Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
Please read my comment again. I didn't say the government developed fracking. Commercializing hydraulic fracking in the late 1940's and the technological advances since then that have allowed for the natural gas boom of the past 2 years was a public/private partnership with NETL not only helping to advance the process but also to make it as safe as possible. And yes, that involved nice subsidies and taxpayer money to fund the private sector development, which is what I stated.
Second, on the Keystone issue, the Gov. of Nebraska, Dave Heineman (a Republican) took issue with the new route (and the previous route) as well as most Nebraskans while Pres. Obama placed it under review. Also because of the pipeline crossing international borders, it required State department review (each new proposal). However, when Congress, controlled by Republicans with many Democrats support on the pipeline, tried to force his hand for a decision by mid-February on the north pipeline, he therefore said no, citing lack of time for full environmental review. However, he didn't reject it outright and TransCanada submitted a new application early last month that they say avoids the Sands Hill region of Nebraska. We will see what happens.
Third, did I say anything about replacing fossil fuels? I am 150% sure I didn't. All I said is the same subsidies the author derided in regards to "green" technology helped the technology that he is favoring (which is a fact). I didn't say anything in regards to green tech subsidies being good or that green tech should replace fossil fuels by next Tuesday or even if I support green tech at all. So no, I am not idealistic and inexperienced in regards to comments that I didn't even make. Next time when you read anything, understand what the person is saying and don't leap to wrong conclusions.
Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
You need to re-think the sources you are using. The "study" you reference may have some bias, don't you think?
Second, I am politically neutral and respect arguments on both sides but only when those arguments reference facts. Your last paragraph unfortunately doesn't include them. First, to reference the Keystone pipeline as a reason the Obama administration is "unfriendly" to the energy industry is just a Republican talking point and doesn't delve into the nuance around the opposition of one particular section of said pipeline. Second, the reason for advances in "fracking" is due primarily to, guess what, government subsidies that helped fund the research (not to mention other energy related research). Subsidies that you deride in reference to "green" energy and technology.
Please, if you are going to post articles, make sure they are only rooted in facts. We have enough of the left-right political non-sense elsewhere.
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Brokers are always telling people to buy, buy, buy. That is how they make money. That is how Wall Street makes money. Wall Street is at the end of the day a sales industry. Yes, I probably could be considered an insider or professional considering I am in the investment field. However, my purpose is to tell individual investors NOT TO LISTEN to Wall Street, their brokers, the financial media, etc. Do your own objective analysis, have patience, learn as much as you can and understand that the only one who will care about your money is you.
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Yes, if individual investors over the age of 10 do not have a serious distrust of Wall Street by now (and the mainstream media, especially on the financial side) then they deserve to lose their money. There are thousands of other public companies to invest in that an investor can know and understand like the inside of their pocket and which Wall Street doesn't care about (or they are so large and established that the company is not being hyped). This is where the individual who wants to invest in equities should be looking.
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
"The amount of hype was too much for the small investor to ignore."- Are you serious with this idiotic statement. The whole purpose of my rant is to make it clear that individual investors SHOULD ALWAYS ignore the hype, especially when it comes from Wall Street and the media (who can in some respects be considered one and the same.) And what is M.Z.?
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
@TexasRazz- No sir, you are the moron. You have completely missed the point of the article, which I clearly state was more rant than well written analysis. The main point is that time and time again, individual investors buy into the hype created by Wall Street and then wonder what happened when things go wrong. For some reason Americans seem to think that Wall Street gives a damn about them and has other motives besides profit. THEY DON'T The problems with the trading have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the fact that FB was overvalued from the get go. Even if everything went perfectly, the shares would have sunk. Why? There was unusually large individual investor interest and very few institutions who wanted to touch the stock (in comparison to most other IPOs).
Inflation May Not Be On The Horizon [View article]
I probably should have specified and expanded on your point. However, that is not the purpose of the article. Unfortunately, all statistics regarding inflation are flawed. Since the Fed uses the CPI, this is what we have to go by. The accuracy is another issue possibly for another article.
Pepsi's Management Shuffle, Packaging Redesigns Are Distractions [View article]
I understand the nature of Pepsico and its business very well. It is NOT a health food business. It is a beverage and snack food business. It is perfectly reasonable to invest in healthier products to an extent but the main focus should be investing in the core brands (possibly finding ways to make them healthier) and not just accumulating brands for the portfolio. Also, as an RIA, CFA, CFP, blah, blah; for you to say that the company can afford the bumps along the way is really amazing. So management needlessly wasting shareholders money is ok with you? In my view, when management needlessly wastes even a dollar, it is one dollar too many. Lastly, I understand marketing quite well. If you were to ask someone in marketing (who is not full of B.S. and actually knew something), they would tell you do not, under any circumstances, fool around with iconic brands. There is no reason to do so. What smart marketers will do is build upon that brands "iconic-ness" (especially by incorporating links from the brands history e.g. Coca-Cola changing the design of the 2-liter bottle to the "iconic" shape, which also allowed them to cut costs). By your logic, McDonalds should get rid of the golden arches or big mac because they have healthier products on the menu.
No, Best Buy Is Not Going Out Of Business [View article]
Actually, I don't think I missed the point of the article. The article states that BBY is going out of business gradually and references quantitative figures and a qualitative analysis (the customer service). First, you state that BBY is failing at attracting and retaining customers yet present no evidence of this. Second, you mention that you would be hard pressed to find a shopper who enjoys going to BBY. Have you polled all the customers? I am certain I can find customers who hate shopping at ANY retailer. I know people who hate shopping on AMZN. Also, you mention that the money-making services will begin to deteriorate as consumers become more sophisticated and want to shop at "experience" locations such as the Apple store. That is a massive assumption to make that consumers will become more sophisticated and in what way will they become more sophisticated? Believe it or not, I am sure there are consumers who hate the Apple store ( I am one of them). Next, you ask the question "what is BBY competitive advantage?" The main rival, Circuit City, is gone. That makes BBY really the only big-box electronic retailer. Do they have competition from other sources? Sure. I never said otherwise. However, the idea that everyone is going to be purchasing all of their electronics on-line from AMZN is crazy. And the other brick and mortar stores you mention? They are struggling as well. It is not as if all of BBY competition is doing great and BBY is struggling. If that was the case, it would be a totally different ballgame. You also mention Wal-Mart's competent management team compared to BBY. Didn't Wal-Mart's management team have some very public missteps the past several years? Lastly, I do always look at the actual business but I do not let personal bias get in the way. I think you should read the article again. I actually agree with Mr. Downes about the customer service and have a whole paragraph dedicated to it.
No, Best Buy Is Not Going Out Of Business [View article]
I am sure I could find stories of poor customer service at any and every retailer, not just BBY. Also, when AMZN has to start charging sales tax (which they inevitably will have to imo), that may alter things a bit.
No, Best Buy Is Not Going Out Of Business [View article]
I hoped to explain it in layman terms in the article but in retrospect should have gone further. I will try to expand on the statement. Accounts payable is a liability for BBY, much of which is owed to the suppliers of the inventory. Don't forget that retailers such as BBY don't purchase all of the inventory (or even most of it) with cash. They pay the supplier at a later date (hopefully after selling the merchandise). On the flip side (assets) is the inventory plus the accounts receivable (money owed to BBY). When I analyze a company like BBY, I choose to make the theoretical assumption that if BBY was able to receive all money owed to it (accounts receivable) plus return all the inventory (which they basically have on credit), if it covers the debt that is accounts payable plus some left over, an investor can proceed to other areas of the balance sheet. The intention being that the liability is fully covered by asset(s).
Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
Second, on the Keystone issue, the Gov. of Nebraska, Dave Heineman (a Republican) took issue with the new route (and the previous route) as well as most Nebraskans while Pres. Obama placed it under review. Also because of the pipeline crossing international borders, it required State department review (each new proposal). However, when Congress, controlled by Republicans with many Democrats support on the pipeline, tried to force his hand for a decision by mid-February on the north pipeline, he therefore said no, citing lack of time for full environmental review. However, he didn't reject it outright and TransCanada submitted a new application early last month that they say avoids the Sands Hill region of Nebraska. We will see what happens.
Third, did I say anything about replacing fossil fuels? I am 150% sure I didn't. All I said is the same subsidies the author derided in regards to "green" technology helped the technology that he is favoring (which is a fact). I didn't say anything in regards to green tech subsidies being good or that green tech should replace fossil fuels by next Tuesday or even if I support green tech at all. So no, I am not idealistic and inexperienced in regards to comments that I didn't even make. Next time when you read anything, understand what the person is saying and don't leap to wrong conclusions.
Drill, Drill, Drill = Jobs, Jobs, Jobs [View article]
Second, I am politically neutral and respect arguments on both sides but only when those arguments reference facts. Your last paragraph unfortunately doesn't include them. First, to reference the Keystone pipeline as a reason the Obama administration is "unfriendly" to the energy industry is just a Republican talking point and doesn't delve into the nuance around the opposition of one particular section of said pipeline. Second, the reason for advances in "fracking" is due primarily to, guess what, government subsidies that helped fund the research (not to mention other energy related research). Subsidies that you deride in reference to "green" energy and technology.
Please, if you are going to post articles, make sure they are only rooted in facts. We have enough of the left-right political non-sense elsewhere.
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Individual Investors Deserve To Be Burned By Facebook [View article]
Inflation May Not Be On The Horizon [View article]
Pepsi's Management Shuffle, Packaging Redesigns Are Distractions [View article]
No, Best Buy Is Not Going Out Of Business [View article]
No, Best Buy Is Not Going Out Of Business [View article]
No, Best Buy Is Not Going Out Of Business [View article]
4 Community Banks To Look At In 2012 [View article]