Saturday, October 25, 2008

Edelheit on the Effect of the Weaker Canadian Dollar on Two of His Picks

On the Value Investors Club website, Aaron Edelheit commented that the recent decline of the Canadian dollar versus the U.S. dollar is bullish for two of his companies, PhotoChannel (OTC BB: PNWIF.OB) and Destiny Media Technologies (OTC BB: DSNY.OB):

Investors may not be appreciating the tremendous benefit Photochannel (bulletin board: PNWIF) will get from the falling Canadian Dollar (CAD). PNWIF gets paid predominantly in US dollars (USD) and pays all of their expenses in CAD. In the past three weeks the CAD has fallen more than 20%. Now I`m sure at some point it will recover somewhat but it is a huge benefit to some of my companies, most notably Photochannel.

[...]

Another company I own Destiny Media Technologies (bulletin board: DSNY) will have the same benefit, but even more so, as all of their revenue are USD, and all expenses CAD.

11 comments:

Anonymous said...

Once again, thanks for pointing out someone else's research. Time for somebody to mind their own business, wouldn't you say?

DaveinHackensack said...

It's worth noting that the Australian dollar has declined versus the U.S. dollar for similar reasons, but in the case of Alloy Steel International Inc. (OTC BB: AYSI.OB), this is a negative, since it earns nearly all of its money (so far) in Australian dollars and reports its results in U.S. dollars.

DaveinHackensack said...

Anon,

Thanks again for reading and commenting.

Albert said...

"Time for somebody to mind their own business, wouldn't you say?"

I'm sure DaveinHackensack is happy that people for whom English is not their primary language still surf to his site to read the posts.

Anonymous said...

Yes, I actually like reading his original posts. But when he broadcasts what another person is saying at a forum which he is not even a member of, it is inproper. Just pointing out the facts.

-Anon

Albert said...

How is it "improper"? First of all, it's not like he's trying to take credit for the analysis. He ALWAYS points out that it is Edelheit whose opinion he is pointing out. It's hardly off topic, because, if I remember correctly, he owns both stocks, and has brought them up on his own personal blog to talk about them and see if there is any other dialogue. Perhaps just as importantly, the valueinvestorsclub website is a public site that is open to anyone (with a 45 day lag) and not some proprietary stock analysis site.

Let me ask you, if he quoted Jim Cramer talking about some stock, would you say he should be "minding his own business"? That was my point. You say he is "broadcasting" what another person is saying at a forum at which he is not even a member, but of course, he DOES have guest access (as anyone can have -- I do too). How is his repeating what is said on a public site "improper"?

If it's a public site, and he always attributes the author, I don't see how you can claim that the "facts" are that it is improper.

DaveinHackensack said...

Anonymous,

Albert already made part of my point in his last comment, but I'll add this: I'm glad you like my 'original' posts, but quoting others (and linking to the source of the quote) is a large part of blogging. Why you are bothered when I quote Edelheit and not, say, Dr. Hussman (as I did in a post yesterday), I don't know. Perhaps you can explain.

Anonymous said...

Albert & Dave,

It is easy to explain. The site where you get your information is not meant to be public. The other examples are.

You are twisting the facts.

Did you seek permission to use the content from the site?

Yours truely, Anon

Albert said...

Well Anon, thanks for your reply. If in fact you believe that the site where the blogger gets his information is "not meant to be public" then it makes sense to say something along the lines of it being improper to quote information here.

I would respond by way of the following:

(1) It *IS* in fact a public website. Everything that is available to guest access is free to anyone who registers, and the person need not be a full-privileges member. It is as public as a Yahoo message board, which requires one to register prior to accessing messages. If you believe that the Yahoo message boards are not "public" in the same way that you believe VIC is not "public" then you would at least be consistent, but I would disagree on your premise.

(2) I went back and checked the VIC site, as well as the initial guest access email they sent me for any info, Terms of service, etc. stating anything along the lines that what is read can or should not be published anywhere else. There is no such caveat. In fact, what the site does explicitly say is that the information available to guests is "provided on a delayed basis, and therefore such information is likely to be out of date." Given that nothing on the website itself indicates that it is "not meant to be public" then I'm not sure that your own personal opinion makes it any more true.

(3) Every poster on VIC can make all of their comments (which is the subject of the instant blog post) private, meaning that no one but full privileges members may read them. DaveInHackensack would not be able to read or quote from the post if this were the case. Given that Mr. Edelheit (assuming of course, that the userid on VIC is actually Mr. Edelheit) has chosen NOT to make his comments private (which many members do in fact do) it makes more sense to say that he is not concerned that guest members read his comments. He's probably a smart guy so he probably understands that others can read the site too. I understand that the aura of it being a prestigious, difficult-to-gain-entry member site suggests that all the info may be intended to be kept secret, but if that were the case, then why offer guest access at all? It doesn't make sense.

(4) Discussion of his stocks by those without full membership only helps posters on VIC. If the investment theory is good, the more people who know about a stock (ESPECIALLY ones like DSNY or PNWIF, which do not have large followings) the better it is for the VIC member. I know at least a few people who have bought the stock after reading the 45-day delayed information. Presumably, Mr. Edelheit is happier the more people know about his stocks.

Now there is one situation where you, anon, might be right, and that is if you are actually Aaron Edelheit, the author of the material quoted on this blog. If Mr. Edelheit himself wanted this blogger to stop, then, as a matter of courtesy, I would agree that it is improper (though probably nothing more than that) for the blogger to continue to do so regardless of those wishes. Given that Mr. Edelheit is poor about responding to posts even on his OWN blog, I think the chances of that being the case are close to zero.

In any event, I think we disagree on the fundamental point of whether VIC is a "public" site or not. I don't think anything on the site either explicitly or implicitly conveys that, and, though it may be your own honest belief, I would respectfully disagree with you.

Albert said...

In case my previous comment wasn't long enough, I forgot to address the specific question asked by anon regarding whether the blogger sought permission to use the content from the site.

I have no idea whether he did or not, but I doubt it matters very much. If you assume that the VIC poster and/or VIC itself owns the copyright to whatever appears on the site, others are still entitled to reproduce such material for fair use. This blog, as far as I can see, is not a for-profit enterprise. It seems to fall squarely within the realm of non-profit educational purposes. (you may disagree that internet blogs can EVER really be educational, but I think that today, personal blogs such as this one would very likely qualify.)

If that indeed be the case, that this blog constitutes fair use, then no such permission is required.

DaveinHackensack said...

Quite a comprehensive response, Albert. I think you covered all of the angles. I have nothing to add, except that I agree. I, too, briefly wondered whether anonymous might be Edelheit himself, but dismissed the thought for the same reason you did. For the record though, Edelheit has not asked me not to quote his comments on the VIC or elsewhere.