You sure seem to be angry when trying to participate in an adult discussion...
I don't where you got the $29 thing from. Perhaps you made a mistake and should go back to re-read what you thought you read? I also think that the fundamentals in the earnings report outdid the technicals this time. So there is no disagreement there either.
I feel I currently have about a 3/4 position in OHI after having been purchasing since early 2014. So I am 'almost fully invested' in the stock at this point regardless of how you view it. I am looking to add another 1/4 position which is what I think will be a full position for my portfolio. Just so you are clear about this, I think that buying in the low 30's is buying at a reasonable price. Whether it gets to '$29' or more, or less, I have no idea. But I don't really care for capturing the dividend by purchasing at a near term high just before the distribution and then to watch the stock price fall. For each .58 cents the stock price falls before I buy, I capture the equivalent of one dividend without having to pay for it. I also think that buying in the high 30's would be much too expensive for me So I am looking for a price that makes sense to me and my portfolio.
If the stock price rises too much I won't purchase my last 1/4 position. No big deal. It means that I have found better opportunities elsewhere for now.
Like I said, to each his own. I hope you are successful as you go forward with your personal investment approach. Right now I have to join my beautiful ex-girlfriend for a dinner with a view.
I know exactly what you are speaking of. The rise and fall doesn't always happen to a single stock each quarter nor does it always happen for all stocks. So I think it is the emotional anticipation of a great earnings report and the pre-buyers expectation of a follow-thru rally. Unfortunately, an average or just a 'good' earnings report is seldom enough to have that follow-thru rally. If the earnings report is not 'excellent to stellar', there is a good chance of a sell-off after earnings are reported apparently...
Also I have many friends who take full advantage of the pre-earning rise phenomena and buy early to ride the price increase and sell just before or just after earnings are reported to capture those gains. They claim it is a very profitable strategy and it has nothing to do with holding for dividends.
For me, I tend to buy on dips and not focus too much about the date of the earnings report or the date of dividend payout. I don't want to spend too much money to capture a dividend so buying on a lower price generally covers a 'lost' dividend or two and sets me up with 'found' dividends in the next quarter.
It is awful hard to beat the collective Wall Street. So I buy low, collect the dividends, reinvest the dividends and repeat. Saves on a lot of stress along the way, too.
Good luck in your investing.
I am almost fully invested in OHI. I am looking for another good entry point for a final purchase. Technically, I was right. With the latest earnings report, the fundamentals improved and trumped the technicals. Now we will have to wait and see if the price climbs above $36 or not.
In any case, I did not buy or sell in the last couple months so there was nothing to 'work out' for me or not 'work out' for me.
Have a doughnut and relax. Everyone places different bets when investing.
Have a nice day.
I bought my first at 32, second at 36 and my third at 31. I am weighing the purchase of more and debating just as you are. I am nicely ahead on dividends, but not richly ahead. I think there will be a better time to accumulate after a big market decline, too. So I am continuing to raise cash for now.
Good luck with your investments.
Yesterday Tesla doubled down on output of his company's assembly lines and plans to increase production to 500,000 cars annually by 2020. This is a huge move. He probably won't reach that figure based on past results, but I'm sure he will pull all the plugs to try. Other automakers are rapidly increasing their plans to produce their own electrics and I'm sure will not want to lose future market share to Tesla, either.
We are probably witnessing the birth of a new s-curve beginning in EV sales. Battery costs are dropping, range is increasing, vehicle pricing is dropping, vehicle quality is improving, charging points are ubiquitous and demand is rising.
The bar just went up for FCV's.
True, with some caveats. You are needing a lot of 'excess' power to make hydrogen. Hawaii microgrids will not provide the excess power to make hydrogen electrolytically. You need multiple, LARGE utility projects costing a lot of money, an infrastructure to handle hydrogen production, distribution and delivery and a large base of fuel cells to consume the hydrogen.
I really don't see Hawaii being a large producer or consumer of hydrogen. Electricity, yes. We will have to wait and see what direction the politics and economics tilt.
There are a few locations where there should/can be a lot of excess green power available in short order for electrolytic hydrogen production. Norway is one of them,. Iceland (geothermal) is another and Sweden is a possible contender (hydro). I have mentioned this several times in the past. If it can get it's act together, Alaska is another. The maritime industry is a good candidate for intermediate duty craft powered by compressed or liquid H2 as are trains.
It is possible to grow the electrolytic industry if a lot more AE is available but right now there is not an excess of AE around. One of the big issues is do you provide relatively low cost/high efficiency electricity for traditional electrical needs ie. electric motors or do you choose to use it for high cost/low efficiency purposes like electrolytic hydrogen/fuel cell applications. The economic value of each electron is 2-3 times less when used for hydrogen production. This is a very big deal to make a decision on at all levels.
You have huge blinders on. Electricity from solar panels that took no fossil fuels to mine, manufacture or transport, huh?
Please show us how you get, oils, greases, asphalts, ANY hydrocarbon for that matter from hydrogen.... Your world would come to a grinding halt without fossil hydrocarbons. You really spit on the hand that feeds don't you? But maybe you really believe the computer you are typing on requires no fossil fuels to make...
You said it yourself. Things most often work in small steps. You want then to work in massive jumps...which happen the least often. Economics is the primary driver of technological change. The economics currently favor non-hydrogen solutions by a wide margin.
There is so little correlation between GHG's, CO2 and methane and global temperatures that the experts can't even decide the real story. How come the temperatures rose at the same rate over many years for several times in the past when man-made CO2 and GHG were no where to be found? Are we still warming up from the Little Ice Age? Why was the pause so pronounced when humans were pumping out CO2 at the highest known rates in history? Why are scientists continually caught altering the data to make global warming appear to be happening?
Until these questions can be answered there is precious little certainty associated with man made climate change (whatever that means).
Yes. There is a lot of evidence that smoking contributes to lung cancer. But then 30% of smokers don't get lung cancer and 15% of non-smokers get lung cancer. And these vary wildly depending on if you are a farmer or if you are an office worker, if you live in a big city or in the country or if you cook over a wood fire or cook over a nat gas stove.
How about the current life expectancy in Bejing and Shanghai (two of the highest air pollution cities in the world) being over 80 years. But in San Francisco, New York and Berlin (relative to Bejing some of the cleanest cities for air pollution) it is 80 or less.
Things are not always as they seem. Just because you are told fracking fluids are highly toxic goos doesn't mean anything unless that is proved. I'm sure they are a lot less toxic that the media rags imply they are. And I'll bet they don't kill 30,000 people per year, either!
Some of the largest, by far, toxic sites with a bunch of chemicals leaching out of them are our solid waste dumps. Why doesn't the media jump all over them? (Cause it won't scare the bejeebies out of the people like 'fracking' doomday stories and won't sell...)
Are the risks more or less than driving a car in the US? ~30,000 people are killed each and every year in car accidents. Does fracking kill 30,000 people a year? Hardly. In fact the natural gas produced that displaces coal probably saves lives in the long run.
Don't get all worked up about a fluff article that can provide no real substance. These so called experts like to imply the worst possible scenario so they can acquire a certain measure of notoriety and improves their odds of receiving more grant money. They don't have any evidence (and claim so) that there is a serious environmental problem and, in fact, there might not be nearly so much of a problem as they claim 'could be'.
I don't think we should completely downplay fracking fluids, but until there is a real cost benefit from fracking, please don't assume the worst. The worst is the least likely outcome....
OK. That was depressing. I am out. The distributions have covered about 85% of the losses while I held the equity. I was hoping for something more impressive. That didn't happen.
Best of luck to lose who decide to stay for now. I'll be watching for the time being.
Do you really think about what you write? You, sm, owe everything you have today to fossil fuels. All the products you own, the food you consume, the medicine that keeps you healthy, the streets you ride on...
A far, far better use of that 5 million would be to buy kerosene heaters and cookers for tens of thousands of third world families that are forced to heat and cook on wood fires. Breathing truly dangerous VOC's and particulates that cut 20 years off their lifespan is a true environmental disaster. By the way where on Earth did you get the idea that kerosene is 'gone'? It is a mainstay of transportation, cooking and heating around the world...
An even better idea would be to build a few dozen coal-fired power plants out-fitted with the latest pollution control technology for these same third world countries. Safe, reliable, continuous power to light homes , build factories, keep food preserved and keep first rate health facilities open.
But you think powering a few thousands of fuel cell vehicles with intermittent output windmills is truly a better idea? Will it provide the same benefits to humanity as bountiful, reliable cheap electricity? Not in a million years. You can't be serious about emitting a little less CO2 (that will have zero tangible benefits) compared to saving the lives of thousands (that will have immensely positive benefits?)
You might want to double check your ethics.
The price of Ballard challenged the $1.40-1.45 level for a couple of days before jumping above it with earnings reported. It rose until it slammed into a much stronger resistance level at ~$1.60 and bounced downward hard today. Most of the momo traders have left by today (thank goodness) and since there is no new 'news' started selling their small lots in earnest at the opening. We may be heading back to test the floor strength of the 1.40 support level again. It would be nice if it holds, but that remains to be seen. Unless dramatic, new, pro-Ballard specific news comes out we may settle in to a range-bound 1.40-1,60 for another three months.
Sure sawa...as long as you add 'cost be damned' you would love anything hydrogen related. Fortunately for the rest of us, the world doesn't operate that way. Otherwise we would all be broke with very little to show for it.
Any engineer will tell you with a high degree of accuracy what the costs would be of putting such a system together without having to buy a single screw. It's all common knowledge. But you want to see working models for...why? Just to prove the 'concept'? These models are a phenomenal waste of money. The fact that you don't seem to understand that, or maybe more accurately, don't seem to care, shows how little you understand why the world isn't falling all over itself to construct a hydrogen economy...
To all soothsayers and oracles...
Any thoughts on whether the CC will report earnings sufficient to support the current dividend or will it portend a dividend reduction?
The Chinese gov't has stolen plans and technology from other governments in...
- Almost every advanced weapon system the US has
- Integrated circuits
- Rocketry and satellites
- High resolution camera's and lenses
- Solar power materials
- Nuclear technology
- Business strategies
- Spy networks
- Thin film and coatings
- High performance radar
- Engineered materials
- Smart phone cryptography
- Etcetera, etcetera etcetera ad infinitum
Don't ever make the mistake that it will be different 'this time'. Ever.
The Chinese have a very long and sordid history of stealing tech and information and making products on their own regardless of 'laws' and 'agreements' and 'patents'. There is no reason to believe it will be any different this time. There is almost zero chance of your 'Ballard everywhere' fantasy coming true.
Ballard's greatest challenge is being able to make a high margin product that sells in quantity ie. to make significant profits. This has dogged them so far and continues to dog them today. They have a lot of patents, but many of them have not produced fruit. Many are aging off the books, too. Now there are several fuel cell producers all working with each other to capitalize on the technology. Ballard's window of opportunity to shine with greatness is getting shorter by the year.
You are wrong again. No one ever said it was up for sale either. You can't seem to get anything right, can you?
I will always respond whenever anything is reported incorrectly. Can't have facts that aren't facts going unchallenged.