Air Products & Chemicals Inc. (APD)
Trading Center
Loading...
Symbols:
APD Forum Topics
- All Comments on APD
- General Discussion on APD
- Investing in a Resource-Constrained World (Part IV) [view article]
- Excellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
- FiveTop Green Week Stocks [view article]
- Helium: Investing in the Loner Element [view article]
- Air Products and Chemicals Doubles Dividends Almost Every 7 Years [view article]
- Jim Cramer's Mad Money In-Depth, 1/8/08: Change of the Guards [view article]
- Jim Cramer's Mad Money In-Depth Stock Picks, 7/13/07 [view article]
- Jim Cramer's Mad Money Lightning Round Picks, 6/13/07 [view article]
- Companies With The Most Analyst Attention & Affection [view article]
loading ...Recent APD Articles
- Air Products and Chemicals - Not a Buy... Yet
- Earnings Preview: Air Products
- Excellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150
- FiveTop Green Week Stocks
- Investing in a Resource-Constrained World (Part IV)
- Air Products and Chemicals Doubles Dividends Almost Every 7 Years
- PRFM: Diverse but Concentrated Basic Materials ETF
- IYM: Can Materials Continue to Provide a Safe Haven?
- Helium: Investing in the Loner Element
- KMG Chemicals: The Mature Approach to Acquisitions
- Full List of Articles »
Trading Center
Hedge Fund Jobs
Job Seekers: Search jobs by category, get job alerts by email or live feed, apply online See full list of jobs »
Employers: See all recruitment options, get applications online or by email Post a job »
Investing in a Resource-Constrained World (Part IV) [view article]
On a purely technical level, healthy bull markets do not develop parabolically. POT undoubtedly is. Also, making comparisons with Nortel and Cisco during the dot com bubble is absolutely apt. Bubbles don't just depend on supply/demand relations, but involve positive feedback loops, herd psychology and the grater fool theory--all of which can be applied regardless off the underlying issue.Look at the charts, they tell the whole story. Reply
pessimistic
optimist
Excellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
I did not recall any gold stocks. Current trends are up oil, up gold and at 949, I see another 25 run up coming if oil continues to ascend. That is unless ICE works with gold. ReplyFiveTop Green Week Stocks [view article]
Also look at fcel, bldp, cpst & eslr Replyr
Excellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
This is a funny list. Why would they be good at $150 and not $140 or $135. There's no reasoning what-so-ever. What a joke. ReplyExcellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
sbenard, I agree with you. Analysts should restrict their commentary to thoughtful analysis instead of a list of names. I suspect that the list is merely companies that came close to their estimates the week before earnings are reported. To often lists are published so that maybe they can get 1 out of x correct. ReplyExcellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
Unfortunately, very few wall street firms have any credibility at all in the energy sector, and CSFB is not one of them. Their list includes some attractive companies, but it's hardly valuable information. If one really is interested in the sector, I would suggest following BMO strategist Don Coxe and McDep Associates' Kurt Wulff. These guys were making specific recommendations and pounding the table on the sector when everyone else thought oil was going back to $30. ReplyExcellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
I don't find this info to be useful, since there is NO rationale for how these companies were selected or why. It's just a list, nothing more! It has no context nor meaning to me. ReplyExcellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
Brookfield has a large chunk of its real estate in the Houston and Calgary areas. WDR' s asset strategy is heavy into energy and materials.Obtuse, but that's one reason CSFB is very good in this sector. Reply
Excellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
WDR is an investment management company. Why should they be there? ReplyExcellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
What's the reasoning to have Brookfield Properties on the list if oil hits $150. It a real estate company. Please explain. The co's listed are a no-brainer. i dont need some nerd at csfb telling me that. ReplyExcellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
Uranium producers and juniors--Uranium Resources (URRE) and Bayswater. Natural gas producers, for sure. And oil and gas juniors--Kodiak Oil and Gas, Dune, Dejour. I own these plus CNX, CXG, Pele Mountain (uranium). ReplyReport
Excellent Stocks When (If) Oil Hits $150 [view article]
Here are some excellent stocks worth considering, whether oil hits $150 or not -- Patriot Coal (PCX), Alpha Naturl (ANR), Chemical & Mining (SQM), Massey Energy (MEE), Olympic Steel (ZEUS), Fording CdnTst (FDG), Int'l Coal Grp (ICO), Gerdau SA ADR (GGB), US Steel (X), W-H Energy Svcs (WHQ). Check our website for more info.Reply
Helium: Investing in the Loner Element [view article]
I've been considering adding Praxair (PX) to my portfolio for quite some time and your article provides further reinforcement that it would, perhaps, be very wise to do so. Thanks for your well written article as well as the very convincing statistics. ReplyHelium: Investing in the Loner Element [view article]
I've been considering adding Praxair (PX) to my portfolio for quite some time and your article provides further reinforcement that it would, perhaps, be very wise to do so. Thanks for your well written article as well as the very convincing statistics. ReplyKronenberg
Investing in a Resource-Constrained World (Part IV) [view article]
Mr. Anthony - There are some interesting opinions and some good information in this article. Presentation of opinion often provides the impetus for useful thought and debate. If everyone agreed on things, the markets would provide no opportunity for profit. Presentation of opinions and ideas should be actively debated, but never criticized for having been stated.Unfortunately, neither side in this debate has presented adequate facts to support their opinion. After reading the commentary on both sides, as a holder of large positions in POT, MOS, CF, and TRA, I will still need to research on my own the economic feasibility in the long term of capturing KCL from the sea.
Stating as fact that it is economically unfeasible is not better than stating that Israel has been doing it from the Dead Sea. I don't know the concentration of KCL in the Dead Sea, but I do know there is only one Dead Sea, and there is no basis for the assumption that economically evaporating KCL from the Dead Sea extends to the ocean or any salt lake either. I do, however, appreciate the opinions on both sides that provided me with the question that I now must research.
The problem with this article is not the statement of opinion. Rather, Mr. Anthony, you should examine the following:
1. Your security and sector analysis does not appear to be objective. It is interspersed with political opinion that simply does not belong in security analysis.
2. You draw conclusions based on faulty and unsupported assumptions.
As an example of both problems, you state:
"Food is both perishable and completely renewable. The world will never run out of food. The next harvest is always less than 6 months away. So the grain bull market can not last for much more than a year or so. The food price can not go up indefinitely, either. When the food prices exceed the level where the poorest people can afford, they stop going up further. Rich people have money but they only have one stomach. So although I agree with Jim Rogers who predicts many more years of commodity bull market despite of the coming recession, I disagree with his emphasis on agriculture as the most bullish of all commodities."
The conclusion is colored by your politico-social beliefs. My only thought when I read it was, "Really?" The argument for increasing food prices is increasing demand. The argument for increasing demand is that the industrialization of countries such as China and India are creating more "rich" people with their "one stomach" to feed. More stomachs that can afford food = higher demand. Further, prices are not limited by what the poor can afford. Presumably the poor can afford some food or they will starve to death. If they are dying in droves, presumably the government or some charitable aid organization will step in and buy food to feed the poor. Larger populations always create larger demand for food, and larger populations of "rich" people also create larger demand for food. Your conclusion is based on the erroneous assumption that the numbers and ratios of rich and poor are staying static.
You state a conspiracy theory about China hording fertilizer and keeping it a secret. This is not based on any actual fact-based analysis of the amount of fertilizer purchased over the years, the amount used and any left for storage. I suspect that POT has a much better handle on those numbers than you do, and if they believe that China has depleted in its reserves it carries a great deal more credibility.
Sure. China may in our imagination have some sort of secret horde that they release on the market and kill fertilizer prices, but French Canadian dissidents from Quebec may also decide to bomb the Saskatchewan mine for failure to post enough signs in French. I am not about to invest on either of those far-fetched "maybe's."
Indeed, the argument about releasing reserves on a market is better placed where we actually know such a reserve exists -- the US Oil Reserve for example. Nevertheless, even where it does exist, it is unlikely that the US is going to manipulate the oil market with it at this point. They accumulated the reserve for security reasons that override. In the case of fertilizer, we have no evidence of a reserve let alone any inclination for China to use it to manipulate prices. Reply