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.
Did everyone else sell? Am I the only bagholder here? LOL!
Copper chart and warehouse inventories:
http://www.thecopperlink.com/services/metal-prices/prices/se_me-pr_pr_index.php.en?grafik=Copper
ptrey, loans? FASC doesn't take loans, no debt.
GIGA $6.03 one to watch and buy on any pull back, IMO. Steady stream of contracts. No debt, Shares Outstanding: 4.73M
Float: 3.44M.
Terry, thanks. God talks to me, but everytime I bring up the stock market, he mentions throwing the money changers out of the Temple! So I have to rely on posters like you, the next best source! LOL!
Maybe some potential news here? Throw us a scrap, June 23rd PR:
The Company has also announced an update of its current drilling operations in Kansas. The Company has drilled its first two Coal Bed Methane gas wells in Montgomery County, Kansas. The two wells, the Edds South "27" #1 and the Allee "27" #1, were drilled to a depth of approximately 1,500 feet, wherein both wells penetrated a number of potentially productive coal seams. Based on logs, the Company has set 4 1/2" production casing, and completion operations for both wells have begun. The Company believes these wells should be capable of producing in commercial quantities and expects them to be connected to a sales line within the next month.
OT(?) As solar gets smaller, its future gets brighter
(Be sure to check the end of article on costs)
Nanotechnology could turn rooftops into a sea of power-generating stations
Paul Carlstrom, Special to The Chronicle
Monday, July 11, 2005
Investors along Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park are pouring money into solar nanotech startups, hoping that thinking small will translate into big profits.
Both inventors and investors are betting that flexible sheets of tiny solar cells used to harness the sun's strength will ultimately provide a cheaper, more efficient source of energy than the current smorgasbord of alternative and fossil fuels.
Nanosys and Nanosolar in Palo Alto -- along with Konarka in Lowell, Mass. -- say their research will result in thin rolls of highly efficient light-collecting plastics spread across rooftops or built into building materials.
These rolls, the companies say, will be able to provide energy for prices as low as the electricity currently provided by utilities, which averages $1 per watt.
Other uses of nanotechnology foreseen by Konarka, Nanosolar and Nanosys include form-fitting plastic batteries for electronic devices like cell phones and laptops.
While all three companies provide prototypes for large corporate research labs and government agencies, company representatives and investors are reticent to predict when nanotechnology-powered solar systems will be commercially available. Industry watchers, however, say that achieving mass production of these products may take five years or longer.
"We take the long view, although we're not averse to having products very quickly," said Bryan Roberts, general partner at Venrock Associates in Menlo Park, a leading Nanosys investor. "Whenever you're developing a novel technology platform, you're looking at a four- to six-year time frame rather than a three- to four-year time frame."
Major investments
Despite the lack of commercial product availability, Konarka, Nanosolar and Nanosys have collectively raised more than $120 million since 2001, the year all three companies were founded.
Recent investments include $7 million in debt financing for Konarka in June, making its total funding to date $38.5 million. Nanosolar recently announced more financial support in a Series B round of funding that secured $20 million in May. With previous investments of $7.25 million, it has secured a total of $27.25 million.
Both Konarka and Nanosolar have said they plan to use the money for new research and development facilities.
Nanosys, which cited poor market conditions as the reason for withdrawing its IPO in August, has raised $55 million to date. The company's last round of funding in April 2003 secured $30 million.
Venture capitalist excitement for these new technologies reflects growth in the solar energy market as whole, say industry experts.
"The technology is maturing, and the industry is maturing. British Petroleum, Shell and the oil companies are all in this field," said David Wooley, vice president of the nonprofit Energy Foundation in San Francisco, a research group funded by major charitable trusts but not affiliated with utilities or energy producers.
Costs must be reduced
A study released by the Energy Foundation in March suggests that the United States could produce 2,900 new megawatts of solar power by 2010 -- enough to power 500,000 homes -- if the cost is significantly reduced.
Solar energy ranges between $4 and $5 per watt. The report suggests market expansion will require $2 to $2.50. If the price breakthrough occurs, says Wooley, the report's assumed price structure represents a $6.6 billion annual market opportunity.
The Energy Foundation report also says that solar energy could furnish much of the nation's electricity if available residential and commercial rooftops were fully utilized. According to the Energy Foundation, using available rooftop space could provide 710,000 megawatts across the United States, whose current electrical capacity is 950,000 megawatts.
"The market is obviously huge, demand is huge. Besides, (alternative energy) is imperative in the world we live in," said Bill Gurley, a general partner at Benchmark Capital in Menlo Park, an early investor in Nanosolar.
As for recent growth in solar energy, Paula Mints, a senior analyst at the technology research firm of Strategies Unlimited in Mountain View, says that 14,000 photovoltaic megawatts were sold last year, representing 54 percent growth in the industry.
Interest from VC investors
Mints says that VC interest in new energy technologies represents a positive development.
"It's very healthy for the industry. They (venture capitalists) see the growth and the possibilities," she said.
However, Mints also cautions against expecting immediate changes in the way energy is produced. She cites the long development history of conventional solar cells.
"It took 20 to 25 years to commercialize (conventional) photovoltaics," she said.
High production costs are among the reasons solar energy hasn't become a major source of electricity.
The black, glasslike photovoltaic cells that make up most solar panels are usually composed of crystalline silicon, which requires clean-room manufacturing facilities free of dust and airborne microbes.
Silicon is also in short supply and increasingly expensive to produce, so high manufacturing costs are the main reason behind high wattage prices.
Long payback time
As a result, the cost of panel installation typically equals four to five years of expensive energy before production costs are recovered and systems begin paying for themselves.
With nanotechnology, tiny solar cells can be printed onto flexible, very thin light-retaining materials, bypassing the cost of silicon production.
"Silicon is very capital-intensive. You don't need a clean room for plastic power where capital costs are one-tenth of silicon," said Raj Atluru, managing director at the venture capitalist firm of Draper Fisher Jurvetson in Menlo Park, a major investor in Konarka.
Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar say their solar technology will reduce the time it will take consumers to recover production and installation costs to a matter of months.
In addition to being able to manufacture photovoltaic cells more quickly through printing, the companies also say that manipulating materials 100,000 times smaller than the width of a human hair will provide more light-collecting capabilities.
Each printed nanostructure solar cell would act as an autonomous solar collector, and sheets of these products would have more surface area to gather light than conventional photovoltaic cells.
The companies also say that the printed rolls of solar cells would be lighter, more resilient and flexible than silicon photovoltaics.
A rooftop opportunity
If the technical hurdles can be cleared, the biggest money will be found atop buildings.
According to Matthew Nordan, vice president of research at New York's Lux Research, "The ultimate prize is rooftop distribution applications," in which residential and commercial buildings would generate most of their own power.
The companies envision mass production of flexible plastics that would conform to the shape and pitch of rooftops or would be imprinted onto building materials like tile and siding.
"Flexibility allows you to develop new form factors. Why not integrate solar cells into, say, a Spanish tile?" said Nanosys spokesman Stephen Empedocles.
It remains unclear, however, who would install nanotechnology-based solar components if they become commercially available.
"There's no channel to the market," said Nordan, who sees a fragmented solar installation market made up of numerous contractors, which makes adoption of any technology difficult.
Nordan also sees obstacles in transmitting solar energy from rooftop collection sites back to electrical grids and other buildings not wired with photovoltaics.
Distribution an obstacle
"The problem is distribution. Nanomaterials could provide a way to transmit energy as well as capture it."
Until the distribution issue is solved, Nordan says, solar energy will not be able to meet its potential of supplying vast amounts of power.
Analysts like Nordan and Mints say that while rooftops are the most attractive areas for investors, nanomaterial solar energy may first be implemented on mobile devices like cell phones and laptop computers.
Contracts from the military
These applications have smaller power requirements than buildings, and military research contracts at Konarka, Nanosys and Nanosolar may pave the way for commercial availability of solar batteries for communications devices.
"Price is no object for the military, and they need power on the go," said Nordan. "Besides, the mobile-phone industry is driven by new features."
All three companies rely upon government contracts in addition to private funding. The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency has been the most generous. Konarka has a $6 million grant, and Nanosolar has received $10.3 million.
Nanosys' $9.4 million in grants comes from that agency, as well as the Department of Energy and the Navy, among others -- although not all of this research is solar-related.
Industry watchers like Wooley of the Energy Foundation say that some kind of government assistance is necessary to make alternative sources of energy viable.
"The (solar) industry has grown and expanded through incentives. The technology doesn't need government support forever, but it's at a crucial point," he said.
Investors, however, are quick to distinguish between grants and regulations mandating alternative forms of energy.
"The bet was not made with the regulation market," said Gurley of Benchmark Capital.
Problems with government
Atluru of Draper Fisher Jurvetson concurs. "Our view is that government can cause big problems, and it is the entrepreneurs who will make the big changes."
So which way will solar energy go? Atluru said that just as there are different ways to get electricity, the same may hold true for solar energy.
"There's opportunities in traditional silicon photovoltaics, and that's really interesting, and there are companies like Konarka. There's room in the market for all these companies. It's still early days for these startups," he said.
Wooley of the Energy Foundation cautiously agrees.
"What we see is similar to the trajectory for wind energy, where it went from a small-scale industry to a large-scale industry.
"We think the solar industry could see the same growth this decade the wind industry saw in the '90s," he said.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shrinking solar,
expanding profit
Konarka, Nanosolar and Nanosys say that nanotechnology could make the price of electricity less expensive per watt.
Current cost of solar energy, per watt: $4-$5
Average cost of energy from traditional fossil fuel sources, per watt: $1
Estimated cost of energy from nanotech solar panels, per watt: $2
Total energy-generating capacity of the United States: 950,000 megawatts
Potential total rooftop solar energy capacity in the United States: 710,000 megawatts
Source: Energy Foundation
OT: Gd2Aussie3, check this out at Yahoo on options. Haven't checked it out yet, just noticed it:
http://biz.yahoo.com/opt/
Be a sport and don't short.
OT: Give a Hoot. Don't Dilute.
Did you know that Woodsy the Owl is also an avid stock market investor? He is. And the wise old owl has some advice for other investors: If your company is too busy making its insiders rich to make you rich, it might be time to find yourself a better company.
By Rich Smith
July 19, 2005
Close your books and take out your No. 2 pencils, folks. It's time for a math quiz: What's $100 times 102.4% divided by 102.4?
No peeking.
Oh, all right. Go ahead and peek.
The answer is $1 -- but you already knew that. It's intuitive. Here, then, is something that's just as true, but perhaps a bit less obvious: When a company you own issues new shares, or options convertibles into new shares, the company has to grow at least as fast as the speed at which its share count increases just to keep its earnings per share constant -- just to prevent a dollar earned this year from devaluing next year.
Say Company X has 100 shares outstanding and 100 shareholders. Say it earns $100 profit in Year 1, giving each shareholder a claim on $1 worth of profits. If Company X increases its profits 20% in Year 2, you might think that would mean that every shareholder now has a claim on $1.20 worth of profits.
And you'd be right, except for one thing: Most companies on the U.S. stock markets don't hold their share counts steady from year to year. Most companies, in fact, increase the number of their shares outstanding every year. As a result, whatever gains this hypothetical company makes in its annual profits, 2.4% gets shaved off the top before those profits reach the individual shareholder.
What's with the 2.4%?
Excellent question. According to a report by Institutional Shareholder Services, 2.4% is the average amount by which the 200 largest U.S. companies diluted outside shareholders annually over the three-year period from the end of 2000 through the end of 2003 (the most recent period for which data is available).
And that's just the number for the biggest, most conservatively run companies. According to the Investor Responsibility Research Center, the smaller the company, the more it tends to dilute outside shareholders. If the company is a "tech," dilution gets even worse. Presidio Pay Advisors puts the rate of stock options dilution at the average small software company at 3.5% in the 2000 to 2003 period. The average small telecom-equipment maker diluted at a 4% clip. And remember: Every percent of a company's shares that management grants itself is a percent of the company's profits that you'll never see. When management issues stock options, they're not just whittling away at your piece of the corporate pie -- each of the shares they grant themselves diverts profits from outside shareholders (that's you and me) to the insiders as well.
There's forgivable dilution ...
Now, sometimes buying a heavy diluter can be worthwhile. Apple (Nasdaq: AAPL) may have diluted its shareholders by a total of more than 17% since 2001, but it's also done a bang-up job of reversing its money-losing performance in 2001 over the subsequent years. Likewise, shareholders in EMC (NYSE: EMC), Electronic Arts (Nasdaq: ERTS), and Activision (Nasdaq: ATVI) can testify to the power of strong earnings growth to offset excessive share dilution.
... and then there's the other kind ...
On the flip side, if a company dilutes hand over fist, but its profits don't keep up with the pace of dilution -- watch out. Elan (NYSE: ELN), for example, boosted its share count by 19.7% from 2000 to 2003, but hasn't seen a profitable fiscal year since 2001. For largely unrelated reasons, its stock price plunged nearly 90% over the period, but the dilution certainly exacerbated the downturn.
... but if we had our druthers ...
At Motley Fool Hidden Gems, we focus our efforts on finding small companies that buck the trend on Wall Street, ones that don't dilute their shareholders just to enrich management insiders. Smaller versions of companies such as Dow Chemical (NYSE: DOW), which from 2000 to 2003 increased its share count by just 1.1% per annum -- less than half the average.
It would have been nice, however, if Dow increased its profits by more than the same 1.1% per annum rate. As things turned out, three years of holding the line on dilution benefited shareholders not at all, because profits per share remained flat. (After all, $100 times 101.1% divided by 101.1 = $1.)
Truly fortunate, however, is the investor who finds the corporate diamond in the rough -- one that eschews excessive stock option grants and grows profits for its owners. Small-cap "Dows" are fine, but what we're really searching for is a tiny company that follows the lead -- and can one day grow into the size -- of an International Paper (NYSE: IP). From 2000 to 2003, International Paper's share count barely budged. It began the period with 481.5 million shares. It ended with the same number. But when it came to profits, vive la difference! In three years' time, International Paper more than doubled its net profits. Because the share count held steady, shareholders saw their per-share earnings double as well.
At Hidden Gems, we actively seek out such companies. Indeed, we make finding shareholder-friendly management one of our highest priorities when researching potential investments. Before we recommend a company, we research its history to ensure that it has demonstrated a commitment to building shareholder value, growing profits, and restraining stock dilution. In fact, roughly one-third of our recommendations go a step further, buying back their shares to yield negative dilution -- "stock concentration" -- through which every shareholder's slice of the corporate pie grows, and every shareholder gets a larger and larger helping of the firm's total profits.
As a result, of Hidden Gems' 29 currently active recommendations, not one company matches or exceeds the confiscatory rates of dilution prevalent elsewhere on the market. On the contrary, from 2000 to 2003, our companies averaged just 2.0% in annual dilution -- half the rate of your run-of-the-mill small-cap tech firm.
While dilution is not the only criterion we consider when recommending a stock, it's certainly contributed to the gains our recommendations have scored over the past two years: up 35% vs. the S&P's 10% gain. If you'd like to see which companies make the Hidden Gems grade, you're welcome to try our service out for one month, free of charge. If you're not absolutely thrilled with the service after 30 days, you may cancel your subscription with no strings attached. To begin, just click here.
Fool contributor Rich Smith has no position in any company mentioned in this article. Activision and Electronic Arts are Motley Fool Stock Advisor recommendations. Dow Chemical is a Motley Fool Income Investor recommendation. The Motley Fool is investors writing for investors.
I hate the silent treatment, from my wife and companies.
TRCPA, looks like the dilution was good, that way all can pick up cheap shares now, and maybe even cheaper in a month or so.
Good earnings by IBM, maybe a positive market reaction tomorrow.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050718/earns_ibm.html?.v=4
TRCPA, it's been a few years, when does the crowd show up? I can't see any street interest at all here.
No trades for two hours? Volume only 61,000? Are you guys DD'ing the right company?
LMAO!!! Thanks for the chuckle!
ptrey, hang in there, Bud, once the Naked Shorters are forced to cover by the USA government, you will be a very rich man, IMO. I think there may be some terrorists ties there too.
TRCPA, are you saying a company like BP may be interested in buying out FASC?
Well, I bought a chit-load of LU a couple of weeks ago at $3, earnings before the bell tomorrow, hoping they'll beat or at least have some positive comments for the rest of the year.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/yhoo/story.asp?source=blq/yhoo&siteid=yhoo&dist=yhoo&gui...
Twojuggies, I suggest watching what the oil companies are doing. They are most effected by the disappearing resource and have the big bucks to develop alternative energy for their future biz. BP is into solar, which also ties into hydogen energy (solar/electrolysis). Follow the bucks:
"BP is primarily an oil company. A division, BP Solar, had an estimated 2000 revenue of $200 million and operations in 150 countries. (The division provides only a sliver of parent company BP's estimated $12 billion annual net.) BP Solar is pouring time and money into research and development with the goal of providing a full range of photovoltaic panels and control components to suit climates and economies all over the world. (Forbes.com, 5-01)
BP p.l.c., formerly known as BP Amoco p.l.c., is one of the world's leading oil companies on the basis of market capitalization and proved reserves. BP Amoco's main businesses are Exploration and Production, Refining and Marketing, and Chemicals. Exploration and Production's activities include oil and natural gas exploration and field development and production, together with pipeline transportation, natural gas processing and gas and power marketing. The activities of Refining and Marketing include oil supply and trading as well as refining and marketing. Chemicals activities include petrochemicals manufacturing and marketing. In addition, the Company has a solar energy business which is one of the world's largest manufacturers of photovoltaic modules and systems. (Yahoo, 5-01)"
More interesting stuff:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Oil+companies+involved+in+alternate+energy+projects
When is BIPH expected to make any revenue off of BSX? At 5% they would get $150 royalty on a $3000 stent, is that right? When will this product actually be on the market?
Waitedg, looks like a lot of competition in the biometric ID field, what makes IDCO stand out from the others?
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=biometric+ID+device&btnG=Google+Search
Banks, NFLX does $560 million revenue in a year, BBI does $6.1 BILLION, VMHVF may do $4-6 million. I doubt very much that NFLX or BBI knows that VMHVF even exists and could care less. VMHVF has diluted by 10 million shares in a year and are gearing up to pump and dump some more, 200 million authorized. The bid/ask spreads are ridiculous, the MM's have losts of shares to sell you, but don't want to buy any back. This one isn't even worth a momo play, much better ones out there. In this market, the competition is tough for the Big Boys, this Mom and Pop operation is like a Boiled Peanut stand going head to head with Planters Peanuts.
OT: TRCPA,
As of Friday, FASC is down ($5952) and ARTQX is up $1081 from our $50,000 investment July 1. Drop in oil prices, IMO, has slowed the ARTQX trend, top 10 holdings:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/hl?s=ARTQX
Dang Sam, I thought someone here would have pointed out to me that FASC DD showed the best hot place to be invested for the next 5 years would be FASC! Alas, the post disappeared before someone could think of that!
OT: greeneyedhawk, don't know much about the others, but isn't AMEP just a share printing scam? Price hasn't done much in a year except go down. CD's I think are killing it plus hiding revenue via private companies.
Did Juggs find another KDS sale???? When do you think FASC will PR it?
Foxborough funded the distribution costs of the report:
The distribution costs of this report to new subscribers, ninety-five thousand dollars, were funded by Foxborough Holdings, Ltd. in an effort to create investor awareness of id-Confirm. Foxborough Holdings, Ltd. is neither a broker-dealer not investment advisor, but is a shareholder in id-Confirm, Inc., holding five hundred thousand shares of id-Confirm, Inc. stock which is free to be publicly traded (sold) at any time by Foxborough Holdings, Ltd. It is anticipated that this report will generate new subscriptions for OTC Growth Stock Watch. Neither OTC Growth Stock Watch nor Geoffrey Eiten, the reviewer [or analyst], received any compensation for this report, but both expect to receive an unknown amount of revenue from new subscriptions from the subscription offer contained herein.
TRCPA, I just clicked on the "Contact WRAP" at their website. The London mess may have had an effect too, other things on their minds.
Haven't done my homework on 5 OTC's without debt, I'll go with your findings on that one, :)))
I did notice that many successful companies have debt, maybe that's where FASC went wrong, but I'm sure they knew potential revenues wouldn't handle the debt load so they decided to let shareholders pay the rent, salaries, trips, and bonuses. That way they wouldn't have the liability of personal guarantees on loans.
I think FASC has the potential to head to 2 cents before the next filing. Emailed WRAP with copy of last WRAP PR about a week ago and asked status, but no reply yet. Anyone know bonus time at FASC headquarters?
Great earnings by GE, this will give a big boost to the market, IMO.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/050715/earns_general_electric.html?.v=3
Or maybe not:
"General Electric lifted the lower end of its outlook so that's a positive, but there were no major surprises in General Electric's results so that may not be a major catalyst for trading today," said Arthur Hogan, chief market analyst at Jefferies & Co."
Psssss, Sam, I've got a steam powered car I'll sell you cheap.
So, did they build this machine then sit around and say,
"Hey, what do you want to try it on first?
Let's try scrap tires then gold!"
Well, you'll just have to change your lifestyle to fit 200% gains! LOL!
Waitedg, we got Doubloon, we don't need no stinkin' newsletters!!!!
Twojugs, that's Mitsubishi SECURITIES, and I don't think the KDS is being used in that project.
manosdepiedra, lot's of in-the-know people are buying, but on the sly.
You mean they are going to try to run a plant without a MF-777? Rot's of Ruck!!
Wyo, I'm here because I'm a busybody, I just can't help it!
BTW, this explains a LOT! Maybe in 20 years.
(From TR's post)
He also added, "Suffice it to say we can never have enough palm oil to produce all the diesel required in our country." According to some experts, biofuels are expensive and require vast areas of land to meet global energy demands.
Maybe Zeo-Tech will buy out FASC at 5 cents a share.