Tom Winnifrith

Tom Winnifrith
Contributor since: 2012
Company: TomWinnifrith.com
Clviny
My pleasure. I am amazed that in these days of uber-regulation such things still happen. All very peculiar.
Tom
Puzzman
Here's hoping that AC plays for West Ham as he did at your place rather than at Anfield.
I flagged in my original piece the comparisons with Busby and Fergie. The former stayed on 2 seasons too long and his "ghost in the stands" haunted those who suceeded him during the 1970s which were a very poor time for MUFC. I wonder...
Tom
Vikramvasu
I watch soccer avidly. I am a season ticket holder at West Ham and have been for years.
You judge a club's propsects for this year by the last 5 years not just last season and how they are playing this time. Given player turnover in the EPL I think that is a mistake.
Tom
Valuenyc
I make no secret of my view that there "is only one united" and that is West Ham United. taking my daughter to a game for the first time this season on Saturday.
I am a grave disappointment to my father who supports Man U.
But my view is purely one on valuation. I am not convinced on the brand. A few years of City/Chelski dominance in a post Fergie era could change a lot.
Best wishes
Tom
Zhubajie
I hear this $3.2 trillion number banded about a lot. Like you can use it several times over. I note that the amount lent by Chinese banks has zoomed ahead from $8 trillion to $21 trillion in the past few years. I reckon that they have vast bad debts which they are not fessing up to. Methinks that the $3.2 trillion ( and some) will be needed to bail out the Chinese banking system before it is turned to loss making enterprises in the real economy. Or in this case the surreal economy.
Tom
Six-Oh
Do not worry about the billion share overhang. I think comrade Mizok and SMJTrust are desperate to average down. They will have plenty of opportunity to do so.
Thanks for the support.
Tom
c5966
Quite right.
I provide ideas ( FB was a overhyped IPO sell at 38 and all the way down). So does comrade Brian Mizok ( buy heavily at $30). As investors we all look at ideas and then do our own research. If you win it is YOUR credit (not that of folks like me or Brian). If you lose it is YOUR fault.
I guess that the old fashioned idea of taking responsibility for our own actions has gone out of style in some places. Shame.
Tom
six-oh
Thank you for pointing out that Brian's call on FB is not exactly a good one. When you write sell advice ( and Brian can find that I have actually posted 7 or 8 ideas on the short tack here in the past few weeks and more to come) you do not expect to a) win friends and b) for those who are long to bother checking facts as they choose to shoot the messenger.
Tom
Valroudev
If the PRC Government wishes to bail these companies out to keep them going as operating units why the hell should they not take all the equity? They would be the funder of last resort. Why should taxpayers in any country provide loans to public companies and get debt returns allowing equity investors upside?
Personally I think Govt should never bail out public companies with taxpayers cash. But if it does it should take all the equity and if the businesses ever recover then sell to make a profit for the taxpayer
Tom
Energyprofitprohet
Just for the record - as the wider equity market has raced ahead in the past two weeks my 3 solar sell calls have all fallen
JASO 96 cents to 84 cents
LDK 138 cents to 128 cents
Trina 451 cents to 448 cents
So a) you have been wrong so far and I have been right
b) 2 weeks is no timeframe. So I suggest we debate the right & wrong case again in 6 months.
But to answer your question on whether you are a sucker for going against my advice so far, I guess the facts suggest that you are.
Happy to assist with your process of self-realisation
Tom
Robert.
Ah the 5 year plans, etc.... Stalin used to be good at them too.
A Totalitarian Government prepares to misallocate more capital.
Tom
IonCapatina
It is not the cost base of solar that the EU likes it is the subsidy.
I argued that these companies were all heading to oblivion.
The bulls countered "but the PRC Government will bail them out"
My point is that IF that happens the EU ( the largest customer of these firms) will counter punch with tariffs which will make the losses these firms are currently making even greater.
So it is lose lose for the China solar firms who even on their cost base are losing money now.
Tom
Jack
A firm which has debt > cash, will soon have negative working capital and which is losing money/burning cash every day is worth what on a DCF basis?
Just because it is Chinese or solar does not mean that "it will be different this time".
Before you say - these stocks are dirt cheap why not look at the last quarterlies again?
Tom
Energyprofitprohet
a) If China offers all these breaks the EU has a slam dunk case for tariffs. As you say they are "killing competition". You make the EU's case for it.
b) Whenever anyone points out the massive issues China faces and huge problems it has folks like you just say "but the Government is going to spend gazxillions more dollars on building homes/installing solar panels/lots of other capital projects no-one needs or wants as if that fixes anything?
That is an EU/ Greece & Spain style solution. It merely misallocates more capital & stores up more debt.
Why when China does this do you folks say this is sensible Government and when Greece does it you say they are reckless fools?
Tom
The hammer
Just to say thank you for a kind post.
What our China pal Ben Gee misses is that huge Government spending on building homes no-one needs, etc is just can kicking. Can kicking means that when you finally do tackle a problem it is that much bigger.
Tom
Bankim Patel
I am told to show balance here and so give hope. 2014 buying is for those who are LT China bulls.
Personally, given that PRC demographics in 30 years time start to look like those of the old folks home that is the EU & my innate aversion to command economies I am not a LT China bull. I would be looking to buy back in.....never!
Thank you for the comment
Tom
Ben Gee
Government using borrowed money to build houses etc ( when there are already 65m empty homes) is not creating an asset nor a real job.
Assets have value. When there is a 65m home overhang what is the value of another flat? And real jobs come from the private sector.
If it was that easy why does not Pres Obama just borrow gazillions more and put all US unemployed folk out there building freeways, damns or more houses no one needs? Because in American we understand these are not real jobs, just real unfunded liabilities for the State.
Tom Winnifrith
Brett
Accelerate very dramatically indeed?
Tom
BigD
You miss the point on wind. The maths does not stack up. I refer you to a piece from the UK out today.
http://bit.ly/P96qa4
Tom
MJonesx
I look forward to Michael Mann and his hockey stick in court with Mark Steyn soon. I know who I back to win
Tom Winnifrith
The Sandman.
Many thanks for your support. It is much appreciated but I am sure that it would not pass an IPCC peer group review. :)
Best wishes
Tom Winnifrith
MJonesx
Dr Michael Mann? I bet my hockeystock ( not made up with fabricated data) that I want to be on a different side to him. There are scientists on both sides.
Have you read books raising doubts about GW - try Ian Plimer's he is a scientist too!
Best wishes
Tom
Moreofthesame
"go breathe exhaust fumes etc" - yup you are a global warming nutter. Handing out such abuse rather than debating the issue marks you out as such.

You do not want to hear a counter point here or indeed anywhere as it offends your religious sensitivities. I point out facts which suggest your beliefs are wrong. It hurts.
Read the piece again and you will see that it is about the policy changes that must happen and how that could damage your wealth if you have exposure to certain investments. If you wish not to read the piece because of your strongly held views (based on faith and not reading a counter view) that is your call.
Tom
Robax6
The increase in temperature 1900 to 2012 is not uniform ( see piece), ie it was Higher in 1939 than after the 36 year cooling phase that followed lasting until 1976. And of course it is colder now than it was in 1998. So you cannot draw a clear C)2 temperature link over 100 years.
But more critically the increase 1900 to 2012 is far less rapid than the increase 1100-1200. And there was far less CO2 then. So how can you state C02 causes global warming. 1100 is not the distant past.
Will the cost of carbon fuels in real terms go up?
http://bit.ly/RHKy8a
You will note that in real terms the oil price today is actually less than it was in 1979. I am not sure that it is a given that carbon fuel prices will in real terms race ahead to such an extent that we HAVE to use renewables on a massive scale short to medium term.
Best wishes
Tom
Rames
The decision of investors to allocate capital to this sector on a mammoth scale in the 2000s was made on the basis that a) GW was real and b) that policy responses (subsidies, etc) would continue ad infinitum. That lead to massive overcapacity.
I point out in this piece that a) there are very real reasons to doubt GW and b) that those policies are already changing and if Lilley etc have their way will change more in the future. This will reduce demand in Europe at least for new capacity.
In my own country Wind farms are hugely uncompetitive and without subsidy just do not work. The Govt ( which hands out subsidy freely) admits that. This sort of thing has to change.
So this is not a rant about GW. This is an investment piece. Those who say my piece has no place here seem in reality to think it has no place anywhere. The reality is that the maths of many of these industries will worsen. That affects you as an investor.
My research is not just cobbled together from the internet. Unlike some of the folks here I have actually read quite widely on this matter ( both sides of the coin). I wonder how many of the GW believers have actually ever read a book by a sceptic?
ReeTrader
Anyone who states "Of course, if you don't believe 100% of the climate scientists in the world that aren't on oil company payrolls, nothing I can possibly say will get through to you either." is clearly not going to be persuaded by "inconvenient truths" such as the fact that the world is now cooler than it was 10 years ago, etc.
As for flat earth history. My point is that those who questioned the orthodoxy of the establishment in 1400 ( at that time the Church which stated that the earth was flat) were persecuted & ridiculed.
You will change your mind as the models on which the GW religion were based carry on being wrong. So far they have been wrong 12 years out of 12 this century, not sure why it is me rather than you who needs to question my beliefs.
Best wishes
Tom
Logical Thought
We agree on the dreadful Al Gore. I accept that some sceptics may change their mind. But equally some GW enthusiasts in the scientific community have cooled as a result of the UAE revelations and the failure of models which the IPCC and others used to predict even the 2000s correctly.
Our Governments are however spending gazillions as if the case is 100% proven. I just cannot see how ( especially as the world is now cooler than it was a decade ago) that this is the case.
Thank you for the comment
Tom
Global Warming Myths Explained
Various posters here asked me to justify my scepticism about Global Warming. I have done just that in a detailed article here on SA.
It goes further in pointing out that if you still believe in GW you will have to accept that the gravy train of subsidy/tax relief is over.
Finally it offers up another China renewables shorting idea.
Enjoy
http://seekingalpha.co...
Tom Winnifrith
Explanation of Global Warming Myths
Various posters asked me to justify my Global Warming scepticism
I have done just that in an article just published on Seeking Alpha. It also explains why even if you believe in GW you will have to accept that the gravy train of subsidy & tax breaks is over.
Enjoy:
http://seekingalpha.co...
Tom Winnifrith
Moreofthesame
A longer piece on the bogus science of climate change is with the editors now. It also links to three books on the matter which you may find interesting reading (in the interests of balance).
If you think I am a prize loon, go ahead and leverage up on all my shorts. It is a free world but as your friend I would advise against it. You may think I am a flat earth denier but the numbers on the stock analysis speak for themselves.
Best wishes
Tom
EdenRock
A far more detailed article on the subject of global warming, Government policy responses and a few resultant stock calls (including a new China green short) is with the editors awaiting approval
Best wishes
Tom
Brian
Not to be too much of a pedant but so far every one of my short calls on SA has indeed gone down.So quite how I am costing folks money (given that access is free) is a little beyond my ken.
If you want to read stuff by highly qualified experts on Facebook then there are 34 of 35 highly qualified analysts who have got it 100% wrong who would be delighted to serve such an admiring customer
Best wishes
Tom