Copper Futures End Flat - WSJ.com
NEW YORK—Copper prices ended unchanged as a weaker dollar counterbalanced the damping impact of China's central bank raising its benchmark interest rates.
The most actively traded contract, for March delivery, settled at $4.5740 per pound, down 0.1 cent, on the Comex division of the New York Mercantile Exchange. The thinly traded February-delivery contract settled nearly unchanged at $4.5680 per pound, up 0.05 cent.
Copper prices rallied alongside the euro in late-morning trade. The euro was recently at $1.3648, up from $1.3583 late Monday.
"As copper has been heading up, the dollar has been heading down, and ...
Investor. Any references to securities are not recommendations or solicitations to buy or sell anything. I may have positions in securities mentioned.
Sunday, April 15, 2012
Saturday, April 14, 2012
Bullish Strategists
This article caught my attention because it exposes the idea of self-fulfilling prophecies in the stock market and group think.
It also demonstrates how differently various points of view interpret the same technical indicators.
The following article is included for education purposes only.
Bullish Strategists Are Betting On This Huge Blue Bar - Business Insider
Bullish Strategists Are Betting On This Huge Blue Bar
Despite some recent selling, stocks are way up from their October lows. Specifically, they're up 20 percent in the last six months.
And stocks have far outperformed bonds. This is important because when this happens, the relative weight of an investor's portfolio tilts towards stocks. As a result, investors often have to sell stocks in order to re-balance their portfolio to get back to their long-term, strategic asset allocations.
However, big investors don't plan on doing any selling.
Intentions To Buy Stocks
And stocks have far outperformed bonds. This is important because when this happens, the relative weight of an investor's portfolio tilts towards stocks. As a result, investors often have to sell stocks in order to re-balance their portfolio to get back to their long-term, strategic asset allocations.
However, big investors don't plan on doing any selling.
Citi Investment Research & Analysis
Citigroup recently surveyed 115 fund manager clients.
"Fascinatingly, despite the gains thus far this year and the very modest upside to the aggregated target overall, more than 80% want to allocate additional money towards equities, with US equities leading the charge," said Citigroup's Tobias Levkovich.
The hunger for stocks might not actually be too fascinating if fund managers are already underweight stocks. JP Morgan's Tom Lee recently discussed this with Bloomberg's Carol Massar.
"Something that's been puzzling about this rally that started in March '09 is that the public hasn't really participated," said . "They pulled $300 billion out of the equity markets over the last three years. And trading volumes have been low, which means the institutions haven't really been participating in this rally either. Institutional volumes actually continue to shrink."
Low Volume
Low volume is often interpreted as a lack of confirmation – a bearish signal.
But some strategists have pointed to low volume as an opportunity.
In other words, low trading volumes also means there is cash on the sidelines, or that investors have the capacity to buy stocks.
So if Citi's survey participants put their money where their mouth is, then the huge blue bar in the chart mean that "confirmation" will come in a big bullish way.
Greg Smith, Goldman Sachs, Occupy Wall Street, Civil Disobedience
A Lesson in Defection From Goldman Sachs - the climax of just about every story of effective civil resistance is the moment of defection
The defection of Greg Smith from Goldman Sachs has become one more public relations nightmare for the venerable firm. This article is interesting because it points out how Smith's concern did not match the Occupy Wall Street movement's primary concerns but he put a chink in the armour of the firm and opened some practices to scrutiny which furthers the cause of change.
Getting people within the organization to question the business values and ethics they have routinely and blindly applied in their dealings with clients is a very effective way to push for change in an institution like Goldman.
Was Greg Smith influenced by the OWS movement or by personal motivations? Occupy would like to claim a small victory but the mindset of the average Wall Street executive is not akin to Mahatma Gandhi or any other seeker of justice for the masses. In other words, Smith was doing his whining for his own 'spoiled brat' reasons and he paid no heed to justice for all or to tearing down a corrupt institution...
Source:
http://www.nationofchange.org/lesson-defection-goldman-sachs-1334409931
A Lesson in Defection From Goldman Sachs | NationofChange
Goldman Sachs executive Greg Smith quit his job and, to massive fanfare, penned a New York Times op-ed denouncing what his company has become.
With those 1,300 words, Goldman’s stock price dropped 3.4 percent, vanishing more than $2 billion from its worth and necessitating a commiserative house call from the mayor of New York.
(The damage was not permanent and the stock bounced back the next day. But Smith sold lots of newspapers and got tongues wagging and fingers pointing and people speculating about the state of his sanity.)
(Was he hoping to exonerate himself from these practices so he could take his clients with him on his next business incarnation?)
Historically, the climax of just about every story of effective civil resistance is the moment of defection — when some crucial segment of the old guard goes turncoat and throws down with the voice of the people: Soldiers refuse to fire, prisoners go free, politicians ditch the party line.
And it is precisely these kinds of people who can end up being the most likely and effective whistle blowers and the most crippling defectors,
the instant they’re forced to realize that their institution fails to live up to its own cherished values.
The defection of Greg Smith from Goldman Sachs has become one more public relations nightmare for the venerable firm. This article is interesting because it points out how Smith's concern did not match the Occupy Wall Street movement's primary concerns but he put a chink in the armour of the firm and opened some practices to scrutiny which furthers the cause of change.
"If you want to get an institution to eat itself alive, don’t just denounce it altogether. Instead, find ways to make its most committed and loyal members consider whether the institution really lives up to its own cherished values, and let them do their thing. They’re the ones who can stir up far more trouble with far less effort than anyone on the outside ever could."
Getting people within the organization to question the business values and ethics they have routinely and blindly applied in their dealings with clients is a very effective way to push for change in an institution like Goldman.
Was Greg Smith influenced by the OWS movement or by personal motivations? Occupy would like to claim a small victory but the mindset of the average Wall Street executive is not akin to Mahatma Gandhi or any other seeker of justice for the masses. In other words, Smith was doing his whining for his own 'spoiled brat' reasons and he paid no heed to justice for all or to tearing down a corrupt institution...
Source:
http://www.nationofchange.org/lesson-defection-goldman-sachs-1334409931
A Lesson in Defection From Goldman Sachs | NationofChange
With those 1,300 words, Goldman’s stock price dropped 3.4 percent, vanishing more than $2 billion from its worth and necessitating a commiserative house call from the mayor of New York.
(The damage was not permanent and the stock bounced back the next day. But Smith sold lots of newspapers and got tongues wagging and fingers pointing and people speculating about the state of his sanity.)
Smith didn’t really echo any of the Occupy movement’s concerns about
- Goldman’s habit of self-serving market manipulation, contributing to downturns from the Great Depression to the Great Recession,
- or its present hijacking of the very political system tasked with regulating it.
(The most egregious part of this scandal is the power given to former Goldman executives over the fate of the financial system and the way they used this power to bail out bankers, keep the prosecutors at bay and ignore the collapsing housing market that was sinking the middle class of America, etc.)
- or the massive “bailout” to "save the financial system from collapse.
Smith objected to the way that Goldman was putting its own interests before those of its clients.
Historically, the climax of just about every story of effective civil resistance is the moment of defection — when some crucial segment of the old guard goes turncoat and throws down with the voice of the people: Soldiers refuse to fire, prisoners go free, politicians ditch the party line.
Greg Smith, whose utter devotion to Goldman Sachs’ supposed core values is the premise of his denouncement, is as true a believer as they come.
REPEAT: Greg Smith is as true a believer as they come.
And it is precisely these kinds of people who can end up being the most likely and effective whistle blowers and the most crippling defectors,
the instant they’re forced to realize that their institution fails to live up to its own cherished values.
Think about it for a moment, and this actually stands to reason. Of course we would be more likely to make sacrifices on behalf of values to which we’ve already committed our lives or careers, the values that our clients and subsidiaries and loved ones have heard us espouse for years.
Saul Alinsky noted this phenomenon. He wrote, in his Rules for Radicals:
Since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations.
(Can't be done)
The Other Argument:
OWS claims such an intolerable situation is:
Saul Alinsky noted this phenomenon. He wrote, in his Rules for Radicals:
Since the Haves publicly pose as the custodians of responsibility, morality, law, and justice (which are frequently strangers to each other), they can be constantly pushed to live up to their own book of morality and regulations.
(Can't be done)
No organization, including organized religion, can live up to the letter of its own book.
You can club them to death with their “book” of rules and regulations.
Zoom back, then, to Occupy. The movement’s usual mode of attack against corporations or police departments it doesn’t like is to shout slogans about how bad they are. One could argue that:
Greg Smith reminds us that there’s a better — and perhaps more nonviolent — way:
If you want to get an institution to eat itself alive, don’t just denounce it altogether. Instead, find ways to make its most committed and loyal members consider whether the institution really lives up to its own cherished values, and let them do their thing. They’re the ones who can stir up far more trouble with far less effort than anyone on the outside ever could.
The Other Argument:
When a company’s cherished values really are intolerable perhaps there’s no substitute for simply going into the streets and shutting it down.
OWS claims such an intolerable situation is:
(Goldman, protecting the wealth of the1%)
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Debt, Definition of
Term of the Day
net debt
A standard for analyzing the degree of debt held by a company. This takes into account not just the total amount of debt that a company owes, but how much debt it has in relation to its assets. If a company has a large amount of debt, but a large reserve of cash, it is better able to handle its debt situation than a company which has a smaller amount of debt but very limited cash or assets. This is one aspect to think about when considering investing in a company. Formula: total debts minus cash and all other liquid assets.source:
InvestorWords.com
Warren Buffett Profits From Goldman Sachs Rejects, WSJ Says - Businessweek
Warren Buffett Profits From Goldman Sachs Rejects, WSJ Says - Businessweek
This is a blog post on about an article that covers two of my favorite market movers and shakers, Warren Buffett and Goldman Sachs.
-
GS Goldman Sachs Group Inc/The
- $115.93 USD
Billionaire investor Warren Buffett benefited from leveraged loans unloaded by Goldman Sachs Group Inc. (GS) (GS) traders, the Wall Street Journal reported...
This is a blog post on about an article that covers two of my favorite market movers and shakers, Warren Buffett and Goldman Sachs.
Bloomberg reporting on a WSJ article and here is the link:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2012-04-12/warren-buffett-profits-from-goldman-sachs-rejects-wsj-says
You have to conclude that these particular business people cannot make a move without the eyes of the world watching them. Washing each others dirty laundry is how one commentator described institutional investors' many transactions...
Rumor: SEC, Goldman to settle research case for $22 million: sources Reuters
SEC, Goldman to settle...
By Sarah N. Lynch and Aruna Viswanatha
The Securities and Exchange Commission's case against Goldman is expected to be similar to one that the bank settled last year with Massachusetts securities regulators, several sources told Reuters.
The $22 million penalty will resolve charges by both
- the SEC and
- the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority...
... the settlement has not yet been made public.
The expected SEC settlement and the prior Massachusetts settlement come after a major 2003 settlement with Goldman and other Wall Street firms over conflict-of-interest allegations involving their research analysts.
The banks in 2003 collectively paid $1.4 billion to resolve claims that they issued overly optimistic research on companies to win their investment banking business.
Improper relationships between research and investment banking was again at issue in the 2011 Massachusetts settlement, when Goldman agreed to stop organizing private meetings of traders and stock analysts, known as "huddles."
Read More @ Source:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/exclusive-sec-goldman-settle-research(Reporting By Sarah N. Lynch and Aruna Viswanatha; Editing by John Mair)
Monday, April 9, 2012
We Need an Authentic Measure of Wealth
“Earth provides enough to satisfy every man’s need, but not every man’s greed.”
- Mahatma Gandhi
The Mismeasure of Wealth | NationofChange
Project Syndicate / Op-Ed
"As
a whole, humanity has achieved unparalleled prosperity; great strides
are being made to reduce global poverty; and technological advances are
revolutionizing our lives, stamping out diseases, and transforming
communication.”
The Measure of Wealth
http://www.nationofchange.org/mismeasure-wealth-1333891185
Despite
many successes in creating a more integrated and stable global
economy, a new report by the United Nations Secretary-General’s
High-Level Panel on Global Sustainability
Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing
The Panel’s report presents a vision for a “sustainable planet, just society, and growing economy,” as well as 56 policy recommendations for realizing that goal. It is arguably the most prominent international call for a radical redesign of the global economy ever issued.
Its most valuable short-term recommendation – the replacement of current development indicators (GDP or variants thereof) with more comprehensive, inclusive metrics for wealth – seems tacked on almost as an afterthought.
Without quick, decisive international action to prioritize sustainability over the status quo, the report risks suffering the fate of its 1987 predecessor, the pioneering Brundtland Report, which introduced the concept of sustainability, similarly called for a paradigm shift, and was then ignored.
Resilient People, Resilient Planet opens by paraphrasing Charles Dickens: the world today is
As a whole, humanity has achieved unparalleled prosperity; great strides are being made to reduce global poverty; and technological advances are revolutionizing our lives, stamping out diseases, and transforming communication.
Short-term political and economic strategies are driving consumerism and debt, which, together with global population growth – set to reach nearly nine billion by 2040 – is subjecting the natural environment to growing stress.
By 2030, notes the Panel, “the world will need at least 50% more food, 45% more energy, and 30% more water – all at a time when environmental limits are threatening supply.”
Despite significant advances in the past 25 years, humanity has failed to conserve resources, safeguard natural ecosystems, or otherwise ensure its own long-term viability.
Can a bureaucratic report – however powerful – create change?
Will the world now rally, unlike in 1987, to the Panel’s call to “transform the global economy”?
In fact, perhaps real action is born of crisis itself. As the Panel points out,it has never been clearer that
we need a paradigm shift to achieve truly sustainable global development.
Resilient People, Resilient Planet: A Future Worth Choosing
recognizes
the current global order’s failure, even inability, to implement the
drastic changes needed for true “sustainability.”
The Panel’s report presents a vision for a “sustainable planet, just society, and growing economy,” as well as 56 policy recommendations for realizing that goal. It is arguably the most prominent international call for a radical redesign of the global economy ever issued.
But, for all of its rich content, Resilient People, Resilient Planet is short on concrete, practical solutions.
Its most valuable short-term recommendation – the replacement of current development indicators (GDP or variants thereof) with more comprehensive, inclusive metrics for wealth – seems tacked on almost as an afterthought.
Without quick, decisive international action to prioritize sustainability over the status quo, the report risks suffering the fate of its 1987 predecessor, the pioneering Brundtland Report, which introduced the concept of sustainability, similarly called for a paradigm shift, and was then ignored.
Resilient People, Resilient Planet opens by paraphrasing Charles Dickens: the world today is
“experiencing the best of times, and the worst of times.”
As a whole, humanity has achieved unparalleled prosperity; great strides are being made to reduce global poverty; and technological advances are revolutionizing our lives, stamping out diseases, and transforming communication.
On the other hand, inequality remains stubbornly high, and is increasing in many countries.
Short-term political and economic strategies are driving consumerism and debt, which, together with global population growth – set to reach nearly nine billion by 2040 – is subjecting the natural environment to growing stress.
By 2030, notes the Panel, “the world will need at least 50% more food, 45% more energy, and 30% more water – all at a time when environmental limits are threatening supply.”
Despite significant advances in the past 25 years, humanity has failed to conserve resources, safeguard natural ecosystems, or otherwise ensure its own long-term viability.
Will the world now rally, unlike in 1987, to the Panel’s call to “transform the global economy”?
In fact, perhaps real action is born of crisis itself. As the Panel points out,it has never been clearer that
we need a paradigm shift to achieve truly sustainable global development.
Sunday, April 8, 2012
Warren Buffett's 2009 Investors Letter
Warren Buffett's 2009 Investors Letter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27576705/Warren-Buffett-s-2009-Investors-Letter
http://www.scribd.com/doc/27576705/Warren-Buffett-s-2009-Investors-Letter
Saturday, April 7, 2012
This is a recipe for losing money.
Be Wary of Crowd Funding Start-ups | EconMatters
By Charles Rotblut
Later this year, or early next year, you will have the chance to buy shares in small, growing companies through a process known as crowd funding.
If an offering seems interesting, tread carefully, do as much research as you can and do not commit any money you are not willing to lose.
Crowd funding is the process of raising money from a group of people. It is currently used for a variety of purposes, from charitable efforts to political campaigns.
Some websites, such as Prosper.com, allow businesses to access crowd funding to obtain loans.
Others, like RocketHub, allow organizations to raise money for a certain goal in exchange for rewards such as a music album or a book. (Crowd funding is also called crowd financing.)
The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (aka the JOBS Act) turns crowd funding into a source of venture capital.
The act, which President Obama signed in to law today, authorizes companies to sell shares via crowd funding.
Specifically, companies can sell up to $1 million worth of shares to just about any investor during a 12-month period, regardless of an investor’s financial resources.
This is a very significant change. Existing regulations limit such equity offerings to accredited investors.
The JOBS Act replaces these rules.
It allows any investor to participate in a private equity offering as long as they don’t commit more than $2,000 or 5% of their annual income or net worth, if either annual income or net worth is less than $100,000, to a single non-publicly traded company.
(Nothing in the bill bars them from participating in offerings for other companies, however.)
An investor merely has to attest that he understands the risks involved of investing in a start-up and the risks of illiquidity (strict restrictions are placed on the transfer of shares) and has read the investor education information.
Note that there is no requirement that the investor actually read the material, only that he give his word that he has.
Now that I’ve given you some background, read the next paragraph very carefully.
Companies seeking to raise less than $100,000 merely have to have their principal executive officer certify that the financial statements are correct.
Companies seeking to raise between $100,000 and $500,000 are required to have a public accountant review the financial statements.
Audited financial statements are not required unless the offering amount is above $500,000.
All companies are required to provide investors with the results of operations “not less than annually.”
I have no problems with a person funding a business he believes will be successful, if he fully understands the risks of the investment and has the financial risk tolerance to make the investment.
My concern is that the Internet opens up crowd funding to affinity, social networks and pure hype.
More importantly, it will play off of people’s greed—their desire to get in on the ground floor of the next Facebook (FB).
And just as there were people who spent way too much money on Mega Millions lottery tickets last week, there will be people who spend more they than should on crowd-funded investments.
Will crowd funding create some very successful companies that make a lot of money for their early investors? Possibly.
Will a far larger number of people lose money because of their crowd-funding-related investments? Yes. Most start up companies never make it to the IPO stage.
Participate in crowd funding if there is a business you believe in.
But only do so after you have read the prospectus and when you have money that you are financially and emotionally capable of losing.
About The Author - Charles Rotblut, CFA is the VP for American Association of Individual Investors Editor.
Charles is also the author of Better Good than Lucky. EconMatters author archive here
The views and opinions expressed herein are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of EconMatters.
Saturday, April 7, 2012
Be Wary of Crowd Funding Start-ups
Later this year, or early next year, you will have the chance to buy shares in small, growing companies through a process known as crowd funding.
If an offering seems interesting, tread carefully, do as much research as you can and do not commit any money you are not willing to lose.
Crowd funding is the process of raising money from a group of people. It is currently used for a variety of purposes, from charitable efforts to political campaigns.
Some websites, such as Prosper.com, allow businesses to access crowd funding to obtain loans.
Others, like RocketHub, allow organizations to raise money for a certain goal in exchange for rewards such as a music album or a book. (Crowd funding is also called crowd financing.)
The Jumpstart Our Business Startups Act (aka the JOBS Act) turns crowd funding into a source of venture capital.
The act, which President Obama signed in to law today, authorizes companies to sell shares via crowd funding.
Specifically, companies can sell up to $1 million worth of shares to just about any investor during a 12-month period, regardless of an investor’s financial resources.
This is a very significant change. Existing regulations limit such equity offerings to accredited investors.
To qualify as an accredited investor, an investor has to have individual (or joint) net worth in excess of $1 million, excluding the value of his primary residence, or a minimum annual income of $200,000 ($300,000 for a couple) for each of the past two years and a reasonable expectation of this year’s income matching or exceeding those levels. The idea is that affluent investors have the financial risk tolerance to participate in stock offerings for non-publicly traded companies.
The JOBS Act replaces these rules.
It allows any investor to participate in a private equity offering as long as they don’t commit more than $2,000 or 5% of their annual income or net worth, if either annual income or net worth is less than $100,000, to a single non-publicly traded company.
(Nothing in the bill bars them from participating in offerings for other companies, however.)
An investor merely has to attest that he understands the risks involved of investing in a start-up and the risks of illiquidity (strict restrictions are placed on the transfer of shares) and has read the investor education information.
Note that there is no requirement that the investor actually read the material, only that he give his word that he has.
Now that I’ve given you some background, read the next paragraph very carefully.
Companies seeking to raise less than $100,000 merely have to have their principal executive officer certify that the financial statements are correct.
Companies seeking to raise between $100,000 and $500,000 are required to have a public accountant review the financial statements.
Audited financial statements are not required unless the offering amount is above $500,000.
All companies are required to provide investors with the results of operations “not less than annually.”
In very simple terms, any investor can tie up his money in a risky start-up company that has no public market for its shares and that may not have had an independent accountant audit the financial statements.
This is a recipe for losing money.
I have no problems with a person funding a business he believes will be successful, if he fully understands the risks of the investment and has the financial risk tolerance to make the investment.
My concern is that the Internet opens up crowd funding to affinity, social networks and pure hype.
More importantly, it will play off of people’s greed—their desire to get in on the ground floor of the next Facebook (FB).
And just as there were people who spent way too much money on Mega Millions lottery tickets last week, there will be people who spend more they than should on crowd-funded investments.
Will crowd funding create some very successful companies that make a lot of money for their early investors? Possibly.
Will a far larger number of people lose money because of their crowd-funding-related investments? Yes. Most start up companies never make it to the IPO stage.
Participate in crowd funding if there is a business you believe in.
But only do so after you have read the prospectus and when you have money that you are financially and emotionally capable of losing.
About The Author - Charles Rotblut, CFA is the VP for American Association of Individual Investors Editor.
Charles is also the author of Better Good than Lucky. EconMatters author archive here
The views and opinions expressed herein are the author's own, and do not necessarily reflect those of EconMatters.
First Solar on the Forbes Global 2000 List
First Solar on the Forbes Global 2000 List
First Solar
Market Cap $12 B As of Mar. 2011
Follow (3)
At a Glance
- Industry: Electronics
- Country: United States
- CEO: Robert Gillette
- Employees: 6,100
- Sales: $2.56 B
Profile
First Solar, Inc. (First Solar) is engaged in the manufacture and sale of solar modules with an advanced thin film semiconductor technology, and it designs, constructs and sells photovoltaic (PV) solar power systems. It operates the business in two segments: components segment and systems segment. Components segment designs, manufactures and sells solar modules to solar project developers and system integrators. Systems segment provides PV solar power system for commercial systems, which includes project development, engineering, procurement and construction (EPC), operating and maintenance (O&M) services and, when required, project finance. In April 2009, First Solar acquired the solar power project development business of OptiSolar Inc. In January 2011, the Company and RayTracker, Inc. announced that First Solar, Inc. has acquired RayTracker, Inc.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)