Seeking Alpha

Fred Beyers

Fred Beyers
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View Fred Beyers' Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Here's a quixotic twist: It appears that battling certain types cancer may lower the risk for developing Alzheimer's disease, new research suggests. After pouring over data, investigators have concluded that most kinds of cancer - with the exception of prostate cancer - seem to confer some degree of protection against Alzheimer's, reducing risk of the age-related brain disorder by anywhere from 9% to 51%. They've also linked a common form of cancer treatment, chemotherapy, to a lower risk for developing Alzheimer's-related dementia. [View news story]
    "...After pouring over data, investigators have concluded that most kinds of cancer - with the exception of prostate cancer - seem to confer some degree of protection against Alzheimer's,..."

    A typo?-- perhaps it is supposed to read "...have concluded that TREATMENT FOR most kinds of cancer...seem to confer some degree of protection..."??
    Jul 16 07:16 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • General Electric (GE +1.1%) agrees to pay $70.4M to regulators in order to settle charges of muni bond bid-rigging by an extinct business unit. The firm maintains that it's "pleased" to resolve the matter and has accounted for the settlement amounts in previous quarters. [View news story]
    HOGWASH/GARBAGE--simply a "cost of doing business"! Absolutely NO deterrent what so ever to future similar conduct--nor would be a fine of ten times this amount.

    Ten days in jail for a few corporate officers would have some effect!!!
    Dec 24 08:13 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
    I have felt for sometime that BP does not need to sell assets--however, I do wonder why they do not take on additional LONG term debt to provide a cash cushion. With their financial position and the almost obscenely low current interest cost why sell any worthwhile asset?
    Nov 7 08:30 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • An Overblown Spill Spells An Undervalued BP [View article]
    I agree with your overall assessment that BP is underpriced (am long the stock). However, was wondering about your revenue projection of +75% 2012--misprint?? perhaps 7.5%?? Would surely love the former, but don't quite see how.
    Oct 5 10:52 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • With the foreclosure mess spreading to Frannie, Megan McArdle agrees that the worst-case scenario isn't banks going bust, it's that a title-insurance breakdown devastates the resale market - which means not that the banks are getting theirs, but that you can't sell your home either.  [View news story]
    Good point...I had sold a home on contract; purchasers obtained mortgage and paid me off in 2007; I signed a warrantee deed...however a search yesterday shows no evidence of that satisfaction having ever been filed...property has been foreclosed and according to sign in front yard is scheduled for auction first part of November...hmmmmm!
    Oct 14 02:46 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Wall Street Undervaluing American Oil Companies? [View article]
    I drive a 1996 VW Passat, 4 cylinder diesel (my daughter gave it to me after I retired-- as a businessman just outside Flint, Mi, I surely couldn't have bought it in 1996) with 147,000 miles on it.

    It can haul 4 adults comfortably, gets 48mpg hwy at 70-75 and a little better at 60, and 42mpg around town. Hmm, technology that was available 15 years ago!!??
    Aug 3 09:04 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Wall Street Undervaluing American Oil Companies? [View article]
    Mike, your comment that it is IMPOSSIBLE to burn coal cleanly sounds just like the the auto industry in the 1970s (I live 24 miles from Flint, Mi and not only heard them but felt them, when the auto industry tanked temporarily, until the industry actually attacked the problem and solved it). It might not be cheap initially to clean up coal burning, though I suspect within a very short time the cost would become fairly minor, and when considered with the efficiency and availability is a far better alternative than expending an easily portable fuel such as NG that can be used in small need situations, i.e. autos, peak generation, home heating, etc.

    I agree we must take better care of the fly ash, but also see this as a lesser problem than nuclear waste, though I also support additional development of nuclear.

    I also agree with the balance of your post and found it very worthwhile reading, although I question that any serious consideration of energy policy can be made without a large emphasis being placed on conservation, the action with immediate results.
    Aug 3 08:45 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Is Wall Street Undervaluing American Oil Companies? [View article]
    Didn't buy COP at 45 simply because Buffet was selling--had just been burned by Lilly Foundation reducing holdings of LLY--oh well!

    Coal will not be a polluter when the utilities are REQUIRED to burn coal cleanly--it'll be more expensive, but CLEAN--no different than the auto industry in the 1970's.

    If the world economy were humming, oil would be a long ways from $120--$180 to $200 would be more realistic.

    As soon as the former XTO owners who don't want to own XOM finish eliminating their position, XOM will be a major out-performer.
    Aug 2 09:06 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 8 Reasons Why GE Is Wildly Undervalued [View article]
    If the rest of your analysis is half as right as your analysis of Jack Welch, then GE is a cinch $25 within 12 months. Regretfully, I'm afraid your analysis of Jack was your high point, and $25 in 60 months might happen, which, if the dividend is restored in the next couple years isn't bad.
    Jul 9 02:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Shifting to Natural Gas Won't Reduce Energy Prices [View article]
    AREN'T THESE TWO PARAGRAPHS A BIT INCONSISTENT? WE SIMPLY NEED BETTER PRACTICES TO MAKE DEEP-WATER OIL DRILLING SAFE, BUT NO MATTER WHAT WE DO THERE WILL THERE WILL ALWAYS BE MISTAKES AND ACCIDENTS IN NATURAL GAS PRODUCTION???? HMMMM???
    CASTS A CLOUD OF DOUBT ON THE LOGIC OF THE ENTIRE ARTICLE DON'T YOU THINK?
    Quote:
    The current oil spill should serve as a valuable lesson. With better safety and emergency response mechanisms in place, deep-oil drilling can be made safe and come will little threat of another disaster.

    Finally, you should not assume a shift to natural gas would offer a safer route of energy production. Despite the most rigorous measures, mistakes will be made and accidents will occur. If in the future, as the shift to natural gas is made, you should expect to see many more gas pipeline explosions on U.S. soil, taking human lives.
    Jun 23 09:21 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Peak Oil Investments I'm Putting My Money On: Part III, Natural Gas Vehicles [View article]
    First, I don't believe that most Americans define energy independence as the elimination of all, or even most, imports but rather a substantial reduction in the dollars sent to a perceived politically unfriendly people...we don't seem to mind being almost totally dependent on imports for various other parts of our economy. Therefore, we can accomplish the wishes of most Americans with only marginal conversions to alternate fuels and conservation...i.e. in the last two years we have seen what only a small percentage change in demand can do on both sides of prices: $60 to $150 to $32 to $80. When a 15mph reduction in highway speed can make as much as 20% difference in truck fuel economy, it seems rather absurd to talk in terms of decades, just DO IT! There is no lag time for conservation, results are immediate.
    Let's also hope that we don't opt for the other gross absurdity mentioned here and by Mr. Keane, converting existing and building new generating plants utilizing NG. Why use a product which is very efficiently distributed with much existing infrastructure to replace a very difficult to distribute but highly efficient fuel at a very limited number of geographic locations. I do not accept that we cannot burn coal cleanly at generating plants anymore than I accepted the moans of the auto industry in 1978 that we can't possibly meet emissions standards.
    The formula is very simple: adopt a $50 per barrel tax on all petroleum, domestic and imported; and to maintain tax neutrality eliminate corporate income tax which is ultimately paid entirely by the consumer, ridiculously skews corporate decision-making as taxes are avoided "at all costs", creates substantial overhead, and is very expensive to administer/collect.
    If with the resultant reduction in demand, OPEC chooses to attempt to maintain production levels through lower prices we can keep right on using their oil and save our reserves for the real shortage in the future.
    Mar 24 05:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part VII [View article]
    user396040, you are absolutely right, urban commuters could successfully run electric immediately...only problem they're the people that drive 8,000 to 10,000 miles per year and not the ones that burn the majority of our fuel, even if they are idling in traffic 45 minutes per day.

    It is the minority, both cars and trucks, that drive the majority of miles for whom we need a solution.

    Oh by the way, I should've included this (a repeat from VI) in my previous post--a $50 per barrel tax on all petroleum, domestic and imported, would make that speed limit a lot easier to enforce. To keep things tax neutral abolish the dumbest tax we have: corporate income tax which is ultimately paid by the consumer anyway plus all the costs associated with attempted avoidance.
    Mar 8 05:02 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part VII [View article]
    Although it's getting a bit old (like me) a fairly substantial report done for the Canadian government back in 1999 indicated a reduction in diesel fuel usage for a 13.5' van trailer truck of approximately 17% with a reduction of speed from 65 mph to 55 mph and 30% for reduction from 70 mph to 55 mph. This is due to wind resistance which varies with the square of velocity. Although I'm sure there has been some absolute improvement, the difference is still just about the same.

    What am I missing? Isn't this a win, win, win situation? Lower fuel cost off-sets added time; lower fuel usage reduces emissions; lower speeds extend equipment life and increases safety.

    I assure you that the interstate truck that stacks up 300,000 or more miles per year is not being driven at 55 or 65 mph.

    Isn't the quickest, easiest, and by far simplest solution to simply reduce and enforce speed limits and continue with diesel on interstate trucking?
    Mar 8 01:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part VI [View article]
    Just took time to read the links from PTC01. Let's all hope like heck the votes to incentivize converting coal generators to gas don't materialize!

    Claims that coal cannot be burned cleanly are no different than auto industry claims in the 1970's and 1980's that the emmission standards couldn't possibly be met--fifteen years later they were being met--and even without the sacrifices predicted.
    Mar 3 02:56 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why Natural Gas Vehicles Won't Decrease Oil Dependence, Part VI [View article]
    The fuller the trough is, the lazier and more dependent the pig becomes--and the pig doesn't care where the slop comes from!

    Opening offshore drilling and/or encouraging ramping up of domestic production simply intensifies the addiction and hastens exhaustion of a finite resource. Whether that exhaustion is 40, 140, or 540 years from now is of no consequence unless you can give me an unbreakable assurance that technology/invention will provide a replacement for petroleum prior to that date. I do not care to bet my great grandchildren's future on that!

    The US, the world, has consumed significant amounts of petroleum for only a little more than a century; substantial amounts for a little more than half of that. Already we are talking about the viability of somewhat marginal reserves--where will be in another century?
    Mar 3 02:34 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
22 Comments
20 Likes