TATyszka

5 Profitable Smallcaps that Haven't Participated in the Tech Rally

Danny, thanks for the tip on ALIF. After reading this blog and doing some quick DD, I decided to keep an eye on the stock, looking for a good buy-in point. I didn't have to wait long. On Aug. 26 I saw it spiking on high volume, and got in at 84c. After the 3M news, and the resultant recognition of ALIF by many more investors, I think we can look forward to a lot more days like we saw this past week

Thanks again.

Why Apple Is Worth $80

That's why I quit selling on ebay.


On Oct 26 09:14 PM GSlusher wrote:

> isn't the point of a "free" market that something (including a share
> of stock) is "worth" what someone will pay for it? I may contend
> that a Ventures LP I have is "worth" $1,000, but, if I can only get
> $1.98 for it on eBay, it's "worth" $1.98.

Access Pharma: Clinical and Commercial MuGard Updates

Mike, I appreciate all the research and knowledge you share with us here. After watching ACCP for a couple of months, I went long on Oct 2 when I saw it breaking upward on high volume. It's up 20%, since, and I anticipate a nice long uphill ride. I was in (June) and out (Aug) of ONTY for a nice short-term gain, and I'm waiting for the right moment to get back into that one for the long-term.

Thanks again.

Stocks ready to open higher again, with futures striking new overnight highs following strong production data just minutes ago. Dow +0.6% to 9662. S&P +0.6% at 1052.50. Nasdaq +0.5%. Treasurys are moderately higher, with 10-year +0.23%. Euro +0.1% vs. dollar. Yen +0.7%.

"with futures striking new overnight highs following strong production data just minutes ago. "

WTF? Futures reached new highs overnight FOLLOWING data just released a few minutes ago?

Due for a Correction? Market Is Already Priced for Grim Future

Let me clean that up a bit:

P/E Q1 2009 116
P/E Q1 2008 60
P/E Q1 2007 22


On Sep 03 09:10 AM TATyszka wrote:

> On Aug 31 07:08 PM Bjarne Jensen wrote:

Due for a Correction? Market Is Already Priced for Grim Future

On Aug 31 07:08 PM Bjarne Jensen wrote:

> Nick, when i go to your link it shows a P/E of 18?

Bjarne, I followed the link, then clicked on Index Level Fundamentals; it shows this:


S&P 500 Index Level Fundamentals
Ratio 1Q 2009 2008 2007
PE 116.205 60.688 22.190

Is a Crash Impending?

On Aug 31 12:30 PM logicalthought wrote:

> Personally, I don't know if Denninger's timing is right or wrong,
> but I just love the phrase "used dogfood stock"...
>
> I think the only thing lower is a "used dogfood stock with fleas"!

I think the usual pair-up with used dog food is maggots -- a not-inappropriate sobriquet for the perps in this game of Russian (Wolfhound) roulette.

How PHEVs and EVs Will Sabotage America's Drive for Energy Independence

John, there's an interesting article from LiveScience.com, reprinted by Yahoo News
news.yahoo.com/s/lives...
It peretains to the health care debate, but is equally pertinent to the EV/Battery debate. Here's an excerpt:

<"Irrational thinking

A totally rational person would lay out - and evaluate objectively - the pros and cons of a health care overhaul before choosing to support or oppose a plan. But we humans are not so rational, according to Steve Hoffman, a visiting professor of sociology at the University of Buffalo.

"People get deeply attached to their beliefs," Hoffman said. "We form emotional attachments that get wrapped up in our personal identity and sense of morality, irrespective of the facts of the matter."

And to keep our sense of personal and social identity, Hoffman said, we tend to use a backward type of reasoning in order to justify such beliefs. >

Thanks, John, for your efforts in keeping the discussion fact-based.

The Market Bubble Is About to Pop

While I agree with every other point in your article, Dr. Leeb, I must side with marky5 on this one. I can't turn a web page or TV channel without reading or hearing bullish commentary on commodities.

On Aug 11 11:34 AM marky5 wrote:

> "Looking at stock market commentary, we continue to be amazed that
> no one mentions commodities"
>
> I've seen lots of commentaries that talk about commodities. I'm not
> sure what he's looking at.

Investing in the Smart Grid

It's a common practice by many commenters, presumably because tossing about acronyms and lingo as if everyone should know them will make the commenters appear to be more knowledgeable than they in fact are.

On Jul 12 11:38 AM unclemike7849 wrote:

> If you would have defined "EV", "RE", etc., your comment may have
> made some sort of sense.

Carlos Ghosn and the 'Leased' Battery

Jack and John,
One issue I never see the lithium cheerleaders (or, the Li-chee nuts) address, when they talk about the cost-effectiveness of lithium vs $x oil, is that of the incredible increase in demand for lithium leading to a commensurate increase in its price. Lithium could be forever chasing its cost-effectiveness tail, and never reach the mass acceptance, or use, they envision.

BongoBing Opposes Microsoft Trademark Application for 'Bing'

You don't think that if the table was turned, and BongoBing was the johnny-come-lately, MSFT wouldn't be hitting them with legal guns blazing?

Maxwell Technologies Strikes Distribution Deal

Maxwells supercaps are superior and reliable, but expensive. In any application where "good enough is good enough," regular caps that are good enough will be used.


On Jul 17 03:32 PM Gregman2 wrote:

> "However, the rate of penetration of ultracapacitor technology into
> broader markets, higher cost structure for ultracapacitor production
> and earnings dilutive issuances present downside potential for the
> near-term." I'd be interested to hear more on this. I've been following
> the disk drive industry--do Maxwell's ultracapacitors have any application
> relevance to NAS or other storage platforms? See:
> www.ioSafe.com/1

Oh, So Now There Are No Green Shoots?

I don't know what you said that warranted the down thumbs. I think you make a pretty good argument. They say savings have been increasing. With the weakness in the last couple of Christmas season retail sales, this year might just be the one where consumers loosen their grips on their wallets and put a rosey glow back into the economy.

On Jul 03 12:10 PM waf76 wrote:

> We will go lower in 3Q due to the seasonality of the market along
> with disappointing bank numbers since Q1 were artificially increased.
> With that being said we're going higher in October, not because of
> fundamentals, just because. By Xmas we will be looking at 2 years
> of recession and there will be some pent up demand just waiting to
> buy buy buy.

Oh, So Now There Are No Green Shoots?

"Some other network should bring on the same kind of show only to bring business pundits on to tell the truth. "

Unfortunately, news programming falls under the same standards as the commentary programming by Rush, Beck, and that ilk. The truth is not as entertaining as the hyperbole and falsehoods spewed by the hatemongers. There's no profit potential in broadcasting the truth.


On Jul 03 11:22 AM Warm_Paw wrote:

> I agree on the "manic tone" view.
> CNBC would brow beat anyone who suggested the situation wasn't rosy.
> They'd cut them off and not allow them to finish their take on the
> economy if the news team didn't hear what it wanted to hear.
> Then they'd use buzzers to insure everyone made their point in under
> ten seconds.
> You couldn't watch the show if you had anxiety issues.
> Put epilectics into a coma. :-)
> The reason I'd watch, the nay sayers would point out where weakness
> lies. Whenever Larry Kudlow cut them off I know it was a good place
> to initiate a little research.
> Quite a few nay sayers with good arguments.
> For all this little green shoots talk - the show refuses to discuss
> how much toxic asset is still on bank balance sheets and how plans
> to remove these toxic assets are going. Better yet, no one seems
> to know until they come due, how bad the toxic assets get.
> We may not be able to afford the stimulus needed to help the banks.
> Their fall may be inevitable.
> The accounting rule changes from mark to market to some new form
> where losses get to be reported as gains are going to really bite
> the ignorant investor on the behind.
> The banks don't want to use these changes because declaring a loss,
> a gain means they have to pay taxes on money that's not their or
> that wasn't income.
> As for transparency, FASB rule changes like this haven't been posted
> across the front page.
> Some other network should bring on the same kind of show only to
> bring business pundits on to tell the truth. Examine all sides of
> an issue. As lousy as CNBC is it's the only exposure to news and
> all pundits are thought provoking.