug 06 17:35 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Better Off Now Than 5 Years Ago?
    I keep pretty detailed expense records (part of running the finances for my wife's business) and I can say with certainty that our day-to-day expenses are more than 30% higher than they were 5 years ago. However, I'm lucky in that my salary is 50% higher, so I'm better off, but I can certainly see where a heck of a lot of people who haven't had such good fortune would be in a world of hurt.

    By the way, we're not living any richer, we're putting that money away for buying a house when (hopefully) the market is closer to a bottom. We still have the same car as 5 years ago, etc etc.
    Apr 21 12:40 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • GTx, Inc.: A Diamond in a Mud Pit
    Except for that pesky patent issue on toremifene. or that there's nothing to stop a doc from prescribing a similar drug like Fosamax that's going generic.
    Apr 03 12:13 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Who Is Jerome Kerviel?
    Soros is an idiot who got lucky once.
    Jan 26 00:07 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
  • Black Swans, Real Estate and Financial Stocks
    I'll give you a point that Taleb sets up a bit of a difficult argument to prove or disprove, but that's not really his point. His point would be your model --Citigroup's decline is a low-probability event (as defined by you of 1:40 years)--is not real. It does not and cannot accurately quantify the likelihood of a 45% decline in C's stock. Your probability is based on past returns which do not account for the unknowable black swan even of the future (i.e. Enron-style fraud, Spitzer-like gov't interference, or worse). Therefore, your "prediction" that such a return is only a 1:40 event is useless.

    BUT the biggest nail in your silly probability coffin is that C had a >40% decline just 6 years ago in the August '01 to June '02 timeframe (less than a year; Black Swan=9/11). C had nearly a 50% decline from June -Sept '98 (Black Swan=Russia default). And another from June '90 to Oct. '90 (Black Swan=S&L?, Gulf War I?). And another from from Sept - Dec '87 (Black Swan=October '87 crash). And another from May '81 to March '82 (help me out on that one--interest rates?).

    FIVE such declines in the past 25 years. This is not a 1:40 event. Period. That is what Taleb was hammering on. These probabilistic models always underestimate the "tails" because stock returns do not follow a standard bell curve.

    By not correctly estimating your downside risk, you greatly increase the odds you'll get blown up. Period. That's one of the big themes in Taleb's work.
    Jan 03 00:42 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

dmnieren's Comments Stream Stats

  • 7 Comments, 0 , 0
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 0