|
quote:I'm not currently actively trading, but I'm wondering: does frequent stock trading cause a giant hassle at tax time? Do you have to record all trades you make manually, or do you trust your broker to give you an accurate tax document? Thanks for input. Depends enormously on your broker. They'll always give you (and the IRS) the date of sale, and the sales proceeds, but they may or may not actually give you the cost basis information.
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
In other news, the drop in oil prices is doing amazing things for basically every shipping company involved with oil tankers.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 21, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Commoners posted:MCZ full retard trip report- What makes you think there will be a lovely earnings report on the 13th? I know nothing about MCZ.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
originalnickname posted:Saudi's got some definite cash burn going on, but with a contingency fund in the trillions I'm not sure they'll be worried about anything yet. Agreeing with this. I don't see a reason for why the Saudis would stop until major players start to drop.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 29, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
Torpor posted:Seadrill partners (SDLP) is probably going to be issuing a ~$.55 dividend in a couple weeks. The stock is priced at ~$11. I really wish I had bought when it was around $9 as that would be a bit safer. Nothing good is coming to offshore drillers anytime soon (as in years). Stay the hell away from SDLP. You've been warned.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 21, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
FreelanceSocialist posted:I didn't even check GPRO after my sell order executed at around 3:30. Think it's worth grabbing again at ~$26? Stay away from that dog - it's rabid and biting people. The Q3 results were fine (I would even call them good - they were above what analysts expected before GPRO pumped the guidance in the Q2 earnings call). However, the big issues: 1). Q4 guidance was slashed and is worse than anyone anticipated 2). The management's performance during the call was terrible. There was tons of stuttering and evasive answered to pointed questions from analysts (especially when it came to how GPRO plans to monetize their non-hardware content). They continued to throw around the same meaningless statistics about youtube view rates and video submissions, but could not provide any kind of guidance on how they were going to, you know, actually make money off of it. 3). Inventory continues to accumulate. 4). Huge share buyback tells me the management has no real idea on how to grow the company and instead is focused on growing the share price. It's trading at an attractive E/P multiple but the sentiment surrounding this stock is so god awful that I don't see it recovering before the 2016 Q2 earnings call. I'm cashing out of this thing today. Stay away.
|
|
#
¿
Oct 29, 2015 12:20
|
|
|
Anyone riding SUNE into earnings?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 6, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Mustarde posted:I'm long on sune with an entry point at 6.78. It's more of a bet that management will turn around their ability to sell completed projects and obtain capital to finance new ones. I'm not expecting anything great from the earnings report this quarter, I don't think they spent most of it in damage control and soul searching. It will take a few quarters to reflect any improvement in their capital market health. I'm anticipating a rather sizable miss due to all the restructuring. But we'll see.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 7, 2015 14:37
|
|
|
My Q-Face posted:My point was that my prediction was that the stock wouldn't go under $5 but it went down to 4.90 just over an hour later. My "Be greedy when others are fearful" *loses 40% in FMV in a week*
|
|
#
¿
Nov 12, 2015 02:22
|
|
face wasn't ironic.
|
My Q-Face posted:I will get back into SUNE when they level out a little more, because if they do drop vivint or change their plans I think they'll recover quickly, but I don't think we're there yet. I do think TDW has bottomed for the time being though, so I'm in that up to my neck. They're not dropping the VSLR. Chatila has repeatedly said and emphasized on the earnings call that the deal is going to happen, and the agreement is signed. Any backing out of the deal at this point is going to cause so many lawsuits that any possible benefit of cancelling the deal will be washed away in millions and millions of legal fees/damages.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 14, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:I'm not too sure what you are asking, but SUNE has projects already financed through the end of 2016 and they will probably be cash flow positive within 9 months. They are simply not in any imminent danger of bankruptcy. Both yeildcos are paying dividends and the entire share price of SUNE is accounted for by their holdings in TERP and GLBL. The projects SUNE has warehoused, all of the projects they have on the books already generating revenue, and all of the projects that are *already* financed are presently being given a value of $0. The market is disconnected. They have a tremendous number of projects underway right now. There are liquidity issues, but someone will step up with a lifeline, there is simply too much at stake and the model is *this* close to working. Haha, please don't make me point out how irrational this is getting because I'll end up buying more and being far overexposed I'm agreeing with this. I know this is being said a million times over, but the balance sheet appearance really is the problem here. I don't claim that SUNE is the pinnacle of financial health, but most of their debt is project debt. To use a metaphor: if SUNE was a person, it would have an 800k mortgage while having a 70k salary. The person says he can totally afford this mortgage once he lands his new gig as CEO of a publicly traded company that develops solar projects making 300k/year. Do you believe him? That's really the question here. The market is currently assessing that same person as if he had 800k of credit card debt - which is a way scarier scenario. Disclaimer: the above is very much a simplification and mainly to illustrate the differences between recourse and nonrecourse. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 13:41 on Nov 18, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2015 13:29
|
|
|
darkhand posted:The money has to go somewhere, where else should it go? Clearly if Google/facebook/netflix weren't around, investors would be hording their money under their mattress.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 21, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
RIP offshore drillers.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 23, 2015 14:05
|
|
|
Still too early for SUNE. Way too much potential bad news in the pipe yet to call this the bottom.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 24, 2015 11:50
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:Eh, not really. What drove it up was the liquidity solution, the cancellation of Continuum Wind Energy deal, and the sale of the Indian solar portfolio. I'm sure people appreciate the effort to make the yieldcos a little more independent, but that news came out yesterday and didn't really have much effect. Hmm yes GLBL's CEO/CFO "resigns" and subsequently SUNE pillages GLBL for liquidity to cover its margin loan. Nothing fishy happening here.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 03:31
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:I honestly cant believe you think selling GLBL a project for $0.55/watt it "pillaging"..... thats absurd. It is a mutually beneficial transaction, if anything it favors GLBL in my opinion. Based on GLBL's drop yesterday (which at some points was almost at 9%), the market doesn't really agree. GLBL strikes me as the better buy over SUNE right now. At least its price is supported by the dividend.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 13:08
|
|
|
Erdricks posted:Lol, what chance do you actually think there is of recovering that dividend cash flow in the future as SUNE strips its liquidity out and loads it up with debt? I didn't say GLBL was some kind of awesome strong buy. I just said that if someone had a gun to my head and forced me to put money back into this thing it would be going into GLBL and not SUNE.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
tesilential posted:Ford has looked cheap for awhile but the market really hates F. Ford is majority owned by day traders and computer algorithms. And in other news: the new monster in the closet from an awesome job report: what if there are MULTIPLE RATE HIKES IN 2016??!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
#
¿
Dec 4, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:I've done well with BLUE and SAVE so far. SUNE still a strong buy. I hesitate to go back into SUNE. The TERP deal is still very much in the air. If that does not get cancelled or SUBSTANTIALLY renegotiated I fully expect SUNE to crater into the low $2's.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 01:11
|
|
|
fougera posted:What do you think of other yieldcos like PEGI? All yieldcos and MLP's are suffering right now. The market has been very indiscriminate. See: GMLP, KNOT, EVA, USAC, KMI etc. Everything is tanking with commodities. There's some pretty incredible buys out there.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Energy is getting annihilated today. I understand what OPEC is doing, but I feel it is going to bite them in the rear end. Even if you put the smaller north american drillers out of business, the second prices rise again there will be more to replace them. In the meantime you are going to bankrupt the smaller OPEC nations, potentially causing geopolitical instability (which will reduce supply). They don't have a choice. The good old days are behind them.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Torpor posted:RIP SDRL Their dividend got cut to -0- last year.. yes, they're quite hosed regardless.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
VendaGoat posted:Gasoline is below a dollar in Michigan. Are you really one of those people who think intelligent, rational, mature individuals ran nations and companies 100 or even 50 years ago? The past 20 years is probably the best 20 years this world has ever had.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2016 14:10
|
|
|
mike- posted:You can discount their adjustments all you want, especially if they aren't giving the information on how the adjustments were made. But GAAP does not give you an apples to apples comparison of economic earnings, which was my point. You don't have to accept the adjustments any management team presents, but looking at GAAP measurements on their own isn't any better and is likely worse. You're really, really mispresenting GAAP here. Management doesn't make "choices" when it comes to depreciation, amortization, impairments, etc. Useful lives of depreciable/amortizable assets are comparable among companies within an industry. There are not (or shouldn't be, anyway) instances where you have management depreciating assets like ships over 50 years when the industry norm is 20. That type of deviation is a departure from GAAP standards. Management has very little wiggle room when it comes to manipulating numbers on a GAAP basis - which is why they have now been resorting to just outright adjusting the numbers and stamping "non-GAAP" all over it. If anything, the most susceptible areas of manipulation occur within stuff like legal reserve accounts where there's a degree of subjectivity (it's not easy to compare a specific company lawsuit to an industry norm). I consider GAAP to be a poor metric for REITs and R&D companies. For companies like VRX, where little R&D is actually happening, it definitely is an appropriate metric and definitely better than the "cash eps" metric or whatever garbage that Pearson manufactures during investor presentations. I always find it funny that most of these management "adjusted earnings" calculations involve adding back stuff like "non cash expenses" and "non recurring expenses". Very rarely is there ever such a thing as "non cash income" or "non recurring income".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 18, 2016 22:42
|
|
|
mike- posted:This is a load of bullshit. There is a ton of discretion in d&a for financial reporting. Further, d&a presented for financial reporting is completely different than d&a for tax purposes, and when you are considering value you would want to use tax basis d&a as that is what would effect cash-flows. That alone makes the d&a presented for financial reporting relatively worthless, without even getting into the discretion valuation firms and audit firms have in determining the useful lives of amortizable intangible assets. Can I ask your background here? Do you actually work in public? Or are you talking from the perspective of internal accounting of a public company? Please educate me on how financial reporting depreciation under GAAP is not based on the historical cost of the asset. Please give an example of how management can manipulate depreciation/amortization under GAAP under a given year. Yes, intangibles get weird when it comes to useful lives. edit: to clarify, I specifically have no idea what you're talking about when you say financial vs tax depreciation when it comes to cash flows. Both are based on historical cost. The only difference is going to be timing. I'm also interested in what you define as "economic profits". When a company is taking impairment charges and large depreciation write-offs, there's definitely a reduction in both accounting and economic earnings in the company. Let me give an example here to illustrate what specifically annoys me about analysts and investors that trash GAAP: IE: these oil service companies have been writing down large amounts of assets leading to huge GAAP EPS losses. But these GAAP EPS losses aren't being advertised as much as the adjusted figures which show these companies losing like 10 cents a share or whatever due to all of the impairment addbacks. The impairment doesn't mean these companies are suddenly free of all the debt they loaded on in order to acquire these assets. These impairments represent very real cash outflows (in terms of debt repayments). These just happen to show up on a different line in the cash flows statement. What's ultimately going to happen is these companies will be posting $1 "adjusted EPS" losses for a couple years before filing for bankruptcy and restructuring. This, to me, is why I consider adjusted figures to be ripe for abuse much more than GAAP. And is why I'm glad the SEC is finally starting to look into these "adjusted EPS" figures that get thrown around left and right. Like I said before, I agree with you that evaluating R&D/tech/REITs using GAAP measurements makes no sense. But let's not kid ourselves: nobody evaluates tech and R&D companies on their fundamentals anyway. Fortunately, the majority of companies are not R&D/Tech/REITs. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 21:45 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
mike- posted:I work in valuation for an investment bank. One of the things I do is value intangible assets for purchase accounting. I can make a decision on the useful life of an intangible that changes its amortizable life for financial reporting purposes, and someone else could easily and justifiably come up with a materially different life and value. These decisions will make significant impacts on how public companies report under GAAP. But anyways, none of that matters for value, because the financial reporting amortization isn't related to actual economic profits, the tax amortization is and you don't see that in GAAP. Glad you could clarify you were talking about specifically about amortization and not depreciation. Also glad you could clarify that people like you are coming up with the amortizable lives, as opposed to management. It's reassuring that these calculations are likely reviewed by auditors when they're material. And it's likely that upper management isn't plugging amortizable lives in order to hit GAAP EPS targets. Does management often challenge your amortizable life calculations when it turns out they're about to report an earnings miss? I realize that a $1M impairment does not equal a $1M cash outflow. It does, however, reflect a very real $1M hit to the economic value of the company. This $1M hit to the value of the asset (relative to what was originally paid) is reflected by reducing GAAP net income by $1M. In my mind, a company's net income should be the change in the economic value of the company (edit: I realize GAAP EPS does reflect asset value appreciation, which is why I said it's not appropriate for REITs). That is why GAAP impairments exist - to show that the company's assets are suddenly worth $1M less even though no cash transaction took place. But adding back the impairment to adjusted earnings does not show this economic weakness in the company. Which is how you have energy companies that are going to show -$2/share of adjusted loss when GAAP says it's more like -$30/share. Am I misunderstanding what you're trying to express about impairments? And telling investors to "adjust the earnings yourselves" is all fine and good. But the SEC was kind of created to be sure corporate management wasn't out selling snake oil to the public and the investor class. I'm sure you're happy with the wild wild west financial reporting of "adjusted earnings" and "figure it out yourself" - but I personally prefer when the wild wild west reporting stays in the supplemental information, and not at the forefront of these earnings calls. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 22:50
|
|
|
mike- posted:While I was talking about amortization in my example, similar problems exist with depreciation. Amortization and depreciation both accounting concepts that are guided by accounting conventions, and often bear little to no resemblance to the economic life of an asset. The problem with these is not a management team gaming the life of an asset in anticipation of earnings misses, the problem is that depreciation and amortization treatment can vary significantly between companies which is why comparing a figure including them without adjusting tells you little to nothing. And in the end, this is a financial reporting concept; the value impact of depreciation and amortization relates to how they are treated for tax purposes, which has no connection to the treatment for financial reporting. Focusing on your example: I do understand the point you're trying to make. Please correct me if I'm wrong on this: Company A and Company B both have $10M in 2012. In 2013, Company A buys SmallCo for $10M to start its widget business. The $10M purchase was composed of $6M of fixed assets and $4M of goodwill. On the other hand, in 2013, Company B buys $6M of fixed assets to start its widget business. It also spends another $4M on all the operational sunk cost BS that it takes to get into the widget business. Both companies had to of spent that same amount in order to stay identical. Otherwise, if Company A was able to do it for $6M of fixed assets and $3M of operational sunk cost BS, why did they spend $10M on an acquisition? In 2013, pretending depreciation doesn't exist, Company A has GAAP net income of -0-. Company B has net loss of $4M. In terms of economics, both companies end up in the exact same place at 12/31/13. In 2014, the widget business shits the bed. Company A has to write off $4M of its goodwill for a $4M loss. Company B writes off nothing because it has no goodwill. Do you see where I'm going with this? Company B wrote nothing off, because in this scenario with two identical companies, Company B recognized the loss in a prior year. The net effect is that the identical companies indeed recognized the same amount of GAAP losses - it's just a timing difference. This is why corporate SEC filings have 5 years of comparative income statements. 12/31/14 equity is exactly identical. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Mar 19, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 19, 2016 23:51
|
|
|
mike- posted:The timing difference is the point! That's the reason that GAAP earnings don't reflect economic earnings in the case of impairments. That's why you would adjust out an asset impairment to compare both companies at 12/31/14 - so you can see that they actually generated the same cash flow that year. I'm curious how many of the "adjusted earnings" calculations that you (and corporate management's) do that involve reducing earnings by the amount that you believe assets are impaired/below book value in years before they're actually impaired by GAAP. I'm going to stretch and say exactly -0-. So in Company B's earnings calls for 2013 and 2014, they would be reporting a $4M adjusted loss and a $0 adjusted loss, respectively. Operating cash flow negative $4M and cash flow -0-, respectively. But in Company A's earnings calls for 2013 and 2014, they would be reporting a $0 adjusted loss and a $0 adjusted loss. Operating cash flow -0- and -0-, respectively. Assuming that both companies were being run by Mike Pearson, of course. Do you see where I'm coming from? Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 00:41 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 00:30
|
|
|
mike- posted:I don't see your point. The reason to adjust earnings is to figure out the actual cash flows the company is generating from its assets. If that's what you want earnings to be, why don't you just take GAAP "cash flows from operating activities" and just divide by shares outstanding...? That's pretty much what you're looking for. And that's not what GAAP EPS is supposed to be. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 00:44 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
Better yet: please provide an example of a company that's not a tech stock, REIT, or pharma/R&D company where you think GAAP earnings is a poor barometer of the company's economic health?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
mike- posted:Are you mental? I never said that is what GAAP eps is supposed to be. I'm explaining why GAAP eps isn't useful for valuation. Valuation methodology heavily depends on industry and since you're tangently involved with investment banking you know that. In industries where the fundamentals matter, GAAP/EBITDA is top of the pile. Please tell me the companies/industries that aren't tech/pharma/REIT where GAAP is a poor metric. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 01:07 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 01:03
|
|
|
mike- posted:EBITDA is not a GAAP measure, genius. Thanks for informing me of that. I've spent a long time searching for where I could find the "Statement of EBITDA" on the 20-F filings before you mentioned that. I appreciate you mentioning. Weirdly though, it seems that EBITDA starts from GAAP earnings. Not the "adjusted earnings" that corporate management keeps citing. Could you please provide clarification - I'm worried I'm doing my EBITDA calculations wrong. Please tell me the industries where GAAP is a poor reflection of the "economic earnings" of the company (as you call them). Again, please exclude R&D, tech, and REITs.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 01:24
|
|
|
mike- posted:EBITDA is literally an adjusted operating profit metric - it's adjusted to be a closer representation of cash flow. EBITDA is used all the time because it's a way better representation of what's important to value (cash flows), than what isn't (accounting earnings). Have your years calculating amortizable lives in investment banking given you insight on normalized GAAP income? Do you understand that accounting income and cash flows are correlated to a degree? Since I'm not getting through to you via accounting examples: would it be any better if I just cited Buffet/Munger when they describe non-GAAP (like EBITDA) numbers as "bullshit income"? I know it's kind of distasteful in making those kinds of citations but I feel obligated to because I'm running out of ways of how GAAP works. Please advise. Admiral101 fucked around with this message at 02:10 on Mar 20, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 02:00
|
|
|
mike- posted:http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/letters/1986.html Thank you for the copy/paste. It really reminded me of how valuations work. Consistent with EBITDA, Buffet indeed adds back D/A/I/T. Not consistent with EBITDA, Buffet deducts current year capex (this is a very large number). The copy/paste you made goes on to talk about the "absurdity of the cash flow" numbers that are often reported by corporate management. I especially like the part that, like I mentioned earlier, states that corporate numbers [paraphrasing] "routinely add, but do not subtract". I do apologize for being mentally challenged. Could you please put me in contact with your manager who would hopefully be able to explain such concepts in simpler terms? I'm assuming these are topics that you have overhead him discussing. Please advise.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 20, 2016 02:43
|
|
|
I just read the most amazing earnings call ever. Choicest lines:quote:Nicholas Jarmoszuk - Stifel, Nicolaus & Co., Inc. quote:C. Lourenco Goncalves - Chairman, President & Chief Executive Officer
|
|
#
¿
May 6, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
CEO of Cliff Natural Resources once again has awesome exchange with the MS analystquote:Evan L. Kurtz - Morgan Stanley & Co. LLC
|
|
#
¿
Oct 28, 2016 21:36
|
|
|
Anyone else riding MU into earnings?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 18:36
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:Me. I have about 25 shares And so the rally will continue.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 21:46
|
|
|
A MIRACLE posted:AH was definitely a little scary for a second haha The AH action is a bit puzzling. Results were stellar across the board. I realize it'd had a great run up, but this is a growth company that the market is pricing like a commodity company.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2018 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 20, 2024 02:54 |
|
|
BPL div cut as expected. Guesses on the day's swing?
|
|
#
¿
Nov 2, 2018 12:08
|
|