Financial System Reform: Is A Necessary Convergence Finally Occurring? [View article]
Seeking Truth - - -
I am amazed that I keep coming across posts in various places that proclaim there is nothing wrong with the "private enterprise" banking system, all problems are due to government interference. We are going to post a few of these as guest articles on our web site so our readers can get a "balanced view". I may have to edit the word selection in the comments.
G.E.'s Strategies Let Company Avoid Taxes Altogether [View article]
Mark - - -
To add to your excellent commentary you could have included some references to the 2010 GE Annual Report. In that obtuse document the company goes through several pages of arcane chatter, replete with a myriad of numbers, to make it sound as if they are paying taxes. You almost need a tax accountant to read the report which carefully hides the statements about tax benefits between misleading statements about high taxes on certain portions of the corporation's businesses.
At one point early in the annual report section on taxes, the apparently misleading statement is made that income taxes were paid at a 7.4% effective rate on operational income. If that is accurate (I must presume no inaccurate statements appear in an annual report), does that mean that GE is receiving income tax credits from the U.S. and paying income taxes to foreign governments? That would be another form of U.S. taxpayer payments to other parts of the world.
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
I am not up to date on Pickens' activities. I recall that he extended his time lines earlier in the year as oil fell to $40. I don't know if any plans have been changed since then.
I do not know if Pickens has any relationship to the Shenyang project in Texas.
On Nov 19 11:47 AM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> I'm sure that most of you have heard of the "Pickens plan." (www.pickensplan.org) > which is based on large scale wind power generation. He has done > the home work if you want to look at his site. John: Greetings. Do > you know if this project is in conjunction with the Pickens project > or a competitor? In any event the obstacles are great and unless > oil goes above $120 PBL it's on shaky ground. As noted by others > here there are many other options available and fossil fuels for > transport aren't going away any time soon.
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
Commenters - - -
I am pleased to benefit from the discussion of so many knowledgeable people. One topic that no one has discussed is the use of storage technology to capture peak production from wind. Storage can be mechanical, hydro head, thermal, capacitive or chemical. There may be uses for variable generation systems other than direct connection to the grid.
I agree with commenters that nuclear power should have an increased share of grid attached generation, but my impression is that its higher cost will probably keep it from a dominant position. However, combustion based generation costs are missing externalities which make the true costs there higher than the cost recognized today.
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
Dave - - -
If I use your effective power of 200 MW and a 20 year life, I get the generation cost of power at about $0.043 per kwh for an average of 24 hours a day of operation and $0.086 per kwh if the average is only 12 hours a day. It doesn't seem that these numbers would require a permanent government subsidy. If you are knowledgeable in this area your comment on this would be appreciated.
On Nov 18 06:13 PM Davewmart wrote:
> Well done Mr Lounsbury! This must be just about the first article > on wind power that I have read that has got it right on how many > homes a given installation would power, as you have allowed for the > wind not blowing all the time. > It's worth pointing out though that the costs of wind without subsidy > are very large, as the 600MW installation for $1.5bn is going to > produce on average maybe 200MW. That's around $7.5bn/GW, and on top > of that when demand peaks in the summer wind power is at it's lowest. > > Wind power is all about Government subsidy, rather than an economic > business.
General Electric's Impressive Entry into the Grid Based Energy Storage Business [View article]
Dirk and John - - -
If I use the numbers in the article, I think the government subsidy is secondary in the GE decision.
John wrote: "..General Electric (GE) joined the fray when it announced plans to build a $100 million plant for batteries.." and " GE's annual revenue from battery sales should be on the order of $400 million."
If profit margins are on the order of 10-20%, the payback of the $100 million investment is 16 - 30 months. If your numbers are valid, John, this is an investment that any manufacturer would die for.
10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2009: End of Q1 Performance Update [View article]
Tom - - -
Thanks for setting up and tracking this portfolio. It is useful for those of us still trying to figure out how to best invest in the alternative energy sector.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: What It Means for Clean Energy Stocks [View article]
Tom - - -
Thanks for continuing your yeoman work on alternative energy production and storage news.
I was intersted that you say you have found no public companies focussed on thermal storage from solar energy. It seems to me that a good opportunity is being missed. Are there any privately capitalized efforts in this area?
I agree with your skepticism. Today we had both stocks and treasuries rallying. This is not to be expected if the rally is to have legs. I expect the most likely outcome is a rally to 20-22% max before everything starts fadind away again. If theS&P 500 moves up through the 825-830 region, I will re-evaluate.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Should we start looking at whether or not we might be allowing some drug companies to become "too big to fail"?
Economies of scale are good to a point, but when these "economies" freeze out competition, the resulting behemoths can become anchors on the economy because lack of competition allows them to become obese and prone to manipulation by the few for their own benefit.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Prudent Man - - -
Good point. I believe that during the TARP "disbursement" phase, all executive salaries should have been capped at some nominal level, say $300,000 per year max per individual, and some limit on the total for all executives within each company. There could be a formula for resurrection of higher compensation during the "repayment" phase. This applies incentives for "rehabilitation" as well as inflicting some level of pain on the perpetrators.
Some history: Lee Iacoca worked for $1 a year during the Chrysler rehab project. A cut to $300,000 (or less) allows the fat cats to still make enough to pay the mortgage on their mansions and second homes and to buy groceries and personal necessities. Tough if they have to temporarily give up their domestic servants, lurxury vacations and third and fourth status-mobiles. If they don't want to work for $300,000 per year they can leave. There are plenty of qualified (maybe more qualified) people in the finance world who would work for that and for a better future.
On Nov 17 08:14 AM PrudentMan, CFA wrote:
> In my fifty years of professional investment experience, my intuition > is that governments should be minimal and usually are part of the > problem instead of the solution. It is obvious in this "crisis", > which is actually not as serious as the economic situation of the > seventies when the people of Kansas had to bail out New York City, > calls for less government intrusion rather than more. > > When people are told that any government agency is going to solve > their problems those people have a lack of a sense of reality. In > the case of derivatives and leverage the government could have easily > ameliorated the risks by raising rates and Congress should have given > the SEC the tools they need though I believe they already have those > tools but, for political reasons, failed to take away the punch bowl. > After all, the member of the House of Representatives run for reelection > every two years and they like bull markets and never ever want to > decrease the money supply. > > If the Administration would have announced in 2007 that the Free > Market would have to clean up any messes it got itself into the markets > would have corrected accordingly and quickly. Now everyone who made > a stupid, greedy or both mistake is waiting for some government organization > to bail them out. The line continues to lengthen and the G-20, beings > a political organization, is clueless as to the ability of markets > to correct their own mistakes.
Financial System Reform: Is A Necessary Convergence Finally Occurring? [View article]
I am amazed that I keep coming across posts in various places that proclaim there is nothing wrong with the "private enterprise" banking system, all problems are due to government interference. We are going to post a few of these as guest articles on our web site so our readers can get a "balanced view". I may have to edit the word selection in the comments.
G.E.'s Strategies Let Company Avoid Taxes Altogether [View article]
To add to your excellent commentary you could have included some references to the 2010 GE Annual Report. In that obtuse document the company goes through several pages of arcane chatter, replete with a myriad of numbers, to make it sound as if they are paying taxes. You almost need a tax accountant to read the report which carefully hides the statements about tax benefits between misleading statements about high taxes on certain portions of the corporation's businesses.
At one point early in the annual report section on taxes, the apparently misleading statement is made that income taxes were paid at a 7.4% effective rate on operational income. If that is accurate (I must presume no inaccurate statements appear in an annual report), does that mean that GE is receiving income tax credits from the U.S. and paying income taxes to foreign governments? That would be another form of U.S. taxpayer payments to other parts of the world.
Some of the GE annual report is quoted at GEI News Blog: econintersect.com/b2ev...
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
I do not know if Pickens has any relationship to the Shenyang project in Texas.
On Nov 19 11:47 AM robert.b.ferguson wrote:
> I'm sure that most of you have heard of the "Pickens plan." (www.pickensplan.org)
> which is based on large scale wind power generation. He has done
> the home work if you want to look at his site. John: Greetings. Do
> you know if this project is in conjunction with the Pickens project
> or a competitor? In any event the obstacles are great and unless
> oil goes above $120 PBL it's on shaky ground. As noted by others
> here there are many other options available and fossil fuels for
> transport aren't going away any time soon.
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
I am pleased to benefit from the discussion of so many knowledgeable people. One topic that no one has discussed is the use of storage technology to capture peak production from wind. Storage can be mechanical, hydro head, thermal, capacitive or chemical. There may be uses for variable generation systems other than direct connection to the grid.
I agree with commenters that nuclear power should have an increased share of grid attached generation, but my impression is that its higher cost will probably keep it from a dominant position. However, combustion based generation costs are missing externalities which make the true costs there higher than the cost recognized today.
Chinese Wind Power Plant Coming to U.S. Soil [View article]
If I use your effective power of 200 MW and a 20 year life, I get the generation cost of power at about $0.043 per kwh for an average of 24 hours a day of operation and $0.086 per kwh if the average is only 12 hours a day. It doesn't seem that these numbers would require a permanent government subsidy. If you are knowledgeable in this area your comment on this would be appreciated.
On Nov 18 06:13 PM Davewmart wrote:
> Well done Mr Lounsbury! This must be just about the first article
> on wind power that I have read that has got it right on how many
> homes a given installation would power, as you have allowed for the
> wind not blowing all the time.
> It's worth pointing out though that the costs of wind without subsidy
> are very large, as the 600MW installation for $1.5bn is going to
> produce on average maybe 200MW. That's around $7.5bn/GW, and on top
> of that when demand peaks in the summer wind power is at it's lowest.
>
> Wind power is all about Government subsidy, rather than an economic
> business.
General Electric's Impressive Entry into the Grid Based Energy Storage Business [View article]
If I use the numbers in the article, I think the government subsidy is secondary in the GE decision.
John wrote: "..General Electric (GE) joined the fray when it announced plans to build a $100 million plant for batteries.."
and
" GE's annual revenue from battery sales should be on the order of $400 million."
If profit margins are on the order of 10-20%, the payback of the $100 million investment is 16 - 30 months. If your numbers are valid, John, this is an investment that any manufacturer would die for.
10 Clean Energy Stocks for 2009: End of Q1 Performance Update [View article]
Thanks for setting up and tracking this portfolio. It is useful for those of us still trying to figure out how to best invest in the alternative energy sector.
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: What It Means for Clean Energy Stocks [View article]
Thanks for continuing your yeoman work on alternative energy production and storage news.
I was intersted that you say you have found no public companies focussed on thermal storage from solar energy. It seems to me that a good opportunity is being missed. Are there any privately capitalized efforts in this area?
Thursday Market Wrap-Up [View article]
I agree with your skepticism. Today we had both stocks and treasuries rallying. This is not to be expected if the rally is to have legs. I expect the most likely outcome is a rally to 20-22% max before everything starts fadind away again. If theS&P 500 moves up through the 825-830 region, I will re-evaluate.
Five Predictions for This Market [View article]
Nice comment. But I have to ask: Have you factored in seasonality factors in making your price projections?
Five Predictions for This Market [View article]
You wrote: "Your left-winger, government reliant friends were the ones applying for bad ARM's they could not afford."
Do you have information about the political demographics of fraudulent mortgage applications?
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Economies of scale are good to a point, but when these "economies" freeze out competition, the resulting behemoths can become anchors on the economy because lack of competition allows them to become obese and prone to manipulation by the few for their own benefit.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Actually, the unemployed will receive "rebates" of taxes they didn't pay. Some call it temporary wellfare.
Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
Good point. I believe that during the TARP "disbursement" phase, all executive salaries should have been capped at some nominal level, say $300,000 per year max per individual, and some limit on the total for all executives within each company. There could be a formula for resurrection of higher compensation during the "repayment" phase. This applies incentives for "rehabilitation" as well as inflicting some level of pain on the perpetrators.
Some history: Lee Iacoca worked for $1 a year during the Chrysler rehab project. A cut to $300,000 (or less) allows the fat cats to still make enough to pay the mortgage on their mansions and second homes and to buy groceries and personal necessities. Tough if they have to temporarily give up their domestic servants, lurxury vacations and third and fourth status-mobiles. If they don't want to work for $300,000 per year they can leave. There are plenty of qualified (maybe more qualified) people in the finance world who would work for that and for a better future.
On Nov 17 08:14 AM PrudentMan, CFA wrote:
> In my fifty years of professional investment experience, my intuition
> is that governments should be minimal and usually are part of the
> problem instead of the solution. It is obvious in this "crisis",
> which is actually not as serious as the economic situation of the
> seventies when the people of Kansas had to bail out New York City,
> calls for less government intrusion rather than more.
>
> When people are told that any government agency is going to solve
> their problems those people have a lack of a sense of reality. In
> the case of derivatives and leverage the government could have easily
> ameliorated the risks by raising rates and Congress should have given
> the SEC the tools they need though I believe they already have those
> tools but, for political reasons, failed to take away the punch bowl.
> After all, the member of the House of Representatives run for reelection
> every two years and they like bull markets and never ever want to
> decrease the money supply.
>
> If the Administration would have announced in 2007 that the Free
> Market would have to clean up any messes it got itself into the markets
> would have corrected accordingly and quickly. Now everyone who made
> a stupid, greedy or both mistake is waiting for some government organization
> to bail them out. The line continues to lengthen and the G-20, beings
> a political organization, is clueless as to the ability of markets
> to correct their own mistakes.