| kokoda |
|
Gold User, Member, TeleChart
|
| Registered User |
|
|
|
|
| Unsure |
|
| Thursday, January 12, 2006 |
| Tuesday, February 6, 2007 7:22:01 PM |
296
[0.10% of all post / 0.04 posts per day] |
|
There are few posts on more pricy stocks, which generally apply to position traders - thought I'd provide some info.
Art Laffer (of the "Laffer Curve" fame) predicts oil will come down sharply (no price specified but you can infer $40/bbl). He also predicts the stock market is an excellent buy at this time (notwithstanding certain sectors).
I've also come across activity on futures contracts, where downside volume increased markedly (2-3 times normal) during the end of 2006, and yes we've had recent $ advances in energy related issues, but we are talking futures )front month and continuous contract). What this implies is a pending drop, after a recent and good run-up. Recognize that there are about 9,000 hedge funds and most are very short-term oriented - relate this to the breaking of support (futures) in latter 2006. There is also speculation of a H/S top.
Protective stops are good and if you get stopped out, a buy at a lower price is beneficial. Long-term, energy is a very good place to be, including alternative.
|
The renewable energy sector components move in tandem.
ESLR up 0.53 = 6.27%
STP up 3.67 = 10.23%
FSLR up 1.58 = 5.06%
Renewables also push up along with oils. When oil recently hit $58, it was a signal to many of another bullish move.
|
|
My indicators point up if it can close above 2.43 (heavy resistance area).
|
AZL announced a special dividend on 12/01 after hours of $1.00/share for shareholders of record on 01/05/07, payable on 01/26/07.
AZL president sold 21,800 shares from 12.60 - 13.30 on 12/07. My take = he knew when to sell at a good price and it would go down afterwards.
Typically, after the record date, the price will fall to reflect the per share dividend payment. If you want to get in, do it after the fall.
|
Historically, the stock market has a 75% bullish bias. The reason is partly greed (not using this in a negative sense). Individuals that want to increase their assets have choices; one of these is a savings account that pays paltry returns. We have the stock market and also the realm of real estate. We have a financial system that allows various savings connected to the market - 401k, IRA's, 403B's, etc. This financial system component plus the greed factor accounts for much of the activity.
Apples/Oranges? .... Somehow the comparisons between high/low priced stocks within this forum wind up with the low priced stock being gifted with the 10% return and the high priced stock pegged with the 1% return. I just don't get it.
Hey, just my opinion
|
Apologize for being tardy; been evaluating new software for 2 weeks and it is extremely time consuming (day/night); mostly out of stocks, haven't updated T/C, etc.
diceman....I do appreciate opposing viewpoints - we all learn more. I did post a solution and it was for our country to engage in an all-out war for energy independence from oil (although oil will still be required) and the resulting benefits are very numerous. My specific best possible solutions were harnessing the power of the sun and nanotechnology.
My objection is thinking we can solve this through the normal capitalism process. We are not talking about inventing a toaster that turns on the pc and provides instructions to the mars rover vehicle.
scottlena......suggest you revisit an older Steve McQueen movie "The Getaway" and you can see Sally in action. For its time, it was a great action/adventure flick.
Yeah, I think this can be the end of the thread.
Good trading to all !!
|
I know about Dr. Leeb's books - I've read them and a number of others on energy, some with different viewpoints.
It seems your viewpoint is not to consider the advice of experts "(kinda proves my point, certainly not a neutral observer)". I have a solution - lets change our society to eliminate education so no one would have an expert opinion. This should resolve your problem - the only bias would then be ignorance.
It is widely recognized that gov't doesn't solve the problems, that it just creates a larger, unweildly, bureaucratic monster.
My point, which I think you missed, was not that the gov't should instigate an all-out effort, a war that we must win, on the energy independence issue (and I think they should). The point was that if we are currently spending trillions unwisely year after year, lets redirect those funds to a much wiser, and absolutely imperative need. We can even achieve new trillions by "restructuring" our gov't - as I pointed out earlier.
If J. Carter had kept his "promise" to the American people, we would be oil independent today; but oil fell to $10/bbl so the issue fell to the trashcan. He may be the nicest guy one would ever want to meet, but he was a terrible President and his inaction in the Middle East was a prelude to the dilemma today.
On a personal note, I am and have been a registered independent for 35 years. I am apolitical - I find it disgusting that most of our elected leaders in Washington service themselves and their parties, NOT the American citizenry. I voted mostly Republican in the last two elections and I support the efforts in Iraq/Afghanistan - taken as a means to prevent worldwide economic meltdown.
Thanx,
kokoda
|
diceman
I'll be kind.
The ethanol statements are all true and only touch the tip of the iceburg on the folly of ethanol as any type of temporary savior. Also, take a look at corn futures in the last two years. The long quote from my post above was printed in an article from a Mr. Stephen Leeb. You can do research and check his bio - I have come to highly respect his insight and he has enormous knowledge on the energy patch. So, you couldn't get me to believe Leeb was duped by someone else's article when he knows the subject cold anyway. Also, do you think the "Scientific American" is a political rag?
Using "free market captialism" as a means to compare manufacturing of widgets/gadgets/etc. to providing a replacement for oil is ludicrous.
Nothing on this planet contains even remote attributes/properties as oil. It is irreplaceable until either energy from the sun can be harnessed to provide the replacement for the ever increasing world population, or nanotechnology to the rescue. Oil powers the entire world economies in every facet of everday human life. Every manufactured product,including food, clothing, housing, durables, consumables, etc. utilizes oil in their process. And, some items consume even more oil after mfg. in their daily use. And oil is consumed to produce more bbl of oil and natural gas.
Some not too distant years ago, energy used to obtain 1 bbl oil was about 20:1; it is now about 4:1 and declining.
"Competition" was a good choice - I'll use it another way. The world's "have-nots" have been awakened and want to join the "haves". The real competition is for the remaining, accessible, cost effective to drill and pump, hidden oil.
Thanx,
kokoda
|
XSUNX previously ipo'd and has been around awhile. Now, I gave my prior info in a style that I had hoped you would discern that the two best solar stocks are STP and FSLR. As a position trade, these should be the only two solar stocks (at this writing) one should own, or buy and sell if one prefers.
Stay away from XSNX - they do not have anything to offer, comparably.
Now for Corn: The following is in reference to the state of the union speech.
"What appalled most about the President's words were his proposals regarding alternative energies, particularly his emphasis on corn-derived ethanol. As a recent article in Scientific American pointed out, turning corn into ethanol is a non-starter. Corn is just far too expensive to use for fuel. If we try, we will only drive corn prices up to unaffordable heights. Soaring corn prices would in turn mean soaring prices for beef, chicken, pork, and any other animal we currently feed corn to. Growing enough corn to satisfy our fuel needs would also take too much land and water. The result would be a fuel that cost more than gasoline. In fact, some have argued that it takes more energy to produce ethanol from corn than burning ethanol would produce.
Now, if ethanol were made solely from corn stalks and otherwise wasted plant materials, it might make sense. But that doesn't look like the policy we're getting.
Instead - and we hate to say this - the President's plan seems geared towards winning votes from farmers in the mid-West who would benefit from outrageously high corn prices. It may make good political sense. But it will NOT meet our need for affordable energy.
We cannot help notice the strange logic that dominates this issue. On the one hand, the world powers are willing to go to tremendous lengths and costs to secure oil supplies, yet when it comes to other energy sources, the efforts made are never more than half-hearted. The people of the future may well wish that today's leaders had spent less money fighting wars for oil, and more money developing sustainable alternatives."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Personal: I have tons of disrespect for Hollywood liberals, but Sally Struthers has it right: If we spent taxpayer $ (or taxpayer debt from Gov't borrowing) on alternative energy that we now spend for war, we would have a solution for oil. Gov't could close bulging federal dept.'s to obtain funds (Reagan promised to eliminate the dept of education and of course he didn't). A flat tax (without the value-added component) would be fair to everybody and virtually eliminate the IRS. The list is long, but no matter what party is in office, nothing will change until the rubber hits the road - it is already too late.
|
Solar stocks were up good today.
ESLR = a moderate play due to its contract costs for polysilicon.
STP = the big China solar provider.
FSLR = manufacturer using its new thin film to achieve significantly increased efficiency of solar modules.
OCTL = nanotech manufacturer; integrates films of nanotech particles on glass surfaces to convert solar enery into electricity.
These will report qtrly earnings from 02/13-02/20. STP has been on an earnings tear for some quarters and this coming quarter will be no different.
Nanotechnology has the potential to deliver the world from its subservience to oil and solar is just a small but important player in the field.
It may be they are all advancing until earnings are reported, then they may fall. The talking heads will say at that time the earings news was already built into the price.
Or, they will keep advancing.
|
|