E.M.Smith's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/286863/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/165719-ocean-power-heads-to-japan?source=feed#comment-715245 715245
No, it won't sell to Texas. But very much yes, this will sell into a large number of places. Waves are present substantially all the time in many places and that will make this a very attractive option compared with wind and solar.]]> Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:15:10 -0400
No, it won't sell to Texas. But very much yes, this will sell into a large number of places. Waves are present substantially all the time in many places and that will make this a very attractive option compared with wind and solar.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/105748-g-20-summit-a-new-world-order?source=feed#comment-336782 336782
No inflation related to gold found in California? Might I remind you of eggs selling for $1 each when that was a day's wages nationally? Localized, yes, but so was the gold...

THE major problem with a gold currency is Keynes. You must accept that monetary policy can not be used to dampen business cycles. If money velocity drops, nothing can be done.

Aggregat Prices=Money Supply x Velocity of money.

Individual spenders control V. If you make M.S. static, there is nothing you can do to control panics, recessions, and inflation.

Wether this is a good thing or not depends on how much you think wobbly MS, thanks to government actions, causes panics, recessions, and inflation in the first place...

(The minor problem with a gold standard is that it makes money supply dependent on who has the gold mines. Russia and South Africa are large players. Part of why Nixon dumped the gold standard was that the Soviet Union was jerking the gold supply around (to annoy us or due to central planners being bogus, but why doesn't matter) and he did not like having U.S. money supply controlled by the Soviets.)

]]> Tue, 23 Dec 2008 13:11:58 -0500
No inflation related to gold found in California? Might I remind you of eggs selling for $1 each when that was a day's wages nationally? Localized, yes, but so was the gold...

THE major problem with a gold currency is Keynes. You must accept that monetary policy can not be used to dampen business cycles. If money velocity drops, nothing can be done.

Aggregat Prices=Money Supply x Velocity of money.

Individual spenders control V. If you make M.S. static, there is nothing you can do to control panics, recessions, and inflation.

Wether this is a good thing or not depends on how much you think wobbly MS, thanks to government actions, causes panics, recessions, and inflation in the first place...

(The minor problem with a gold standard is that it makes money supply dependent on who has the gold mines. Russia and South Africa are large players. Part of why Nixon dumped the gold standard was that the Soviet Union was jerking the gold supply around (to annoy us or due to central planners being bogus, but why doesn't matter) and he did not like having U.S. money supply controlled by the Soviets.)

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/99371-why-cramer-should-be-suspended?source=feed#comment-291840 291840
His major fault is just that he's a trader trying to think like an investor for the small 'home gamer'. Because of this he recommends stocks with sound fundamentals per the financial reports and in longer term up trends (or downtrends with deep valuation). This leaves him prone to three major faults:

1) The "fundamentals" can lie. WB can have great numbers and yet be loaded up with illiquid paper that leads to a crash or a regulator forces a shotgun wedding.

2) Momentum "vacuum crashes". POT was recommended for many points of upside, then no one was left to buy. He called an exit a bit too long after the rollover due to being fixated on the "fundamentals" in #1 and trying to be a longer term investor rather than a trader.

3) Deep valuation can get much deeper (the dreaded value trap). TMA was such a value trap. Can't really blame him, since Thornburg had a very sound set of "fundamentals" and solid dividend coverage - until the market for mortgages froze as all hell broke loose.

Have you never stepped in a value trap? Had fundamentals not match market momentum? Bought into an established trend just in time to have it roll over? These are classic faults we all have experienced.

My take on it is that while Cramer would like to day trade his way around these things, and use options to protect positions, his "show" is based on the notion of longer term investing for the average person. This prevents him from doing (or recommending) what he would actually do.

Once you get this in mind, his show is useful. Watch it for ideas on how to evaluate a stock, for ideas on what might be moving or a merger target or see a chart in a nice up trend. Take his stock picks as beauty pageant winners, then do your own charts and "homework".

When the RSI is high and prices are going parabolic, hey, maybe it's a blow off top and not good to enter right now. When the deep value play has a DMI with red over blue and a MACD below zero headed steep down, maybe it isn't time to jump in just yet. And when the financial fundamentals are great but the stock and the SMA 50 day are weaving together (dead money) or price is below SMA consistently then the market has not recognized it yet and you ought to put it on a watch list but not buy it just yet...

In other words, don't sheepishly buy what he likes but learn from what he says and learn to use charts to spot when he's falling into one of his 3 pattern errors. BTW, he also puts too much store in what the Chief Mumble Officer of a company says when it matches the reports. He lets the Cxx reinforce the #1 error type. Oh well, it lets me see the Cxx on TV and get to form an opinion of them.

His non-pattern error was to be incredulous at how perfectly good companies could be blown up by a broken set of rules and SEC laxity. I can't blame him for that, either, since many folks were caught off guard with the failure of: FNM FRE AIG LEH BSC ... et.al.

As many other folks have pointed out, if we were not bound to "Mark to Market" with SEC doing nothing to stop naked short sales, no uptick rule, and CDS's written by anyone based on smoke and rating agencies giving AAA for a pulse; these companies would not have blown up. I think most of us actually thought that S&P, Moodys, Fitch et.al. had a clue. The number of professional investors killed by this cascade failure is very very large.

How many of us know the ditty "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." as a warning against value traps? The accountants and regulators are now learning that in the context of killing the financial companies with "mark to market" when the market is broken. They are just learning it with your money.

Yes, I watch his show. No, I don't blindly buy what he likes. Yes, I think he (mostly) has clue. No, I don't think he is perfect... who is?


]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:50:06 -0400
His major fault is just that he's a trader trying to think like an investor for the small 'home gamer'. Because of this he recommends stocks with sound fundamentals per the financial reports and in longer term up trends (or downtrends with deep valuation). This leaves him prone to three major faults:

1) The "fundamentals" can lie. WB can have great numbers and yet be loaded up with illiquid paper that leads to a crash or a regulator forces a shotgun wedding.

2) Momentum "vacuum crashes". POT was recommended for many points of upside, then no one was left to buy. He called an exit a bit too long after the rollover due to being fixated on the "fundamentals" in #1 and trying to be a longer term investor rather than a trader.

3) Deep valuation can get much deeper (the dreaded value trap). TMA was such a value trap. Can't really blame him, since Thornburg had a very sound set of "fundamentals" and solid dividend coverage - until the market for mortgages froze as all hell broke loose.

Have you never stepped in a value trap? Had fundamentals not match market momentum? Bought into an established trend just in time to have it roll over? These are classic faults we all have experienced.

My take on it is that while Cramer would like to day trade his way around these things, and use options to protect positions, his "show" is based on the notion of longer term investing for the average person. This prevents him from doing (or recommending) what he would actually do.

Once you get this in mind, his show is useful. Watch it for ideas on how to evaluate a stock, for ideas on what might be moving or a merger target or see a chart in a nice up trend. Take his stock picks as beauty pageant winners, then do your own charts and "homework".

When the RSI is high and prices are going parabolic, hey, maybe it's a blow off top and not good to enter right now. When the deep value play has a DMI with red over blue and a MACD below zero headed steep down, maybe it isn't time to jump in just yet. And when the financial fundamentals are great but the stock and the SMA 50 day are weaving together (dead money) or price is below SMA consistently then the market has not recognized it yet and you ought to put it on a watch list but not buy it just yet...

In other words, don't sheepishly buy what he likes but learn from what he says and learn to use charts to spot when he's falling into one of his 3 pattern errors. BTW, he also puts too much store in what the Chief Mumble Officer of a company says when it matches the reports. He lets the Cxx reinforce the #1 error type. Oh well, it lets me see the Cxx on TV and get to form an opinion of them.

His non-pattern error was to be incredulous at how perfectly good companies could be blown up by a broken set of rules and SEC laxity. I can't blame him for that, either, since many folks were caught off guard with the failure of: FNM FRE AIG LEH BSC ... et.al.

As many other folks have pointed out, if we were not bound to "Mark to Market" with SEC doing nothing to stop naked short sales, no uptick rule, and CDS's written by anyone based on smoke and rating agencies giving AAA for a pulse; these companies would not have blown up. I think most of us actually thought that S&P, Moodys, Fitch et.al. had a clue. The number of professional investors killed by this cascade failure is very very large.

How many of us know the ditty "The market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent." as a warning against value traps? The accountants and regulators are now learning that in the context of killing the financial companies with "mark to market" when the market is broken. They are just learning it with your money.

Yes, I watch his show. No, I don't blindly buy what he likes. Yes, I think he (mostly) has clue. No, I don't think he is perfect... who is?


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98715-food-for-thought-how-green-are-biofuels?source=feed#comment-291813 291813
We used coal to make synthesis gas long before oil. Eastman Chemical still does (EMN) for it's polymer needs. In Brazil Braskem (BAK) is using plant sources as are several other companies around the world.

The argument that we need oil to make synthetic chemicals is seriously broken. In the US most chemical producers use natural gas. Any carbon source can be used. We'll just swap to whatever is the cheapest in any given area. Oil is completely irrelevant to the availability of plastics and other synthetic chemicals, it is only relevant to the price (and not very relevant there...)


]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:27:44 -0400
We used coal to make synthesis gas long before oil. Eastman Chemical still does (EMN) for it's polymer needs. In Brazil Braskem (BAK) is using plant sources as are several other companies around the world.

The argument that we need oil to make synthetic chemicals is seriously broken. In the US most chemical producers use natural gas. Any carbon source can be used. We'll just swap to whatever is the cheapest in any given area. Oil is completely irrelevant to the availability of plastics and other synthetic chemicals, it is only relevant to the price (and not very relevant there...)


]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/98715-food-for-thought-how-green-are-biofuels?source=feed#comment-291800 291800
There are a great number of technical (i.e. chemistry, biology et.al.) errors of assumption in this article. While I can't address them all, I can give pointers to a few.

Ethanol from sugarcane has a net 8 to 1 energy gain. Brazil has lots of acreage available to produce more sugarcane. While energy gain from corn kernels is only about 1.36 to 1, the leftovers (distillers grain) contains more protein and is still fed to cattle. U.S. grain used for ethanol would NOT have gone onto peoples dinner plates. It's field corn, not sweet corn, and is fed to animals. The animals still get the DDG (distillers dried grain) just minus the starch and with added protein.

The shortage of rice in asia has NOTHING to do with ethanol. Rice is not converted to ethanol in the factories of the U.S.A. It had much more to do with a Bayer corp contamination of rice foundation seed stocks with GMO (frankenseed) genes. This caused US exports of rice to be blocked in many countries (and the the US was a major exporter). Instant rice shortage. (Plenty at my local US grocer at low prices due to excess supply in US that could not be exported... as long as you don't mind eating mystery genes...)

Yes, AT PRESENT ag is dependent on oil. Only because oil has historically been dirt cheep. There are literally dozens of alternatives to oil that are economical in the $50 to $80 / bbl of oil range.

Coal to liquids (several technologies) as done by Sasol, Rentech, Syntroleum, and Synthesis Energy corp (tickers SSL, RTK, SYNM, SYMX) who can also generally use their processes with non-coal carbon sources. There is about a 200-400 year supply in the U.S.A. The same processes can be used with trees (some produce about 50 tons / acre per year...).

A couple of these folks are using trash as a feed stock. We are not at risk of running out of trash any time soon. I see enough 'yard waste ' hauled away from my neighborhood each week to power all our local cars. A demonstration plant is in operation in Los Angeles.

There are a few dozen ways to put natural gas in your fuel tank (See CLNE) along with making gas to liquids plants (as being done by BP, COP, MRO, CVX, etc.). The supply runs to 100+ years.

There are a few lifetimes worth of energy in the tar and oil sands of north america (see SU, IMO, RDSA, XOM, et.al. operations in Canada).

And when it comes to biofuels, there are dozens of alternatives that produce large tons per acre without touching food plants. See PSUD, OOIL, GGRN and several private companies. We can grow enough oil for all the needs of the U.S.A. in a land area about the size that we presently use for sewage treatment and coal electric generation. You get an order of magnitude or two more tons / acre out of algae than from other 'crops'.

Don't like algae? Try trees. Cold regions can grow poplars and warm places eucalyptus at about a 50 tons/acre yield.

Why don't we do this? Look at the price of oil. $63/bbl and dropping. Hard to get financing when your biz model can blow up every time a very price inelastic commodity has a price break down.

BTW, There is no energy shortage AND there never will be.

Why? A cleaver Japanese scientist found a way to extract Uranium from sea water at about $100/lb using adsorption by a polymer mat. The quantity of U needed to run EVERY energy use on the planet is less that erodes into the ocean each year from granite and similar rocks. We run out of energy when we run out of planet. And this ignores the mountains of Thorium available for use in reactors (more than U). See stock ticker THPW for it's technical reality.

Don't like nuclear? The area needed to power the U.S.A. using solar power is about 150 miles by 150 miles. This would disappear into any one of a half dozen deserts of the American southwest. An area of about 100 sq. miles of ocean would power all of California with wave power. Wind power needs a slightly larger land area, but cows can still graze under the windmills and actual land consumption is very small. It is presently price competitive.

The list goes on. When it takes a small fraction of your land area to power all of your needs, there is no energy shortage. There is a 'cheapness' shortage.

So what do we have? Yet another 'doom and gloom end of life as we know it man is destroying the planet' article driven by a short term uptick in a price inelastic cheap energy source when we have more alternatives than we could ever use.

Look, I like scary stories as much as the next guy and people do have a natural tendency to panic and paranoia, but: The world is not ending. We are not destroying the planet. There is no energy shortage. We can grow plenty of food for everyone. and Yes, technology can fix it (whatever "it" is) is we so choose. We've just chosen to be lazy and buy oil rather than get off our butts and do something else.

The problems with food are not limits of production capacity; they are limits of distribution, politically bogus decisions, and rich people eating animals (that take 5 to 10 lbs of grain per lb of meat) while poor people need a single pound of grain.

The problems of energy are not limits to oil; they are volatile oil prices periodically driving the alternatives out of business. Put an $80/bbl of oil minimum price on imported oil and there would be a price sheltered area that would make so many alternatives bloom it would make your head spin. We have no energy shortage, we have a shortage of low cost STABLE priced motor fuels.

]]> Mon, 27 Oct 2008 16:12:38 -0400
There are a great number of technical (i.e. chemistry, biology et.al.) errors of assumption in this article. While I can't address them all, I can give pointers to a few.

Ethanol from sugarcane has a net 8 to 1 energy gain. Brazil has lots of acreage available to produce more sugarcane. While energy gain from corn kernels is only about 1.36 to 1, the leftovers (distillers grain) contains more protein and is still fed to cattle. U.S. grain used for ethanol would NOT have gone onto peoples dinner plates. It's field corn, not sweet corn, and is fed to animals. The animals still get the DDG (distillers dried grain) just minus the starch and with added protein.

The shortage of rice in asia has NOTHING to do with ethanol. Rice is not converted to ethanol in the factories of the U.S.A. It had much more to do with a Bayer corp contamination of rice foundation seed stocks with GMO (frankenseed) genes. This caused US exports of rice to be blocked in many countries (and the the US was a major exporter). Instant rice shortage. (Plenty at my local US grocer at low prices due to excess supply in US that could not be exported... as long as you don't mind eating mystery genes...)

Yes, AT PRESENT ag is dependent on oil. Only because oil has historically been dirt cheep. There are literally dozens of alternatives to oil that are economical in the $50 to $80 / bbl of oil range.

Coal to liquids (several technologies) as done by Sasol, Rentech, Syntroleum, and Synthesis Energy corp (tickers SSL, RTK, SYNM, SYMX) who can also generally use their processes with non-coal carbon sources. There is about a 200-400 year supply in the U.S.A. The same processes can be used with trees (some produce about 50 tons / acre per year...).

A couple of these folks are using trash as a feed stock. We are not at risk of running out of trash any time soon. I see enough 'yard waste ' hauled away from my neighborhood each week to power all our local cars. A demonstration plant is in operation in Los Angeles.

There are a few dozen ways to put natural gas in your fuel tank (See CLNE) along with making gas to liquids plants (as being done by BP, COP, MRO, CVX, etc.). The supply runs to 100+ years.

There are a few lifetimes worth of energy in the tar and oil sands of north america (see SU, IMO, RDSA, XOM, et.al. operations in Canada).

And when it comes to biofuels, there are dozens of alternatives that produce large tons per acre without touching food plants. See PSUD, OOIL, GGRN and several private companies. We can grow enough oil for all the needs of the U.S.A. in a land area about the size that we presently use for sewage treatment and coal electric generation. You get an order of magnitude or two more tons / acre out of algae than from other 'crops'.

Don't like algae? Try trees. Cold regions can grow poplars and warm places eucalyptus at about a 50 tons/acre yield.

Why don't we do this? Look at the price of oil. $63/bbl and dropping. Hard to get financing when your biz model can blow up every time a very price inelastic commodity has a price break down.

BTW, There is no energy shortage AND there never will be.

Why? A cleaver Japanese scientist found a way to extract Uranium from sea water at about $100/lb using adsorption by a polymer mat. The quantity of U needed to run EVERY energy use on the planet is less that erodes into the ocean each year from granite and similar rocks. We run out of energy when we run out of planet. And this ignores the mountains of Thorium available for use in reactors (more than U). See stock ticker THPW for it's technical reality.

Don't like nuclear? The area needed to power the U.S.A. using solar power is about 150 miles by 150 miles. This would disappear into any one of a half dozen deserts of the American southwest. An area of about 100 sq. miles of ocean would power all of California with wave power. Wind power needs a slightly larger land area, but cows can still graze under the windmills and actual land consumption is very small. It is presently price competitive.

The list goes on. When it takes a small fraction of your land area to power all of your needs, there is no energy shortage. There is a 'cheapness' shortage.

So what do we have? Yet another 'doom and gloom end of life as we know it man is destroying the planet' article driven by a short term uptick in a price inelastic cheap energy source when we have more alternatives than we could ever use.

Look, I like scary stories as much as the next guy and people do have a natural tendency to panic and paranoia, but: The world is not ending. We are not destroying the planet. There is no energy shortage. We can grow plenty of food for everyone. and Yes, technology can fix it (whatever "it" is) is we so choose. We've just chosen to be lazy and buy oil rather than get off our butts and do something else.

The problems with food are not limits of production capacity; they are limits of distribution, politically bogus decisions, and rich people eating animals (that take 5 to 10 lbs of grain per lb of meat) while poor people need a single pound of grain.

The problems of energy are not limits to oil; they are volatile oil prices periodically driving the alternatives out of business. Put an $80/bbl of oil minimum price on imported oil and there would be a price sheltered area that would make so many alternatives bloom it would make your head spin. We have no energy shortage, we have a shortage of low cost STABLE priced motor fuels.

]]>