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.
lentinman: The link worked fine for me as is, did not add anything. It opened Windows Media Player and worked.
Stanu: OT: Bob Brinker calls it Critical Mass. It is funny that you reject the main point of the article "dividend paying stocks", yet that is what your goals is.
btw - it is a nice place to be!
We are playing a game where the "string pullers" have no real clue what they are doing.
from CNN article: Underscoring the uncertainty, the central bank's Federal Open Market Committee debated a series of options at the meeting, from standing pat to raising the target for short-term rates by half a percentage point. The Fed ultimately voted unanimously to boost its target by a quarter-point to 5%. That was the 16th such increase since mid-2004, when rates stood at a low 1%.
I suspect they use a dart board to decide what to do!
Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't treat my personal residence as an investment. Sure it would be great to buy a house for the cheapest possible price but the quality of ones life takes priority over the cost of the home. I know some people who waited 10 years for CD player prices to drop before getting into the technology. At what point do you pull the trigger? Maybe it is when you can easily afford the monthly mortgage payments on your salary and are certain that should your income be cut drastically you can still afford the house. For me owning a home gives my family more stability than renting. If I was single, I might/most likely consider the renting approach as the disruption of pulling up stakes and moving when prices hit a low point would not be a big deal.
JMIH< I did not sell nor do I think the volume was great enough for the "board members" to have exited the stock en masse.
Electronic Control Security Arranges $3.0 Million Plus in Contract Financing to Support The Company's Continuing Expansion
Thursday May 25, 11:19 am ET
CLIFTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 25, 2006--Electronic Control Security Inc. (OTCBB: EKCS - News), a leading integrated security provider and manufacturer of perimeter security systems announced today that it completed a $3 million plus contract financing commitment from Amerisource Funding, Inc.
ADVERTISEMENT
Under the terms of the contract financing, ECSI will avoid any further dilution since no shares of stock or warrants will be issued. The company is paying interest at accepted industry rates for contract funding. A maximum 20-30 day turn around is estimated from date of invoice to date of payment.
Arthur Barchenko, President of ECSI, commented, "This contract funding arrangement is a significant step forward for the company and, I believe, our shareholders. We intend to use the contract funding on a selective basis to facilitate significant sales growth and to meet stringent supplier demands as well as delivery schedules required by our customer."
The financing was completed once the four accredited convertible debenture holders agreed to the terms and conditions of the intercreditor agreement with Amerisource. In order to obtain the convertible debenture holders' approval, ECSI agreed to decrease the conversion price of the shares from $1.15 to $.75 per share.
Based upon this financial arrangement, ECSI was able to ship approximately $3.5 million in equipment today for the U.S. Air Force under the Integrated Base Defense Security System.
About ECSI
ECSI is recognized as a global leader in perimeter security and an effective quality provider for both the Department of Defense and Homeland Security programs. The company designs, manufactures and markets physical electronic security systems for high profile, high threat environments. The employment of risk assessment and analysis allows ECSI to determine and address the security needs of government and commercial-industrial installations. The company has teaming agreements with ARINC, Hudson Marine Inc., Lockheed Martin Transportation & Security Solutions, Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, SERCO, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc. and other industry leaders. ECSI is located at 790 Bloomfield Avenue, Bldg. C-1, Clifton NJ 07012. Tel: 973-574-8555; Fax: 973-574-8562. For more information on ECSI and its customers, please go to http://www.anti-terrorism.com.
catfish one: My prior exchanges with the company have proved to be of little use. No longer believe anything that most of these guys say. If you do contact them, please report findings so we can discount them by 50%.
MSGI: OT: agree 100% with your comments. they should also have a symbol field that requires you to enter symbol or OT in every post that is on a non stock specific board.
as to 100% cash, i wish i was 100% cash. have to be happy with 65% for the moment.
10bagger, i have never had much success with small bank stocks. CHKJ that you mention is OTCBB.
10bagger, that was a great post for the young ones to learn from. Even with all your years of experience it is still possible to take a big hit. BUT, I still think you over praise the small banks. If you have funds that don't need to be liquid at any point in time then small banks are fine, but as you well know.... just try and start hitting the bids with a large quantity of stock and watch the bids fade. Of course you are loaded, so it does not matter! <g>
diversification rules, it always has and always will. the market giveth and usually taketh.
Blue Oyster Cult
-always loved this song!
I'm On The Lamb But I Ain't No Sheep
Canadian mounted baby, a police force that works
Red and black, that's their color scheme
get their man, in the end
It's all right, it's all right.
Frontenac chateau baby
I'll cross the frontier at ten
Got a whip in my hand baby
And a girl or a husky at leather's end
It's all right, it's all right
My lovely bel punice, you'd kill and you'd maim
Hornswoop me bungo pony, dogsled on ice
Make a dash for freedom baby, don't skate on polar ice
It's to thick to be sliced by the light
Of long and white polar nights
It's all right, it's all right
My lovely bel punice, you'd kill and you'd maim
ALDA: Golf is no longer a rich guy sport. Check out the courses, they are filled with pick up trucks of working-stiffs. Guys who earn a lot less than I do, think nothing of paying $50 green fees to play a round of golf. It's a booming business.
The NJ's will tell you that any photographic or video evidence was doctored to fit the conspirators goals. Nothing you can do or say will prove otherwise to them. They could have sat in on the original terrorist planning sessions and they will still not agree with you.
flemsnopes: The thing that does not make sense is why the hedge fund has accumulated 7.8% + of the company. It could very well be that someone intends to take this company over at some point. Since Barchenko has ceded much of the sales activities to new employees, he may be looking to retire. Having to borrow cash to finance sales of low margin work is not encouraging to me.
I have begun my mild rebuke of EKCS, hopefully a contrarian position. Still hold all my shares, who would I sell them to anyway? LOL
I have my fingers crossed.
MDF: RMIWA: The negative view I see with your post is that the further expansion if approved would cause additional losses in the short term to fund marketing and expansion costs. Long term it would be good for MDF, short term it makes me want to stay away from the stock for another 6 months at least.
As I recall last time the stock hung around this low I started bashing it and it finally went up. Getting ready to start. Very confused as to why a hedge fund would be accumulating shares based upon these financials. Maybe they will truly have some good news coming.
EKCS: New 600K order.
Arthur Barchenko CEO of ECSI said, "This is the first of a number of orders we expect to be awarded during the coming months and the twelfth Department of Defense we have been awarded in recent years. This clearly demonstrates that ECSI is an integral part of the international security technology market. We have submitted a number of proposals to supply our core technologies for other major commercial industrial projects in both the United States and overseas which are expected to close in the near term."
ECSI Receives $600,000 in Orders for Its Core Technologies And Services
Friday May 12, 10:15 am ET
Affirms Company's Position with Department of Defense and Overseas Clients
CLIFTON, N.J.--(BUSINESS WIRE)--May 12, 2006--ECSI (Electronic Control Security, Inc. (OTC BB:EKCS - News) a global leader in perimeter security systems today announced it was awarded $600,000 in orders by Hudson Trident, Pennsauken, N.J., for the Port of Tangiers and the U.S. Department of Defense for two high security projects in North America.
ECSI was selected for these projects based on its design ability in addressing unauthorized entry or access to large facilities. The design services will ultimately lead to the purchase of the company's core technologies.
Arthur Barchenko CEO of ECSI said, "This is the first of a number of orders we expect to be awarded during the coming months and the twelfth Department of Defense we have been awarded in recent years. This clearly demonstrates that ECSI is an integral part of the international security technology market. We have submitted a number of proposals to supply our core technologies for other major commercial industrial projects in both the United States and overseas which are expected to close in the near term."
About ECSI
ECSI is recognized as a global leader in perimeter security and an effective quality provider for both the Department of Defense and Homeland Security programs. The company designs, manufactures and markets physical electronic security systems for high profile, high threat environments. The employment of risk assessment and analysis allows ECSI to determine and address the security needs of government and commercial-industrial installations. The company has teaming agreements with ARINC, Hudson Marine Inc., Lockheed Martin Transportation & Security Solutions, Parsons Infrastructure & Technology Group, SERCO, Inc., Tetra Tech, Inc. and other industry leaders. ECSI is located at 790 Bloomfield Avenue, Bldg. C-1, Clifton NJ 07012. Tel: 973-574-8555; Fax: 973-574-8562. For more information on ECSI and its customers, please go to http://www.anti-terrorism.com.
ECSI INTERNATIONAL, INC. SAFE HARBOR STATEMENT: Statements in this press release, including the statements relating to projected future financial performance, are considered forward-looking statements under the federal securities laws. Sometimes these statements will contain words such as "anticipates," "expects," "plans," "projects," "estimates," "outlook," "forecast," "guidance," "assumes," and other similar words. These statements and those contained in the 10KSB and 10QSB's are not guarantees of the Corporation's future performance and are subject to risks, uncertainties and other important factors that could cause the Corporation's actual performance or achievements to be materially different from those the Corporation may project. These are only some of the numerous factors that may affect the forward-looking statements contained in this press release.
Contact:
ECSI
Kathleen Zomack, 973-574-8555
50-year mortgage hits the market
Lenders have begun offering a half-century home loan as incentive in face of record-high home prices, rising interest rates, report says.
May 10, 2006: 11:05 AM EDT
NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) - As home prices and interest rates keep rising, lenders have figured out a way to keep the dream alive for millions of people who want to own their own home. It's called the 50-year mortgage.
According to a report Wednesday in USA Today, a handful of small lenders have begun offering 50-year adjustable-rate loans to buyers who need to keep payments low in the current economic environment.
Most banks already offer 40-year mortgages, which account for about 5 percent of all home loans, the report said.
"One of the biggest things in California is the high costs of homes. With rates going up, there's demand from customers (for) longer loans," Alex Diaz Jr., with Statewide Bancorp in Rancho Cucamonga, Calif., was quoted in the report as saying.
Statewide, which introduced its 50-year loan in March, has already received about 220 applications, Diaz said, according to the report.
The 50-year mortgage also signals that the cooling real estate market is heating up competition among lenders, the newspaper said.
"Mortgage lenders are getting craftier to get the attention of consumers," Anthony Hsieh, CEO of LendingTree, told the newspaper.
But he added that consumers first need to understand the product.
Two issues to keep in mind: A borrower with the 50-year mortgage builds equity very slowly. And because rates on the loans are adjustable, a borrower's monthly payments could rise, the report said.
Mortgage experts caution that the 50-year mortgage is best-suited for those who plan to stay in their home for about five years, while the loan's interest rate remains fixed, the report said.
"If you're going to be there for more than five years, you're gambling," Marc Savitt of the consumer protection committee for the National Association of Mortgage Brokers told the newspaper. "You don't know what interest rates are going to be. I wouldn't do it."
The report of the new 50-year loan comes as the signs mount that the nation's real estate market is cooling.
MRDG: stock has a had consistent bidder last few weeks. 50 to 100K share bids, which are being filled. anyone follow this and have some ideas?
Calm before the storm or Storm before the calm? .. easily explained by the Kiss of Death, someone I know bought the stock last week and that usually means it goes down. The last time it moved to $3.00 it sat at $.60 for a short time, I can only hope history repeats. Not much else to hang on to.
lentinman: OT, RYVNX is the same flavor fund as USPIX. Almost exactly the same performance as USPIX. The other funds are either short SPY funds or another NASDAQ fund.
As for Brinker, his current newsletter continued on the same theme of the market heading higher, however it seemed to be a hedge on the downside as well. I think he is covering his a** with this call now and has built in a 10% market drop as being a buying opportunity. It left me with an uneasy feeling.
stock peeker: I am not Lentinman, however here are the ones that I follow,
NASDAQ shorts/ uspix, sopix, ryvnx
s&p shorts/ brpix, pspsx, ryurx
happy shorting!
ksauve: I can't reply to PM's, not sure why you sent me a copy of a private mail from Lentinman. I have always considered it poor form to pass on private mail or post emails publicly that were sent in private. I don't care about personal feuds between ihub members, pissing contests, personal insults and the like. I try to play by the rules and expect others to play by them.
In the future leave me out of it, please.
OTC, your input will be missed as you obviously know all when it comes to finance.
Are you still selling cars?
WSJ headline: Investors added $3.7 Billion to Money Funds in the Week.
details: Instituitional investors added 7.99 billion while retail investors withdrew 4.29 billion.
The pro's are pulling cash out and the retail guys are pumping cash in.
OTC: I do agree with the article, I just did not write much of what you attributed to me.
OTC: Are you high? Stoned?
You posted saying you were going to debunk the myth that lowering taxes stimulated the economy and led to larger revenue (receipts}
I did no such thing. I pasted an article from the internet, then threw back a specific paragraph from the same article.
You attacked my because some writer wrote something you don't agree with. Get your facts straight!
len: The only insult you ever hurled at me was calling me "nuttier than a fruitcake" because I don't like Walmart.
btw- i am a fiscal conservative and a social liberal if it suits my evil purposes. LOL
I only insulted as a reply to his BS.
Researcher: I am an avowed BrinkerHead! Lentinmen and I agreed that the market was due for a big hit. However I was/am & will stick to Brinker timing. Other than a short term bad call on his part for buying QQQ in 2000, he has been very good (I stayed away from it).
When Brinker made his sell call in 2000 I sold out most of my long positions but left my sons stocks in place. Guess what, my son is barely better off than 2000 and my accounts are way better than 2000 levels. All this with simple ETF sleep better at night investments. I don't have to sit and watch them, I can go play golf or take the kids to whatever.
As Brinker likes to say, if I think the market is going to correct 25% or more, why would I want to own that!
For a simple investment method, long term trend timing ala Bob Brinker has proven to be a Brainer. In the Micro Cap world it may be a different story. Lentinman jumped out early to protect his gains, can't fault him for it.
OTC: You decided to frame that article as about "Receipts", I did not. As a former business owner and capitalist pig, I could tell you without hesitation that "Receipts" are a meaningless statistic. All I cared about in my business was NET PROFIT. If GWB & his cohorts spend everything ++++ that comes into the treasury, then he runs a negative balance. 911 does not cut it with me as it is a bullshit trumped up war that we will waste a trillion dollars on.
The article stated "Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not arguing that tax cuts are bad. I'm simply pointing out that we can't pretend that tax cuts won't require reductions on the spending side to balance the budget. In fact, you can disregard every other argument in this column and think about one thing: If Laffer were right, lower taxes would never require any spending sacrifice."
You can throw your Karl Rove Nazi bullshit methods and try to frame the arguement in your own way, it does not however pass muster with me. I am not John Kerry and think you are full of hot air.
Maybe next time you can try to argue without throwing your insults my way.
Tax less, spend more = Elect your favorite liberal. Keep it up!
OTC: Someone yell at you today at work again. Insulting or attempting to insult me again. You conservative pricks never change.
The left is counting on the fact that the American public is not smart enough to seperate "receipts" from "spending" when debating tax policy. When it comes to you, it appears they are correct.
Oh that's right, you still work a "real" job because you are so smart. Why did you come out of your shell today? Did Bush approval rating bounce to 32.5% and you felt is was safe to show up.
OTC: I don't need to add my comment to this,
http://www.uuforum.org/deficit.htm
OTC: from the article you cite, "Budget analysts inside and outside the government said the positive turn is likely to be short-lived."
1. Misery loves company?
2. They are more stupid then I?
3. Need tax losses this year?
4. Eternal optimists?
5. Know something we don't?
6. They play unloved underdeveloped companies?
7.
8.
9.
10.
http://www.g2cm.com/index.htm
According to Yahoo they owned 310,700 shares on 12/31/05. So they have more than doubled the position since then.
I still think we will see at least a double or triple this year! I have held the stock so long, what is another few months or years. LOL
Debunking One of the Worst Ideas in Economics
by Charles Wheelan, Ph.D.
Wednesday, May 3, 2006
In this column, I'm focusing on bad economics. In fact, I'm going to write about what I consider to be the two worst economic ideas -- or at least ideas that pass as economics, though both have been thoroughly repudiated by nearly all credible thinkers.
When I say worst, I don't mean the most outlandish (e.g. stock prices are controlled by aliens) because those ideas usually collapse of their own weight. Rather, the most pernicious bad ideas in economics are those that have a ring of truth. They're hard to debunk because they have a certain intuitive appeal. As a result, they stick around, providing bogus intellectual cover for bad policy, year after year, decade after decade.
For the sake of political balance, I'll skewer a favorite of the right in this column, and then a favorite of the left in my next piece.
The Laffer Curve
Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.
In fairness to Mr. Laffer, there's nothing wrong with this theory. It's almost certainly true at very high rates of taxation. If you consider the extreme, say a 99 percent marginal tax rate, then the government will probably not be collecting a lot of revenue. To begin with, citizens are going to hide as much income as possible. (The more honest ones will turn to barter and avoid the tax system entirely.) And no one is going to rush out and take a second job or build a factory if they get to keep only $1 of every $100 that they earn.
So it's entirely plausible that slashing tax rates from 99 percent to 30 percent could increase government tax revenues. It would deflate the black market and provide a huge new incentive to work and invest.
No Big Jolt for the U.S.
But here's the problem when we take Laffer's theory and try to apply it in the U.S.: We don't have a 99 percent marginal tax rate. Or 70 percent. Or even 50 percent. We start with low marginal tax rates relative to the rest of the developed world. (Yes, I understand that it may not feel that way after the check you wrote last month.)
So cutting the tax rate from 36 percent to 33 percent is not going to give you the same kind of economic jolt as slashing a tax rate from 90 percent to 50 percent. There's no huge black market to be shut down, no big supply of skilled workers to be lured back into the labor market, and so on.
Will it generate new economic activity? Probably. And that will generate some incremental tax revenue for the government. But remember, it also means that the government will be taking a smaller cut of all the economic activity that we already have.
Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.
Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.
That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.
Can't Lose Weight by Eating More
Neither the Reagan nor the George W. Bush tax cuts were "self-financing," as the Laffer disciples like to argue. According to The Economist -- my former employer and no bastion of left-wing thought -- the current Bush Administration's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, estimated that decreasing taxes on labor would generate enough growth to recoup only about 17 cents for each lost dollar; a tax cut on capital is better, paying for more than half of itself. Still, the bottom line from the Bush Administration itself is that tax cuts reduce Uncle Sam's take.
So why does Laffer's sketch on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin rank near the top of my list of bad economic ideas? Because, when applied to the U.S., it's intellectually dishonest. The Laffer Curve offers the false promise that we can cut taxes without making any sacrifice on the spending side, and that's simply not true. It's the economic equivalent of arguing that you can lose weight by eating more.
Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not arguing that tax cuts are bad. I'm simply pointing out that we can't pretend that tax cuts won't require reductions on the spending side to balance the budget. In fact, you can disregard every other argument in this column and think about one thing: If Laffer were right, lower taxes would never require any spending sacrifice. We could pay a mere one percent of our income in taxes and still fund all of our government spending -- and maybe more! Do you think that's really possible?
This column should give you a hint of why economics is called the dismal science -- it's all about tradeoffs. We're the ones telling you that if you get more of something, you probably have to get less of something else.
Whether it's tax policy or dieting, you can't have your cake and lose weight, too, which is why America currently has huge deficits and a lot of fat people.
Pagination
Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.
Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.
That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.
Can't Lose Weight by Eating More
Neither the Reagan nor the George W. Bush tax cuts were "self-financing," as the Laffer disciples like to argue. According to The Economist -- my former employer and no bastion of left-wing thought -- the current Bush Administration's top economist, Gregory Mankiw, estimated that decreasing taxes on labor would generate enough growth to recoup only about 17 cents for each lost dollar; a tax cut on capital is better, paying for more than half of itself. Still, the bottom line from the Bush Administration itself is that tax cuts reduce Uncle Sam's take.
So why does Laffer's sketch on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin rank near the top of my list of bad economic ideas? Because, when applied to the U.S., it's intellectually dishonest. The Laffer Curve offers the false promise that we can cut taxes without making any sacrifice on the spending side, and that's simply not true. It's the economic equivalent of arguing that you can lose weight by eating more.
Let me be perfectly clear: I'm not arguing that tax cuts are bad. I'm simply pointing out that we can't pretend that tax cuts won't require reductions on the spending side to balance the budget. In fact, you can disregard every other argument in this column and think about one thing: If Laffer were right, lower taxes would never require any spending sacrifice. We could pay a mere one percent of our income in taxes and still fund all of our government spending -- and maybe more! Do you think that's really possible?
This column should give you a hint of why economics is called the dismal science -- it's all about tradeoffs. We're the ones telling you that if you get more of something, you probably have to get less of something else.
Whether it's tax policy or dieting, you can't have your cake and lose weight, too, which is why America currently has huge deficits and a lot of fat people.
http://video.freevideoblog.com/video/AAC7FA18-2DDC-4D3E-B1BB-9D6CBD83E27F.htm
part I of Steven Colbert @ The White House Press Corps Dinner... Not to be missed. Watch GWB, wondering who the f**k invited this guy.
part 2
http://video.freevideoblog.com/video/C91DDBB4-28AD-4E6F-BD52-822BC77DF696.htm
The writer gives him way to much credit when he says "He is deliberately destroying the middle class, the prospects for upward mobility, and the currency"
GWB lacks the brain cells for such intentions. Blame it on his cadre of advisors...
hank: What is your take on the effect of Walmart in the banking world if they get approved to enter into it? They have already changed the small business landscape for the worse. How will small banks survive with having to shave the loan rates to bone cutting margins?