Scoutcar 42

Is the Buck Really Back?

Van...you're way above me in your article...after reading it from top to bottom, the end of your article reads just like the begining. You made a case for both weakening and strengthening of the dollar...so its ambiguous...

Investing in Tankers: Ship, Ship, Hooray?

Hey One Hand....what company in the world has NO liability in case of an accident or economic downturn? Airlines? Utilities? Pharmaceutical Companies? Automotive? Real Estate or Banks? Fact is Frontline has been in business since 1948 (60 years) with no minor or major losses. Should we not invest in a great company because of the possibility that one of its ships could run aground somewhere? You are taking more actual risk than Frontline stockholders do just by getting into your car and driving anywhere...watch out...you may fall off a mountain or get hit by a meteor. Put your money in a bank insured by the FDIC if you arn't willing to take any risk...but don't deposit over $100,000 in it.

Scoutcar 42


On Aug 03 10:26 PM the hand wrote:

> why would i want to buy stock in a company where the liability loss
> caused by one collision will wipe the company off of the face of
> the world? when i was building nuke power plants in the early 70's,
> the industry kept saying that nukes were statistically safer than
> the odds of two 747's colliding on the runway. unfortunately, that
> very thing happened in Tenerife.
>
> A point to illustrate that my concerns are justified. for the last
> 13 years i have been navigating all the seven seas. you would sh*t
> your pants if you knew the percentage of the time that the watch
> on the bridge was not only not watching - but not there. even if
> a particular company has a very dedicated bridge crew, a tanker is
> very close to the least maneuverable ship on the seas (in other words
> it cannot maneuver its way out of trouble).
>
> good luck with your investments.
>