Fam62c's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/206842/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/113494-protectionism-vs-pragmatism?source=feed#comment-350245 350245
It's our own fault; we wanted to have everything and we wanted things cheap so we could have more stuff. Cheap stuff needs to be made cheaply with cheap labor and that's where it all started. I, for one, would be willing to pay a little more for some items and have less stuff if it meant more decent jobs for my family members and friends.

A little protectionism isn't a bad thing; "free trade" isn't free, it's come at a huge price for the USA. Other countries benefit more than we do from free trade and our wealth gets transferred away. It's a zero-sum game and as the rest of the world begins to have a middle class for the first time we will see our middle class shrink away to nothing. Almost everything that we consume in the USA can be made right here. After WWII we were the producer for the whole world, now all we do is consume all the stuff that's made everywhere else. I welcome competition from foreigh companies ( we don't want to choke off innovation and force people to buy poor quality) as long as they invest in the USA and build plants here, if they are going to take they should have to give as well. We have the most valuable consumer markets in the world and we are stupid to give access way for free with nothing in return for the American people but a large selection of cheap crap.]]> Thu, 08 Jan 2009 19:17:18 -0500
It's our own fault; we wanted to have everything and we wanted things cheap so we could have more stuff. Cheap stuff needs to be made cheaply with cheap labor and that's where it all started. I, for one, would be willing to pay a little more for some items and have less stuff if it meant more decent jobs for my family members and friends.

A little protectionism isn't a bad thing; "free trade" isn't free, it's come at a huge price for the USA. Other countries benefit more than we do from free trade and our wealth gets transferred away. It's a zero-sum game and as the rest of the world begins to have a middle class for the first time we will see our middle class shrink away to nothing. Almost everything that we consume in the USA can be made right here. After WWII we were the producer for the whole world, now all we do is consume all the stuff that's made everywhere else. I welcome competition from foreigh companies ( we don't want to choke off innovation and force people to buy poor quality) as long as they invest in the USA and build plants here, if they are going to take they should have to give as well. We have the most valuable consumer markets in the world and we are stupid to give access way for free with nothing in return for the American people but a large selection of cheap crap.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/109478-ge-at-a-crossroads-business-model-becoming-obsolete?source=feed#comment-323037 323037 Sun, 07 Dec 2008 12:14:23 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/108446-frontline-s-earnings-do-not-paint-a-clear-picture?source=feed#comment-317823 317823 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:45:50 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/108393-shipping-continues-its-downward-plunge?source=feed#comment-317821 317821 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:43:30 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/108442-microsoft-yahoo-round-two?source=feed#comment-317816 317816 Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:36:24 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/107679-terex-should-buy-back-its-shares-in-place-of-fantuzzi?source=feed#comment-316344 316344 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:48:26 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/107813-coke-or-pepsi?source=feed#comment-316341 316341 Thu, 27 Nov 2008 13:40:36 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/105253-threats-to-under-armours-business-worrisome?source=feed#comment-305104 305104
I have to believe that brand value will make UA a winner in a strong economy and they are still a relatively small company so they have good growth potential. I also think there's a chance that somebody, like a private equity firm, could make a run at UA when and if the economy starts to improve and the post-recession M&A frenzy starts. ]]> Thu, 13 Nov 2008 10:35:33 -0500
I have to believe that brand value will make UA a winner in a strong economy and they are still a relatively small company so they have good growth potential. I also think there's a chance that somebody, like a private equity firm, could make a run at UA when and if the economy starts to improve and the post-recession M&A frenzy starts. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105679-do-the-automakers-deserve-a-bail-out?source=feed#comment-304670 304670
SHAME ON YOU! ]

Turi;

My Dad is a WWII vet who fought the Japs in the Pacific. He drove American cars all his life and was loyal to Detroit. In his 80's, out of the blue he bought an American made Toyota Camry and he says it's the best car he's ever owned. He's had a lot of problems with American cars over the years. Some of the cars were good but some were just terrible. The last straw was a Chevy S-10 (a 2003 I believe) that had a defective transmission at less that 20,000 miles along with some other defects. I'm as American as the next guy but Detroit needs to work extra hard to get people to trust that their new cars are on par with some of the foreign makers. It's not the fault of consumers that Detroit made a lot of subpar vehicles over the years and drove their own customers away. I actually think that bankruptcy might be good for the Big-3 because maybe after they are reorganized people will believe that things are different and give them another chance. ]]> Wed, 12 Nov 2008 21:54:44 -0500
SHAME ON YOU! ]

Turi;

My Dad is a WWII vet who fought the Japs in the Pacific. He drove American cars all his life and was loyal to Detroit. In his 80's, out of the blue he bought an American made Toyota Camry and he says it's the best car he's ever owned. He's had a lot of problems with American cars over the years. Some of the cars were good but some were just terrible. The last straw was a Chevy S-10 (a 2003 I believe) that had a defective transmission at less that 20,000 miles along with some other defects. I'm as American as the next guy but Detroit needs to work extra hard to get people to trust that their new cars are on par with some of the foreign makers. It's not the fault of consumers that Detroit made a lot of subpar vehicles over the years and drove their own customers away. I actually think that bankruptcy might be good for the Big-3 because maybe after they are reorganized people will believe that things are different and give them another chance. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105679-do-the-automakers-deserve-a-bail-out?source=feed#comment-304573 304573
I'm worried about taxpayer money being used to pick winners and losers among private industry. How do we decide who to help and who not to help? Where was the bailout for, say, Circuit City? The banks were one thing because the government has authority in that area but where do we stop when we decide to help private industry? What if everybody comes forward with their hand out?

By the way, what about Chrysler? They are owned by a private equity company, why should the taxpayers loan them money. Shouldn't the private equity company raise money to help Chrysler since it's their investment? Isn't re-capitalization what they do? They just bought Chrysler I think that it's their problem. Chrysler certainly shouldn't get any government help until their parent company has given every last penny to the effort. ]]> Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:19:33 -0500
I'm worried about taxpayer money being used to pick winners and losers among private industry. How do we decide who to help and who not to help? Where was the bailout for, say, Circuit City? The banks were one thing because the government has authority in that area but where do we stop when we decide to help private industry? What if everybody comes forward with their hand out?

By the way, what about Chrysler? They are owned by a private equity company, why should the taxpayers loan them money. Shouldn't the private equity company raise money to help Chrysler since it's their investment? Isn't re-capitalization what they do? They just bought Chrysler I think that it's their problem. Chrysler certainly shouldn't get any government help until their parent company has given every last penny to the effort. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/104959-demand-more-for-your-auto-bailout-dollar-oil-patch-should-bounce-back-long-term?source=feed#comment-304490 304490
My dream is seeing the mideast with a bunch of worthless oil that nobody wants because technology has made it obsolete. Without all that oil money the mideast is just a bunch of desert tribes on camels living in tents and killing each other. Without oil they have nothing; there is no Sadam Hussein, Osama-Bin-Laden, Azerminidjad (whatever) Saudi Royal Family, etc. American sons, daughters, mothers and fathers wouldn't have to be killed or horribly injured in wars over energy. If we don't do something I belive that sooner or later WWIII will be fought directly or indirectly over oil.

It's such a shame; with all that oil wealth in the mideast they could have built the best housing for their people, the best schools for their children and created vibrant, modern, sophisticated societies. If they had put the money to good use I wouldn't feel so bad about buying their oil but to see all that wealth and still all that suffering, poverty, violence, hatred, intolerance and misery makes me sick.

America is going through a rough patch but I believe that when we are focused as a nation and have the will to do something we are unstoppable; energy independence is possible if we want it bad enough. We should be the ones to take the lead and show the rest of the world how it's done. Imagine the benefit to our economy if we could be energy independent and have stable energy prices over the long term; we would have an advantage that nobody else in the world has. We are one of the few nations with the available resources, technology, industrial capacity and real estate to pull it off and we are stupid if we don't. If we had started a massive push to do this after the 1970's energy shocks we would already be mostly there today.

In the long run I think that cheap oil has hurt us more than it has helped us. If oil had stayed (or had been taxed) at high levels after the '70's the market would have forced the Big-3 to adapt and they could have done it before the Japs had a chance to get a massive head start........we would still be the world's dominant auto maker; our society as a whole and our competitive position in the world would be much stronger. The future can be very bright indeed for the USA if we get up off our a$$es and make the committment to truly be free from wild energy price swings. It won't be easy and it won't happen overnight but we can do it.]]> Wed, 12 Nov 2008 16:49:12 -0500
My dream is seeing the mideast with a bunch of worthless oil that nobody wants because technology has made it obsolete. Without all that oil money the mideast is just a bunch of desert tribes on camels living in tents and killing each other. Without oil they have nothing; there is no Sadam Hussein, Osama-Bin-Laden, Azerminidjad (whatever) Saudi Royal Family, etc. American sons, daughters, mothers and fathers wouldn't have to be killed or horribly injured in wars over energy. If we don't do something I belive that sooner or later WWIII will be fought directly or indirectly over oil.

It's such a shame; with all that oil wealth in the mideast they could have built the best housing for their people, the best schools for their children and created vibrant, modern, sophisticated societies. If they had put the money to good use I wouldn't feel so bad about buying their oil but to see all that wealth and still all that suffering, poverty, violence, hatred, intolerance and misery makes me sick.

America is going through a rough patch but I believe that when we are focused as a nation and have the will to do something we are unstoppable; energy independence is possible if we want it bad enough. We should be the ones to take the lead and show the rest of the world how it's done. Imagine the benefit to our economy if we could be energy independent and have stable energy prices over the long term; we would have an advantage that nobody else in the world has. We are one of the few nations with the available resources, technology, industrial capacity and real estate to pull it off and we are stupid if we don't. If we had started a massive push to do this after the 1970's energy shocks we would already be mostly there today.

In the long run I think that cheap oil has hurt us more than it has helped us. If oil had stayed (or had been taxed) at high levels after the '70's the market would have forced the Big-3 to adapt and they could have done it before the Japs had a chance to get a massive head start........we would still be the world's dominant auto maker; our society as a whole and our competitive position in the world would be much stronger. The future can be very bright indeed for the USA if we get up off our a$$es and make the committment to truly be free from wild energy price swings. It won't be easy and it won't happen overnight but we can do it.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105358-auto-industry-in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound?source=feed#comment-304387 304387

The US seems to make a new small car model for a few years and then it gets dropped for another new model, also, they cannibilize their own business by making the same cars under different brands. You are correct, their is a prejudice against American small cars and I don't believe the Big-3 are trying hard enough to build new, loyal customers. I can't even think of the name of any American small car models so the Big-3 must be doing something wrong with branding and marketing. I know what an F-150, Ram, Escalade, Expedition, etc. are even though I'm not a truck buyer so why am I not familiar with their cars? The answer is that they promote what they want you to buy not necessarily what you want to buy. I guess I looked at a Pontiac Vibe once and thought is was somewhat comparable to a Golf/GTI but even the Vibe is a joint venture with Toyota. I'm not in the market for a new car but give me the name of an American made compact hatchback comparable to my GTI and I'll go test drive it for the heck of it and see what I think, and I better not see any cheap American fake chrome in the interior :)

I hope that the Volt beats everyone else to the market and I hope the car gets good reviews. I still believe that, as recently as a couple years ago when gas was cheap and the economy was good, the Big-3 really only put minimal effort into small cars. It's been that way forever in Detroit because small cars have small profit margins and Detroit's costs just don't allow for profitable small cars.

Another thing to remember is that most buyers start out with a cheap, small and probably used car when they are young and poor. If they like that car they may stick with that brand for a long time, and conversely, if the car is crappy they may never buy a car from that company again. Remember, a 1982 VW Rabbitt purchased in 1987 with 145,000 miles made me a VW customer for 21 years. I don't think that an equivalent Ford Escort or Chevy Chevette from the same era would have made me a Ford or GM customer. The Japs (and VW) understood this and it allowed them to eventually make larger cars and trucks for these buyers as they got older and eventually introduce Lexus and Acura for the buyers as they got older and had more money. Detroit made a huge mistake by dismissing the lower end of the market, when the Jap cars first came Detroit figured the customers who bought them would "upgrade" to American cars when they had more money and if they didn't have more money Detroit didn't want them as customers. Detroit let the Japs in by ignoring the part of the market they weren't interested in and basically gave away a giant piece of market share, the customer erosion continues to this day. The Japs don't have to rely on "cheap" small cars anymore, they get more money for their cars (new and used) than the Big-3 does. The Big-3 will have to try a lot harder than they have in the past if they want to win customers back; they will need to really make a major marketing push in support of one or two small car models if they want custowers to get interested. It's not the customers fault for not buying American, it's Detroit's fault for not paying attention to small car customers for the last 30 years. Detroit isn't entitled to American customer's hard earned money, they have to earn that business.]]> Wed, 12 Nov 2008 15:23:31 -0500

The US seems to make a new small car model for a few years and then it gets dropped for another new model, also, they cannibilize their own business by making the same cars under different brands. You are correct, their is a prejudice against American small cars and I don't believe the Big-3 are trying hard enough to build new, loyal customers. I can't even think of the name of any American small car models so the Big-3 must be doing something wrong with branding and marketing. I know what an F-150, Ram, Escalade, Expedition, etc. are even though I'm not a truck buyer so why am I not familiar with their cars? The answer is that they promote what they want you to buy not necessarily what you want to buy. I guess I looked at a Pontiac Vibe once and thought is was somewhat comparable to a Golf/GTI but even the Vibe is a joint venture with Toyota. I'm not in the market for a new car but give me the name of an American made compact hatchback comparable to my GTI and I'll go test drive it for the heck of it and see what I think, and I better not see any cheap American fake chrome in the interior :)

I hope that the Volt beats everyone else to the market and I hope the car gets good reviews. I still believe that, as recently as a couple years ago when gas was cheap and the economy was good, the Big-3 really only put minimal effort into small cars. It's been that way forever in Detroit because small cars have small profit margins and Detroit's costs just don't allow for profitable small cars.

Another thing to remember is that most buyers start out with a cheap, small and probably used car when they are young and poor. If they like that car they may stick with that brand for a long time, and conversely, if the car is crappy they may never buy a car from that company again. Remember, a 1982 VW Rabbitt purchased in 1987 with 145,000 miles made me a VW customer for 21 years. I don't think that an equivalent Ford Escort or Chevy Chevette from the same era would have made me a Ford or GM customer. The Japs (and VW) understood this and it allowed them to eventually make larger cars and trucks for these buyers as they got older and eventually introduce Lexus and Acura for the buyers as they got older and had more money. Detroit made a huge mistake by dismissing the lower end of the market, when the Jap cars first came Detroit figured the customers who bought them would "upgrade" to American cars when they had more money and if they didn't have more money Detroit didn't want them as customers. Detroit let the Japs in by ignoring the part of the market they weren't interested in and basically gave away a giant piece of market share, the customer erosion continues to this day. The Japs don't have to rely on "cheap" small cars anymore, they get more money for their cars (new and used) than the Big-3 does. The Big-3 will have to try a lot harder than they have in the past if they want to win customers back; they will need to really make a major marketing push in support of one or two small car models if they want custowers to get interested. It's not the customers fault for not buying American, it's Detroit's fault for not paying attention to small car customers for the last 30 years. Detroit isn't entitled to American customer's hard earned money, they have to earn that business.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105358-auto-industry-in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound?source=feed#comment-304046 304046 Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:11:13 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/105358-auto-industry-in-for-a-penny-in-for-a-pound?source=feed#comment-303047 303047 Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:14:13 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/105061-should-we-really-bail-out-the-big-three-automakers-with-73-20-per-hour-labor?source=feed#comment-301931 301931 Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:07:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/104939-fossil-fuels-vs-green-energy-what-s-a-better-investment?source=feed#comment-301298 301298 Sun, 09 Nov 2008 14:00:11 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/104959-demand-more-for-your-auto-bailout-dollar-oil-patch-should-bounce-back-long-term?source=feed#comment-301272 301272
As much as I hate to say it I think that we went wrong as a society by not taxing gasoline more heavily after the 1970's energy crisis to encourage conservation and fuel efficient designs with new technology. The fact is that when gas is cheap people will waste it and alternative power sources will never take hold. We have allowed our economy to have massive exposure to oil price spikes and have given OPEC a lot of power over us. As painful as it would be over the short term I would suport a gas tax program to keep gas above say $3.50/gallon combined with a massive, government backed effort (partially funded by the gas tax) to promote alternative energy sources. If we let gas prices fall again we will go back to our wasteful ways and alternative energy development will stall out for lack of investment. The result will be a future fuel price spike that we will be unprepared for and maybe next time oil goes to $250/bbl and creates the next great depression. It sounds counterintuitive but cheap gas is bad for the US economy in the long run because we can't insure that it will remain cheap, in fact, we know that it won't. If we could take a highly variable cost and make it more of a fixed and known cost it would smooth out our economy. We didn't learn anything from the 1970's so I hope we learn this time, history will repeat itself. We have seen the tremors, if we don't prepare for the inevitable earthquake we deserve what we get when it happens.]]> Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:25:58 -0500
As much as I hate to say it I think that we went wrong as a society by not taxing gasoline more heavily after the 1970's energy crisis to encourage conservation and fuel efficient designs with new technology. The fact is that when gas is cheap people will waste it and alternative power sources will never take hold. We have allowed our economy to have massive exposure to oil price spikes and have given OPEC a lot of power over us. As painful as it would be over the short term I would suport a gas tax program to keep gas above say $3.50/gallon combined with a massive, government backed effort (partially funded by the gas tax) to promote alternative energy sources. If we let gas prices fall again we will go back to our wasteful ways and alternative energy development will stall out for lack of investment. The result will be a future fuel price spike that we will be unprepared for and maybe next time oil goes to $250/bbl and creates the next great depression. It sounds counterintuitive but cheap gas is bad for the US economy in the long run because we can't insure that it will remain cheap, in fact, we know that it won't. If we could take a highly variable cost and make it more of a fixed and known cost it would smooth out our economy. We didn't learn anything from the 1970's so I hope we learn this time, history will repeat itself. We have seen the tremors, if we don't prepare for the inevitable earthquake we deserve what we get when it happens.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/103460-how-election-day-could-boost-penn-national-gaming?source=feed#comment-296329 296329 Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:26:26 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/100720-here-i-go-criticizing-warren-buffett?source=feed#comment-286422 286422
As far as Buffett telling people to buy stocks goes; it's probably good advice but buyer beware. If you don't have a 5 year minimum investment time horizon you shouldn't be buying stocks anyway....ever. The people trying to make a quick buck in the market may get burned by Buffett's advice to get into the market but the people with years to stay in won't. Note the Buffett is NOT calling a bottom, he never does that. He is saying that he sees value in US stocks at these levels. All that implies is that he believes these companies will be worth more in 5, 10, 20 years; it does not mean that he is certain they will not go down more before they go up again.]]> Mon, 20 Oct 2008 12:34:48 -0400
As far as Buffett telling people to buy stocks goes; it's probably good advice but buyer beware. If you don't have a 5 year minimum investment time horizon you shouldn't be buying stocks anyway....ever. The people trying to make a quick buck in the market may get burned by Buffett's advice to get into the market but the people with years to stay in won't. Note the Buffett is NOT calling a bottom, he never does that. He is saying that he sees value in US stocks at these levels. All that implies is that he believes these companies will be worth more in 5, 10, 20 years; it does not mean that he is certain they will not go down more before they go up again.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98889-another-analyst-likes-capstone?source=feed#comment-276379 276379
If you want to be a venture capitalist with your money that's fine but I'm not going down that road again with CPST or anyone else. I hope you are right, I want to see companies do well, export products and create jobs. I hope CPST makes it but I'm not rolling the dice with my money until they can prove they are going to make it.

By the way, if I were a short seller or "basher" of CPST for nefarious purposes do you really think that an anonymous post on this message board would make any difference to the stock price? You've got to be kidding me.

]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 21:29:52 -0400
If you want to be a venture capitalist with your money that's fine but I'm not going down that road again with CPST or anyone else. I hope you are right, I want to see companies do well, export products and create jobs. I hope CPST makes it but I'm not rolling the dice with my money until they can prove they are going to make it.

By the way, if I were a short seller or "basher" of CPST for nefarious purposes do you really think that an anonymous post on this message board would make any difference to the stock price? You've got to be kidding me.

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98889-another-analyst-likes-capstone?source=feed#comment-276343 276343
As far as anylysts are concerned; yes, they are frequently wrong. If they were always correct, or even mostly correct investing would be easy wouldn't it. I can remember a ton of tech/internet/dot com companies (including CPST years ago) that the analysts thought had great potential but crashed and burned badly. All I can say for CPST is that they have survived which is miraculous. It's very tough to determine how a new technology will catch on and, when it does, who will be the big winners. Sometimes the pioneer players are not the ones who survive because larger more powerful companies enter the market once the demand is proven.

Look, take my advice and I'll save you some money because I've been around the block a time or two. I'm not saying that CPST will never make it, maybe they will be a success someday (they do get an A for effort I'll give them that) but I made an investing rule because of CPST and other emerging tech companies like them and it's served me well: don't buy the stock until they have proven their ability to generate profits......period with NO exceptions.

Everybody wants to get in the "ground floor" with these companies before they make money. If the technology is legitimate and has a profitable market there will still be plenty of upside if you buy AFTER they start making money. Look at any successful tech startup (and CPST is still a startup after 20 years) and this rule applies; the people who invested after the profits came still did very, very well. In this way you can still make a lot of money if the business works but you will greatly reduce your potential for loss if they crater. Most speculative gambles in the market don't pay off. CPST has to prove that they can make money before they get my investment. I watch CPST and I have for years just in case the enterprise works but I'm not buying until I KNOW it's going to work. CPST is still in development and they are losing money and burning through cash; that's what I know for sure right now. Don't be a sucker, make them prove to you that the concept can make money before they get YOUR money. ]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 20:20:24 -0400
As far as anylysts are concerned; yes, they are frequently wrong. If they were always correct, or even mostly correct investing would be easy wouldn't it. I can remember a ton of tech/internet/dot com companies (including CPST years ago) that the analysts thought had great potential but crashed and burned badly. All I can say for CPST is that they have survived which is miraculous. It's very tough to determine how a new technology will catch on and, when it does, who will be the big winners. Sometimes the pioneer players are not the ones who survive because larger more powerful companies enter the market once the demand is proven.

Look, take my advice and I'll save you some money because I've been around the block a time or two. I'm not saying that CPST will never make it, maybe they will be a success someday (they do get an A for effort I'll give them that) but I made an investing rule because of CPST and other emerging tech companies like them and it's served me well: don't buy the stock until they have proven their ability to generate profits......period with NO exceptions.

Everybody wants to get in the "ground floor" with these companies before they make money. If the technology is legitimate and has a profitable market there will still be plenty of upside if you buy AFTER they start making money. Look at any successful tech startup (and CPST is still a startup after 20 years) and this rule applies; the people who invested after the profits came still did very, very well. In this way you can still make a lot of money if the business works but you will greatly reduce your potential for loss if they crater. Most speculative gambles in the market don't pay off. CPST has to prove that they can make money before they get my investment. I watch CPST and I have for years just in case the enterprise works but I'm not buying until I KNOW it's going to work. CPST is still in development and they are losing money and burning through cash; that's what I know for sure right now. Don't be a sucker, make them prove to you that the concept can make money before they get YOUR money. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98889-another-analyst-likes-capstone?source=feed#comment-275860 275860
They look like a good bet now because of high energy prices but if we have a big recession and energy prices fall because of reduced demand CPST will, as usual, go nowhere. This one is just too speculative for me, too many false starts that result in nothing but disappointment. Investing money with this management team is like throwing it down a rathole.]]> Tue, 07 Oct 2008 12:21:46 -0400
They look like a good bet now because of high energy prices but if we have a big recession and energy prices fall because of reduced demand CPST will, as usual, go nowhere. This one is just too speculative for me, too many false starts that result in nothing but disappointment. Investing money with this management team is like throwing it down a rathole.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/97803-wells-fargo-in-the-lead-for-wachovia-is-bailout-really-necessary?source=feed#comment-268421 268421 Mon, 29 Sep 2008 10:56:06 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/96112-there-s-only-so-much-that-goldman-can-do?source=feed#comment-258021 258021 Thu, 18 Sep 2008 11:39:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/93384-dividend-analysis-diageo?source=feed#comment-243140 243140 Mon, 01 Sep 2008 10:55:13 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/92466-ge-exceptional-total-return-potential-at-the-current-price?source=feed#comment-238594 238594 Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:57:09 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/85916-the-us-auto-crisis?source=feed#comment-210670 210670
The Japs have, for the most part, stuck with what they are good at and sold large volumes of high quality small cars and trucks. They know that's what the rest of the world buys and they know that there is a large segment of the US market that buys these cars as well. They also know that fuel prices will always go up again eventually. I think that Toyota has learned a valuable lesson here by starting to get into the large pickup truck market that they had avoided in the past. They strayed from what had worked in the past and they got burned as gas prices went up. They are now converting a lot of the truck production capacity back to cars.

If you want to read a great book that talks about how things got this way read "The Reckoning" by David Halberstam. It was written in 1986 but it traces the roots of US and Japanese auto industries and compares the two. It's just as valid a book today as it was in 1986 and it's truly a great story filled with interesting characters. It essentially points out a fundamental difference in that the US auto industry got taken over by finance and accounting people after WW II (the Whiz Kids) while the Japanese auto industry management was more attuned to design, engineering, production and customer service interests. ]]> Mon, 21 Jul 2008 11:54:54 -0400
The Japs have, for the most part, stuck with what they are good at and sold large volumes of high quality small cars and trucks. They know that's what the rest of the world buys and they know that there is a large segment of the US market that buys these cars as well. They also know that fuel prices will always go up again eventually. I think that Toyota has learned a valuable lesson here by starting to get into the large pickup truck market that they had avoided in the past. They strayed from what had worked in the past and they got burned as gas prices went up. They are now converting a lot of the truck production capacity back to cars.

If you want to read a great book that talks about how things got this way read "The Reckoning" by David Halberstam. It was written in 1986 but it traces the roots of US and Japanese auto industries and compares the two. It's just as valid a book today as it was in 1986 and it's truly a great story filled with interesting characters. It essentially points out a fundamental difference in that the US auto industry got taken over by finance and accounting people after WW II (the Whiz Kids) while the Japanese auto industry management was more attuned to design, engineering, production and customer service interests. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/83128-are-airlines-stocks-a-contrarian-opportunity?source=feed#comment-195225 195225 JBLU) here as a bet (and I mean BET like at the roulet wheel) because they have a high percentage of insider ownership and Lufthansa owns 19% of the company. They may actually view bankruptcy as a bad thing unlike the major airlines who consider it a solid business strategy. They also have a good product and lower operating costs than the large major airlines so they may be able to make money and see opportunity where other carriers can not. If things turn around and oil drops this one will shoot up like a rocket. Beware though: if fuel stays up or goes up more for a prolonged period JBLUE will run into a liquidity crisis fast.]]> Sun, 29 Jun 2008 12:24:16 -0400 JBLU) here as a bet (and I mean BET like at the roulet wheel) because they have a high percentage of insider ownership and Lufthansa owns 19% of the company. They may actually view bankruptcy as a bad thing unlike the major airlines who consider it a solid business strategy. They also have a good product and lower operating costs than the large major airlines so they may be able to make money and see opportunity where other carriers can not. If things turn around and oil drops this one will shoot up like a rocket. Beware though: if fuel stays up or goes up more for a prolonged period JBLUE will run into a liquidity crisis fast.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/80488-time-to-buy-airline-stocks?source=feed#comment-181218 181218 Sun, 08 Jun 2008 10:26:45 -0400