fran

Go Overweight Uranium and Fertilizer, Underweight Commodities and Base Metals - RBC

your position on the future[GE et al w/4th generation devices] may be true some time.
in the interim there are 430+[growing 10+ each year] in today's technology requiring fuel. demand exceeds supply, including the Russian recycled fuel. i believe today's investment may have legs.


On Jul 06 07:58 PM Mayascribe wrote:

> I'd hold up on buying any uranium until we find out exactly what
> Obama is doing over there in Russia. Yes, Pepsi and Caterpillar are
> in the forefront of the news. But, if nuke dissarming comes out of
> this, then there will be plenty of uranium, which, if GE has it's
> way, uranium won't be needed at all in about eight years, as they
> and a couple other giants have new fourth generation "prism" technology
> that will run on exsisting spent fuel rods--that, according to GE,
> there are already enough spent fuel rods to last a millenia!
>
> Love what you do, Mad Hedge, but on this one you have it dead wrong.
> Stay away from uranium.

Electric Utilities: Coal vs. Renewables

has anyone performed the numeration[simple arithmetic] regards the most likely way to achieve the stated goal[25%renewable by 2025]?
though it is abnormal for our legislators to worry about practicality in such matters, in our current economic state[bankrupt,heading for high inflation, eroding dollar, decaying infrastructure, etc] it would be prudent to know that such objective is at all practical. the first fallacy foisted on the public was the goal to double renewables within the four years of Obama administration[along with the five million jobs]. anyone heard how that will happen, let alone 25% by 2025[that is 15 years hence].

anybody in DC ever heard affordability or doability or practicality? California started down this same path several years back. see where they are now, given the practicality of economics and real life.

Time to Buy and Hold for Reflation: Four Promising Sectors

remember, in the end the drugs/medicines will be purchased, the coal will provide the electricty which will be purchased. the purchases made by the citizen who will take the hits via higher purchase cost and any growth in taxes. for the gov't has no money but ours. i don't know of any ready substitute for todays medicines/drugs or coal to fire 50% of our electricity. Obama can't legislate those changes in any near in timeframe. he can only make our lives cost more.


On Mar 03 06:38 AM basehitz wrote:

> Coal stocks were one of my primary interests until I heard this quote
> from Obama:
>
> Obama said "his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry
> and make energy rates skyrocket "
>
> If you've seen the damage done to drug stocks and health insurers
> just on the threat of pending legislation, hard to imagine what he
> might do to the coal industry. I saw live footage of him talking
> about coal. He said he wouldn't ban it's use, but would tax it to
> bankrupt anyone who tried. I was shocked. We get half our electricity
> energy from coal. Not only would it damage the coal industry, utility
> rates would also go higher.
>
> Trying to outguess the radical changes being proposed is a game I
> don't want to play.

Cramer's Stop Trading - Peabody Is in Freefall (3/2/09)

remember, cramer is a person who has been hot and cold on geithner and bernanke several times over the past months. consistent focus and rationale have not been his most significant attributes. he is an entertainment after all, keeping ratings and sponsors $$$$$ is his objective for CNBC.


On Mar 03 09:06 AM Gravity404 wrote:

> Welcome to the boards, Alex, with a poignant observation of Mr Cramer's
> myopic focus on rating, but he does have a good point about your
> president (or I like to call him Carter Redux.)

Cramer's Stop Trading - Peabody Is in Freefall (3/2/09)

cramer must come up with a script every day for entertainment with a bit of psuedo-analysis thrown in. there is no consistent theme for him to sell, except neuroses. that's what you see. he made his fame on tv as showman during a powerful up market, which contained many themes from which to select. on the up side his schtick was easy. it is no longer so.
if you wish his type entertainment, watch but don't listen with an ear toward investment advice.

On Mar 03 09:00 AM Alex Bernstein wrote:

> Some times I invest my money taking advice from Cramer. However,
> I notice that he changing his mind from buy to sell and back to sell
> so often without regard to fundamentals, as in case on AeroVironment.
> The company continues to increase their earning, bringing new products
> and services almost every week to the degree that they had to hire
> many new employees. Therefore, Mr. Cramer your advice to sell good
> quality company stock would only hurt AeroVironment stock short term,
> but inevitably fundamentals of the company will speak louder than
> your advice. Mr. Cramer your actions are irresponsible!

Coal's Dark Days Are Over

i agree with F. Banks comments on coal. for longer than most think/hope, oil, nat gas, and coal will remain the energy staples for the economic world. ALTs in their various forms will be victims of capacity, money, time. environmental improvement through conservation and forms of user/provider efficiency are the most likely leverage points for our new economic paradigm.

Don't Burn That Coal Just Yet

my first buys of ACI/BTU were in '06. these prices are the best buys i've seen since. buy now and buy more if they drop lower. we'll be in high coal use, worldwide, for a loooooooong time.