I'll add one more comment, not directed at you arthur, but for those "liberals" who think solar energy and electric cars are such a great idea. How do they justify taxing a janitor to pay for the hobby cars of Hollywood millionaires? How do they justify lining the pockets of a billionaire like Elon Musk using taxpayer money? Money collected from our police, teachers and hospital workers, our farmers, electricians and yard workers? How do they justify raising the electric bill of the single mother or the retired senior to make Solar City keep from going bankrupt? Or Tesla? Do they think that is "liberal?" Really? Are they really that stupid?
On Solar City, it's a boondoggle. Solar energy costs 14 times natural gas generated electricity. Taxpayer funding of solar is 7.5 times the cost of the energy produced over natural gas. The consumer picks up the rest of the 14X when paying the electric bill. Fortunately it is a tiny part of our energy usage, but to whatever extent solar is used to produce electricity it raises our taxes and our electric bill. We have, thanks to fracking, an abundant supply of natural gas. The intelligent solution is to use it ! Don't waste a dime on solar. It is an ignorant, costly solution to our energy needs and would not even exist except for government support and taxation.
I am a retired professional, degreed computer nerd.. My father was a degreed mechanical engineer who worked for NASA among other endeavors. I had a fantastic upbringing and education in engineering, electronics and programming. Just incredible. I can tell you with full authority that the electric car is an idiot idea.
Solar is an even bigger boondoggle. Solar energy costs 14 times what a natural gas power plant costs. The taxpayer subsidies on solar alone are 7.5 times more than a natural gas power plant costs, and the electric power consumer picks up the rest of the tab. Solar is a joke. It will never be competitive with natural gas, coal or nuclear.
What you miss is that the powerplant is usually run by an internal combustion engine (ICE). Whether a gas turbine or coal steam plant, that is internal combustion. In addition to the internal combustion engine also found in a car (or nuclear fueled source) the electrical system ADDS many layers of energy loss. So many you would have to have astronomical savings on energy losses to ever come close to the efficiency of gasoline to engine to wheels. There is no "grid loss" (generator, transformers and wire resistance) in a gasoline car. There is also no AC/DC conversion loss, no charge/discharge loss in the battery and no electric motor loss. Those losses are so huge you have to burn more than twice the fuel at the powerplant to equal the same accomplishment as a gasoline car.
I have no Tesla stock. However, as an American taxpayer I am forced to be an investor in their compnay. So, I feel I should have a voice in their business.
Tesla has never made a profit. According to the LA Times and National Review, $30,000 of the price of the $100,000 Tesla is taxpayer subsidies. The cheaper one will have similar subsidies. Elon Musk has admitted he'd have to close the doors if he did not receive the government subsides. Even with those lavish subsidies, his company cannot make a profit.
Fundamental laws of physics and engineering principles make the electric car inefficient. Like a gasoline car, the engine at the power plant that runs the generator has friction losses. Those two losses of energy are about equal. On top of those loss, the electric cars adds several other layers of energy loss..
The generator at the power plant has losses. The transformer that raises the voltage into the long-distant lines loses energy. The wires have resistance losses. Several transformers that bring the voltage back down for the house each introduce energy losses. After the energy meets the plug, we still have losses: The conversion from AC to DC to charge the battery, energy going into the battery is not all stored, not all the energy stored in a battery is used. It's lost on discharge. Even when the batteries sit, they lose energy. The electric motor in the car has friction losses.
It is grossly unfair for the average worker to subsidize the hobby cars of rich Hollywood millionaires. Tesla is also a mockery of science and engineering. It is an example of failed government "science," just like solar energy and the "food pyramid." Tell Musk to get out of our back pockets and go back to making money in some legitimate manner. Tesla is nothing but a fraud.
All the electric car energy losses cannot be overcome. We have no technology to do that and never will.
Target was just raised. It's still below its current price, but not by a whole lot. I suspect we'll see a couple of price target raises. I don't pay too much attention to those, though. Statistics show that they are generally off by 15% up or down.
I think BREXIT is way over-hyped. What is the market down since BREXIT? 3.6%, right? Big deal. Wasn't it due a correction, anyway, with earnings so low? I'm afraid it might take another dip on 2Q earnings as they come in next week, anyway.
Basically, the S&P 500 is back where it was only 41 days ago saving two bucks, hardly a big drop at all.
BREXIT for many investors was just an excuse to get out before earnings. The only reason stocks are prices as high as they are is the low interest rates.
The reason the stock market has been in a flat saw tooth pattern the past two years goes way beyond BREXIT. Take a look at the lackluster economic growth in Europe and the US and you will see the reason... growing socialism, government regulation of businesses, and government interference in markets. China's government is 30% smaller than ours. South Korea's and Australia's are smaller, as well. They are enjoying nice growth. It is the socialist regimes of Europe and our foray into a mixed socialist economy with high taxes, large government outlays, and government meddling in energy, banking, healthcare and monetary policy that is the heart of the global problem. BREXIT is a small symptom.
When other people are scared and overreact is the time to buy. This presents a decent buying opportunity with the best-run airline. LUV has a forward PE of only around 8 or 9. Their fuel hedging strategy should pay off next year when fuel prices go up, giving them a bit of a competitive edge. LUV thinks long-term, and keeps enough cash around to handle problems.
It's a good buy. I would not be depending too much on price appreciation for awhile. They will do good to pay their dividend without negative cash flow.
Yep, every competitor over there is going to have to deal with this equally. Baidu as the largest has the economies of scale to deal with this issue most efficiently. So, I agree it will have no effect on their market share or their relative cost of operations.
I felt like the statements made today from Baidu were very responsible. The Chinese government acted responsibly, as well, to regulate quacks advertising on the internet. It looks as if they are putting the blame on the phony healthcare sellers and not on Baidu. That is the proper way to regulate false advertising. The guidance does not seem to be that bad, and I agree with management that over the long haul it makes Baidu a better company. It also makes the Chinese people safer. Quack remedies have a long history in China. This is simply a maturing of their thinking on that subject, with a turn towards proper science and responsibility. While I'll never agree with centrally controlled government, they did the right thing. Baidu has responded appropriately.
We are losing some excellent pilots to retirement. I hope they let some of them stay a little longer. I know one who would love to fly a couple of extra years. He gets a sad face when he thinks about being retired in a couple of years.
I like LUV, but never trusted Cramer since he was hawking Bear Stearns right before it collapsed. He also was bullish on dot-com stocks right before the bubble burst.
You should read Martin Zweig's commentary in the last issue of Benjamin Graham's book, "Intelligent Investor." It's online for free. I think Graham's last issue was in the 1970's, but Zweig's commentary was in the mid 2000's before he passed away. It's a fantastic book, and Zweig's commentary chapters in it are just excellent. Zweig thoroughly trashes Cramer in it. Rips him apart on his lust for dot-com stocks right before they melted.
I read Jim Cramer's book, too. It's not that bad and I got one good idea from it. Instead of buying individual bonds, I buy bond mutual funds and turn the reinvest option on, as he suggested. It saves me a lot of time and effort that is really not necessary or all that lucrative for the bond portion of my portfolio, and it allows me to focus on stock analysis. Other than that, I would not pay much attention to him. He doesn't even follow his own advice on his daily show. He's been wrong more times than he's been right. Had you listened to him while dot-com stocks were tremendously overvalued or right before the last crash when he was touting now bankrupt companies, you would have lost a whole lot of money. He's the Barney Frank of investing. Watch him, but watch your wallet more closely.
That said, I like what he's saying about LUV, but, seriously, he's a nimrod.
Read that book by Graham with Zweig's commentary in it. Also, I would recommend Peter Lynch's "One Up on Wall Street" and a book entitled "How to Buy Stocks," often used as a textbook in finance courses. Those three books are the best for investment advice. A note about Lynch--he's accredited for that "buy what you know" statement, but that is not what he says at all. It's a starting point and has little to do with his investment philosoply or techniques.