|
TranceAddict Investors Club @ Marketocracy (pg. 25)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| atbell |
Still holding strong.
My "loosers" are BAM and oil companies. I expect them to recover, especially BAM who holds large amounts of comercial realestate and large alternate energy production firms. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by ams.rld
Vdsi bought when it was 9.2 sold when 30
FRG 4.2 sold at 10.1
MIG 6.4 sold at 11.2 |
I can't tell you definitively why each stock rose, but what I can tell you is my opinion of why they rose. So here is my commentary, and please, treat it only as my personal commentary...;)
VDSI is a company involved in security solutions for the technology industry. Cyber crime is here to stay and a multitude of systems need to be protected. Think about all the electronic systems existing today along with the systems coming online everyday all over the world. I think there is now and will be in the future high demand for electronic system security solutions such as that provided by VDSI. I havn't really scrutinized their financials in depth, but from what I see, their revenue has risen at a very quick pace since 2002, and has reported a steadily rising profit since 2003. As I say repeatedly in here, profit = good, debt = bad. Don't buy into debt! Good pick...;)
FRG is involved in mining of minerals from 3 properties under their management. The chart below shows you how much mineral spot prices have gone up since the beginning of the decade. Minerals and industrial commodities have been enjoying a bull market rivaling that of the tech industry of the 1990's. FRG has been enjoying this party in the industry and I'de say that is why you got a profit from this company. Other than the industry bull market, FRG's financials are shabby at best. With the numbers they put out, I couldn't reliably give you an estimate of its value, too little information. Additionally, looking at their annual income statement, they are losing millions of dollars, without making a profit, and those losses have been escalating. I can't even tell you what their revenue history is with any reliability. Good you got out...
MIG is in the insurance business, particularly commercial insurance. I really don't know much about the insurance industry, so I can only guess as to why MIG appreciated so well in 2006. That guess would be a calm hurricane season for 2006. I don't why MIG has pulled from its highs in summer 2007, but still the price is much higher than it was back in 2005. Financials seem fine.
--------------------------------------------------
Bottom line, don't buy debt. MIG and VDSI seem all right companies by what I've looked at. FRG, I highly suggest you stay away from this one. Debt, little volume, difficult estimation, all aren't good.. |
|
|
| atbell |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
FRG is involved in mining of minerals from 3 properties under their management. The chart below shows you how much mineral spot prices have gone up since the beginning of the decade. Minerals and industrial commodities have been enjoying a bull market rivaling that of the tech industry of the 1990's. FRG has been enjoying this party in the industry and I'de say that is why you got a profit from this company. Other than the industry bull market, FRG's financials are shabby at best. With the numbers they put out, I couldn't reliably give you an estimate of its value, too little information. Additionally, looking at their annual income statement, they are losing millions of dollars, without making a profit, and those losses have been escalating. I can't even tell you what their revenue history is with any reliability. Good you got out...
|
Comparing the commodities to the tech bubble is a bit of a stretch because it's only real similarity is the rise in the price of corporate shares.
There are many differences but I'll keep it short. The big one is that the tech bubble was spurred by supply side factors where as the resource run has been pushed by demand.
The 90's orgy of tech investing was driven by hopeful start up sales men who theorized about thier profits. They assumed that making money was as simple as making a web page or two with some flashy looks.
The resource companies didn't start rising until AFTER the customers apeared. Lead by the Chinese and the Indians, the world has begun to realize that the demand for resources is much greater then the supply which has driven the price of companies who already hold proven assets sky high.
Another difference is the speed that supply can adjust to demand. The tech secotor could produce new "product" as fast as the universities could produce computer science grads. By contrast it takes about 5 years to find a new mine site (at a cost of about 500,000 $ per core sample analyzed) and about 5 years to build a mine (at upwards of 500 million $ to build).
Finally the tech companies produced intangible products. The companies spoke of offereing efficiencies, synergies and all kinds of other ies which in essence added to productivity, but were really not nessesities. Resource consumption is much closer to nesesity status. Building cars, buildings, roads, washing machines, and other big ticket items takes actual resources and people have trouble living without them. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by atbell
Comparing the commodities to the tech bubble is a bit of a stretch because it's only real similarity is the rise in the price of corporate shares.
There are many differences but I'll keep it short. The big one is that the tech bubble was spurred by supply side factors where as the resource run has been pushed by demand.
The 90's orgy of tech investing was driven by hopeful start up sales men who theorized about thier profits. They assumed that making money was as simple as making a web page or two with some flashy looks.
The resource companies didn't start rising until AFTER the customers apeared. Lead by the Chinese and the Indians, the world has begun to realize that the demand for resources is much greater then the supply which has driven the price of companies who already hold proven assets sky high.
Another difference is the speed that supply can adjust to demand. The tech secotor could produce new "product" as fast as the universities could produce computer science grads. By contrast it takes about 5 years to find a new mine site (at a cost of about 500,000 $ per core sample analyzed) and about 5 years to build a mine (at upwards of 500 million $ to build).
Finally the tech companies produced intangible products. The companies spoke of offereing efficiencies, synergies and all kinds of other ies which in essence added to productivity, but were really not nessesities. Resource consumption is much closer to nesesity status. Building cars, buildings, roads, washing machines, and other big ticket items takes actual resources and people have trouble living without them. |
I'm more referring to the run-up in prices. Like the Nasdaq's runup of the late 90's. Not really the business model. I still don't like FRG. |
|
|
| Krypton |
I've got 3 stocks up 100%, and my fund is less than 3 months old. Anybody have this type of success? I'm wondering what psiweaver has.
My top 10 includes Google, Apple Computer, VMWare (went up 10% today!), Rio Tinto (Brazilian), Goldman Sachs, and those three TBSI, EXM, and MTL.
Microsoft went up 2% today, and guess what!? After-hours as of now, it is up 10%! So tonight, Micrsoft is around 32$. Tomorrow, it'll be way past $35-6.
Oil is SPECULATIVELY too high. The futures guy are going schizophrenic. There is PLENTY of supply, $90 oil just doesn't make sense to the true fundamentals of crude. The prices WILL come down. Hopefully, some of you have some energy in your list, I'm sure some of the energy companies will be reporting some pretty good quarters. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
by the end of the year...
Oil is going to $100+
Silver 18+
Gold $850+
Dow to 12,500 or lower
You heard it here first. ;) |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Capitalizt
by the end of the year...
Oil is going to $100+
Silver 18+
Gold $850+
Dow to 12,500 or lower
You heard it here first. ;) |
WOw, you're pessimistic..:nervous: :nervous: |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
yeah pessimistic, but u gotta look at the macro trends. The way I see it:
1. Bush admin and media pundits continue beating war drums for an attack on Iran...the world second largest oil supplier = continued oil rally
2. Federal reserve keeps cutting interest rates and printing lots of paper = continued dollar collapse...alternate currencies and precious metals rally
3. General fear and uncertainty rises in the public as a result of these things = cash pulled out of stocks and put under the mattress (or into gold & silver).
If you position yourself properly, it won't be as scary :) |
|
|
| atbell |
I'll second your analysis but not the numbers.
I expect oil to be in the low 90's, all of the other ones I haven't been following so I've got no comments either way.
To add fuel to the flames that you've got already going:
1. The war drums have been sounding for about two years now, it's been a steady beat slowly getting louder.
2. Uncertainty around what will happen with the Kurds is a major issue to be resloved with about 6 zillion ways that it could go terribly wrong for oil supplies or the US economy.
3. China just reported 11% growth, they aren't going to stop sucking up the crude.
4. The housing in the US is still dragging. If this trend keeps up in to Nov. / Dec. then there is a really big problem, the magnitude of which won't be well understood by the public. Work I've done on Toronto property values shows a clear seasonality in prices. This seasonality sees prices fluxuate around the market trend (up in the years I'd studied) bottoming out in Aug. recovering in Nov. and peaking in early summer. This means that stable prices in Nov. are not a good indicator because, at least seasonally, they should be rising. |
|
|
| Krypton |
| The Kurdistan issue is too speculative. There is one oil pipeline that could be affected, and its 500 miles from the conflict zone. Supply from the region is important but it isn't the main supplier of world markets. The real danger to the oil market would be conflict with Iran. That could definitely push oil prices into the stratosphere.. |
|
|
| atbell |
From what I understand Kurd / Turkish tensions are tied to Iraqi, Irani, and Turkish oil production. The uncertainty of where an all out conflict would go is the driver of any speculation.
I think, but I'm not sure, that Turkey is a major oil gateway to Europe and to the Caspian. |
|
|
| Capitalizt |
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/01d0752a-...00779fd2ac.html
Dollar and oil hit new records
By Michael Mackenzie in New York
Published: October 29 2007 20:20 | Last updated: October 29 2007 20:20
Oil hit a new record high of $93.80 and the dollar struck a new low on Monday as investors showed their growing certainty that the US Federal Reserve will cut interest rates on Wednesday.
The same conviction also saw gold approach $800 a troy ounce its highest level for 28 years while equities made gains. The move into gold reflects how investors fear rising inflation from the twin forces of higher oil prices and a weaker dollar.
Weighing on the dollar was the outlook for lower borrowing rates versus those of other economies when a two-day meeting of the Fed concludes on Wednesday.
Investors in Fed funds futures have largely priced in a 25 basis point cut in the 4.75 per cent overnight rate amid a deteriorating housing market and recent large write-downs at US banks.
The Fed faces a quandary as they need to ease [rates] in order to get the economy going, but a weaker dollar, while good for US exports, does raise the concern that inflation will rise, said Gerald Lucas, senior investment adviser at Deutsche Bank.
The dollar fell to a record low of 76.777 against a basket of six major currencies, as the euro climbed to a new high of $1.4438.
__________________________________
US dollar index:
Gold price:
 |
|
|
|
|
