The Disturbing Truth About Silver's Rally [View article]
No disinformation here. The crux of my argument is simply this - rampant speculation is driving prices higher. It can change on a whim, so I wouldn't be buying silver at these overheated levels. Profit-taking by speculators (not hardcore PM investors) is bound to kick as silver reaches record prices (in nominal terms).
Ok. I'll humor you and leave MCD off the list. Then there's Fujitsu, Ingram Micro and the 20+ other companies under NDA.
The fact PAMT hired the number #1 M&A investment banker in the U.S. for deals under $3 billion should be a clue here, too.
You think they're going to "sign on" if there aren't legit proposals on the table. Or maybe they're getting duped too.
This is the problem with the internet and SA. Instead of getting their hands dirty, testing the tech, talking with investors, management, outside experts, "analysts" rely on internet searches and others' questionable internet research to piece together flimsy arguments.
As Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify." I've done that. If I'm wrong, I'll take my lumps like a man. Time will tell if I need to.
3 Companies More Innovative Than Apple [View article]
The purpose of this article was to encourage investors to look at innovation in a new, more quantifiable way. It's not an effort to buttress a short case against Apple. Nor am I "shilling" for any hedge funds or others with Apple shorts.
I agree with everyone that novelty is not enough. As investors, patents must be novel AND commercially relevant. If the company can't translate the technology into meaningful profits it's worthless to us.
But since patents are indeed a precursor to products, we'd be foolish not to pay attention to them. It can only increase our investment intelligence.
The metrics presented begin to develop a sense of the quality of patents.
Again, this is merely to encourage a discussion to think more specifically about patents. And I'm confident time will validate such an endeavor.
Not familiar with those Tobin Smith stocks. I agree with you, he's reprehensible. How he's still on Fox is a crime.
However, I can attest to the existence of actual technology for UNXL and PAMT and CRDS. So can the blue-chip partners they've announced, which obviously didn't join forces without seeing and testing the technology.
But let's not go there. There's enough back and forth about these companies on SA. The market will decide and prove once and for all who is right.
Debunking The Food Inflation Myth In 2 Charts [View article]
If you include eating out, the cost for food, as a % of income, is going down, too. It doesn't change the numbers that much at all. See here: http://buswk.co/11vQs0d
Uni-Pixel Has Ballooned From Hype, Not A Better Technology [View article]
Chris is spot on. Still bullish. Just advocating prudent portfolio management - i.e. play with the house's money whenever possible.
I appreciate the effort to try to loop me into this debate, though, Adam ;-)
Truth is, I've been researching and following Uni-Pixel's progress for almost two years. The back-and-forth and misinformation gets tiring for guys like Chris and I to constantly refute. So I've resigned myself to this beautiful fact of life - the market serves as the final arbiter.
So, as always, time will tell who's ultimately right. Best of luck!
A Serious Problem With ClearSign's Story [View article]
Coincidences?
1. This article re-hashes the main objections to CLIR the author made less than one month ago, without mentioning a word about the company's two latest developments since then. (1M Btu/hr and applicability to turbine systems)
2. The lock-up period expires on Oct. 22
3. The author has a short position in the stock
4. The author's been actively re-publishing his opinions on Yahoo! message boards, known hangouts for promoters and market manipulators. (In the author's mind, "guilt by association" must somehow only be relevant to Dr. Breidenthal.)
Bottom line: It's hard to believe this research was published for purely altruistic reasons.
Like with any stock, there's a bull and bear case. They've both been presented. It's time to let the market and the marketplace bear out who's ultimately right.
Buy Japan - But Beware of These 3 Investment Aftershocks [View article]
By no means am I suggesting the current trading action in Japan will follow the exact same pattern as we witnessed after Kobe. It won't and didn't. Today's 11% sell-off for the Nikkei is a much steeper decline than we witnessed in 1995. That said, it never hurts to bring up history as a frame of reference.
If a company is truly a "pump," would they spend any money on research and development, and specifically, patents?
Nope. There's no need to, nor is their an ability to do so b/c if they're truly a pump they don't really have any technology, right? Plus, there's no reason to waste the money.
And yet, three companies mentioned above (UNXL, PAMT, CRDS) do indeed have patents and continue to file new patent applications.
Just a "minor" point to keep in mind before you rush to judgement about the existence of an actual technology... or worse, rush out to short a company :-)
The Future Is CLIR: Why The Shorts Are Wrong About ClearSign Combustion [View article]
Please don't spread lies.
I never "refused to answer whether he had any relationship with MDB Capital or whether him/friends or employers recieve benefit for the defense of MDB Capital companies."
"I'm an independent analysis. As I stated, my business at WallStreetDaily.com relies on my providing timely and actionable information to paying subscribers. That is the only source of income for our business. We have never - and never will - accept money or services or anything from companies to write favorably about their stocks. We provide research on what we believe is important. My relationship with management and MDB goes no further than being inquisitive like any other traditional analyst. I reached out to them to find out more."
A Serious Problem With ClearSign's Story [View article]
I'm not discouraging transparency and open debate. Re-hashed arguments get tiresome, though.
You keep obsessing about giving credit to an original inventor. What matters most is a company's ability to commercialize a technology.
Or put another way, I’m most concerned with the process of innovation: taking something that has been discovered, improving it and commercializing it.
Countless examples of this exist in the real world. Like Steve Jobs and the mouse. And Thomas Edison with the light bulb. He didn't discover the science. He commercialized it.
By your logic we should ignore those successes, though, because Jobs and Edison didn’t discover/develop the original technology. As an investor, that makes no sense.
Clearsign has a credible engineer on board, Joe Colannino, to help commercialize ECC. Yet, you keep ignoring his existence. Or worse, you try to dismiss him because he wasn’t on board when the original science was articulated. Again, that’s inconsequential.
Extending your lumberjack analogy, it doesn’t matter who cut down the log in the first place. I'm interested in who pulls it out of the water and sells it to someone to build a house, thereby creating real world value for the first time.
The Disturbing Truth About Silver's Rally [View article]
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
The fact PAMT hired the number #1 M&A investment banker in the U.S. for deals under $3 billion should be a clue here, too.
You think they're going to "sign on" if there aren't legit proposals on the table. Or maybe they're getting duped too.
This is the problem with the internet and SA. Instead of getting their hands dirty, testing the tech, talking with investors, management, outside experts, "analysts" rely on internet searches and others' questionable internet research to piece together flimsy arguments.
As Reagan liked to say, "Trust, but verify." I've done that. If I'm wrong, I'll take my lumps like a man. Time will tell if I need to.
3 Companies More Innovative Than Apple [View article]
I agree with everyone that novelty is not enough. As investors, patents must be novel AND commercially relevant. If the company can't translate the technology into meaningful profits it's worthless to us.
But since patents are indeed a precursor to products, we'd be foolish not to pay attention to them. It can only increase our investment intelligence.
The metrics presented begin to develop a sense of the quality of patents.
Again, this is merely to encourage a discussion to think more specifically about patents. And I'm confident time will validate such an endeavor.
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
However, I can attest to the existence of actual technology for UNXL and PAMT and CRDS. So can the blue-chip partners they've announced, which obviously didn't join forces without seeing and testing the technology.
But let's not go there. There's enough back and forth about these companies on SA. The market will decide and prove once and for all who is right.
Good luck to you!
Debunking The Food Inflation Myth In 2 Charts [View article]
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
Uni-Pixel Has Ballooned From Hype, Not A Better Technology [View article]
I appreciate the effort to try to loop me into this debate, though, Adam ;-)
Truth is, I've been researching and following Uni-Pixel's progress for almost two years. The back-and-forth and misinformation gets tiring for guys like Chris and I to constantly refute. So I've resigned myself to this beautiful fact of life - the market serves as the final arbiter.
So, as always, time will tell who's ultimately right. Best of luck!
A Serious Problem With ClearSign's Story [View article]
1. This article re-hashes the main objections to CLIR the author made less than one month ago, without mentioning a word about the company's two latest developments since then. (1M Btu/hr and applicability to turbine systems)
2. The lock-up period expires on Oct. 22
3. The author has a short position in the stock
4. The author's been actively re-publishing his opinions on Yahoo! message boards, known hangouts for promoters and market manipulators. (In the author's mind, "guilt by association" must somehow only be relevant to Dr. Breidenthal.)
Bottom line: It's hard to believe this research was published for purely altruistic reasons.
Like with any stock, there's a bull and bear case. They've both been presented. It's time to let the market and the marketplace bear out who's ultimately right.
The 3 Scariest Government Charts [View article]
http://1.usa.gov/Vg8dPG
Rinse And Repeat: Short Parametric Sound [View article]
http://seekingalpha.co...
Buy Japan - But Beware of These 3 Investment Aftershocks [View article]
Caveat Emptor Beckons [View article]
If a company is truly a "pump," would they spend any money on research and development, and specifically, patents?
Nope. There's no need to, nor is their an ability to do so b/c if they're truly a pump they don't really have any technology, right? Plus, there's no reason to waste the money.
And yet, three companies mentioned above (UNXL, PAMT, CRDS) do indeed have patents and continue to file new patent applications.
Just a "minor" point to keep in mind before you rush to judgement about the existence of an actual technology... or worse, rush out to short a company :-)
The (Stubborn) Myth Of Green Energy Investing [View article]
The Future Is CLIR: Why The Shorts Are Wrong About ClearSign Combustion [View article]
I never "refused to answer whether he had any relationship with MDB Capital or whether him/friends or employers recieve benefit for the defense of MDB Capital companies."
I stated it clearly in the comments of my article (http://seekingalpha.co...)...
"I'm an independent analysis. As I stated, my business at WallStreetDaily.com relies on my providing timely and actionable information to paying subscribers. That is the only source of income for our business. We have never - and never will - accept money or services or anything from companies to write favorably about their stocks. We provide research on what we believe is important. My relationship with management and MDB goes no further than being inquisitive like any other traditional analyst. I reached out to them to find out more."
A Serious Problem With ClearSign's Story [View article]
You keep obsessing about giving credit to an original inventor. What matters most is a company's ability to commercialize a technology.
Or put another way, I’m most concerned with the process of innovation: taking something that has been discovered, improving it and commercializing it.
Countless examples of this exist in the real world. Like Steve Jobs and the mouse. And Thomas Edison with the light bulb. He didn't discover the science. He commercialized it.
By your logic we should ignore those successes, though, because Jobs and Edison didn’t discover/develop the original technology. As an investor, that makes no sense.
Clearsign has a credible engineer on board, Joe Colannino, to help commercialize ECC. Yet, you keep ignoring his existence. Or worse, you try to dismiss him because he wasn’t on board when the original science was articulated. Again, that’s inconsequential.
Extending your lumberjack analogy, it doesn’t matter who cut down the log in the first place. I'm interested in who pulls it out of the water and sells it to someone to build a house, thereby creating real world value for the first time.