Posts: 2,904
Threads: 58
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation:
259
A billion dollars says that IOC is a sham and $3.5 billion says it isn't. Who to believe?
I read the first 65% then the last 5% of 'the great debate' involving Bonk, Indoreservoir et al in the SA link provided by Admin (thanks). It reminded me of political discussions which, if one takes them as honest expressions of beliefs, nearly always have at their core 'I believe what I choose to believe and don't challenge what I know to be the facts'.
Now, do I think Bonk and Alan etc. honestly believe what they post? No. I believe they are paid to push FUD (Bonk is much, much better at it). But why should we be so focused on accuracy in their statements? There are certainly many, many people in the financial media making a big deal about the Dow "breaking an all time record" and heralding that as a new signal the economy is recovering. Do those reporters and analysts actually believe the two claims to be correct? Who knows? More to the point, who cares?
I believe the truth in the marketplace is that it doesn't really matter who is right or who is wrong at this stage in the process. There are people who believe the TV analysts (and/or contributors to bulletin boards) and make decisions accordingly. $1 billion has been voted against IOC, $3.5 billion for. Somebody's going to win the election, somebody will lose. Personally, as an engineer with 40+ years of experience in related fields I've been long IOC for 3+ years now and contrary to Bonk et al have yet to see a shred of evidence contradicting my belief the gas is in the ground, is very valuable and will soon be on the market. I've taken my chances, placed my bets.
BTW, the Planet Money team did a great little program on the DJI (19 minutes at http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/03/1...e-the-hype) describing with wit and wisdom what a terribly compromised number the DJI is. An interesting piece to listen to if you have the time.
Posts: 90
Threads: 16
Joined: Jul 2012
Reputation:
29
03-20-2013, 02:15 AM
(This post was last modified: 03-20-2013, 02:15 AM by kkozkkoz.)
(03-20-2013, 02:09 AM)ArtM72 Wrote: A billion dollars says that IOC is a sham and $3.5 billion says it isn't. Who to believe? I read the first 65% then the last 5% of 'the great debate' involving Bonk, Indoreservoir et al in the SA link provided by Admin (thanks). It reminded me of political discussions which, if one takes them as honest expressions of beliefs, nearly always have at their core 'I believe what I choose to believe and don't challenge what I know to be the facts'. Now, do I think Bonk and Alan etc. honestly believe what they post? No. I believe they are paid to push FUD (Bonk is much, much better at it). But why should we be so focused on accuracy in their statements? There are certainly many, many people in the financial media making a big deal about the Dow "breaking an all time record" and heralding that as a new signal the economy is recovering. Do those reporters and analysts actually believe the two claims to be correct? Who knows? More to the point, who cares? I believe the truth in the marketplace is that it doesn't really matter who is right or who is wrong at this stage in the process. There are people who believe the TV analysts (and/or contributors to bulletin boards) and make decisions accordingly. $1 billion has been voted against IOC, $3.5 billion for. Somebody's going to win the election, somebody will lose. Personally, as an engineer with 40+ years of experience in related fields I've been long IOC for 3+ years now and contrary to Bonk et al have yet to see a shred of evidence contradicting my belief the gas is in the ground, is very valuable and will soon be on the market. I've taken my chances, placed my bets. BTW, the Planet Money team did a great little program on the DJI (19 minutes at http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2013/03/1...e-the-hype) describing with wit and wisdom what a terribly compromised number the DJI is. An interesting piece to listen to if you have the time.
Wouldn't it actually be 3.5 billion + 1Billion bought the second time as shorts resold shares?
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Art, when people place a (total of) $1B bet against the company in which you are a shareholder you might either assume they're all crooks or idiots (and there is certainly no shortage of that on the IOC short side), or you might want to try and figure out what's motivating them, what are their arguments, reasons and assumptions, and probe them in a meaningful discussion.
I simply prefer the latter and I would have preferred for such interaction to have taken place here at SHU. The discussion I was referring to at the end of my SA article actually shows it is possible to have such a discussion, and I would have liked others to have joined in and the discussion being less 'polluted' by some of the undesirables.
Posts: 6,851
Threads: 697
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
441
So you want to invite Bonk to join SHU, correct? Who else?
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Yes, that would be my personal preference, but I'm probably alone in that, which makes it a bit of a tough sell and I'm not going to force it through the majority here. It almost goes without saying that Indoreservoir would be a very valuable addition, or glenlivet, pickboone, this is just from the top of my hat.
Posts: 84
Threads: 2
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
5
'admin' pid='19077' datel Wrote:Yes, that would be my personal preference, but I'm probably alone in that, which makes it a bit of a tough sell and I'm not going to force it through the majority here. It almost goes without saying that Indoreservoir would be a very valuable addition, or glenlivet, pickboone, this is just from the top of my hat.
I don't have much time for discussion these days because of family events but I wanted to give 100% support to Admin's position on this. You are not entirely alone but definitely in the minority. Rational discussion of important issues is not entirely impossible as that thread shows, but rare and elusive. Not true to say "the best lack all conviction" but true that "the worst are full of passionate intensity"--and they seem to have more time on their hands, too.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
Jake, thanks, I hope your family events are a source of joy, rather than anguish or sadness.
Posts: 262
Threads: 13
Joined: Nov 2012
Reputation:
49
The truly sad part in all of this is that shareholders have to rely on an exchange between anonymous posters on a chat board for a meaningful discussion of company specific issues.
These issues should be vetted by management on the quarterly conference calls. The calls need to be opened up to others beyond sell side analysts with buy recommendations on the stock.
Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Posts: 8,568
Threads: 1,342
Joined: Dec 2011
Reputation:
380
Sfiaes-Wayne Andrews will talk to anyone about any issue!Just email him and he will set up a time and all questions will have an answer.Now certain things we all want answers to like when for deal, at what price with whom well no one gets those answers. But others can be answered.
He will not answer questions via email. But he will have a verbal conversation with anyone.
If you frustated with the information than do something about it.
Email Wayne get a time and chat away.
There is no reason to be frustrated.
Posts: 12,025
Threads: 1,809
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
227
'sfiaes' pid='19080' datel Wrote:The truly sad part in all of this is that shareholders have to rely on an exchange between anonymous posters on a chat board for a meaningful discussion of company specific issues. These issues should be vetted by management on the quarterly conference calls. The calls need to be opened up to others beyond sell side analysts with buy recommendations on the stock. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Well, maybe that issue was more of a red herring than some believed, and as such, not worthy of CC time. For me, one of the give aways that it really wasn't a serious issue was the fact that Phil and Wayne have held dozens of presentations for industry specialists, and to my knowledge, the issue was never really raised.
But I'm still glad that discussion at the end of the SA article took place. I learned quite a bit from that.
|
