That is how i understood it. I purchased some 2020 and 2021 bonds last week. Maybe they will do the same thing there, eventually but the nominal interest rate was 6.5 and 6.25, respectively real rate of return more like 10 percent).
Of course, right after doing so, Moodys did its downgrade - I thought that might impact the price but it did not.
How about that the days to cover measure is much bigger than reported and appreciated by "retail shorts"
Wow, AAPL_Eeyore. Do you ever volunteer anything? Or, do you see your "role" as the Don Rickles of this MB. Going back over a year, all I see are one line quips shooting others down but never starting a topic of your own. What a waste of bandwidth.
I agree about the aging nuclear plants being at a crossroads where investment/replacement will be neglected and force further decommissioning.
In the US, gas is more plentiful, but as pointed out in the article, coal is more flexible. Since it is the EPA and not the Congress which has declared war on coal plants, all it would take is a non-marxocrat in the WH to bring the US back to a more sensible "all of the above" energy policy where new coal plants and/or retrofits will ensure their continued use.
"With the increase in renewable energy, power producers also face a new challenge. In the past a main focus was offsetting fluctuations in consumption between day and night, workdays and weekends, and seasonal variations. Today, feed-in intermittency has added a new source of fluctuations that are at least the same magnitude as those from changes in consumption."
These demand and renewable energy feed-in fluctuations must be continuously balanced to provide electricity grid stability, which is putting pressure on the conventional power generation portfolio. Power generation from conventional plants has to be able to flexibly adjust to the residual load at any time (i.e., to compensate for the difference between consumption and fluctuating renewable energy). This is a challenge for grid operators, especially when high wind feed-ins in northern Germany force the “redispatching” of thermal units intraday, often leading to lower coal-based output in the north and a ramp up of capacity in the south to keep the system in balance.
The need for load adjustments by flexible power plants is particularly critical when an increase in electricity demand occurs at the same time as the feed-in from wind power plants dramatically decreases.
Many of the conventional power plants operating in Germany today were built in the 1980s and 1990s, before expansion targets for wind and photovoltaic plants had been adopted. In many plants, measures to allow greater flexibility have been implemented subsequently, so that power plants can meet increased requirements for market load adjustments. As a result, there are very few dedicated German baseload power plants that do not allow for flexible operation.
If you google this title: "The Flexibility of German Coal-Fired Power Plants Amid Increased Renewables"
You will come across a nice Dec 2014 article with the following excepts being representative:
"Despite the continued increase in renewable capacity, the role of fossil fuels for power generation in Germany will be more or less the same in 2023 as in 2013 (see Figure 5).
The fundamental reason is the complete phasing out of nuclear power capacity by the end of 2022. By 2034 the total capacity on the basis of renewables is expected to be approximately 173 GW, which is twice as much as the peak load in Germany.2 However, a conventional capacity of 82 GW will still be needed (compared to 100 GW in 2012) to cover the demand when the wind is not blowing and/or the sun is not shining.2 The required flexibility to meet the fluctuations is being fulfilled just as well by coal-fueled as by gas-fueled power plants. These plants are being made increasingly flexible, ensuring that they can continue to serve their important role in Germany’s electricity market.
In the regular configuration of two gas turbines and one steam turbine, the minimum load of a new gas-fired combined-cycle plant is typically around 60% of its installed capacity. An even lower minimum load is achievable by switching off one gas turbine; this, however, causes a substantial decrease in efficiency, and thus is rarely employed.
In contrast, a new coal-fired power plant has a lower minimum load capability of approximately 40%, with further potential to reduce this to 20–25%. The reason is that the output of the coal boiler is controlled via direct fuel combustion and not, as is the case with a gas combined-cycle power plant, via a heat recovery steam generator with an upstream gas turbine."
The fact is a company's shares, on any given day, are only worth what someone is willing to pay for them. I happen to think there are very few buyers (or sellers) of any kind any more, just machines programmed to create the illusion of buying and selling activity.
The lack of a "real" dividend is a cloud which will hang over BTU for a few years. For the 6 months, the share price of BTU seems very directly closely tied to oil (I suppose oil consumption is now a proxy for industrial activity which, in turn, is supposed to tell us what the demand for coal is).
In any case, I picked my point for buying recently and will keep buying a little more each month. I would feel better if the company were profitable, but I think it is a necessary evil for a few weaker players to be driven out of the market before things start looking up. This means a WLT and/or an ACI has to go bankrupt, which is what I think will ultimately happen in a few years if not sooner. In the meantime, now is when you start accumulating a little at a time.
Tune out the noise and go live your lives. This is not the place for a quick buck.
I agree with most of what you said, except re the Potato famine - this had far more to do with the size of farms being handed down - potatoes being one of the few crops an owner of a "micro farm" in Ireland could raise and feed his family (famines aside). And a potato blight. But, otherwise, they did not call it the "mini ice age" for nothing back in the 1700s....
And yet all of the carbon "sequestered" in fossil fuels was once in the air and removed by plants. Oh the horror
Considering that "GDP" itself includes government transfer payments, and manufacturing in the USA is down to a trickle (when you back out the manufacturing of hamburgers at McDonalds, etc), your reference to the deficit is fallacious and, as Dilobenj notes, overlooks the debt (which does not even count unfunded liabilities like Soc Sec, Medicare and Obamacaid)
Clearly, you are drinking the Obama Kool-Aid if you believe the government's employment statistics.
As Mr. Clifton, of the Gallup organization said:
"Right now, we're hearing much celebrating from the media, the White House and Wall Street about how unemployment is "down" to 5.6%. The cheerleading for this number is deafening. The media loves a comeback story, the White House wants to score political points and Wall Street would like you to stay in the market.
None of them will tell you this: If you, a family member or anyone is unemployed and has subsequently given up on finding a job -- if you are so hopelessly out of work that you've stopped looking over the past four weeks -- the Department of Labor doesn't count you as unemployed. That's right. While you are as unemployed as one can possibly be, and tragically may never find work again, you are not counted in the figure we see relentlessly in the news -- currently 5.6%. Right now, as many as 30 million Americans are either out of work or severely underemployed. Trust me, the vast majority of them aren't throwing parties to toast "falling" unemployment.
There's another reason why the official rate is misleading. Say you're an out-of-work engineer or healthcare worker or construction worker or retail manager: If you perform a minimum of one hour of work in a week and are paid at least $20 -- maybe someone pays you to mow their lawn -- you're not officially counted as unemployed in the much-reported 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
Yet another figure of importance that doesn't get much press: those working part time but wanting full-time work. If you have a degree in chemistry or math and are working 10 hours part time because it is all you can find -- in other words, you are severely underemployed -- the government doesn't count you in the 5.6%. Few Americans know this.
There's no other way to say this. The official unemployment rate, which cruelly overlooks the suffering of the long-term and often permanentl
His actual statement in the 2008 (not 2007) interview:
"So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
He was referring to coal generation plants, not "coal companies", per se. I see the bias against coal as being a way for Obama to engage in more of the Marxocrat "Solyndra" brand of crony capitalism. With the Fingerlicans now in charge of Congress, the latter is dead so far as "clean energy investments" are concerned.
Why Peabody is an attractive long term bet
Peabody Energy shares have fallen sharply over the past year due to the ongoing weakness in the coal market.
The stock has seen a rebound in recent trading sessions, but the stock is still down sharply for the year so far.
However, at current levels, Peabody shares look like an attractive long-term bet, especially given the demand outlook from countries like China and India."
Despite the bearish near-term outlook for coal demand, Peabody looks an attractive stock. This is because of the factors I have discussed above. The company is taking steps to bring its costs down in the existing tough environment. This coupled with the long-term demand outlook, especially from China and India, makes Peabody an attractive long-term bet."
I have slightly different data:
Shares Outstanding 271,446,000
Shares Short 53,766,047
I think it is still under 20 percent short, but just barely. While I don't expect a short squeeze, that does seem pretty high for a company likely to be the last domestic producer standing (other than CLD). Shorting ACI and long BTU might be a good pairs trade, but I really don't understand shorting the whole industry indiscriminately.
Thomson Reuters/Verus upgrades PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION from HOLD to BUY.
BY Investars Analyst Actions - public
— 11:05 AM ET 02/02/2015
On February 2, 2015 Thomson Reuters/Verus upgraded PEABODY ENERGY CORPORATION ( BTU
) from HOLD to BUY.
I think oil and NG prices (and coal) will recover, but you really need a 3-5 year time table for coal. It is a perfect time to start buying a little BTU at a time (averaging down if necessary), but expecting things to turn around in 3 months will get you into trouble unless, as I suspect, you are a swing trader with stops. Coal companies like WLT (which suspended its dividend entirely) are going to go BK before things ultimately pick back up.
If you want exposure to coal, CLD and BTU are good picks if and only if you have a long term time frame. I have not gone too far back in reading MB posts here, but my guess is there are very few folks posting here (other than shorts who a doing really well right now) with a long term focus/view. In any case, I have put in an initial position now and will look to add to it on further weakness.
I am moving on from the MB, though, as it seems to be mostly shorty and swing trading pumpers these days. GLTA