Wed, Apr 16, 2014, 5:53 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

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

Assured Guaranty Ltd. Message Board

guest_message 59 posts  |  Last Activity: Dec 17, 2013 8:44 AM Member since: Dec 29, 2010
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • guest_message guest_message Dec 17, 2013 8:44 AM Flag

    My personal view is that it should be called A.S.S.; an acronym for "Abominable Stool Sample", according to Ms. Pelosi's statement that we "...have to pass it to see what's in it."

  • Reply to

    Crash

    by valenceluck Feb 26, 2013 9:51 AM
    guest_message guest_message Mar 15, 2013 3:48 PM Flag

    The way the temperature goes up, sooner or later it has to come down....

    Maybe you can invest in a thermometer to help you buy and sell stocks.

  • Reply to

    VOTE NO ON PROXY STATEMENT

    by salzile Dec 27, 2012 7:47 PM
    guest_message guest_message Jan 3, 2013 1:56 PM Flag

    To your point, if they are selling the shares below NAV and it increases the dividend, it had better increase it by enough to make up for the loss in the NAV due to dilution (return on invested capital as a result of holding the shares); if it does increase the dividend, presumably it would invite more shareholders, raising the market price of the stock and making up for the dilutive effects of selling the new shares lower than NAV. More moving parts to that scenario, however. It would be nice to have some disclosure at the meeting as to what sectors/scenarios they might find attractive, rather than the age-old description of "...to invest in enterprises of great promise, but for no one to know what it is."

  • Reply to

    A Republican Extinction Level Event (ELE)

    by markp1950 Nov 14, 2012 6:51 PM
    guest_message guest_message Nov 15, 2012 10:21 AM Flag

    And, with this administration's policies: taxing more, far more regulations, new ones slapped on over old ones; simply a layering of stupidity, will those companies that create wealth simply move elsewhere? Capital has the ability to move more freely anywhere in the world than it has in the past.

    A strident belief that the U.S. government with the policies of Obama can either force or entice industry to locate itself in this country while that government INSISTS on central control and increasing regulation both to determine which way that industry will grow while simultaneously taking a larger share away from that company to fund that government for all the things it has promised voters and will continue to promise is a fantasy belief. You don't have to hypothesize this...just sit back and watch it happen. The majority has voted for this train to leave the station, and THAT'S what's going to happen. We'll revisit this in another year or two after we've had a couple of "Black Swan" events, and see how well Mr. Obama's policies of increasing taxes, increasing regulations, making huge taxpayer investments in "green" but "not-ready-for-primetime" energy production, while he simultaneously pushes conventional energy prices higher to "nudge" the population to accept these far-more-costly energy sources that will drive up food and transportation costs as a watershed, and while Obamacare destroys the Medical profession will all contribute to make the middle class far more better off during a huge recession than a raging, freer, economic platform where all viable businesses are making money hand-over-fist and doctors have the ability to make choices for their patients that are not hemmed in by more Obama-central-government micromanagement with it's central theme of "social justice", but with Obama and Valerie Jarrett as the arbiters of exactly what that means and to whom it is dispensed.

    Sorry, Dude. NO SALE here. But, you must be happy that so many people had snakes that needed lubrication; so much so that they were willing to buy the largest commodity that Obama had in abundance and managed to sell to a majority of the voting public for his first and second terms.

    Personally, I'll continue to vote against his program in every election where I can exercise that right, and I am in the middle class, currently falling from that status in no small part due to the policies of currency debasement and debt addition that the Obama administration favors and calls "a long-term problem" (he said it himself on "Letterman" where he also told his pal "David" that he didn't know exactly what the debt was, even though it had recently caused the U.S. creditworthiness to be downgraded for the first time in my lifetime).

  • Reply to

    Japan's Energy Alternatives

    by crashlander35 Oct 6, 2012 10:14 AM
    guest_message guest_message Oct 12, 2012 11:38 AM Flag

    Yes. Also, I have family members (Ph.d Nuclear Chemistry) who spent their working careers as research scientists, and I have solicited their opinion on this situation many times. The predominant failure of the Fukishima plant was human design. The tsunami barrier was too low, and the diesel generators were in the basement. Simple. That design of the backup system was the proximate and main cause of failure. The radiation leakage was a byproduct of old, poorly-considered design and human error; on the other hand, the plant performed rather well for nearly 40 years.

    The design and implementation of that plant was done using 1960's technology (plant was built in mid-70's, so design was almost certainly completed in late 60's), completely excluding the plant's integration with modern-day, inexpensive digital computers in design and maintenance. I'm sure they had upgrades, but it's NO WHERE near the same as designing it using today's technology. It's like the difference between a horse-and-buggy and a space vehicle.

    Good luck to France on leaving the industry. They are net sellers of electricity to the rest of Europe. Let's see them make a go of it with solar and wind. If Germany and France do this, it gives large-scale businesses another reason to locate to other areas of the globe, leaving less jobs and less income to those countries, and more problems for the idiot European politicians and the moronic citizens who vote for them. They will be begging Russia for nat gas and oil in the winter like many of the other European countries. I suppose they can sell campfire and teepee living to many of their citizens who hadn't really considered living that way when it came to voting, but may have to consider that way in reality once their ill-fated policies bear some rather sour fruit.

  • guest_message guest_message Oct 20, 2011 11:27 PM Flag

    Yes...and you can add current gubmint garbage such as this

    http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/car-company-us-loan-builds-cars-finland/story?id=14770875

    to the pile.

    Along with the Solyndra and Sunpower deals.

    Of course, the last administration had its' own "little" deals. The cronyism is REALLY annoying.

  • guest_message guest_message Oct 20, 2011 8:55 PM Flag

    T i r e s o m e.

    More than enough blame to cover all players in Washington.

    If it's your belief that one party or the other party in Washington has a complete pass, and can NEVER do anything wrong, is pure as the driven snow, well....

    Bush spent like a drunken sailor. Obama is spending like a crack addict; and, he's raising more than any other single candidate right now from Wall Street.

  • Reply to

    Done with the market

    by flfkfggjgjgj Sep 21, 2011 10:42 PM
    guest_message guest_message Sep 22, 2011 1:48 AM Flag

    The wars WERE a drain on finances. More than a drain. But two (or more) wrongs don't make a right. Neither does pointing to bad behavior or policy as an excuse for more bad behavior or bad policy.

    This guy spent a couple of weeks on the economy (relatively speaking), dusted off his hands as if "that takes care of that" then spent a year-and-a-half on the deeply flawed, fetid legislation known as Obamacare; and, he actually farmed that out to Harry and Nancy, making appearances here and there for show. His geopolitical policy seems extremely naive. Now, he is vaguely beginning to understand how bad this economic upheaval has been. He should have spent ALL of his time on it. That's the mark of a leader and a statesman; understanding the magnitude of a problem, putting your ideological views and promises on hold, and solving that problem. Had he done that, his poll numbers would probably be in the 70th percentile by now at least. He'd certainly have made me a believer in him as a true leader.

    What if Roosevelt had acknowledged the attack on Pearl Harbor with a diplomatic response, while continuing with his public works programs to continue to try to create jobs; to continue with the New Deal no matter what? Acknowledging that Pearl Harbor was bad, but it needed to be studied carefully before rushing to judge the situation. This is obviously not, nor can it be a direct comparison, except in the sense that people with true vision and leadership ability can recognize seminal occurrences in time; that the mark of a true statesman is to recognize a need to lead in a new direction, and the magnitude of the problem. This guy couldn't, because his entire life was one of golden ascendancy; he went to one of the best private schools in Hawaii; Punahou, which also happens to be the school where Pierre Omidyar (founder of Ebay) went to school. He got into two ivy-league schools that refuse more than they accept, Columbia and Harvard. He got the Nobel Prize, mostly for being elected. That doesn’t mean he didn’t work, but I’ve known people in my life who were brilliant, worked harder, and never got the breaks this guy did. He never had any painstaking obstacles; never actually built something from the ground up and went through several spectacular failures before succeeding (take a look at Milton Hershey for an example of overcoming failure). It may not take this to produce true leaders, but failure and hardship certainly seems to separate quintessential leaders and statesmen from non-leaders. Winston Churchill comes to mind.

    To be fair, I don't think a true statesman has run for President of this country in decades.

    Obama and his wife are certainly enjoying the life in D.C. (and worldwide). They are not participating in the worst recession in 60+ years in even the remotest way. Even for appearance sake.

    In any case, he won't get my vote in 2012. Maybe if he makes some changes...but, he seems to be too stubborn and politicized with his own mantra to change.

    I don't even think he actually wanted the job. He just wanted to add it to his resume, which he will use later for what I believe to be his ultimate goal; something such as Secretary General of the U.N. or a ranking position with some other global body. Not attainable as the "junior Senator from Illinois"; but, as former President of the United States? Certainly conceivable.

    All IMO, of course.

  • guest_message guest_message Sep 20, 2011 11:17 AM Flag

    He mentioned RQI again on the last Cavuto. He also said that he's not much of a stock picker. I guess 2008-2009 got to him and he had a revelation; quite a few others did as well. I remember more than one guru pounding the table before the meltdown who was silent for months after (not particularly this stock, but others). I did get the chance to buy some of this at the $2-$3 range during that time. It's all context and time I suppose, isn't it?

  • Reply to

    Another Solar Firm goes bankrupt

    by salipenta Aug 31, 2011 2:46 PM
    guest_message guest_message Sep 9, 2011 7:45 PM Flag

    Doggone...If the head of GE Global talks to Immelt, maybe they can make solar even more cheaply by sending all of that manufacturing business to China. Then we could buy it all from Chinese intermediary contractors. I'm sure it would be approved, since Immelt is Obama's U.S. jobs "czar." Maybe the Chinese government will set up a leasing program for Americans who can pay monthly to put them on their roofs. Wow. Maybe we can pay our debt to China that way. What is the math behind $14 trillion / solar roof panels?

  • Reply to

    Coal plant shutdowns on the way

    by brotherjim3 Aug 20, 2011 7:27 PM
    guest_message guest_message Aug 25, 2011 11:14 AM Flag

    It would appear that Obama has very wealthy interests who are in concert with what he wants to do here. And I don't believe for one second that the wealthy interests are "really interested in helping the small guy."

    http://www.nypost.com/p/pagesix/buffett_obama_pigout_rCcS4YvtrzA10ytZBUDUoM

  • Reply to

    Let's BAN Wahleee

    by maxwizard68 Aug 16, 2011 9:56 PM
    guest_message guest_message Aug 22, 2011 1:36 PM Flag

    Actually, the Constitution only guarantees free speech; it doesn't guarantee that comments can't be deleted from a server owned or leased by a private corporation. I have seen some of my own very benign comments deleted from the RCP comments sections, while people with much more strident views and foul language were allowed to stand...so, there you have it. No real standard for comments on private servers; and, I think I prefer it.

    The gubmint is already too intrusive in this country. Letting them take control of what is put on private servers would only allow MORE political intrusion rather than less. At least in my view....

  • Reply to

    The Wind-Energy Myth

    by brotherjim3 Aug 14, 2011 2:47 PM
    guest_message guest_message Aug 21, 2011 3:31 PM Flag

    Never is a long time.

    That being said, one of the problems with the government we currently have is that they seem oblivious to the economic context. It's full steam ahead for them to implement non-economic, ideologically-driven solutions to supply power to a country that may not need it for years. How? Why? Well, as they make it more expensive to operate here with heavily-subsidized, costly, green-power generation, they make manufacturing and heavy development projects move offshore to seek cheaper facilities. As companies and projects move offshore, power needs prediction models will most likely move offshore also (i.e. they will not be correct), and with the economy faltering, the idea that we can push costs higher to subsidize wishful projects doesn't make sense. It's just going to deplete the country. Some may argue that we save costs elsewhere in a societal context by doing this; but, that doesn't take into account that the companies or projects that move offshore are more than likely NOT to seek out green power solutions elsewhere. So, at a time when we desperately need to get the country working again, we shoot ourselves in the foot by forcing productive resources to move elsewhere, seeking cheaper and more conventional methods of power production, while we sink deeper in debt and unemployment. I see us going the same way as Russia if we keep doing costly, unfunded "rainbow" projects (looking forward to that pot of gold), where Russia depleted themselves by pursuing foreign military adventures in Afghanistan; they bankrupted themselves (in our case, it's not just the military adventures, it's everything; people in this country seem to think the gubmint is an endless, golden faucet). We simply don't have the money to be everything to everyone everywhere anymore. IMO.

  • Reply to

    This is my prediction.

    by jimmarcos6 Jul 10, 2011 9:37 PM
    guest_message guest_message Jul 10, 2011 11:27 PM Flag

    Jim, I'm not a Palin lover, nor a Bush lover, nor an Obama lover. They're all politicians. A difficult group for me to love.

    Two things I really disliked about Bush were the increase in debt, and the numerous and long foreign military involvement. We are actually borrowing money from the Chinese to conduct foreign wars.

    Thing is, under the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triad, the debt went exponential, and now we are involved in Libya. I don't understand the defense of Obama...if you didn't like Bush's policies, now you've got Bush's policies on massive steroids.

    However, I've buried the lead; I think you were referring to the "quote" by Palin that "I can see Russia from my front porch"; which was not what she said.

    Here: http://www.snopes.com/politics/palin/seealaska.asp

  • guest_message guest_message Jun 13, 2011 9:52 AM Flag

    Yup. And this is one of the few countries in Europe that has some wealth and industry left, aside from Norway and France.

    Switzerland doesn't really count. No real heavy industry, small, just a banking/financial country. It's not going to matter much in the future either, since most of the banking and deals will be half a world away, while Europe dithers and turns to campfires and teepees for its population.

    Eventually the immigrants and Asians will just buy up what's left of Europe and turn it in to something else. The extant European birth rate is so low that the indigenous cultures are breeding themselves out of existence.

    Sorry. That's what I see....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aging_of_Europe

    Brookings has also done quite a few studies on this.

  • guest_message guest_message May 25, 2011 10:35 AM Flag

    Ah yes. The town crier.

  • guest_message guest_message May 23, 2011 2:58 PM Flag

    Switzerland...

    I would trade their entire nuclear power infrastructure for a piece of what China and Asia will generate.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_Switzerland

    Europe is an example of declining cultures run by political ideologues. The perfection they seek will never really occur, and they are busy bankrupting their societies in pursuit of it. The Germans are simply catching the disease.

    Low indigenous birthrates, a huge Middle Eastern immigration that does not share (in just about any form) indigenous European cultural/political beliefs, and emmigration of businesses and corporations to countries that are more business-friendly will leave Europe with little more than a tourism industry. Eventually, economic and civil problems will make that attraction wane.

    Perhaps Switzerland will avoid this, due to their policy of NO immigration under almost any circumstances; but, they are a small country with a small population anyway. Roughly 8 million. NYC has a slightly larger population just by itself.

  • Reply to

    German nuclear exit before 2022

    by genevezurich May 19, 2011 5:03 AM
    guest_message guest_message May 19, 2011 12:27 PM Flag

    Yup. Just as clever and smart as the United States purchasing vast quantities of oil from the Middle East.

    It's really proven to be a great strategy over time to get necessities like power and food from other countries. Yup. Sheer genius.

  • Reply to

    now that icahn is gone

    by pirrrh May 17, 2011 3:30 PM
    guest_message guest_message May 18, 2011 1:14 PM Flag

    Just curious; does this sale represent everything? He sold out his public hedge fund; does this sale account for only that, or does it account for any private holdings?

  • Reply to

    If this is true US will do fine--

    by igmos00 Apr 26, 2011 1:04 PM
    guest_message guest_message Apr 28, 2011 1:03 PM Flag

    That's fine.

    Remember...electricity is a DERIVED power. It does not occur freely in nature. You have to turn a generator SOMEWHERE to produce it. Hybrids do this by burning fossil fuel. Electrics do this by plugging into an electrical grid; which, by way of plugging MANY more cars into it will have to be substantially MORE built out than it is now. Of course, with Japan, everyone (actually, politicians) are backing away from nuclear for baseload power. Natural gas is clean, but politicians are all in a twist over fracking. Oil, of course, doesn't need to be mentioned for all of its problems. So, that leaves us with the most expensive, wind and solar. Neither will be ready to supply baseload power reqs for decades. A great deal of the literature that says it's possible out on the internet (solar and wind for baseload power) is substantially rainbow juice and unicorn milk. Many NIMBY's tout it, but don't want it built around their neighborhood. Ted Kennedy was one of them. Windmills are SO costly to keep in good repair that some existing windmill farms are being abandoned. I just read an article a couple of days ago about the new, cheaper, Chinese windmills being installed in this country...yeah...cheaper. And an analysis was done on them by the writer of the article that mentioned how the "cheaper" was accomodated with inferior building materials and workmanship, decreasing the lifespan and increasing the ALREADY SUBSTANTIAL maintenance costs.

    With solar; what's your baseload requirement? If it has to be increased substantially from the original size of the solar field, you better have a lot more real estate to put panels on, because that's going to be the only way to grow your power output. Relying on technology to increase output per panel for the same size footprint is probably more rainbow juice and unicorn milk. You can't build it into any reliable NPV prediction for investment purposes.

    Just my opinion. Inertia makes the substantial switch to the DERIVED power of electricity much further off than "a couple or years or three."

AGO
23.91+0.24(+1.01%)Apr 16 4:01 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.