Seeking Alpha

Joseph L. Shaefer's  Instablog

Joseph L. Shaefer
  • on Portfolio Strategy & Asset Allocation
Send Message
Joseph L. Shaefer is the CEO and Chief Investment Officer of Stanford Wealth Management, LLC, a Registered Investment Advisor. Joe retired as a senior executive at Charles Schwab and Co. to found Stanford Wealth Management, LLC, in 1990. He also spent 36 years in a very different leadership... More
My company:
Stanford Wealth Management LLC
My blog:
The Investor's Edge
My book:
Bringing Home the Gold
View Joseph L. Shaefer's Instablogs on:
  • After Gold and Silver, What’s for Dessert? Part I

     

    We have been very fortunate to have been in gold and silver this year.  As early as February I began pounding the drum here at SA here, recommending Silver Wheaton (NYSE:SLW) at 14.38.  It was 40 yesterday – and we are now out of it.  It isn’t that I think silver’s run is over, or gold’s.  It’s just that, after such meteoric rises, I feel both metals need time to digest their gains.  And big market moves, like big heavy meals, need to be digested properly before moving on. 

     

    Of course, after big meals or market moves there’s always room for a little dessert.  What I recommend for dessert is cake: yellowcake or white cake, or both if you have a sweet tooth for profits.  I do.  In Part I of this series, I’ll make the investment case for yellowcake – uranium – and why I believe it has farther to run than either gold or silver, which have already come so far.  In Part II, we’ll take a bite of white cake – in this case the Platinum Metals Group, and especially, palladium.

     

    I believe both metals are on the side of the angels from a supply / demand standpoint.  Palladium has always been a relatively constrained commodity, with Russia and South Africa providing most of the world’s supply.  But Russia is finding it less and less in their national interest to export the stuff, while at the same time demand is increasing from industrial users.


    And uranium can only benefit with nuclear energy increasing its share of new power plants worldwide.  Whether the USA catches this wave or stays out at sea on the nuclear issue, the rest of the world is determined to lessen its dependence on Mideast oil and politics.


    The spot price of uranium is now $60, up $8 from a month ago.  Whether it continues to race ahead or enjoys a more measured and steady rise, the miners for whom $50 uranium was barely profitable now see a 20% profit potential.  Their costs are roughly the same as they were a month ago, but they now have the opportunity to earn a decent return that will only get better if/as the price of yellowcake continues to rise.  Supply – shuttered mines thanks to previously lower prices – and demand – an explosion in new reactors planned and begun -- say that it most likely will.


    China now says it plans to build 10 nuclear power plants a year for the next 10 years.  If they come anywhere close to that number, China will soon be the world’s #1 nuclear power generator.  They already consume 5% of the world’s total production of uranium.  They are stockpiling, however, and now purchase 10% of annual world production.  If their efforts and India’s similar, though less aggressive, plans pan out, the two of them alone will need to buy more than 50% of current annual world production.  For the rest of us to have enough left over for our own needs, even without building a single new facility, we will need to ramp up production smartly.

    US supplies have been abetted since 1994 by the “Megatons to Megawatts” program whereby Russian nuclear bomb-grade materials have been turned into uranium for use in nuclear fuel.  Almost every the atomic power plant in the US has participated in this program – to the degree that, today, about one in ten American homes, businesses, schools and hospitals receive electricity generated by this fuel.  But the program ends in 2013, if not before – just about the time China and India are cranking up and supplies will be dwindling.

    Two of our favored Lucky Countries in the developed world have the bulk of the uranium resources – Australia and Canada.  Since both nations enjoy strong banking systems, good corporate governance, and respect for intellectual and property rights – unlike many of the more popular “emerging markets” – it is in those two nations and in the US that I see the most fertile opportunities for investing. 

    What follows is only a brief overview.  There are hundreds of publicly-traded uranium miners out there.  Many, sadly, fit the description of the American saying (often attributed to Mark Twain) that a mine is a hole in the ground with a liar at the top.  Others are more ethical, but merely hopeful their acreage may yield commercial quantities of anything.  Since I couldn’t possibly cover all of those that qualify as ethical with probable commercial acreage, then, consider the following representative rather than all-inclusive.  Of course, virtually every mega-miner has some uranium properties but it is the pure plays, or near pure plays, that give you your best bang for the buck.  It’s those we’ll discuss.

    The class act of the lot is Canada’s Cameco (NYSE:CCJ).  It is the only uranium pure play that I might describe as a blue chip.  When uranium producers talk about legendary finds, names like McArthur River, Rabbit Lake, Cree Extension Millenium, Moon Lake, Dawn Lake, Read Lake, Kintyre, Smith Ranch  and Virgin River are always discussed.  Cameco has either joint ventures or 100% ownership of each of these.  It owns some of the richest ( in terms of the quality of the ore bodies) uranium mines in the world.  Because of this, Cameco is a very low-cost producer. It can produce uranium profitably even at prices in the low $30s, roughly half of what the spot price is today.  And it is the only producer that can promise significant product for decades, which makes it desirable to sovereign nations, not just a particular company or plant.  Already, CCJ has agreed to supply 20 million pounds of uranium to China through the year 2025.

    The next pure play, for me, would be Denison Mines (DNN.)  Denison is another North American uranium producer. It's a higher-cost producer than Cameco, with greater leverage both up and down. They've brought in Korea Electric Power as a partner for financing some of their exploration (in exchange for product flow, of course.)  And they are partnering more with others, as they have recently done with French mega-nuclear firm  Areva at their McClean Lake property in Canada. 

    In the same category as DNN, which is to say down a big notch from Cameco, but up from all the miners with proven reserves, but no proven track record to get it out of the ground at a profit, are both Paladin (OTCPK:PALAF) and Uranium One (SXRZF.)  Paladin has two huge properties in Africa, one in Namibia, the world's fourth largest uranium-producing country, and one in Malawi.  Paladin has costs of around $30 a pound and has room to expand, which would bring their costs down even more.  Uranium One sold a majority stake in itself to a Russian company so they could afford to, and be politically connected enough to, develop uranium mines in Kazakhstan.  Russia is a major investor in Kazakhstan, so it helps SXRZF to have a Russian company negotiating deals for you there. It has the potential to become a major producer with the mines in Kazakhstan.  The bad news is: it’s in Kazakhstan, a nation not known for the transparency or fairness of its government.

    After this second tier, it’s pretty much a free-for-all.  Among the primarily US, Canadian and Australian miners I can suggest for your own due diligence are Mega Uranium (OTCPK:MGAFF), whose Lake Maitland project in Western Australia shows promise.  Partnered with Japanese investors to deepen their pockets, Mega offers near-term – but not yet -- uranium production at a low cost, probably in the high $20s.  It’s properties are in situ favorable – that is, they don’t require “mining” so much as collecting from the sandstone, processing and refining.  Then there’s Uranium Energy (NYSEMKT:UEC) which is actually starting production already from its Texas acreage, making it the newest uranium producer on the planet.  UEC’s production base is low cost, under $25 a pound, giving them nice leverage if / as uranium prices move higher.

    Ur-Energy (NYSEMKT:URG) and Uranerz (NYSEMKT:URZ) are both in Wyoming, one of the most mining-friendly states in the Union. I expect to see one or both in production in the next 8-16 months, though URZ also has properties in Texas, Wyoming and Saskatchewan.   Wyoming produces the largest amount of domestic uranium with Cameco’s (CCJ) Smith Ranch Mine being the biggest (and the biggest in the USA, as well.)    Both URG and URZ have run up quite a bit, so we are looking for a pullback before entering new orders in either.

    Finally, there are a couple of currently less speculative plays, USEC Inc. (USU), the company that supplies the low enriched uranium (NYSE:LEU) for atomic power plants that it is licensed to obtain from Russia under the Megatons to Megawatts program – which will soon end – and from the LEU it produces at the Paducah gaseous diffusion plant in Kentucky – which will not end anytime soon.  The other is Uranium Participation Corp (TSE: U) which inventories and sells uranium to end users.  They are effectively a middleman and incur none of the risks associated with the actual mining.  Denison Mines manages their decisions.  Its safe to say that Uranium Participation more closely tracks the underlying commodity than any new discovery (or failure to discover!)

    Between industrial development and world population growth, planners expect a doubling of electricity consumption in the next 20 years.  The best estimates are that demand will outstrip production no later than 2014.  Today 440 atomic power plants worldwide supply about 15% of the world’s electricity.  Over the next 10 years, 108 new reactors are expected to be completed (mostly in Asia.)   Somebody with a big appetite is going to want their yellowcake for dessert…

     
    Tomorrow in Part II: white cake after yellowcake...Palladium.

     

    Author's Disclosure: We and/or those clients for whom it is appropriate are ncurrently long CCJ, DNN, SXRZF, URZ and U (NYSE:TSE).

    The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: we do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement but clearly too often unheeded judging by the number of investors who buy the current #1 mutual fund only to watch it plummet next month.

    We encourage you to do your own research on individual issues we recommend for your analysis to see if they might be of value in your own investing. We take our responsibility to proffer intelligent commentary seriously, but it should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

     

     

     

    Dec 08 11:43 PM | Link | 1 Comment
  • Timeless Investment Classics, Part IX – Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits
     

    This is the penultimate  review of what I consider the Top 10 Timeless Investment Classics that I keep within arm’s reach of my desk. My only criteria?  Brilliant and original investing insights and accessible writing that still speaks to us today.  To be considered a “classic,” the book must have stood the test of time. These qualify; they were published as far back as 169 years (and as recently as 43 years) ago. I believe these books can teach us more about human nature, investing, and wealth and risk management than anything written before or since... (Of course, if you want to buy my more recent book as well, who am I to discourage you?)

    In chronological order of their original publication, here are the preceding 8 reviews:

    1. Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds, by Charles Mackey (1841)
    2. The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind, by Gustave Le Bon (1896)
    3. Reminiscences of a Stock Operator, by Edwin LeFevre (1923)
    4. Security Analysis, by Graham & Dodd (1934)
    5. The Battle for Investment Survival, by Gerald M. Loeb (1935)
    6. Where Are the Customers' Yachts?, by Fred Schwed, Jr. (1940)
    7. The Intelligent Investor, by Benjamin Graham (1949)
    8. The Art of Contrary Thinking, by Humphrey Bancroft Neill (1954)

    And now #9, Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits, written in 1958 by Philip Fisher.

     

    What Benjamin Graham is to value investing, Philip Fisher is to growth investing. 


    His ideas about buy-and-hold investing in great companies through thick and thin is a seminal work.  Of course, it helped that he began investing in the depths of the Depression, when one could buy great growth companies on the cheap.  But, in fairness, he continued with that doctrine as the markets recovered, as well.

     

    This is the book where we are exposed to the notion of conducting an exhaustive search for information about a company by serious research into the subjective elements of analysis.  Rather than look for the right numbers, as Ben Graham advocated, Mr. Fisher recommends that we go beyond the numbers and query competitors, vendors, salespeople, employees, management, et al, to determine what a company is really made of and how customers, vendors and competitors view them.  Mr. Fisher called this approach getting the “scuttlebutt” on a company in order to gain a deep understanding of their investments by thoroughly analyzing not just the financial statements, but interviewing all those interested groups.

    A criticism often levied at this approach is that the “average investor” can’t gain access or use up the shoe leather to do all this.  I disagree with this criticism: you don’t have to.  That’s what the Internet is for.   Today that work is done for us by the scores, hundreds, or thousands of interviews and opinions expressed in one massively searchable database.

    Philip Fisher was extremely successful at selecting a core portfolio of just seven or eight stocks with great potential and buying them at very attractive prices. When he said “I believe strongly in diversification,” he meant not scores, but perhaps a 7 to 12 well-selected, well-researched, and well-monitored stocks.  He continued later, “I do not believe in over-diversifying … My basic theory is to know a few companies and know them really well – and be sure your diversification is real diversification. Having Ford and General Motors is not diversification. Diversification means owning companies that do not sell into the same markets – companies with real differences.”

    Warren Buffett began his investing career a strict Graham and Dodd acolyte.  He  could not bring himself to buy a growth stock. But reading Philip Fisher, and listening to Charlie Munger, his partner and long-time Phil Fisher devotee, he began to realize that it’s better to pay a slightly higher price for a great and growing company than a dirt-cheap price for a stagnant one.  No matter how high it’s intrinsic value, if nobody cares, a company's stock price can languish for years or decades.

    A further bonus of Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits is a logical and well-reasoned dismissal of the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" (NYSEARCA:EMT). His returns alone are so many sigma away from the mean as to render that bit of academic folderol worthless!

    In this book, he provides a 15-point criteria list to identify the types of companies that meet his screening.  I will provide those at the end of this article.

    Personally, I use a combination of the Graham value investing model and the Fisher growth investing template.  I look first, objectively, for companies that are at or near their intrinsic value, then ask myself the subjective questions that Fisher recommends.  This way I am not tempted to buy a bad business just because it is “undervalued.”  I am all too aware that some companies can stay undervalued longer than I can stay alive!

    That’s not to say that Phil Fisher was all about growth or that he eschewed financial analysis -- simply that he went beyond the purely financial.  He clearly says that growth stocks at value prices are the diamonds to seek.  (Followed by growth stocks at "fair" prices and, now really departing from Graham and Dodd, for growth stocks at higher prices – if they satisfy the subjective criteria.)

    I must warn you, if you haven’t read this book, that the writing style is sometimes a cut above tedious and, while you may still operate heavy machinery with it in hand, I fear you are unlikely to find it entertaining or inspiring.  Slog through it.  The insights are well worth the occasional frustrations.

    And it is quite the epiphany to see some of the same names he cites from more than a half-century ago as exemplars of American growth companies still in the trenches, still doing great R&D, and still innovating today.  (Among those he invested in and gave as examples are Dupont, Dow Chemical, IBM, Texas Instruments, Hewlett Packard, and Motorola.)

    Warren Buffett says his investment style is not original but is, rather, about 85% Benjamin Graham and 15% Philip Fisher.  Judging by the empirical evidence of his investments in the most recent 20 years, I’d say that must be more like 55% Phil Fisher and 45% Ben Graham these days…

    As promised, here are the basic questions Mr. Fisher thought it important that one ascertain to their satisfaction before investing in a particular company.

    1. Does the company have products or services with sufficient market potential to make possible a sizeable increase in sales for at least several years?
    2. Does the management have a determination to continue to develop products or processes that will still further increase total sales potential when the growth potential of currently attractive product lines have largely been exploited?
    3. How effective are the company’s research and development efforts in relation to its size?
    4. Does the company have an above-average sales organization?
    5. Does the company have a worthwhile profit margin?
    6. What is the company doing to maintain or improve profit margins?
    7. Does the company have outstanding labor and personnel relations?
    8. Does the company have outstanding executive relations?
    9. Does the company have depth to its management?
    10. How good are the company’s cost analysis and accounting controls?
    11. Are there other aspects of the business somewhat peculiar to the industry involved that will give the investor important clues as to how the company will be in relation to its competition?
    12. Does the company have a short-range or long-range outlook in regard to profits?
    13. In the foreseeable future, will the growth of the company require sufficient financing so that the large number of shares then outstanding will largely cancel existing shareholders’ benefit from this anticipated growth?
    14. Does the management talk freely to investors about its affairs when things are going well and “clam up” when troubles or disappointments occur?
    15. Does the company have a management of unquestioned integrity?

    Fisher also had five “don’t” rules for investors, which were:

    1. Don’t buy into promotional companies
    2. Don’t ignore a good stock just because it is traded over-the-counter
    3. Don’t buy a stock just because you like the tone of its annual report.
    4. Don’t assume that the high price at which a stock may be selling in relation to its earnings is necessarily an indication that further growth in those earnings has largely been already discounted in the price.
    5. Don’t quibble over eighths and quarters.

     

    I can’t say I always go through all 15 “Do’s” every time I select a security – but I do steadfastly avoid the “Don’t” companies, and always have – even before I had the pleasure of reading Common Stocks and Uncommon Profits.

     

    Disclosure: No positions mentioned.  This is about strategy, not tips!

     

    Disclaimer: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: we do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

     

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement but clearly too often unheeded judging by the number of investors who buy the current #1 mutual fund only to watch it plummet next month!

     

    We encourage you to do your own research on individual issues we recommend for your analysis to see if they might be of value in your own investing. We take our responsibility to proffer intelligent commentary seriously, but it should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

    Nov 29 2:36 PM | Link | Comment!
  • It’s Time: Nuclear Energy for America

     

    It’s Time: For a little common sense.

     

    Some opponents of peaceful uses of “atomic energy,” as it was once called (and to defuse all the rhetoric, perhaps should be once again) claim that atomic energy can never be safely controlled, that radioactive waste is a mega-problem that can never be solved, and that the cost of atomic energy is too great a burden for the nation to bear.

     

    Asking the common-sense questions:

    If it’s so expensive, how does France afford to generate 80% of its electricity from atomic energy? (With Belgium, Sweden, Spain, and Korea not far behind.)

    If it’s unsafe, how can the US Navy have been running submarines and aircraft carriers from it for 50 years with nary an incident or accident?

    If radioactive waste is such a massive problem, how do the 441 currently operating nuclear power plants manage to protect us from this menace?  Is France storing more waste than they admit from its 58 power plants?  Is Japan sneaking the leftover waste product from its 54 plants into the Sea of Japan?

     

    No, they aren't.  These claims from certain quarters fail the common-sense test.  Just look around the world to see the reality.   Other nations are cutting their dependence on foreign dictators and fanatics.  But, in this country, Three Mile Island provided a scare that we've never recovered from.  (With Chernobyl, 6 years later, providing an even bigger scare, even though it would never even have been built in this country!)

     

    Three Mile Island (TMI), which occurred 31 years ago, effectively shut down atomic energy in USA.    Chernobyl was the second and final straw, as is evidenced by the reduction in power plant construction in this chart.

     

    But what really happened at TMI?  A huge mistake, no question.  Coolant escaped from a pressurized water reactor at Unit 2 that allowed a partial core meltdown.   This mechanical failures was compounded by the failure of those monitoring the systems to recognize the situation as a loss of coolant accident.  That was awful.  And it “could” happen again, although the fail-safe mechanisms that are built in to the newer designs – many as a result of what happened at TMI – make it a far more remote possibility.  While anything "could" happen, I don’t much concern myself with the likelihood that a fragment of a meteor will strike me in my home, and I imagine you don't either -- although, as with atomic energy, there are scientists and engineers who do concern themselves with such things on our behalf.  And I would rather eat French beef grazing on the grass outside a nuclear power plant than US beef spending their life in some 4’ x 7’ cage while being pumped up with steroids, antibiotics and chemicals to make them fat!

     

    Life is about making common-sense decisions after evaluating all the facts.  I do not mitigate for a moment that TMI was both a mechanical and human screw-up, but nor do I dwell on it.  If I were a nuclear engineer, I would want to learn everything I could from this incident and design the Next Gen plants quite differently.  (Of course, that is exactly what the real nuclear engineers have done.) 

     

    For the record, the Kemeny Commission Report, and a score of others, are available online.  The official radiation emission figures clearly show that "the average radiation dose to people living within ten miles of the plant was eight millirem and no more than 100 millirem to any single individual. Eight millirem is about equal to a chest X-ray and 100 millirem is about a third of the average background level of radiation received by US residents in [one] year."  Those who remember it differently are remembering a (very good!) fictional movie that came out earlier in 1979, The China Syndrome, not the actual Three Mile Island experience.

     

    I won’t dignify Chernobyl with a rebuttal.  No responsible nation would consider building that model reactor, even back then.  The dying Soviet regime cut corners everywhere, went for the cheapest rather than the best, trained their plant personnel poorly, and were too slow to respond with a crisis action team.  Chernobyl was a one-off event that would not occur with today’s technology and safeguards.

     

    You may disagree with the above.  But if you believe the world has greater and greater difficulty (and expense) finding new sources of oil and natural gas, that we might want to lessen our reliance on coal for environmental reasons, and that wind, solar, and biomass will provide only incremental gains in energy generation that will not by themselves keep up with the rate of population growth and energy usage, you might want to consider an investment in the atomic energy business.

     

    I believe the smartest way to do so is with the miners and producers of uranium (though there are many advocates for thorium on this site and elsewhere – and I’m certainly willing to consider that source as long as the companies commissioning the plants and those building the plants do so.  For now, however, the current 104 US plants, and the rest around the world, use uranium as their base fuel.)  I’ll discuss some of these firms in a follow-on article.

     

    Today, rather than discuss individual companies, let me first mention the four ETFs that invest in uranium miners and producers as well as the electric utilities that use atomic energy, the design and consulting firms that conceive of them, the fabricators that build them, and all the other firms that provide support to the industry.

     

    Market Vectors Nuclear Energy ETF (NYSEARCA:NLR) seeks to replicate the price and yield performance of the DAXglobal Nuclear Energy Index.  This index is a modified market capitalization-weighted index consisting of publicly traded companies worldwide that are engaged in all aspects of the nuclear energy business with market cap exceeding $150 million and have worldwide average trading volume of at least $1 million daily over the past six months. The Index includes seven major sub-sectors, including mining, enrichment, storage, equipment, plant infrastructure, fuel transport and energy generation. There are some big names here like Exelon (NYSE:EXC), Entergy (NYSE:ETR), and Constellation Energy (NYSE:CEG), but also some smaller names like Fronteer Gold (FRG) and USEC (USU).

     

    PowerShares Global Nuclear Portfolio (NYSEARCA:PKN) uses, instead, the WNA Nuclear Energy Index, which stresses the international leaders as well as a number of  uranium miners.  Primary holdings include France's Areva (OTCPK:ARVCY), Shaw Group (NYSE:SHAW) and Thermo Fisher (TMO.)
     

    iShares S&P Global Nuclear Energy Index (NASDAQ:NUCL) concentrates most of its holdings in Japan and the US, a different approach but, given the technological expertise residing in those two nations, perhaps a very worthwhile one.
     

    The most recent ETF – coming to market just this month -- is the most concentrated uranium-themed ETF, GlobalX Uranium (URA.)   Global X Uranium says it will seek to capitalize on demand for uranium via the publicly-traded shares in leading miners.  URA currently holds 23 companies, more than 75% located in three nations with the best combination of corporate governance and security: Canada, Australia and the US.  Their largest holdings include Cameco (NYSE:CCJ), Uranium One (UUU on the TSE and Paladin (PDN on the TSE). 
     

    The case for atomic energy generation is a clear one, albeit not without detractors.  Honest men can disagree and remain honest men, but regular readers know my personal belief is that it is short-sighted, in an energy-starved world-to-be, to eschew any source of energy.  That includes wind, solar, geothermal, run-of-river and traditional hydroelectric, oil, natural gas, coal – and nuclear.
     

    Fossil fuels will become more expensive if / as they become more scarce.   Renewable energy alone simply can’t handle the massive demand that is forthcoming from a burgeoning world population.  There’s a new generation worldwide that want to have running water and electricity and are willing to use all sources available to get it.  Since markets anticipate demand, this may be a good time  to begin your own due diligence into all the issues surrounding atomic energy, a “nearly renewable” energy.

     

    Author's Disclosure: We and/or those clients for whom it is appropriate are now long URA, NRL, EX, CCJ, UUU, as well as other select uranium producers, which I’ll discuss in a future article.

    The Fine Print: As Registered Investment Advisors, we see it as our responsibility to advise the following: we do not know your personal financial situation, so the information contained in this communiqué represents the opinions of the staff of Stanford Wealth Management, and should not be construed as personalized investment advice.

    Past performance is no guarantee of future results, rather an obvious statement but clearly too often unheeded judging by the number of investors who buy the current #1 mutual fund only to watch it plummet next month.

    We encourage you to do your own research on individual issues we recommend for your analysis to see if they might be of value in your own investing. We take our responsibility to proffer intelligent commentary seriously, but it should not be assumed that investing in any securities we are investing in will always be profitable. We do our best to get it right, and we “eat our own cooking,” but we could be wrong, hence our full disclosure as to whether we own or are buying the investments we write about.

     

     

     

    Nov 28 12:52 PM | Link | 2 Comments
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.