delbmarcs

Solar Power Thin-Film Developers Feel Besieged

The best way to think of thin films is First Solar CdTe and everyone and every other technology. Others are both less mature and some have less potential - those will never catch up. Maybe the CIS will catch up, but that has to viewed as problematic given history. Any article that doesn't distinguish BY TECHNOLOGY among thin films falls far short of being insightful. It wasn't an accident that thin film and amorphous silicon languished for decades, no matter what AMAT or Oerlikon would have us believe.

Barron's Wrongly Gets Sensational over First Solar's Earnings Beat

If Barrons or anyone else in the US media understood how few companies have made technical innovations like fslr, they might be more thoughtful about superficially attacking them. But in a world where it is not a shame to be in the media and ignorant of what you cover, this will not happen.

July Retail Sales: The Economic Storm Is Not Over

Well, we added unending money printing to 'where is the money coming from'.

As a congressman said, "it would work if we could just give everyone a million dollars."

Unemployment: Historical Chart Sends Scary Message

great chart. worth a MILLION words.

Get Ready for Affordable Thin-Film Solar Technology

xsunsx is known to be a hype job - they tried a-Si and failed. now they have something else.

Anyone who knows Pv knows you can gin up a story out of the air that will sound convincing to those who do not know it. This is called raising money.

people plant stories to raise money - this story is probably a plant.

First Solar: What This Analyst Missed

Once silicon costs are normal fslr will still be 50 c/W cheaper than Si at the system level. It is also on a faster cost reduction curve, because it is less mature - there are more low hanging fruit, it is faster to double production. We are all in luck that fslr is so good at what it does, because it is adding competition in a field that was too long without it.
If anyone thinks we are going to solve our socieal problems by using natural gas, they are fooling themselves. That's why solar and solar stocks are so valuable.

Looking to Invest in Bonds in Troubled Times? Caveat Emptor!

Delojoz... - lets' hear more about how to buy and hold bonds, not play the bond casino like we did the stock casino. This is post-apocalypse, or have you forgotten? that's why people are buying bonds. duh.

Looking to Invest in Bonds in Troubled Times? Caveat Emptor!

I was wondering about this, and sadly, lost another few grand to the sharks while I did so. Thanks for confirming my fears.

My discomfort with bond funds is their instability. I hold bonds until maturity. In bond funds, I feel like I am playing the market again 9which I don't want to do) because they go up and down with interest rates and confidence. How can I get the low cost of buying a bond in bulk while the steady i8ncome of holding them until maturity (without caring about the price of the underlying security)?

To me, the closest thing I can think of is a guaranteed income fund from an insurance company. But I don't have confidence in them anymore.

Punishing the Savers in a Savings Poor Country

Keeping and growing one's earned money takes further work. Consider times without social contracts, where roving tribes or robber barons could take it by force. We have the idea that our assets are automatically safe, and we have a right to automatic growth. Those are social values we've earned through hundreds or thousands of years of cultural effort. The same thing is true at the individual level. Capitalists must earn the growth of their wealth through work.

If instead, we naively allow others to have our money (Bernie M or AIG) to earn it for us, they will do what robber barons and golden hordes have always done.

Compare this with our ideas about "a risk free rate of return." It's not only an illusion, it's a delusion. We earn our rate of return, through work, oversight, rational choices, working with others to assure societal stability and societal sanity.

The End of the Credit Crisis

I don't think it's the mortgage debt. We've already planned to spend more than the entire mortgage debt shortfall (to-date). It's the leveraged bets expecting the mortgage defaults and all the related leveraged bets against the economy.

Basically, we've been living on false money creation for so long we didn't even know it. That built up a huge, unaffordable over-leveraging. During that time, we all made money on inflation, and now we are going to have deflation remove that money. And it will be real removal of life style, not just a equal division by 1.7 or something that leaves everything relatively the same. That's why even prudent people will owe money to pay for the deadbeats, because we ALL got richer on leverage than we should have (even if we never took a loan).


On Mar 01 04:31 AM Tranquilmeditation wrote:

> I appreciate the author's optimism in a time of despair but this
> is fantasy. For example, 50% of the mortgages in California are
> now under water (negative equity) and real estate prices are still
> dropping. Someone will have to realize these massive losses. <br/>
>
> Not until real estate values stop dropping will this crisis abate.
> No Obama economic team accounting gimmick can rescue this. As real
> estate values crater, business declines, unemployments rises, foreclosures
> increase and real estate craters more: a nasty self feeding cycle.
> It is something, painful as it will be and as much suffering as it
> will cause, we have to go through. Markets work, government's artificial
> solutions don't.
>
> There are a lot of sins that a society can commit but it can never
> fool with its real estate / mortgage markets. They are just toooooo
> big. Unfortunately, that is what we did: supprime, mortgage equity
> withdrawals, liar loans, teaser loans, fannie/freddie, etc. The losses
> are mind blowing. They will need to be amortized by our nation over
> many years.
>
> This is not a Black Swan. This was a guaranteed time bomb put into
> motion by the government's stupid but well intentioned desire to
> have everyone own a home, structured finance thievery and our old
> capitalist friend, unabated greed.
>
> Too bad Aeschylus is not still around. He would of written a wonderful
> tragedy with this material.

The End of the Credit Crisis

I think you are right. There is something missing.

Isn't there some leverage on these defaults that is causing the trouble? The infamous "CDOs and CDSs?" that even Greensapan can't understand and AIG sold without collateral? Isn't it something like: if the loans go bad, the CDOs get valuable for the holder? This I think is the missing "atomic bomb" and why the gov't is trying everything it can to wipe out the home value losses. Despite the fact that the home values were inflated falsely - and now we are trying to keep them falsely inflated.


On Mar 01 08:03 AM MJJP wrote:

> Something is still missing from the puzzle.Something is wrong and
> we are not being told. People never bailed out on mortgages just
> because the value of the home was deteriorating. Home values go up
> and down all the time for any number of reasons. So far the unemployement
> rate is only around 8% or so and that should'nt trigger a massive
> wave of defaults. If the homeowner is still working they should still
> be paying. Secondly if the banks loaned out more money than was prudent
> using the ratio of deposits on hand why isn't the savings rate interest
> rising? Come on they think people are going to put money into a CD
> are 2%!

What Obama Needs to Know about Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup

Let's see if I understand what is being said (which I doubt).

1. AIG and the like sold agreements to cover defaults on packaged loans that were fairly risky (e.g., mortgages to people who couldn't afford them and others to those who could if they wanted to if their houses were worth more than they paid).
2. AIG and the like took money for these agreements and paid it to themselves, but they had little or no money to pay if defaults occurred (and probably could not, as these were uncoverable bets). The government did not regulate this.
3. The insurance they sold for the loan defaults was a few trillion.
4. A lot more "smart" bets that default would occur were made by speculators worth many more trillions that AIG-like entities also happily sold for the short term gain. The government didn't regulate this. This is the real problem.
5. AIG-like entities lived high on the hog.
6. Like every other market in the history of the world, housing prices peaked and started down, causing minor defaults on mortgages for the worst credit risk people.
7a. The lack of money to cover these defaults caused various financial entities to demand money from AIG-like entities who said "tough toenails" and retired to the Bahamas. Bankers and others who owned the bad loan packages realized they were stuck with their stupid mistakes and resulting losses.
7b. Concern over these losses caused bankers to stop lending as much as before.
8. More underlying mortgages became in question as the economy contracted.
9. An almost exponentially increasing amount of defaults became possible as the world economy slowed and then contracted, throwing more loans into defaults. In fact, perhaps the defaults were already this big as the high amount of naked bets came into play once the price of houses stopped rising.
10. Governments responded with the creation of an almost unending amount of rescue money to cover all the bets, those on underlying assets and those not.
11. The solution proposed by this article is to make CDO and CDS that are not on underlying loans essentially null and void.
12. The damage to real bond holders could be made whole at a much lower price than paying off speculators (or "investors" as the financial system calls us - because we are the enemy, chasing gains).

Is this what the article says? And if so, isn't this what should be done? And won't it essentially be survivable if it is done intelligently?

What Obama Needs to Know about Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup

Yes, xsduddensam, you seem to state the common sense feeling well - how can we divorce ourselves of these insiders and their all too natural tendency to do what protects their reputations, fortunes, and freedom from incarceration? What happened to Volcker? Who out there who knows the system can we trust?


On Nov 26 08:48 AM xsuddensam wrote:

> The absurdity of the bailouts is that the very people who are directly
> or indirectly responsible for the CDS Ponzi scheme, as well as those
> politicians entrusted to be our watchdogs, are the ones trying to
> solve the crisis.
>
> Common sense tells us that we are paying for a very expensive "Hail
> Mary" pass to save the reputations of the incompetent political hacks
> as well as the pocketbooks of the Wall Street crooks that robbed
> us in the first place.
>
> It's obvious this will not work and they are just buying time at
> our expense. Unfortunately, where there is so much money involved,
> there will be more fraud and there will be those who will handsomely
> profit from our misfortune

What Obama Needs to Know about Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup

Is there another side to this? Are the current Federal policy choices meant to stabilize the system enough to avoid paying off the CDO or CDS or whatever they are because there won't be an underlying default? Is that behind the Federal strategy? What you are saying seems too simple and obvious - "let the Ponzi schemers eat it" - but there must be another side to the story. I suspect you are right, but want more info so I can understand the choices. Thanks.

What Obama Needs to Know about Tim Geithner, the AIG Fiasco and Citigroup

Thanks for helping me understand what's at the bottom of this - not mortgages, but another financial ponzi scheme. I am putting your blog in my "favorites." Do you have advice about how to temper people's individual greed in our current system so we don't keep repeating these financial pyramids decade after decade?