Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Latino business revenues DOUBLE in JUST ONE YEAR!

140 views
Skip to first unread message

TomS

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:05:44 PM10/20/19
to
https://www.biz2credit.com/research-reports/latino-small-business-study-2019

...and, libtards, SPARE ME the quibble that 46.5% is not doubling: it's CLOSE ENOUGH!

Alan Baker

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:13:09 PM10/20/19
to
On 2019-10-20 11:05 a.m., TomS wrote:
> https://www.biz2credit.com/research-reports/latino-small-business-study-2019
>
> ...and, libtards, SPARE ME the quibble that 46.5% is not doubling: it's CLOSE ENOUGH!
>

Snowflake...

...you are as bad with numbers as you are with everything else.

Doubling is an increase of...

ONE HUNDRED PERCENT.


Since I'm fully aware that you'll be unable to comprehend it at this
point, let me make it concrete.

If your business had a revenue in 2017 of $100,000, what would your
revenue be if it DOUBLED?

$200,000, right?

Now, if your revenue INCREASES by a percentage, that is in relation to
the original figure, right?

So if your revenue went from $100,000 to $200,000, it INCREASED by
$100,000, right?

Now the hard part (for you):

What percentage of the original $100,000...

...is the increase of $100,000?

TomS

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:19:28 PM10/20/19
to
well, you're right, but it SURE GOT YOUR ATTENTION, right? Bottom line: it's a DAMN GOOD, no EXCEPTIONAL, performance by ANY STANDARDS! And it's more PROOF that Trump's economic plan is hitting the ball out of the park.

-hh

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:21:59 PM10/20/19
to
There's a bit to unpack in the original reference. For example, while the
average revenue of Hispanic businesses went up by 46%, how does this
compare to their baseline of non-Hispanic businesses?

Answer: they went from $352K to $590K, which is a +67.6% increase,
which means that the hispanic businesses +46% was significantly behind.


Similarly,

"Average operating expenses represents 45% ($215,846) of the Average Annual
Revenue ($479,413) for Latino-owned businesses, which was 43% ($140,806) in
2018. The rise of nearly 3 percent is observed in average operating expense of
non-Latino businesses which is 40.6% (2019) from 38% in 2018."

TL;DR = revenues up, but expenses up more.


-hh

Alan Baker

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:25:05 PM10/20/19
to
No, Snowflake... ...it's is NOT proof.

TomS

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:48:55 PM10/20/19
to
The bottom line is ALL small businesses have seen a tremendous revenue growth under Trump. This is not only good for the businesses and their employees, but also reflects on their customers having more money to spend. This reflects very positively on Trump's economic policies, no matter how you cut it.

Alan Baker

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 2:56:13 PM10/20/19
to
If there expenses are up even more... ...that means they're doing
WORSE, Snowflake.

Bigbird

unread,
Oct 20, 2019, 3:43:29 PM10/20/19
to
TomS wrote:

>
https://www.biz2credit.com/research-reports/latino-small-business-study-2019
>
> ...and, the quibble that 46.5% is not doubling:
> it's

Well no scientist would claim 46% = 100%, not even a lowly lab tech.
would claim 45% = 100% but an ignorant innumerate thick head might,
might he, Flaccid.

So why are Latino businesses so far behind the rest? less than 2/3rds
increase in profits than non latinos?

On the face of it it appears a decidedly dodgy survey.

You really are just a demented old fart.

--
President Trump made 12,019 false or misleading claims over 928 days
Pretending that doesn't bother you is a mental disorder.

-hh

unread,
Oct 21, 2019, 7:19:40 AM10/21/19
to
TomS wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>> There's a bit to unpack in the original reference. For example, while the
>> average revenue of Hispanic businesses went up by 46%, how does this
>> compare to their baseline of non-Hispanic businesses?
>>
>> Answer: they went from $352K to $590K, which is a +67.6% increase,
>> which means that the hispanic businesses +46% was significantly behind.
>>
>> Similarly,
>>
>> "Average operating expenses represents 45% ($215,846) of the Average Annual
>> Revenue ($479,413) for Latino-owned businesses, which was 43% ($140,806) in
>> 2018. The rise of nearly 3 percent is observed in average operating expense of
>> non-Latino businesses which is 40.6% (2019) from 38% in 2018."
>>
>> TL;DR = revenues up, but expenses up more.
>
> The bottom line is ALL small businesses have seen a tremendous
> revenue growth under Trump.

Not necessarily as ‘tremendous’ as the top number suggests, for it
is a sum of nearly three (3) years worth of growth. Since we normally
gage things like this and GDP growth on an annualized basis, it means
that the number as presented is on a different baseline.

> This is not only good for the businesses and their employees, but
> also reflects on their customers having more money to spend.

You’re ignoring that their expense rates went up more than their revenue.

> This reflects very positively on Trump's economic policies, no
> matter how you cut it.

And similarly forgetting that the ‘more customer money’ is known to only be
temporary because of an unsustainable tax cut which expires in five years,


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 2:00:00 AM10/22/19
to
Hey Dolt,

You just FLUNKED ECON 101!

Profits for latino businesses INCREASED from $186,383 to $263,567, or $77,184 - that's a FORTY ONE PERCENT INCREASE!!!

You libtards JUST CAN'T ACKNOWLEDGE GOOD ECONOMIC NEWS!!!!!!!!!! How PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Bigbird

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 5:29:21 AM10/22/19
to
TomS wrote:

>
https://www.biz2credit.com/research-reports/latino-small-business-study-2019
>
> ...and, the quibble that 46.5% is not doubling:
> it's

I guess you are still working on the math problem.

I wondered if you had looked at the detail which calls bullshit on some
of your recent claims?

-hh

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 6:53:07 AM10/22/19
to
On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 5:29:21 AM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> >
> https://www.biz2credit.com/research-reports/latino-small-business-study-2019
> >
> > ...and, the quibble that 46.5% is not doubling:
> > it's
>
> I guess you are still working on the math problem.
>
> I wondered if you had looked at the detail which calls bullshit on some
> of your recent claims?

I'm wondering why he's not giving credit where credit's due, namely the
advances in micro loans from the likes of Accion, along with demographics
targeting by some US banks (Wells-Fargo; Bank of America).

<https://www.jpmorganchase.com/corporate/news/stories/latino-owned-businesses.htm>
<https://www.forbes.com/sites/rohitarora/2018/09/26/the-stunning-success-of-latino-owned-businesses-spurs-entrepreneurship/#25214aa11d07>

Plus having a ton of hurricane refugees from Puerto Rico that Trump can't
deport has had an influence in the Florida market.

Overall, despite how it was expressed as the immigration threat by the GOP three
years ago, it looks like "a Taco Truck on every corner" is indeed happening anyway.


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 11:18:46 AM10/22/19
to
This RAMBLING is called "Gee, Tom's right so I will deflect"

-hh

unread,
Oct 22, 2019, 1:44:06 PM10/22/19
to
Not at all. For example, your first claim is still false.

My comments are merely examining the top line report, to
understand it in greater depth.

For example, while a big percentage increase does sound great,
because it came with higher expenses, it isn't actually as
good as it initially appears.

Similarly, the actual data set for applicability is also
another area where the case may have been significantly
overstated: it appears that the claimed metric stems from
just those small businesses who are big & established enough
to apply for and receive a business loan.

Being approved for a business loan (especially when credit
has tightened) means having a solid business plan which has
been independently vetted. From this perspective, and in a
steady economy, one can of course expect increased revenues
from the infusion of capital, so its a "water is wet". As
such, the question isn't that there's been growth, but if
said growth is commensurate. As good as the impressions are,
the fact remains that the Latino's didn't do as well as the
benchmark of non-Latinos.


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 1:10:47 AM10/23/19
to
Businesses doing less than $1M are not "big," they are micro. You apparently don't dispute my calculation of their profit increase of 41%, which by ANY measure is exceptional. ANY business does comparatives: how they fare year-to-year, and latinos, as well as all other ethnic groups, are doing GREAT! This obviously does not fit the Dim narrative that people are suffering (they're not), so you do what ever pathetic negative interpretation you can dream up. Sorry, you libtards are LOSING THE ARGUMENT! No, I am NOT sorry - you DESERVE to LOSE!!!

-hh

unread,
Oct 23, 2019, 6:39:47 AM10/23/19
to
On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 1:10:47 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > ...
> Businesses doing less than $1M are not "big," they are micro.

Sure, and because they're small, a relatively small dollar change results in large percentage changes.

> You apparently don't dispute my calculation of their profit increase of 41%,

Incorrect: I *do* dispute your claim.

First, the increase wasn't 100% as you had originally claimed, but only 41%.
Second, the metric of said increase wasn't "profits", but gross revenue.

> which by ANY measure is exceptional.

Also incorrect: your own cited article noted that the performance of these Latino
small businesses wasn't as good as their Non-Latino counterparts.

> ANY business does comparatives: how they fare year-to-year, and latinos,
> as well as all other ethnic groups, are doing GREAT! This obviously does not
> fit the Dim narrative that people are suffering (they're not), ...

Also incorrect, because ... and once again, as per your own cited article ... the
report is that their operating expenses increased by more than their revenue growth.

In simple terms, this means their "profits" went ... DOWN.

> ... so you do what ever pathetic negative interpretation you can dream up. Sorry,
> you libtards are LOSING THE ARGUMENT! No, I am NOT sorry - you DESERVE to LOSE!!!

As was just noted yesterday:

"In her stuttering pain, Minton reveals the truth about Trump supporters: they live
for sadism. They revel in the damage they imagine will be inflicted on those they hate."

Tom, you're nothing more than a petty, sadistic hater.

And you will stew in your hate anytime anyone that's *different* from you has any
degree of happiness or success, because you think that happiness is like a piece
of pie, where if someone has some, that must mean that you got less, so you
contrive to be slighted.




-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 24, 2019, 2:25:08 AM10/24/19
to
Leave to Hidin' Hughie to find the fake negative in a sea of GREEN!!! No, they're profits are UP, you jerk!!!! Go do the NUMBERS - this is why you LOST SEVENTEEN PERCENT on that dog, ARNA!!!!!

-hh

unread,
Oct 24, 2019, 7:07:56 AM10/24/19
to
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 2:25:08 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 3:39:47 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Wednesday, October 23, 2019 at 1:10:47 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, October 22, 2019 at 10:44:06 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > ...
> > > Businesses doing less than $1M are not "big," they are micro.
> >
> > Sure, and because they're small, a relatively small dollar change results in large percentage changes.
> >
> > > You apparently don't dispute my calculation of their profit increase of 41%,
> >
> > Incorrect: I *do* dispute your claim.
> >
> > First, the increase wasn't 100% as you had originally claimed, but only 41%.
> > Second, the metric of said increase wasn't "profits", but gross revenue.
> >
> > > which by ANY measure is exceptional.
> >
> > Also incorrect: your own cited article noted that the performance of these Latino
> > small businesses wasn't as good as their Non-Latino counterparts.
> >
> > > ANY business does comparatives: how they fare year-to-year, and latinos,
> > > as well as all other ethnic groups, are doing GREAT! This obviously does not
> > > fit the Dim narrative that people are suffering (they're not), ...
> >
> > Also incorrect, because ... and once again, as per your own cited article ... the
> > report is that their operating expenses increased by more than their revenue growth.
> >
> > In simple terms, this means their "profits [margins]" went ... DOWN.
> >
> > > ... so you do what ever pathetic negative interpretation you can dream up. Sorry,
> > > you libtards are LOSING THE ARGUMENT! No, I am NOT sorry - you DESERVE to LOSE!!!
> >
> > As was just noted yesterday:
> >
> > "In her stuttering pain, Minton reveals the truth about Trump supporters: they live
> > for sadism. They revel in the damage they imagine will be inflicted on those they hate."
> >
> > Tom, you're nothing more than a petty, sadistic hater.
> >
> > And you will stew in your hate anytime anyone that's *different* from you has any
> > degree of happiness or success, because you think that happiness is like a piece
> > of pie, where if someone has some, that must mean that you got less, so you
> > contrive to be slighted.
>
>
> Leave to Hidin' Hughie to find the fake negative in a sea of GREEN!!! No, they're

*their

> profits are UP, you jerk!!!!

Try searching your own reference for the word "profit".


> Go do the NUMBERS -...

The numbers say that their profit margin went down, as the report noted that
the operating expense percentage went up:

"Average operating expense represents 45% ($215,846) of the Average Annual Revenue
($479,413) for Hispanic-owned businesses, which was 43% ($140,806) in 2018."

So while revenue increased by 46%, operating expenses increased by 53% (53% > 46%).

The report also noted that this reduced profit margins is comparable to the erosion
noted in non-Hispanics, even though the profit margins for the Hispanic businesses
are lagging by four (4) percentage points (roughly a 10% operating expenses gap):

"The rise of nearly 3 percent is observed in average operating expense of non-Latino
businesses which is 40.6% (2019) from 38% in 2018.""


> ... this is why you LOST SEVENTEEN PERCENT on that dog, ARNA!!!!!

Incorrect. All you know is that its price was 17% lower at one point last month versus
a few weeks earlier when it was first mentioned.

As I'd noted at onset, the stock was used as a litmus test to see how & what you
research for an investment. Despite my warnings, you missed a lot.

Plus you've been unable to provide a cite to where even a single analyst has rated
it as a "SELL", whereas I've shown their 'BUYs' outnumbering 'HOLDs'.

As I've also alluded to before, even if we can't find the underlying reason why, the
Institutionals are in long. They apparently see something in their fundamentals for
them to expect a profit from, such as a major upside breakout.


-hh

Alan Baker

unread,
Oct 24, 2019, 1:51:20 PM10/24/19
to
You're the one claiming their profits are up, Snowflake.

Let's see the numbers you're using to make that claim.

-hh

unread,
Oct 24, 2019, 5:32:21 PM10/24/19
to
On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 7:07:56 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 2:25:08 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > ...
> > ... this is why you LOST SEVENTEEN PERCENT on that dog, ARNA!!!!!
>
> Incorrect. All you know is that its price was 17% lower at
> one point last month versus a few weeks earlier when it was
> first mentioned.

And the price today has been flirting with 49, which while
lower than the 52.58 back on 9/12 when it was first mentioned,
buy only -7 and not by the -17% that Tom claims from older data.
But more interesting is that this morning I wrote:

> As I'd noted at onset, the stock was used as a litmus test....
> As I've also alluded to before, even if we can't find the
> underlying reason why, the Institutionals are in long. They
> apparently see something in their fundamentals for them to
> expect a profit from, such as a major upside breakout.

And ~6.5 hours later (1:26pm today), the following was published:

"Hedge Funds Have Never Been This Bullish On Arena Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (ARNA)"

<https://www.insidermonkey.com/blog/hedge-funds-have-never-been-this-bullish-on-arena-pharmaceuticals-inc-arna-779257/>

"Heading into the third quarter of 2019, a total of 29 of the
hedge funds tracked by Insider Monkey were long this stock, a
change of +32% from the previous quarter. The graph below displays
the number of hedge funds with bullish position in ARNA over
the last 16 quarters. With the smart money’s sentiment swirling,
there exists an “upper tier” of notable hedge fund managers who
were upping their holdings substantially (or already accumulated
large positions)."



-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 27, 2019, 10:34:23 PM10/27/19
to
The numbers are VERY CLEAR: profits rose by FORTY ONE PERCENT.

TomS

unread,
Oct 27, 2019, 10:38:33 PM10/27/19
to
Hughie,

You're whistling past the graveyard: I said you COULD HAVE sold it 53.68, and BOUGHT IT BACK at 44.8. You would now have a combined gain of TWENTY SIX PERCENT!

Alan Baker

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 1:36:45 AM10/28/19
to
If the numbers are so clear...

...present them clearly...

...with sources.

-hh

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 6:27:32 AM10/28/19
to
On Sunday, October 27, 2019 at 10:38:33 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 4:07:56 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 24, 2019 at 2:25:08 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > ...
> > > ... this is why you LOST SEVENTEEN PERCENT on that dog, ARNA!!!!!
> >
> > Incorrect. All you know is that its price was 17% lower at one point last month versus
> > a few weeks earlier when it was first mentioned.
> >
> > As I'd noted at onset, the stock was used as a litmus test to see how & what you
> > research for an investment. Despite my warnings, you missed a lot.
> >
> > Plus you've been unable to provide a cite to where even a single analyst has rated
> > it as a "SELL", whereas I've shown their 'BUYs' outnumbering 'HOLDs'.
> >
> > As I've also alluded to before, even if we can't find the underlying reason why, the
> > Institutionals are in long. They apparently see something in their fundamentals for
> > them to expect a profit from, such as a major upside breakout.
>
>
> You're whistling past the graveyard: I said you COULD HAVE sold it 53.68, ...

No, that is a lie. And here's proof:

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/rec.sport.golf/53.68;context-place=topic/rec.sport.golf/FRbgu7MCx2U>

Because bfore you wrote the above, the only time that the number "53.68" has been
mentioned in RSG before was from a post made on 2/24/96 by Maria L. Evans.

Its also easy to track down that 53.68 was the Open price on 9/12/19, which was the date
of first mention of ARNA, but you swore that I didn't own any, which is contrary to your
scenario attempt here of selling it on that day.

> ... and BOUGHT IT BACK at 44.8.

Which would have been when, in just what post you made? Cite required, because
that's looking like a claim of retrospective timing of the market.


> You would now have a combined gain of TWENTY SIX PERCENT!

That's funny math, since the only day where ARNA's close was 44.8, you claimed -17%.


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 8:52:29 PM10/28/19
to
Oh, BULLSHIT, Hughie!!! Those were the prices at the time I made those posts. I know because I PUT THEM INTO A SPREADSHEET that tracked the change!!! And even if they are off a few cents, the PERCENTAGES are REAL!!!

-hh

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 9:11:13 PM10/28/19
to
> Oh, BULLSHIT, Hughie!!! Those were the prices at the time I made those posts. I know
> because I PUT THEM INTO A SPREADSHEET that tracked the change!!!

But did you post a link to this spreadsheet? Nope.

As such, you were just playing bullshit pretend fantasies offline that no one else saw,
and which you didn’t believe in enough to execute either.

> And even if they are off a few cents, the PERCENTAGES are REAL!!!

A claim that changed from -17% to +26% when referencing the same trade dates is
just “off by a few cents”...? Care to try that math again?




-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 9:25:27 PM10/28/19
to
On 9/12 I told you to SELL ARNA;

> For example, let’s hear your investment prognosis on another pharma, ARNA.

"Would not touch ARNA - no products for sale, missed last two earnings estimates, stock chart looks horrible, and analysts mostly have SELL ratings on it."

It was 53.86. On 9/13 ARNA opened at 52.58. On Oct 10 I asked you what your exit plans were, at which point you COULD have BOUGHT ARNA again. On 9/11 it opened at 44.93. Using those prices you could have realized a TWENTY FOUR PERCENT gain (15% + 9%). I, of course, used prices on the day I made the posts.

-hh

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 10:18:39 PM10/28/19
to
TomS wrote:
> On 9/12 I told you to SELL ARNA;
>
> [hh] For example, let’s hear your investment prognosis on another pharma, ARNA.
>
> "Would not touch ARNA - no products for sale, missed last two earnings estimates,
> stock chart looks horrible, and analysts mostly have SELL ratings on it."

That’s (a) a “not buy” which isn’t the same as a sell. You’ve (b) also never substantiated
your claims that ANY analysts had a sell rating for it (while I documented buys & holds).

@> It was 53.86. On 9/13 ARNA opened at 52.58. On Oct 10 ..

Which tries to ignore that on 9/19, you said:

“Your non-answer IS the answer: you didn't buy SHIT because you don't HAVE SHIT!!!! ”

and:

“BTW, HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy? My educated guess: NOTHING!!!!!!! ”

So, just which is it Tommy? Have I owned ARNA, or not? And if allegedly so,
for just what dates & at what prices?

> I asked you what your exit plans were, at which point you COULD have
> BOUGHT ARNA again.

Maybe I was busy buying CVX? Oh, that really worked out quite handsomely for you <smirk!>

> On 9/11 it opened at 44.93. Using those prices you could have realized a TWENTY
> FOUR PERCENT gain (15% + 9%). I, of course, used prices on the day I made the posts.

You mean on 10/11. But even so, you said on 10/9:

“This dog is heading lower. A LOT LOWER!”

The problem you have is that your scenario first calls for a stock which you
claimed wasn’t owned was sold at a high price 52.58, with a later buyback
at 44.93, contrary to your claim it was heading “A LOT LOWER!”: strike two.
From here, we’re supposed to follow your implied “sell now!” since it didn’t
follow your prediction and instead went up.

Laughable.

-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 28, 2019, 11:20:24 PM10/28/19
to
Hey Hughie,

You have NEVER been straight about ANYTHING, certainly about what you owned or when! I have had to DEDUCE what the hell you owned!! It would make my advice FAR MORE VALUABLE if you are straight - but this IS NOT YOUR NATURE!!!! You are DECEPTIVE by nature, just like the LIBTARD you are!!!!! You are mainly about getting a GOTCHA!, which I don't give a shit about one way or the other. This, more than anything else, defines the difference between you and me, and it isn't very favorable for you.

-hh

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 7:12:55 AM10/29/19
to
Oh, look: a change in subject diversion attempt. Its because Tom's not honest enough
to admit that his own claims were (a) self-contradictory, and (b) wrong. As was just
said, "This, more than anything else, defines the difference between you and me, and it
isn't very favorable for you."


> I have had to DEDUCE what the hell you owned!!

No, you didn't have to. You chose to go there because your insecurity compels you to
try to look for competitions to "win". All you really did was make blind claims that you
think suited your own personal agenda. Case in point:

“Your non-answer IS the answer: you didn't buy SHIT because you don't HAVE SHIT!!!! ”

“BTW, HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy? My educated guess: NOTHING!!!!!!! ”


> It would make my advice FAR MORE VALUABLE if you are straight - but this IS NOT
> YOUR NATURE!!!!

False, because the facts are with ARNA that you did get a very straight statement:
a question of what you thought of it.

Your response was a thumbs-down, but claimed factually incorrect information for
the rationale why. Analysis based on bad input data is "GIGO", so it has been your own
actions which have shown that your so-called "advice" isn't of value.

Quod erat demonstratum.



> You are DECEPTIVE by nature, just like the LIBTARD you are!!!!!

Oh, choosing to not brag is supposedly "DECEPTIVE"? No, that's your narrative attempt.

To not voluntarily disclose personal information in an open forum isn't deception:
its just basic security of one's PII and related information to reduce the risks of
thieves getting both the opportunity and the means.

Your boastful actions are like the Bermuda shorts wearing tourist who when he sees a
"Beware of Pickpockets" sign stops in the middle of the street & pulls out his wallet
to openly count his money to "make sure that the thieves haven't gotten it" (yet).



> You are mainly about getting a GOTCHA!, which I don't give a shit about one way or the other.

LOL because your actions reveal your own words to be a lie: if you really didn't
give a shit, your posts would have stopped long ago.



> This, more than anything else, defines the difference between you and me, and it
> isn't very favorable for you.


Sorry, but the claims of liars aren't credible ... nor is being a liar a "favorable" trait.



-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 6:43:53 PM10/29/19
to
Hey Hidin' Hughie,

You are a loser that revels in losing. You brag that you libtards are such great investors, then buy a dog like ARNA, even after I showed you how to make TWENTY FOUR PERCENT off this horrible piece of shit. You accuse me of gambling when this dog is one announcement away from bankruptcy. Good luck, you will NEED IT!

-hh

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 8:24:13 PM10/29/19
to
> You are a loser that revels in losing. You brag that you libtards are such great investors,

Oh really? Just when was that claim ever made?
Because without proof, as per your own rule, its a lie.


> then buy a dog like ARNA,

Oh, really? You've previously said I don't own any:

“Your non-answer IS the answer: you didn't buy SHIT because you don't HAVE SHIT!!!! ”
and:
“BTW, HOW MUCH ARNA did you buy? My educated guess: NOTHING!!!!!!! ”

So just to keep track, your claim is now that I I supposedly now own this stock?
How much of it and bought at what price?

> ...even after I showed you how to make TWENTY FOUR PERCENT off this horrible
> piece of shit.

Nope. You had a contrived scenario that you never disclosed in a time-appropriate
fashion to be in any way actionable.

Plus you've still not provided any proof that any investment analyst ever posted a
"SELL", all the while that I've shown buys & holds (with buys outnumbering holds)
with zero sells, as well as that there's extensive Institutional holdings. The narrative
that you're trying to promote is that you're a smarter hobbyist investor than the
professional investors in the top performing Hedge Funds, which is utterly laughable.


> You accuse me of gambling ...

Because you do "day trade" style gamble based on breaking news, not follow
the business fundamentals. For example, just how much did you make on CVX again?
Similarly, on ALXN, you never posted proof of your trade times to substantiate the
sub-10% that you claimed ... even thought that was also you chickening out short of
your self-expressed 10% minimum gain stated goal.


> ... when this dog is one announcement away from
> bankruptcy. Good luck, you will NEED IT!

Oh, so ARNA's next report is going to be of their bankruptcy? Care to make a
IRL welch-proof wager on that? Because their next report is 6 November 19,
so you had better get your money up to Alan in time, else you'll just be showing
everyone that when you have no IRL ramifications, you invariably just bluster.


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 29, 2019, 11:13:11 PM10/29/19
to
You're such an idiot. When I first posted a SELL rating on ARNA Fidelity's Starmine rating on it was 1.9 (out of 10). It is currently 3.1. You have NEVER said that you even OWN ARNA, let alone how much, but it is pretty clear that you do. If you chose to hang on to this dog as it slides, that is your business, but you DID ask my opinion. Had you followed my advice you could have realized TWENTY FOUR PERCENT, but you continue to make excuses why you didn't. This is JUST ONE of the signs of a LOSER!

PS. I don't "day trade" - never did and never will. I do "momentum trade" which is a much different thing. And most of my investments are long, which I rebalance annually. I can even tell you what I am invested in, if you ask me politely.


-hh

unread,
Oct 30, 2019, 7:26:19 AM10/30/19
to
On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 11:13:11 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Tuesday, October 29, 2019 at 5:24:13 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > TomS wrote
> > > [...]
> > > You accuse me of gambling ...
> >
> > Because you do "day trade" style gamble based on breaking news, not follow
> > the business fundamentals. For example, just how much did you make on CVX again?
> > Similarly, on ALXN, you never posted proof of your trade times to substantiate the
> > sub-10% that you claimed ... even thought that was also you chickening out short of
> > your self-expressed 10% minimum gain stated goal.
> >
> >
> > > ... when this dog is one announcement away from
> > > bankruptcy. Good luck, you will NEED IT!
> >
> > Oh, so ARNA's next report is going to be of their bankruptcy? Care to make a
> > IRL welch-proof wager on that? Because their next report is 6 November 19,
> > so you had better get your money up to Alan in time, else you'll just be showing
> > everyone that when you have no IRL ramifications, you invariably just bluster.
> >
>
>
> You're such an idiot. When I first posted a SELL rating on ARNA...

Incorrect. When you first posted on it, you you said you wouldn't buy.
That's not the same thing as a "SELL".


> ... Fidelity's Starmine rating on it was 1.9 (out of 10). It is currently 3.1.

Without opening an account at Fidelity, this claim can be verified .. how?
Substantiation required. You'll probably have to provide a screen shot & FAQ.

Because without context, readers don't know what Fidelity's proprietary scale
rating system actually means, nor what the scale is (eg. short vs long term) or
even significance of the indicated movement from 1.9 to 3.1 means.


> You have NEVER said that you even OWN ARNA, let alone how much, but it is
> pretty clear that you do.

That's still just blind guessing on your part. And given how easily you are deceived,
your opinion isn't worth much.

I've had an interest in that particular stock since a friend had found the change in FDA
policies that Obama had made. Don't you remember me mentioning the FDA regulation
change earlier, after I'd asked you about ARNA? I can dig up the post URL if needed.

I don't recall if I've mentioned that he's written a homebrew momentum analysis tool.
I happened to have had lunch with him yesterday; he's satisfied enough with his models
that he's now rewriting the whole thing from MS-Excel into C++ to get the speed up.


> If you chose to hang on to this dog as it slides, that is your business, but you DID ask my opinion.

I asked because of your self-serving blathering on ALXN, CVX, etc which I saw as risky and
haphazard behavior, so I was curious about how you do your research.

As evidenced by how you got basic facts wrong with the ARNA case study, you don't.

Sure, while you *might* now be telling the truth in claiming an analyst 'sell', you failed
to previously substantiate where that alleged rating was coming it at the time. You've
now claimed that the rating was from what's apparently a proprietary tool at Fidelity,
which is a slight step up, but it can't be independently confirmed without setting up
an account with them. Or you could probably provide a screen shot for us.

For example, here's the current one for ARNA from eTrade:

<https://huntzinger.com/photo/2019b/20191030-ARNA.pdf>

According to their research tools:

* Avg. Price Target - 12 month price goal: $74.50 (50.75% Upside)

* Consensus:
TipRanks - Moderate Buy
SmartConsensus - Hold
Thomsen Reuters - The average consensus recommendation is 1.80 (Buy)

* Fundamental:
Credit Suisse - Outperform

* Technical:
MarketEdge - Neutral

Hmmm...care to point out there's big red flags for "SELL"? Or does it just go
to show how different services have different summaries...

> Had you followed my advice you could have realized TWENTY FOUR PERCENT, but
> you continue to make excuses why you didn't. This is JUST ONE of the signs of a LOSER!

Spoken just like the short attention span of a "Day Trader" <g>

> PS. I don't "day trade" - never did and never will. I do "momentum trade" which is a
> much different thing.

You can claim that, but its wrong: both are operating based largely on the behavior of
other traders and shorter term news cycles (hence 'momentum'), and the difference
between "a day" and a week or two may *seem* important to you, the tax implications
are identical: they're both subject to Short Term Capital Gains because their horizons
aren't long enough to become investments eligible for the income tax break of Long
Term Capital Gains. So much for all of your whining about paying too much tax! /s


> And most of my investments are long, which I rebalance annually. I can even tell
> you what I am invested in, if you ask me politely.

That's not likely to happen IMO, since civility is a reciprocal and you've already failed
to live up to it on your end.

But you're free to prove me wrong by not only providing that snapshot, but also in
becoming polite yourself, as well as honoring all past substantiation requests.


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 31, 2019, 12:47:04 AM10/31/19
to
God, you sure spent A LOT of space saying "I fucked up and should have sold ARNA just like you SAID!"

-hh

unread,
Oct 31, 2019, 5:52:59 AM10/31/19
to
YA falsehood by Tom, who still doesn't substantiate his claims (which means ...)


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 31, 2019, 1:15:07 PM10/31/19
to
Hey Loser,

The ONLY "falsehoods" here are what you are writing. And you have NEVER confirmed that you EVEN OWN ARNA!!!

-hh

unread,
Oct 31, 2019, 2:41:23 PM10/31/19
to
On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 1:15:07 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 2:52:59 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Thursday, October 31, 2019 at 12:47:04 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > [...]
> >
> > YA falsehood by Tom, who still doesn't substantiate
> > his claims (which means ...)
>
>
> The ONLY "falsehoods" here are what you are writing.

As if you could point these out...how?

> And you have NEVER confirmed that you EVEN OWN ARNA!!!

Without a specific claim being made, just what is there that
then requires substantiation?

Might this be YA example which shows just how trivial it
is to outwit Thomas?


-hh

TomS

unread,
Oct 31, 2019, 9:38:44 PM10/31/19
to
Hey Loser,

Been there, done that - repeating it is a WASTE OF MY TIME!
0 new messages