% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

ANGLO AM PLC ADR Message Board

Vaalie60 4048 posts  |  Last Activity: Sep 1, 2012 1:18 PM Member since: May 5, 1998
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Star: Question.

    by onewaytomars2 Aug 28, 2012 8:22 AM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Sep 1, 2012 1:18 PM Flag

    Book value is an accounting concept. It has little to do with market value, which is determined more by net income and cash flow streams. The liquidating value (or NAV, net asset value) is also relevent, as theoretically a liquidation action could be initiated at any time, either through internal management action, or through takeover by outsiders.

    For such action, there has to be an incentive, so RTK can generally be expected to sell at a discount to NAV. However, the discount does provide a cushion for buyers.

  • Credit Suisse

    We are updating our solar supply-and-demand model following earnings reports from most of the major solar companies.

    We note the following: 1) We continue to see an oversupplied market; 2) We expect pricing pressure to persist in the second half of 2012; 3) We believe restructuring of capacity and debt in China is key for improvement, and this is not happening yet; 4) We remain cautious on First Solar (ticker: FSLR)—recent run-up optimistic relative to our fundamental expectations; 5) We [see] lower component prices help developers that buy third-party panels—highlight MEMC Electronic Materials (WFR) positively, which should benefit in the fourth quarter.

  • Reply to

    BUT what IF the GOVT. takes TEF Over?

    by taffy123414 Jul 23, 2012 11:25 AM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jul 25, 2012 2:53 PM Flag

    Spain is not Argentina. There is about as much chance of the Spanish government taking over over TEF as there is of the US government taking over AT&T. 2 other reasons:

    1. 70% of TEF's business is outside of Spain
    2. The Spanish government could not afford it -- they are having enough trouble with their existing debt and the Europeans (Germans especially) are watching to wee what they do about it. A nationalization binge would create hysteria with the euro -- and the euros.

  • Anglo cracks whip in SA as Amplats CE steps down.

  • Reply to

    RSI looking very good on Rentech

    by ravidplz931 Jun 5, 2012 12:44 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jun 6, 2012 11:27 AM Flag

    RSI still below 50. MACD signal has not yet crossed over. May take another up day (i.e. tomorrow) to turn the trend to up.

  • Vaalie60 by Vaalie60 Jun 4, 2012 12:51 PM Flag

    . . . trending up.

    MACD on positive signal.

    Selling @ 7.5 times 2013 EPS and @ 50% of tangible book, today's low of 6.87 marks the bottom from here.

  • Reply to

    Excellent Read Long

    by zacharyapte21259 Feb 22, 2012 10:21 AM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Feb 22, 2012 10:31 AM Flag


  • Reply to

    it seems the party is over.....I will head

    by thebottomlime Dec 14, 2011 4:24 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jan 29, 2012 3:15 PM Flag

    You were joking, right?

  • Reply to

    Bottom yet?

    by opheliagoodreau556 Jan 17, 2012 12:20 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jan 17, 2012 1:19 PM Flag


  • Reply to

    Go Long Bottom

    by kristinmatthys364 Jan 12, 2012 10:47 AM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jan 12, 2012 12:12 PM Flag


  • Reply to

    First US gas to liquids plant

    by bobutne Sep 13, 2011 5:21 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jan 7, 2012 2:10 PM Flag

    PS: The title of the Slate article is "What the Frack?"

  • Reply to

    First US gas to liquids plant

    by bobutne Sep 13, 2011 5:21 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Jan 7, 2012 2:08 PM Flag

    <<<GTL may work for while in North America because natural gas prices are lower here than in the rest of the world. This is the only place SSL had any hope of producing GTL. Quatar [sic] will never produce more and Chevron rejected a GTL partnership with SSL for offshore Australian natural gas precisely because long term natural gas prices are higher in Europe and Asia than in North America - for now.

    As long as the price per BTU of natural gas is lower than the price per BTU of oil, it is obvious that we can get more economic output per unit of energy from natural gas than from oil. It is cheaper, more environmentally sound, and more sustainable than wasting energy to convert one form of energy into another.

    There are two ways to build a business: "selling" what you know how to produce, or identifying "needs" and trying to meet them. SSL is becoming a huckster.>>>

    Personally, I think the term "huckster" is a little strong. The only thing that is obvious is that capital costs for LNG are lower than for GTL, but Sasol is working to narrow the gap through using a one-step process for syngas production, more efficient catalysts, and by scaling up.

    I am not convinced that we will see any large scale adoption of compressed natural gas (CNG) as a transportation fuel, for instance. Thus, depending on the market, conversion of NG to diesel remains both technically and economically feasible. I am also not convinced we have seen the last of GTL expansions in Qatar, given the reserves of gas in Qatar's North Field. A piece in Wikipedia puts the reserves there at 14% of the world's reserves. (By the way, did you take into consideration Shell's 140 TBD Pearl GTL plant, which started production last year?)

    We may yet see new GTL plants in Uzbekistan, western Canada, and Louisiana. Or maybe not?

    Regarding Louisiana, a recent article in Slate calls into question the amount of reserves that may arise from shale gas drilling. A key requirement before undertaking the large capital costs required for GTL is the assurance of a long term supply of low cost gas. Whether Sasol can get that sort of commitment in Louisiana remains to be seen.

    (You can google the Slate article and references to Pearl. Yahoo, annoyingly, won't let me post links.)

  • Reply to

    Washington Times - J. Kuhner

    by dowjones1234 Nov 29, 2011 5:57 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Dec 24, 2011 11:01 AM Flag

    """vaalie you are a moron"""

    Yes. I used to vote Republican. Then I started to look at the facts. The Republicans said: "Cutting taxes creates jobs." But income tax rates were raised during the Clinton administration, and from year end 1992 to year end 2000, the US economy gained 23 million jobs. George W Bush cut income tax rates, and from year end 2000 to year end 2008 we gained only 2 million jobs. Then we lost 5 million jobs in 2009, due to the Bush recession, for a net loss of 3 million jobs, attributable to the Bush administration. After the stimulus program was put in place, job growth resumed in 2010, slower than we would like, but better than nothing.

    Just the facts, man!

    (To see the numbers for yourself, go to )

  • Reply to

    Washington Times - J. Kuhner

    by dowjones1234 Nov 29, 2011 5:57 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Dec 21, 2011 8:58 PM Flag

    Well, I don't know who the ignorant enviro wackos are that you talk about,but I'm not one of them, having worked for one of the major integrated oil companies for 30 years before retiring.

    """vetoed the keystone pipeline"""
    No, they just delayed it. Yes, a political decision. Wrong, in my opinion, but it will get built eventually. It just makes too sense. We import too much oil from places like Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Nigeria, and we need to keep supplying our Gulf Coast refineries. But funny how Republicans also make stupid political decisions, based purely on ideology -- witness the current mess in Congress -- PS: only 11% of the people approve of the current congress, which has a majority of Republicans in the house and has enough Republicans to block almost anything in the senate. Are you among the 11%?

    """oil will go to china anyway"""
    Yes, oil is an international commodity and the Canadians don't care where they sell it. Too bad we don't invade Canada and take them over. Or do you think we should?

    """epic deficit spending"""
    Yes, when GWB took over, we had a budget surplus. Then we got into: (A) 2 unnecessary 10-year wars and (B) tax cuts AT THE SAME TIME. Under the Republicans, we got (C) an unfunded Medicare prescription bill. And (D) Republican economic policies led to the greatest recession in modern times. People got laid off -- down goes tax revenue and up goes the the deficit. Yes, Obama tried a stimulus program that probably saved us from an outright depression, but two thirds of the current deficit is the result of policies initiated under George W Bush!

    """government regulation"""
    The banks and the bankers were reckless and disgusting. Excessive leverage, bad loans, and a "screw the consumer" attitude took the US economy over the cliff. Regulation is the only way to minimize the chances of this happening again.

    """eparules [sic] ever more stringent based on questionable science"""
    OK. So you don't think that power plant emissions such as arsenic, mercury, dioxins, formaldehyde, and acid gases are toxic to humans and detrimental to the environment?

    """obama care"""
    Before "obama care", the US was the only one of 11 industrialized countries without universal healthcare. That source of embarrassment has now been corrected. But obamacare does not go far enough. It just puts some new requirements on the existing inefficient private insurance system. We should have converted to a single payer system, with lower overhead costs and no conflict between the profit motive and paying claims.

    """horrible business enviroment"""
    Thank you, George W Bush.

    """obama is a horrible leader who appeals to the worst in human nature"""
    This is not a universally held sentiment. Did you forget that Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize?

    """he is a dangerous man"""
    But more dangerous than Romney or Gingrich? If either of them gets elected,from the way they talk, we'll be at war with Iran, a country with 2 1/2 times the population of Iraq. (And you know how Iraq turned out, along with Vietnam and Afghanistan -- we just never learn!)

  • Reply to

    The Truth of Math!

    by dowjones1234 Dec 14, 2011 5:19 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Dec 20, 2011 2:54 PM Flag

    """However, he [Bush] did see the coming of the housing bubble and tried several times to get the Democratic lead House and Senate to get a handle on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before it was too late."""

    Are you really serious? You really believe that? I pity you.

    The fact is that GWB often talked about the "ownership society", and encouraged everyone to go out and buy a house.

    The fact is that Fannie and Freddie were rather late to the party. They only got into subprime mortgages in 2005 and 2006, in an effort to recapture market share from Wall Street, the likes of Lehman Brothers, Bear Stearns (remember them?), Merrill Lynch, and Goldman Sachs.

    The housing bubble got started much earlier, thanks to Republican deregulation policies and Republican economic policies. When job growth responded rather anemically to GWB's 3 tax cuts, Alan Greenspan came to the rescue, holding Fed Funds rates below inflation for 3 years, starting in 2003. Speculators in Florida, Las Vegas,and other places took this free money to go buy empty and unneeded houses. Mortgage brokers, paid on commissions, encouraged people to lie on mortgage applications and sold the loans to Wall Street (Fannie and Freddie were out of the picture at this time). Greenspan had the the power to regulate subprime mortgages, but chose not to, saying "the market would take care of it." He later admitted that he was wrong!

    Please try to get your facts straight next time. I encourage you to read Joe Nocera's recent article in today's NYTimes (Go to and click on 'Opinion'.)

  • Reply to

    Washington Times - J. Kuhner

    by dowjones1234 Nov 29, 2011 5:57 PM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Dec 20, 2011 2:23 PM Flag

    What an insane rant! I take pity on the ignorant who actually believe that kind of stuff. And on anyone who would actually spend money to buy a rag like the Washington Times!

  • Reply to

    Dividend coverage up to how much?

    by profitsandbalancesheet Dec 2, 2011 9:00 AM
    Vaalie60 Vaalie60 Dec 14, 2011 2:31 PM Flag

    Yes, you are wrong. REIT's must pay a minimum of 90% of taxable income, which is much less than FFO (for equity REIT's), by the amount of the depreciation and some other cash flow adjustments.

3.9350.000(0.00%)Nov 6 3:59 PMEST