The dude on this board who was posting over and over again that there was huge MOCVD overcapacity appears to have been dead on.
At first glance I don't see anything wrong with this company. I personally don't tend to buy stocks of companies with net debt, but that is the situation of most companies and it is rarely a problem, certainly it shouldn't be for a company that is profitable like this one.
What has always concerned me about rare earths is that they tend to look attractive relative to current metals prices, but if some of the new deposits go into production there will be such a glut that prices could plummet.
Thus, the golden goose may lay a poison egg.
Just one of those nasty ironies when it comes to the minerals sector. It seems like 90% of the time the way the minerals markets work is that heads someone else wins and tails I lose.
That's why I'm pretty much out of the sector except my one great white hope, Sabina Gold and Silver.
If there's anything to complain about it would the that the public could complain that if you keep your withdrawals from your IRA under 44k then you become a freeloader off the public for the subsidy you get under Obamacare.
I will be such a freeloader and if someone makes that argument I will say they are absolutely right. The Obamacare subsidy is going to be a godsend for me until I reach age 65, but I will also realize that I will owe the American taxpayer a thank you for the subsidy I am going to get.
What you're talking about now bj is pretty much a different issue than you raised before.
The bottom line is this: If you are single and take out under 44k per year from your IRA then you will qualify for Obamacare subsidies and your health insurance cost is going to be pretty modest, on account of the subsidies you will get.
I just ran the Kaiser calculator. Assuming you are 60 years old and single and make 44k income then you will pay $4180 per year under Obamacare. If premiums go sky high in coming years the govt is on the hook for the overage, your premium will still be $4180.
Now suppose your income is 50k, and the only insurance you can find is some godawful expensive policy for 12k per year. Well then after paying your health care you only have 38k of income. In that case, why not cut your income down to 44k frigging dollars? That will cut your health care cost to about 4k, your income after health care will be 40k instead of 38k, and you will have 6k more left in your IRA.
What other alternatives are there? Well, maybe you pull 60k out of your IRA and your health insurance is going to cost you 12k. That leaves you 48k to pay the rest of your expenses besides health care. At that level of income I'm not shedding any tears over your plight. Sure it's not enough to make trips to Venice but it's not like there's a god-given right to globetrot.
Now there are of course also deductibles and copays and all that #$%$ that you also have to pay, so I haven't stated the full cost of your health care, just the insurance premiums. But ALL of us have to deal with those copays and other #$%$ so again I shed no tears for you.
And the other point is. When you rely on distributions from your IRA for your income YOU CHOOSE what your income is. You can pull out enough to just barely still be within the limit to qualify for Obamacare subsidies. Not many people get to decide what their income will be, which allows you to set it to maximize your ability to qualify for applicable government programs.
By the way: Please everyone make note of this. bjspokanimal would qualify for Obamacare if his income was under 44k. So he's not exactly living on poverty income. (in fact, if he was under the poverty line he would qualify for Medicaid!)
Medicaid provides health care for the poor and Obamacare will pay a big chunk of health care for the lower middle class who do not get their health care covered by their employer.
If you don't qualify for Obamacare then you are living on an upper middle class income or higher. Now we know if single you are making at least 44k. Some high priced places like San Francisco you can't live much better than a poverty level standard of living at that salary. But, dude, you're retired. You can move to Omaha Nebraska or Port Angeles Washington where the cost of living is dirt cheap. (I know the cost of living is low in Port Angeles because I own 3 city lots in there and I'd be lucky to find someone to take them off my hands for one dollar each.)
I am retired, age 60, and rely on what I pull out of my IRA to live on just like you do, and I find your claim that the system is unfair to make absolutely no sense.
By the way, I too am retired, between age 59 and 65, and live on what I pull out of my IRA. Obamacare will help me immensely on my health insurance costs until I reach Medicare age. My health insurance from my former employer was 10k per year of which the employer chipped in 2k, so I was paying 8k per year for health insurance. It was killing me. I have now signed up for Obamacare, a policy which is 8k per year, but I should only have to pay something like 2k of that. Even if I had to pay the full 8k I still wouldn't be any worse off than I was before.
But my situation may not be completely typical. My former employer is in California, and probably the reason the health insurance premiums are so high on the policy (Blue Cross Blue Shield) is because California's economy has been so badly screwed up by the Democrats. I now live in Washington State which isn't under the total control of left wing Democrats, moderate Democrats and Republicans hold some influence here as well, and that is perhaps why I can get a policy from Kaiser for 8k per year while a similar policy from Anthem BCBS for a Californian was 11k per year, and that's despite the fact that premiums in general have been going up both because of the ongoing inflation of health care costs as well as the additional jack up in premiums due to the new mandates of Obamacare.
If you're single, you can have income of something like 44k and still qualify for Obamacare subsidy. Is 44k not enough for you to live on?
I missed the conf call. At least I didn't have to suffer through Bruno's #$%$ presentation skills.
Hey, I don't care if he's not a good talker. It's a great business with a cheap stock.
In the long term the tech market will see growth. If the economy's bad it will be slow growth. KLIC dominates interconnect and that's not gonna change. So long-term there is every reason to believe KLIC will at least see average annual growth of about 5%. With net cash over half of their market cap, and in a normal quarter they are running enterprise value to earnings ratio of about 5, I think the odds are very low that this will not be an excellent investment over the long term.
Maybe. But I believe assy eqt market is sort of the late-stage segment of the semi eqt market. So maybe what we are seeing is residual effect of the last slump?
And they have WAAAAAAAAAAAY more cash than there is any need for unless there is some blockbuster acquisition they intend to make, and I would be wary of such an acquisition, the time to do that would have been when techs were dirt cheap a year or two ago.
Tessera reports huge losses yet everyone seems to be fine with that. Obviously, their financials are complex and I would have to dig a lot deeper before I understood this company well enough to decide whether it is a good investment opportunity or not.
In the meantime the company does intrigue me so I will try to start understanding it better. Maybe at some point buy some shares.