Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Looks like Greenspan may cut a quarter point next week. Could be interesting next week. The baby bull seems to be running out of steam to me and I have been taking profits big time. Will look for some consolidation in the near term for a buying opportunity.
Exactly. That pipeline would go a long way towards solving the problem. Yes, the high bills might make them see the light. It is one thing to be environmentally aware but you have to find a balance between environmentally aware and economically aware. The ironic thing is that by using more natural gas for power generation, we would be helping to reduce pollution significantly.
I know, it stinks. We seem to have an environmentalist problem. There are tough environmental regulations that hamper the discovery and extraction of natural gas but the environmentalists would rather have the electric companies use natural gas as opposed to coal or oil fired plants because natural gas burns cleaner. So now we have lots of natural gas fired power plants and not enough natural gas. If we are truly going to try to be environmentally responsible, we need to make it easier for companies to discover and extract natural gas so we can more easily use it for power generation but it seems that fact has escaped everyone.
Hydrogen Fuel Cells May Hurt Ozone
Jun 12, 6:56 PM (ET)
By H. JOSEF HEBERT
WASHINGTON (AP) - Widespread use of the hydrogen fuel cells that President Bush has made a centerpiece of his energy plan might not be as environmentally friendly as many believe.
Scientists say the new technology could lead to greater destruction of the ozone layer that protects Earth from cancer-causing ultraviolet rays.
Researchers said in a report Thursday saying that if hydrogen replaced fossil fuels to run everything from cars to power plants, large amounts of hydrogen would drift into the stratosphere as a result of leakage and indirectly cause increased depletion of the ozone.
They acknowledged that much is still unknown about the hydrogen cycle and that technologies could be developed to curtail hydrogen releases, mitigating the problem. But they say hydrogen's impact on ozone destruction should be considered when gauging the potential environmental downside of a hydrogen-fuel economy.
Ever since Bush this year singled out hydrogen development as an energy priority, the fuel has been the buzzword in energy debates. Congress plans to pump more than $3 billion into hydrogen research over the next five years in hopes of putting fuel-cell-powered cars into showrooms by 2020. Industry is spending billions more to develop fuel cells, although their widespread use is probably still decades away.
Fossil fuels - coal, oil or natural gas - produce chemicals that pollute the air as well as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide. A hydrogen fuel cell, when making energy, releases only water as a byproduct.
In an article in this week's edition of Science magazine, researchers at the California Institute of Technology raised the possibility that if hydrogen fuel replaced fossil fuels entirely, it could be expected that 10 percent to 20 percent of the hydrogen would leak from pipelines, storage facilities, processing plants and fuel cells in cars and at power plants.
Because hydrogen readily travels skyward, the researchers estimated that its increased use could lead to as much as a tripling of hydrogen molecules - both manmade and from natural sources - going into the stratosphere, where it would oxidize and form water.
"This would result in cooling of the lower stratosphere and the disturbance of ozone chemistry," the researchers wrote. It would mean bigger and longer-lasting ozone holes in both the Arctic and Antarctic regions, where drops in ozone levels have been recorded over the past 20 years. They estimated that ozone depletion could be as much as 8 percent.
Nejat Veziroglu, president of the International Association for Hydrogen Energy and director of the Clean Energy Research Institute at the University of Miami, expressed skepticism about the Cal Tech findings.
"Leakage will be much less than what they are considering," he said.
An Energy Department spokeswoman, Jeanne Lopatto, said the Cal Tech study will influence some of the government's fuel cell research, especially in areas of hydrogen transport and storage. She said the administration "welcomes new scientific knowledge on the potential effects of hydrogen production, storage and use."
The loss of some of the Earth's ozone layer is of concern because ozone blocks much of the sun's ultraviolet light, which over time can lead to skin cancer, cataracts and other problems in humans.
Ozone depletion has been contained with international treaties banning and phasing out ozone-killing chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs. But the Cal Tech researchers said huge increases in the concentration of hydrogen in the stratosphere "could substantially delay the recovery of the ozone layer," even if a hydrogen economy is still decades away.
John Eiler, an assistant professor of geochemistry at Cal Tech and one of the article's authors, acknowledged that the concerns raised in the study might eventually be resolved when more is learned about the hydrogen fuel cycle.
For example, much of the leaking hydrogen might become absorbed in the soil instead of drifting into the sky, he said. "If soils dominate, a hydrogen economy might have little effect on the environment. But if the atmosphere is the big player, the stratospheric cooling and destruction of the ozone ... are more likely to occur."
Cal Tech scientist Tracey Tromp, another of the authors, said that with advanced warnings of a problem, a hydrogen energy infrastructure could be fashioned to allow more control of leaks and reduce the adverse environmental impact.
---
On the Net:
Science: http://www.sciencemag.org
Going to mean higher electricity prices for many as well.
Just plugging along Rick. Yes, very busy. Lots of activity in the markets right now. Back at you on the success.
I think it is really cool that the grub was on the peace board and about Mother Teresa. How's that for divine providence!
You are welcome!
Usually about 250K per day for trading. If it is a long term investment, I don't worry about volume at all.
Light volume makes for weird charts.
Also this from June 2nd, 2003.
http://biz.yahoo.com/pz/030602/41030.html
I got a letter from the CEO yesterday. One of those shareholder update type deals. Lots of stuff about the product and the new CEO's expertise in the industry but the interesting part was the goals they have outlined. First, they intend to reduce debt to under $350K by the quarter ending June 30th, 2003. They are projecting sales of 17 new units in the first 12 months ending Feb. 2004. 59 units in the 12 months ending Feb 2005 and 136 units for the 12 months ending Feb 2006. Assuming the price tag for each unit is still about $50K, that would mean revenues of $850,000.00, $2,950,000.00, and $6,800,000.00 over the next 3 years. Seems that there is some investor confidence building.
Also, I saw this PR from May 28th 2003. Interesting.
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/030528/054122.html
This might be what you are looking for.
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=1063658
No problem. It is a cool site. They also have listings for dividend increases, decreases, etc.
Here is a site that allows you to search a date and return a list of stocks that have a scheduled dividend. You can search for ex date, record date, etc.
http://www.ex-dividend.com/search.html
Looks good for the housing market. Also it might provide some bargains over the next few months in banking stocks. I'll be watching for some of those with high dividend yields over the next quarter or so.
Congress Approves $330B in Tax Cuts
May 23, 12:49 PM (ET)
By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Congress gave its final approval Friday to $330 billion in new tax cuts for families, investors and businesses, handing President Bush a victory despite sharply curtailing his plan for lifting the economy from its knees.
The Republican-led Senate approved the measure by 51-50, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the decisive vote in the narrowly divided chamber. Two hours after midnight, the GOP-run House had used a 231-200 vote to approve the legislation, which also included $20 billion in aid for cash-hungry states. Bush was poised to sign the bill.
Enactment will deliver rebate checks of up to $400 per child to many families as early as this summer. Other reductions would go to married couples, most workers, people who sell property, businesses, and corporate stockholders who receive dividends - though Bush's plan to erase taxes on those dividends was dropped as too expensive.
Though less than half the $726 billion in tax reductions through 2013 Bush initially proposed, approval marked a significant personal victory for the president. Despite polls showing little public interest in tax cuts - and opposition by some moderate Republicans concerned about burgeoning budget deficits - the president parlayed his popularity after the victory of Iraq into the third tax cut of his two-and-a-half-year-old administration.
It was also a noteworthy win for congressional Republicans, who control Congress by razor-thin majorities but have managed to prevail on a measure they made the cornerstone of their domestic agenda. In the Senate, moderate Republicans John McCain of Arizona, Olympia Snowe of Maine and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island opposed the bill, but the GOP prevailed by winning the support of Democratic Sens. Zell Miller of Georgia and Ben Nelson of Nebraska.
"This is a great victory for the American people," said Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. "The wonderful thing is it really boils down to greater job security for people."
Democrats said the bill was tilted excessively toward the wealthy, and would make the government's already staggering deficit problem even worse. Even before the tax measure's passage, this year's federal shortfall was expected to rocket well beyond the unprecedented level of $300 billion.
"This is a policy of debt, deficits and decline," said Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., adding, "This is a scandal in the making. We're going to read there are perverse results as a result of this tax policy."
Friday's votes marked the end of a four-month journey for the proposal, which Bush unveiled in January. Before winning passage, the measure sparked wrenching divisions between House and Senate Republicans over how deep the tax cuts should be, and it saw Bush hop campaign-style across the country to put pressure on wavering senators.
Underlining the muscle of moderate senators uncomfortable with the red ink, the bill's tax cuts were less than half the $726 billion in tax reductions through 2013 that Bush proposed in January as a tonic for the swooning economy.
As a result, instead of his trumpeted proposal to end taxes on corporate dividends paid by individuals, a less costly version was included that also reduced levies on capital gains.
Even so, the bill crammed most of the elements Bush proposed into a $330 billion package - largely by using a budget ruse.
Most of the bill's cuts in personal income taxes would end after 2004 and the dividend and capital gains reductions would end after 2008 - with levies then reverting to higher levels. Politicians of both parties consider that unlikely to occur because accusations would fly about a tax increase.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said he will try to make permanent the bill's tax cuts for married couples and its increase in the credit for children.
"I don't believe Congress can go back to the country and say we're going to have the biggest tax increase in history," he told reporters.
The liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities estimated that if the tax bill's elements were left intact for the entire decade, its price tag would be at least $800 billion.
The measure would lower the top rates paid on dividends and capital gains to 15 percent - down from the current highest rates of 38.6 percent on dividends and 20 percent on capital gains. The lowest-earning people would pay 5 percent, and for one year - 2008 - would owe no tax on those forms of income.
Of the bill's $350 billion price tag, $210 billion - or 60 percent - would occur this year and next. The GOP authors said that would help rev up the economy by flushing money into it.
Almost half the bill's cost was devoted to accelerating income tax reductions enacted in the tax cut of 2001. Workers' paychecks will be fatter after July 1 as companies reduce the amount of tax withheld to reflect reduced income tax rates.
The maximum income tax rate falls from 38.6 percent to 35 percent, and other rates drop from 35 percent to 32 percent, from 30 percent to 28 percent and from 27 percent to 25 percent.
Many married couples will see their standard deduction and their 15 percent tax bracket grow. Parents will be able to claim a $1,000 per child tax credit instead of its current $600, and more taxpayers will avoid paying the alternative minimum tax.
Small businesses can recoup some of their purchases immediately, and expense up to $100,000 until 2005, four times the amount now allowed. Other companies can write off half their investments this year.
---
The bill is H.R.2
Copyright 2003 Associated Press.
Check this out. It is strange to see our little planet from so far away.
Earth as seen from Mars is shown in this colorized photograph taken by NASA's Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft while orbiting the Red Planet on May 8, 2003. The picture shows Earth from 86 million miles away as a small blue dot orbited by its even smaller moon.
GOP Ready to Push $350B in Tax Cuts
May 22, 9:01 AM (ET)
By ALAN FRAM
WASHINGTON (AP) - Republicans are ready to push a $350 billion package of tax cuts and spending through Congress after abandoning President Bush's plan to eliminate taxes on corporate dividends and after shrinking the measure to satisfy moderate lawmakers.
Nevertheless, Bush headed to Capitol Hill Thursday morning to signal his pleasure at congressional action on his cuts. He was meeting with House and Senate Republican leaders, then making remarks to reporters on lawmakers' progress.
The visit came shortly before legislators were to begin debating the bill.
"This package will help ease economic anxiety," Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said in a written statement. "It'll pump up our consumer-driven economy. It'll put more money in individuals' and families' pockets."
The bill contained many of the elements of Bush's original plan, which called for $726 billion in tax reductions through 2013. But the scaled-back congressional version would cut taxes by $330 billion for stockholders, individual taxpayers, couples and businesses, while including $20 billion for financially strapped states, a provision Bush did not seek.
To squeeze the tax reductions into the $330 billion package, Republicans relied on budget gimmickry.
Many of the cuts are scheduled to expire after a few years, despite the overwhelming likelihood that lawmakers never would let that occur and be accused of raising taxes. A reduction in the taxes people pay on corporate dividends and capital gains would end in 2009; other cuts in individuals' income taxes would last only through 2004.
As they have all year, Democrats criticized the plan as a giveaway to the well-off. They have offered alternative plans roughly one-third the size of the final GOP bill.
"This bill misses a real opportunity to get the economy back on track and help Americans who are struggling," Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., said in a statement. "Instead, it gives away billions to those who need it least and does very little for those who need it most."
The measure reached its final shape after moderate Sen. George Voinovich, R-Ohio, a pivotal vote in the closely divided Senate, met Wednesday with Vice President Dick Cheney and House Ways and Means Chairman Bill Thomas, R-Calif. Support from Voinovich and several other moderates of both parties hinged, in part, on keeping the bill's price tag at no more than $350 billion.
"If they stay within the 350, I'm fine," Voinovich said in a brief interview with The Associated Press. "I appreciate the fact that they've been trying to honor my concerns and make me an honest man."
The GOP may need Cheney's tie-breaking vote if other wavering moderates oppose the bill. Senate leaders count Democrats Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Zell Miller of Georgia as votes for the bill, but lost the support of three Republicans - Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island, John McCain of Arizona and Olympia Snowe of Maine.
Passage seemed all but certain by week's end, when lawmakers begin a weeklong Memorial Day break.
Under the legislation, the top tax rate on dividends and capital gains would fall to 15 percent this year. Low-income taxpayers would pay 5 percent, falling to zero in 2008. Barring further congressional action, today's higher rates would return the following year.
Other provisions aimed at individuals and families would start retroactively on Jan. 1 and expire in 2005. These included reduced taxes for married couples, expanding the lowest tax bracket and preventing more taxpayers from paying the alternative minimum tax.
There also would be a $1,000 tax credit for each of up to two children for the next two years, an increase from the current $600. Grassley said 25 million families would qualify.
Businesses won two temporary tax breaks designed to encourage immediate investments. Small companies could expense up to $100,000 in new equipment investments through 2005, and businesses could depreciate more of their assets sooner through 2004.
The measure also omitted $90 billion in tax and fee increases that the Senate included in its bill. They included extended customs user fees, closed corporate tax loopholes and higher taxes on Americans working overseas.
Negotiators dropped breaks that senators put in their version of the bill for specialty gunsmiths, bow and arrow manufacturers and others.
---
Eds: The bill, HR2, may be found at http://thomas.loc.gov
Jobless Claims Up, Tornadoes Play a Role
Thursday May 22, 8:43 AM EDT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New U.S. jobless claims rose unexpectedly last week on the back of weather-related layoffs from a series of tornadoes that struck the Midwest, the government said on Thursday.
Initial claims for state unemployment insurance benefits rose 7,000 to 428,000 in the May 17 week from an upwardly revised 421,000 for the prior week, the Labor Department said. Last week's reading was well above the 415,000 Wall Street economist forecast.
The department had originally measured first-time jobless claims for the May 10 week at 417,000.
Earlier this month, tornadoes swept through such states as Oklahoma, Missouri and Kansas, damaging automotive plants and other businesses and causing the weather-related job losses, Labor said.
©2003 Reuters Limited.
No problem.
If they expect to return to profit soon, it is O.K. but they certainly can't do it for very long.
NOL is Net Operating Loss and can be carried forward for a specific amount of time. I think it is 3 years. You can use NOLs against income tax. So if a company had $1M in net income for a qaurter and $1M in previous NOL they could basically apply the NOL of $1M to the qaurter and not pay any taxes.
House, Senate look to bridge dividend differences
Ironing out a final tax cut bill no easy task
By William L. Watts, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 4:03 AM ET May 17, 2003
WASHINGTON (CBS.MW) -- There's a $200 billion gap between the two tax-cut packages passed this month by the House and Senate, but coming up with a compromise will require more than just splitting the difference
The bloodiest battle between House and Senate negotiators is certain to center on their differing approaches to President Bush's centerpiece proposal to eliminate the income tax paid on corporate dividends by individuals.
Due to budget constraints, neither the House nor the Senate gave Bush exactly what he wanted.
The House passed a $550 billion tax plan that included roughly $275 billion to cut the tax paid on most capital gains from 20 percent to 15 percent. Corporate dividends, which are now taxed at personal income rates as high as 38.6 percent, would be taxed at the same rate as capital gains.
The Senate, after initially eyeing an $80 billion dividend approach that satisfied deficit-wary party moderates and hardly any other Republicans, on Thursday passed a $350 billion tax-cut bill that includes a $125 billion plan that suspends the income tax paid on dividends for three years, but then reinstates it. See earlier story.
The revised dividend plan adopted by the Senate -- with the tie-breaking aid of Vice President Dick Cheney -- carried the White House's fingerprints. But it's not clear whether the plan will capture the imagination of corporate America or carry the day in the final bill.
The plan lets individuals exempt half of their dividend income from taxation in 2003. From 2004 to 2006, all dividend income would be exempt. The break would expire at the end of 2006, however. The government would resume taxing dividends at regular income tax rates in 2007 unless Congress acts in the future to extend the provision.
"This amendment, though not perfect, would move us in the right direction," said Sen. Don Nickles, R-Okla., in urging senators to support the amendment Thursday night.
If the plan didn't expire, lost revenues over the 10-year period of the cut would have pushed the total size of the package well beyond the Senate's $350 billion cap on net tax cuts.
Proponents of the approach like it because it establishes the principle of eliminating the dividend tax. Treasury Secretary John Snow hailed the dividend provision as a "bold step."
Andrew Parmentier, a policy analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey, isn't sure that argument will fly with corporate executives and investors who would like to see the dividend tax eliminated.
"I don't think that the reception of this is overwhelmingly positive because if Democrats were to win control of White House or Congress over the next couple of years, this could be repealed," Parmentier said.
House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-Ill., questioned whether the temporary nature of the Senate plan would undermine its effectiveness.
"If the dividend is 50 percent and then nothing, and all of a sudden it is back to 100 percent or whatever it is, my feeling is that it does not solve the problem," Hastert told reporters Thursday.
House Republican leaders contend their plan offers more of a short-term pop to the economy and that it also wouldn't be the last word in efforts to eventually eliminate the dividend tax.
"We can get to zero sooner or later, which is always our goal," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, said earlier this month.
But Parmentier expects House Republicans may eventually decide to sign onto the Senate proposal, in part because it's smaller and easier to fit under the Senate's $350 billion budget cap.
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has promised moderate Republican Sens. Olympia Snowe of Maine and George Voinovich of Ohio, that he won't bring back a final bill with net tax cuts of more than $350 billion. Grassley struck the deal to gain the senators' needed votes on the fiscal 2004 budget outline, without which any tax cuts would have been impossible.
White House efforts to turn a sufficient number of centrist Democrats or Republicans in the Senate to buck the $350 billion cap have so far proved to be unsuccessful.
Business lobbyists, meanwhile, have yet to make a strong push for either the House or Senate dividend plan.
Ralph Hellman, a lobbyist for the Information Technology Industry Council, a trade association for high-tech firms, avowed a policy of "assiduous neutrality" on the question.
"We would not want to comment on which one is better," he said.
William L. Watts is a reporter for CBS.MarketWatch.com.
The government seems to be working towards a good dividend tax plan. From what I understand, 50% of dividend earnings will be tax free in 2003 and 100% in 2004-2006. Sounds like a good start and I suspect that the tax free status of dividends will continue after 2006. It is, after all, double taxation. Obviously nothing is final yet but it is looking good so far.
Don't ask me. I am not much of an options expert. I prefer to trade common and leave all the mumbo jumbo to the professionals. Trading options puts you on a time limit and I don't like that.
I like their technology but they are burning cash like an uncontrolled wildfire. They recently announced $12M in financing through the issuance of Series A Preferred but That won't last long as they are burning about $5 to $6 million per quarter. Revenue growth will need to pick up substantially to cut into the burn rate or there will be additional financing required. I guess the one good thing is that they are using preferred and if the do that next time it shouldn't result in immediate dilution although that is just a guess as I haven't seen the actual financing agreement. I have been watching this one for a while now and have been waiting for it to hit critical mass but in my opinion that hasn't happened yet. It looks to me like they are about a year away from getting close to break even but the chart looks pretty good and if you can buy around .05 to .07 per share, it looks O.K. All these OTCBB companies are risky but this one actually has a business and is not just a share printing operation so it is a lot better than most.
I only have a few minutes a day to devote to posting on these boards as my work takes up most of my time. ELN seems to be doing well. The good thing about the price going up is that the convertible debt will have a less dilutive effect as the price rises. Hopefully they will be able to work out a way to keep the debt holders from converting into common but if not, the higher price is certainly a blessing to long term shareholders. In regards to DFNS, I have been watching it for a while but I am not really playing Microcaps right now. I have been more interested in building up a dividend portfolio for long term appreciation. When the markets pick up and overall volume begins to rise, I will probably get back into some short term trading.
I've got it on my Microcap watchlist. Thanks for the DD!
Looks like I should have jumped on Bayer when I had the chance.
Bayer Profit Beats Forecast, Shares Soar
Wednesday May 7, 6:20 AM EDT
By Sitaraman Shankar
FRANKFURT (Reuters) - German drugs and chemicals group Bayer AG reported a strong rise in operating profit on Wednesday on the back of cost cuts and a robust performance in agrochemicals, beating analysts' expectations.
Bayer stock soared 6.7 percent after it reported operating profit including exceptional items rose by nearly a third to 1.075 billion euros ($1.22 billion), easily beating the 857 million euro forecast by analysts in a Reuters poll.
Bayer said sales rose five percent to 7.356 billion euros.
It reiterated it expected operating profit from continuing operations to rise by a double-digit percentage this year.
The performance drew praise from analysts, and prompted plans to revise earnings estimates for the full year.
"There's a lot of relief to investors that the performance is driven by the underlying businesses and not the one-offs," said WestLB Panmure analyst Andreas Theisen, adding he planned to revise his 2003 forecast for earnings per share of one euro.
"It's a solid performance, and we think our EPS estimates could be revised upward by a fifth as a result," said Campbell Gillies, analyst at Deutsche Bank in London.
CROP SCIENCE SOARS
Sales of crop science soared 92 percent to 1.66 billion euros, due mainly to the acquisition of Aventis CropScience last year. Operating profit at the unit jumped to 443 million euros from 144 million.
"We can hardly remember companies achieving such strong margins in crop science even in the traditionally strong first quarter," said Theisen.
Analysts said Bayer had succeeded in winning some market share from other big agrochemicals firms, and had also benefited from a recovery in the South American agrochemical market.
Bayer said operating profit at its healthcare unit more than doubled to 480 million euros from 230 million euros a year earlier, though sales fell to 2.11 billion from 2.41 billion.
"The pharma and biological business and crop protection clearly did much better than expected," said Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein analyst Tony Cox in London.
Polymer profit rose to 74 million euros from 21 million, and in chemicals it ticked up three percent.
Bayer said its headcount in continuing operations had decreased by 4,000 in the first quarter to 118,600.
"Cost synergies are starting to pay off, and we expect them to continue in the rest of the year," said Deutsche's Gillies.
TWIN UPSIDE
Bayer shares, the top gainer in the blue-chip DAX index traded at 17.62 euros at 5:31 a.m. EDT, up 6.7 percent and easily outperforming the index, which was down 0.55 percent.
The shares have now gained 80 percent since mid-March, after more than halving in value in the year up to that point.
The recovery owes much to positive news over recalled anti-cholesterol drug Baycol. Bayer won the first two court cases over the drug, which is linked to more than 100 deaths, raising hopes that liabilities would not exceed insurance cover.
"The first quarter performance and the reduction in fears over Baycol represent a twin upside for the shares," said Landesbank Rheinland-Pfalz analyst Silke Stegemann.
©2003 Reuters Limited.
Definitely. The high yield is what attracted me to it last year. And now that Buffet is involved with it, the bandwagon jumpers will flow like water!
I doubt it. There may be some additional investing in foreign companies but I think it would be foolish to put a large portion of your portfolio there. The U.S. economy is holding its ground and now is a great time to sift through what is out there and uncover some gems. If you can find some dividend payers in the process, you can lock in a good yield that will help out until the economy really gets going, then you can get some capital gains to go along with the dividend. There are some interesting foreign plays out there though so it doesn't hurt to check them out. I pulled up Bayer on a screen the other day and want to look deeper into that one. The only problem with ADRs is they often don't update financials in a timely manner. Some only issue annual reports and don't even bother with quarterlys.
Actually, it was May 5th, 2002. A little further back than I thought. Geez, Buffet is a year behind me now. LOL!
http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=356874
Here is one I talked about a while back that is beginning to get some attention thanks to Warren Buffet.
Why is Buffett interested in a Chinese oil company?
By Allen Wan, CBS.MarketWatch.com
Last Update: 5:42 AM ET May 6, 2003
HONG KONG (CBS.MW) -- You've got to hand it to Warren Buffett. The world's most famous value investor always keeps 'em guessing.
This time, it's a high-stakes investment in PetroChina -- the largest state-run oil and gas company in China but little known outside of Asia.
But since the billionaire investor disclosed late last month in a Hong Kong filing that he spent about $42 million to boost his company's stake to 9.1 percent in PetroChina (PTR: news), the oil company is quickly becoming a fund favorite as well as a hot stock.
PetroChina's Hong Kong shares, already up for the year, rose another seven percent since the disclosure was made on April 28. The company's New York-traded share performed even better, gaining slightly under 9 percent in little over a week.
Investors hoping for an explanation from Buffett as to why he recently upped Berkshire Hathaway's (BRKA: news) (BRKB: news) stake in PetroChina at a weekend annual meeting in Omaha came away disappointed.
Buffett declined to comment on his reasons for buying a stake in PetroChina, saying it was not his policy to talk about individual stocks and that he preferred to keep his strategies private.
Still, that hasn't kept people from guessing on why the billionaire has gone bullish in Chinese oil - which appears to be a marked departure from his long-held philosophy of buying stocks in U.S. businesses he knows well and are easy to assess.
"Even though Buffett is less familiar with China, he knows the oil industry very well," said Shumin Huang, analyst at Goldman Sachs in Hong Kong.
Known for its insurance investments, Berkshire Hathaway has over the past few years branched heavily into energy with great success. Its purchase of MidAmerican Energy Holdings, for one, has paid off handsomely. "Already it (MEHC) has US$18 billion of assets and delivers our largest stream of non-insurance earnings. It could well grow to be huge," Buffett reportedly said in a 2002 letter to shareholders.
Analysts from Citigroup Smith Barney in Hong Kong also agree that Buffett's move may not represent such a departure at all, given his investment criteria and recent interest in energy.
"We believe the investment should be viewed as opportunistic entry into a value stock that meets Berkshire Hathaway's investment criteria, with some knowledge contributed from recent investments in U.S. natural gas pipelines," the broker said in a note.
Berkshire Hathaway has recently been buying pipelines and other strategic stakes from cash-strapped energy companies.
One Hong Kong-based analyst, who declined to be identified, said that Buffett is simply investing in PetroChina, which pumps about two-thirds of the oil and natural gas produced in China, because it offers a great chance for him to obtain a 10 percent pretax return.
Chinese oil companies have been reporting banner results, driven largely by booming demand in the mainland and soaring oil prices.
Last month, PetroChina reported a slightly better-than-expected net profit of 46.9 billion yuan ($5.68 billion) in 2002, up 3.2 percent from the year before. Its rival Sinopec (SNP: news), meanwhile, reported a first-quarter net profit that was 12 times higher than year-ago levels. Offshore oil and gas producer CNOOC (CEO: news) said oil and gas output jumped over 23 percent, while revenues climbed 87 percent.
But analysts believe PetroChina is still cheap relative to its peers.
"While in our opinion, PetroChina continues to represent the best price to intrinsic value among the three oil names...a number of risks remain with regard to the development of its gas business," Citigroup Smith Barney said in the note.
Goldman's Huang is another fan of the stock, though its recent run-up to near the broker's target price of HK$1.85 compelled her to downgrade the stock to "In-Line" from "Outperform."
PetroChina traded down 1.6 percent at HK$1.79 on Tuesday.
Huang said PetroChina offers a strong balance sheet, strong cash flow and a high dividend yield. "And longer term, Chinese economy should maintain good growth and Chinese oil demand growth should remain relatively higher than most peers," she said.
China is now the world's third-largest consumer of oil after the United States and Japan.
Allen Wan is the Asia bureau chief for CBS MarketWatch, based in Tokyo.
Copyright ©1998-2003 MarketWatch.com Inc.
Fed Expected to Leave Rates Unchanged
May 6, 6:49 AM (ET)
By JEANNINE AVERSA
WASHINGTON (AP) - The fragile postwar economy is expected to gradually grow stronger this year as uncertainties weighing on American businesses and consumers lift.
With that hope, Federal Reserve policy-makers probably will keep short-term interest rates at decades-low levels in the months ahead, many economists believe.
But while they are predicting the country will see better economic growth in the second half of this year, economists say it will still take a while for the economy to get back to full speed.
"We are in this painfully slow economic recovery. For the past six months, the economy has been bedeviled by many uncertainties - terrorism, Iraq, a run-up in oil prices- but the economy still managed to grow," said Stuart Hoffman, chief economist at PNC Financial Services Group. "I think we've passed the greatest risk."
By leaving borrowing costs low, businesses and consumers might be motivated to invest and spend more, helping to energize the listless economy.
Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan last week expressed cautious optimism about the economy's prospects now that the war is over. He said the economy is "positioned to expand at a noticeably better pace," but the timing and the extent of that improvement remain uncertain.
There have been some encouraging signs. Energy prices, which had risen sharply on war tensions, have recently retreated; the rollercoaster stock market has stabilized; and consumers' confidence in the economy rebounded in April.
But there's still reason for concern. Businesses remain wary of big commitments in capital spending and hiring, major forces restraining the economy's recovery. And, the job climate is worsening, which could make consumers - the main force keeping the economy going - more cautious.
The nation's unemployment rate jumped to 6 percent in April as businesses cut jobs for the third straight month. The economy has lost one-half million jobs in the last three months, a decline usually associated with recessions.
President Bush wants Congress to approve another round of tax cuts which he says would boost the economy.
Some economists believe the jobless rate will creep higher to around 6.3 percent to 6.5 percent later this year, even if the economy improves a bit. Job growth probably won't be strong enough to accommodate all the additional job seekers who would enter the market, attracted by an improved climate, economists said.
The economy grew at a tepid rate of 1.6 percent in the first three months of 2003. Economists see more subpar growth in the current quarter, with estimates ranging from around a 1.8 percent rate to a 2.5 percent rate. In the third quarter, economists are expecting a growth rate of 3 percent or higher, an improvement but still below normal.
Most economists believe Greenspan and his Federal Open Market Committee colleagues will continue to hold the federal funds rate at a 41-year low of 1.25 percent at their meeting Tuesday. An afternoon announcement was expected.
The funds rate is the Fed's main lever for influencing the economy. The last time the Fed cut the funds rate - the interest banks charge each other on overnight loans - was on Nov. 6.
If the funds rate is left alone, that would mean commercial banks' prime lending rate - a benchmark for many consumer loans - would remain at 4.25 percent, the lowest level since May 1959. The prime rate moves in lockstep with the funds rate.
A few economists said there is a slight chance that the Fed will cut the funds rate at Tuesday's meeting.
That might boost business confidence, "prodding them into seeing the glass half full," said Carl Tannenbaum, chief economist at LaSalle Bank
Economists also offered mixed opinions on how Fed policy-makers would assess risks to the economy in the months ahead.
At the Fed's last meeting on March 18, policy-makers said given all the uncertainties surrounding the Iraq situation at that time, they could not gauge risks on the economy going forward - something they normally do at each meeting.
Some economists believe the Fed will move to a "neutral" stance, meaning risks to the economy are balanced between inflation and economic weakness. That would keep interest rates steady in the months ahead. Others predicted policy-makers will identify economic weakness as the biggest threat to the economy, opening the door to interest rates cuts in the future.
"It's a close call," Hoffman said.
A few said policy-makers will forgo making a risk assessment as they did in March.
__
On the Net:
Federal Reserve: http://www.federalreserve.gov
Copyright 2003 Associated Press.
I'm out for the night. I guess my last word tonight is hope for the best and prepare for the worst. As a sidenote, I love all manner of life and that includes everything that lives and breathes and is. So anyway, that includes you. Be well and peace on earth!!!
I wish I could. Too many cards are falling into place to ignore the signs now. It has all been written and it is funny that a Hindu would be the one to say that.
I will always have a bleeding heart. I just think that the geopolitical situation has gone beyond that. It doesn't matter whether you are for war or peace any more. The sides have already been drawn up, it is now just a matter of whose side you are on. The holy war started on 09/11 and WW3 is now a reality. Where do we go from here? Only God knows.
Unfortunately they are just words that have the ability to comfort. Death is coming in a hard way and all we can do is deal with it. The tune has already been written, all we can do is listen.
The truth is we are fighting for our life. Only those without true sight are blind to that. Do you think Bin Laden was lying when he said holy war? Why should we wait on judgement when we are the big dogs? Either we bring it or we get it brought to us. You peace activists really need to get a grip on reality. There is no more peace on earth. Just hell and high water.