Oil was always over $75-80 during their consistent earnings streak. I think the concern here is that oil dips below $75, 70, 60, (etc.) and what the effect on the stock price would be. When oil collapsed from almost $150 to $60 in 2008, Brigham's EPS suffered. And although the price was battered down for a while, it quickly recovered. The possibility of this happening again is pretty low considering many of BEXP's wells are now de-risked, but if oil did dip low enough, the stock price may still be affected.
As Jeep said below, the main reason the EPS has been revised is because of oil prices. When the only thing you sell is oil (and/or natural gas), then the EPS estimates will be pretty fluid. And considering we've been had a pretty large range of prices over the last year, from $80 to $120, and other unpredictable events have occurred, analyst estimates were probably off on future oil prices. Management may not be buying in now due to the lowering oil prices and the likely effect it will have on the stock. The P/E is a little high (but reasonably priced for future valuation) at 35, and oil prices are plummeting (10% over the last week), which means that this probably isn't your best short-term play, and you might have a chance to buy some lower. But as soon as oil prices turn around, this could be a fast mover to the upside. Not exactly sure what you mean by "talk to" but Bud did state the other day that he believed Q3 production levels could possibly be in the high range of analyst estimates. Hope this helps.
1) The battery swap would be done at some type of service center and would most likely be automated and done fully by machine. You wouldn't be exchanging the battery for an "old and decrepit" battery, unless you already have an old and decrepit battery in your car. Also, the battery wouldn't get you just an extra 10 miles. If you have a 300 mile battery in your car, then it would be swapped for a fully charged 300 mile battery. If you'd like to see an example of how fast a battery can be changed then watch this video: www.youtube.com/watch?...
2) Actually, the Tesla Roadster can go a lot further than 250 miles if you drive at 25mph. When driving at only 25mph (with two passengers), the Roadster holds the record for longest distance driven on a single charge at 347.2 miles.
Also if you're looking a car strictly for speed performance, then why would you ever be dealing with an electric car? They still have a way to go before they can compete with the speeds of cars that use gas. What is most important now is to extend range and charging times, in which Tesla has been doing an excellent job. Also, comparing the White Zombie to the Tesla Roadster just doesn't work. Try comparing a Factory Five GTM (around $60,000) to any type of Ferrari. The GTM wins for price and performance, but is Ferrari bankrupt or out of business? No, they're bringing in a large profit. With any other electric vehicle it would be almost impossible to drive from Philadelphia to New York, but with Tesla it isn't. Most electric vehicles could fit the bill as being daily drivers, but only Tesla can give people security in knowing that if they ever have to go city to city, they won't need another car. And I have seen Elon Musk say little to nothing that would make him an egotist. He does have a very futuristic mindset, but that has no relation to being an egotist. But truthfully, we're not really going to be able to tell if Tesla will be a success until the Model S is released. We have nothing to compare this release to.
@jf355 Apologies that it seems I stated the $50,000 model went 300 miles per charge. The base price was supposed to be unrelated to those specs, but after re-reading I clearly didn't imply that. I also compared the Nissan Leaf to the Model S because the Model S doesn't have any direct competition, only competition in the sector. And I know that my articles are not very "in-depth" because that is not my goal. I write to peak investor's interest in companies or sectors that they may not have looked into before. I also haven't seen many EV haters except for "tesla-gonna-tank" but thank you for the heads up. Constructive criticism is always welcome on my articles.
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
Well if this article turns out to be the truth instead of a rumor (www.businessweek.com/n...), then it appears that they are quite motivated to sell. I don't know if "three people with knowledge of the matter" are credible sources but both companies appear to be avoiding all commentary instead of just saying "No." Apparently the writer of the article, Zachary Mider, is a merger and acquisitions reporter for Bloomberg News so he could have a few reliable contacts.
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
I agree that a buyout offer will probably arise before the end of the year but I'm thinking the price would be around $35-40 a share. Either way, it's a safe investment and offers a good return for investors.
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
I haven't done much research on BEXP and I already have a topic picked for my next article but I will look into the company and possibly prepare an analysis on it for the following week. Stay tuned and thanks for your input.
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
I totally agree with what you have said and that something currently doesn't look right. I have inquired to management as to approximately when they will provide their "proof of operations" and am still waiting on a response. Hopefully when they release this "proof," (if they ever do) it will be sufficient enough to regain investor's confidence in the company, which has been severely battered down over the past few months.
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
During the CC and Q&A, management discussed plans to release photos and videos of the companies facilities, although they could possibly face the same scrutiny as SCEI's videos. Even though I don't believe this to be enough on behalf of management, it appears that they could be becoming more transparent on the companies activities. But all-in-all, I really do think that a dividend would seal the deal and have investors flooding back into Gulf.
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
Their explanation for the name change was to better reflect the company name, GU for the first two letters of Gulf, and RE for the first two letters of Resources.
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
The problems lie with management (not the rest of the company) and their inability to keep investors updated on the activities of the company. We rarely hear any information from management regarding events aside from in the quarterly reports. Management giving updates on activities such as the Daying County project during the quarter would be a great improvement. The company also missed their August 15th deadline to report earnings. The buyback is a whole other story. The company hasn't given a really definitive answer on what they're looking for in the buyback. They just keep saying that "they're monitoring the stock price" which isn't what investors want to hear. They want to know what exactly in the stock price management is looking for. I see good potential with management though as they said they plan to release pictures and videos of their facilities on the Q2 Q&A. This and a little bit of improvement with PR could really show investors that GURE is where they want to put their money.
Gulf Resources: Third Party Report Casts Doubt on Production Claims [View article]
Savori pointed out another major flaw in this report. You listed 30/100 companies and their output's and the lowest output on there was 300 tonnes. Do you really think that a) Gulf Resources produces less than 300 tonnes of bromine per year AND b) There are 70 other companies other than Gulf Resources that PRODUCE less than 300 tonnes a year. Does everyone and their mother own a bromine plant in China?
Savori pointed out another major flaw in this report. You listed 30/100 companies and their output's and the lowest output on there was 300 tonnes. Do you really think that a) BDO would sign off on Gulf Resources finances if they over-inflated their production numbers by well over 100x AND b) There are 70 other companies other than Gulf Resources that PRODUCE less than 300 tonnes a year. Does everyone and their mother own a bromine plant in China?
Another flaw in your numbers. According to my source: www.indexmundi.com/min... (Funny how I actually include a source! Unlike Kerrisdale) The annual output of bromine in China for 2009 was 140,000 metric tonnes. According to this, the top 30 produced 107,665. If we add in 70 more ALL producing 300 tonnes, (hypothetical and 100% not likely. If you averaged out the other 70 that apparently exist it would probably be around 100-200 tonnes each) then that adds 21,000 tonnes which = 128,665 tonnes total, well below the 140,000 mark. If all of the other bromine companies besides the top 30 were producing an average of 200 tonnes each, you would need approximately 161 more companies producing bromine in China. That's 191 companies in China producing bromine. This article sounds like total bull to me. OH by the way Kerrisdale, I would love if you could respond to this post. And also, someone on here should really post a positive article about GFRE, but then again we might be stooping down to the level of the shorts if we did that.
I wrote this last night but it wasn't posted so I'm posting it again. It seems there have been more developments about this article. I assume you can't read because the CCM article on bromine in China is NOT the top 30 as you seem to state.
Brigham Exploration Company's Bright Future [View article]
Brigham Exploration Company's Bright Future [View article]
Whether Tesla Motors Can Sell [View article]
2) Actually, the Tesla Roadster can go a lot further than 250 miles if you drive at 25mph. When driving at only 25mph (with two passengers), the Roadster holds the record for longest distance driven on a single charge at 347.2 miles.
Also if you're looking a car strictly for speed performance, then why would you ever be dealing with an electric car? They still have a way to go before they can compete with the speeds of cars that use gas. What is most important now is to extend range and charging times, in which Tesla has been doing an excellent job. Also, comparing the White Zombie to the Tesla Roadster just doesn't work. Try comparing a Factory Five GTM (around $60,000) to any type of Ferrari. The GTM wins for price and performance, but is Ferrari bankrupt or out of business? No, they're bringing in a large profit. With any other electric vehicle it would be almost impossible to drive from Philadelphia to New York, but with Tesla it isn't. Most electric vehicles could fit the bill as being daily drivers, but only Tesla can give people security in knowing that if they ever have to go city to city, they won't need another car. And I have seen Elon Musk say little to nothing that would make him an egotist. He does have a very futuristic mindset, but that has no relation to being an egotist. But truthfully, we're not really going to be able to tell if Tesla will be a success until the Model S is released. We have nothing to compare this release to.
Whether Tesla Motors Can Sell [View article]
Apologies that it seems I stated the $50,000 model went 300 miles per charge. The base price was supposed to be unrelated to those specs, but after re-reading I clearly didn't imply that. I also compared the Nissan Leaf to the Model S because the Model S doesn't have any direct competition, only competition in the sector. And I know that my articles are not very "in-depth" because that is not my goal. I write to peak investor's interest in companies or sectors that they may not have looked into before. I also haven't seen many EV haters except for "tesla-gonna-tank" but thank you for the heads up. Constructive criticism is always welcome on my articles.
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
RPC Inc.: A Hidden Gem In The Oil Well Services And Equipment Sector [View article]
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
Gulf Resources: Despite Problems It Shows Promise for Investors [View article]
Gulf Resources: Third Party Report Casts Doubt on Production Claims [View article]
Gulf Resources: Third Party Report Casts Doubt on Production Claims [View article]
a) Gulf Resources produces less than 300 tonnes of bromine per year
AND
b) There are 70 other companies other than Gulf Resources that PRODUCE less than 300 tonnes a year. Does everyone and their mother own a bromine plant in China?
Savori pointed out another major flaw in this report. You listed 30/100 companies and their output's and the lowest output on there was 300 tonnes. Do you really think that
a) BDO would sign off on Gulf Resources finances if they over-inflated their production numbers by well over 100x
AND
b) There are 70 other companies other than Gulf Resources that PRODUCE less than 300 tonnes a year. Does everyone and their mother own a bromine plant in China?
Another flaw in your numbers. According to my source: www.indexmundi.com/min... (Funny how I actually include a source! Unlike Kerrisdale)
The annual output of bromine in China for 2009 was 140,000 metric tonnes. According to this, the top 30 produced 107,665. If we add in 70 more ALL producing 300 tonnes, (hypothetical and 100% not likely. If you averaged out the other 70 that apparently exist it would probably be around 100-200 tonnes each) then that adds 21,000 tonnes which = 128,665 tonnes total, well below the 140,000 mark. If all of the other bromine companies besides the top 30 were producing an average of 200 tonnes each, you would need approximately 161 more companies producing bromine in China. That's 191 companies in China producing bromine. This article sounds like total bull to me. OH by the way Kerrisdale, I would love if you could respond to this post. And also, someone on here should really post a positive article about GFRE, but then again we might be stooping down to the level of the shorts if we did that.
I wrote this last night but it wasn't posted so I'm posting it again. It seems there have been more developments about this article. I assume you can't read because the CCM article on bromine in China is NOT the top 30 as you seem to state.