> 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 [View article]
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.
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.
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 [View article]
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.
Maxwell Technologies Strikes Distribution Deal [View article]
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? [View article]
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? [View article]
"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.
May San Diego Home Sales Increase Data Revised from 89% to 6.5% [View article]
Bad numbers from the CA Assoc of Realtors is evidence that , "every single day [we] are being blatantly lied to by an Administration . . ." WTF????????????????? Go back to your crack.
I just came across this stock tonight while reading up on PXN. I'm surprised your write-up attracted no comments and there isn't more attention from SA writers. That's all right. It can remain our little secret for now, while I build up a position.
You say, "CTT has guaranteed contracts of $25M for 2009 and $50M for 2010." That is simply not so.
The exact wording is that they have , "signed distribution agreements for the device [with] retail sales value of over $25 million for 2009 and about $50 million for 2010."
That is a far cry from the amount the company will actually see. From the CEO: "As the pain management medical device attains mature market levels, we believe it will reach approximately $200 million per year in distributor sales to hospitals and clinics. At that time, our revenue and profits from the device will dramatically exceed those produced by any other technology in CTT's 40-year history, resulting in approximately $20 million per year to CTT."
Note, he says, when the market reaches "maturity," the company will realize 20 million a year. At similar profit margins (and it would be a stretch to expect margins as high) you could expect 2.5 million to CTT at most, for 2009. Even if the company slashes their Cost of Revenues and their SGA costs by half, they still have 3.4 million in operating expenses or a .9 million dollar net loss.
Not trying to pooh-pooh this as a good investment idea; I just think you should present the facts with a little more proper perspective.
Got to be wary of an author who refuses to acknowledge any of the valid questions and concerns raised by readers. After supposedly having "done a ton of due diligence and networked with some of the smartest biotech minds on the street," he wasn't even able to glean any of the nasty little negatives that presumably far less diligent readers noticed. I've read many articles on SA espousing the investment-worthiness of certain speculative stocks. What sets them apart from the pump-and-dump crowd, though, is the great measure of integrity they display in responding to readers and elucidating more on their ideas.
Here's an idea, Mr Ramelli, examine this SA article seekingalpha.com/artic... See how there is give-and-take, Q and A, point and counterpoint, between the author and his readers (to the tune of >200 comments)? Read. Learn. Emulate. And you too may one day list a following of more than 19, and, more importantly, gain a little credibility.
Due for a Correction? Market Is Already Priced for Grim Future [View article]
> 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? [View article]
> 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 [View article]
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 [View article]
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 [View article]
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 [View article]
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' [View article]
Maxwell Technologies Strikes Distribution Deal [View article]
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? [View article]
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? [View article]
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.
May San Diego Home Sales Increase Data Revised from 89% to 6.5% [View article]
WTF????????????????? Go back to your crack.
Earnings Upside Surprises May Not Always Equal Real Growth [View article]
: - )
ShengdaTech Reports Blow-Out Quarter [View article]
: - )
Ted
Two Nanotech Companies to Watch [View article]
The exact wording is that they have , "signed distribution agreements for the device [with] retail sales value of over $25 million for 2009 and about $50 million for 2010."
That is a far cry from the amount the company will actually see. From the CEO: "As the pain management medical device attains mature market levels, we believe it will reach approximately $200 million per year in distributor sales to hospitals and clinics. At that time, our revenue and profits from the device will dramatically exceed those produced by any other technology in CTT's 40-year history, resulting in approximately $20 million per year to CTT."
Note, he says, when the market reaches "maturity," the company will realize 20 million a year. At similar profit margins (and it would be a stretch to expect margins as high) you could expect 2.5 million to CTT at most, for 2009. Even if the company slashes their Cost of Revenues and their SGA costs by half, they still have 3.4 million in operating expenses or a .9 million dollar net loss.
Not trying to pooh-pooh this as a good investment idea; I just think you should present the facts with a little more proper perspective.
Emisphere: Why We're Confident [View article]
Here's an idea, Mr Ramelli, examine this SA article seekingalpha.com/artic...
See how there is give-and-take, Q and A, point and counterpoint, between the author and his readers (to the tune of >200 comments)? Read. Learn. Emulate. And you too may one day list a following of more than 19, and, more importantly, gain a little credibility.