Given that all of the news for this quarter has been disseminated and digested and that the wild and crazy traders have come and gone, the stock price is just about where it was before the end of the quarter...
I would guess that this implies that last quarter was generally modest, but unimpressive and that looking forward is generally modest and unimpressive.
We have seen this same mentality for many, many quarters (years?) now. I wonder what it will take to fundamentally change the outlook for this stock?
So...the question is where does it stop falling so that it will be an interesting, and low risk, time to buy again? The technicals suggest ~14.90 (currently) and ~14.40 as moderate support levels. Does an interest rate rise of 0.25% really mean anything for CIM profitability in the long run? Is a 12.9% dividend at risk now or is it a rate high enough to accept some risk?
I am interested at today's price, but haven't yet added to my holdings and don't know if I will at this point. At $14.40 I would definitely add, all things being equal....
There are a lot of variables to consider when trying to get a good number.
Unsubsidized 4-nines hydrogen costs about $7 per kilogram in bulk. Unsubsidized delivery at a refueling station would run about $10 minimum. At 60 mpkg it would take about $16.80.
Gasoline at the pump is mostly unsubsidized, but assuming $3 per gallon and a non-hybrid 25 mpg it would cost about $12. Consider that a hybrid would do considerably better. Given 35 mpg for a hybrid, the hybrid would cost about $ 8.60.
Hydrogen is currently being sold at hydrogen fueling stations for a (subsidized) ~$ 4.50 to 6 a kilogram. Some can argue the the subsidized cost of gasoline is about $1 dollar higher per gallon.
A pure EV would consume about 30 KW and cost about $2-5.
A bicycle would cost about 4 hamburgers or about $6-14.
An electric bicycle would consume about 3 KW and cost about $ 0.40.
In retrospect, the time to short would have been at the double/triple top of close to $16. Now it has fallen to ~$ 14.50, the RSI and MACD show a very over sold condition, and sentiment is very bearish. A contrarian approach might suggest that the resistance of ~ $ 14.40 would be meaningful after such a recent drubbing.
How much further of a drop do you think a short could take advantage of at this time?
An article today mentions that there are over 180 million battery powered bicycles in China today and 24 million will be sold this year. Over 90% are lead batteries and under 10% are lithium batteries. I presume very few are hydrogen fuel cell powered. They note that the growth of battery-powered bicycles will slow as the cities are getting 'too big' (ie. the suburbs are too far away from the jobs) and the amount of cars are increasing so much that bicycling is getting more dangerous.
Lead prices have peaked as the consumption growth has slowed and lead batteries are being recycled at high rates now. The price for lithium is still rising (obviously) and will continue to remain high for years. Oil prices will remain low for years to come with still a lot of supply in the ground. Platinum will remain high as fuel cell and catalytic converter demand rises and supplies decline. Hydrogen will remain fairly low if produced from natural gas and moderately high if produced from wind or solar.
Just fodder to think about when trying to get a handle on what technologies and costs will be as we move 5, 10, 20 years in the future...
The TA seems to suggest it is fairly valued in here with strong overhead resistance at ~ $ 30. I would be surprised if it does much of anything for a couple months, but who really knows...
On the other hand, one can imagine a small rural community where farming is a big percentage of the local income. If each farmer were to commit a large share of their land to PV they would reap a reasonably constant monthly income that is not subject to the whims of agricultural price forces, weather, pests or costs associated with tilling, seeding, watering, pests, harvesting, etc. The farmer's time could be freed up substantially and the collective community might have more money to spend due to the overall increase in wealth. Since many PV installations are owned by another company and the farmer gets a share of the sold power, there might not be any debt on a PV system that has to be paid off.
So you have less work, more reliable income, potentially less debt, potentially less pollution and more personal time to pursue other avenues of work or pleasure... In this case the rural community does not suffer the problem of not needing to live in a metro area to prosper. It has been theorized that a rural community/regional utility need not worry so much about excess peak power if the PV system incorporated a tall water tower to act as pumped storage.
I am sure this system has it's own set of unintended consequences, but the income inequality issue might be lessened.
No one disputes the fact that the the Arctic ice is generally down in the past...33 years. But then no one disputes the fact that we have been warming up from LIA lows for...180 years. Also no one disputes we have been having record Antarctic sea ice for several years now either. As well as record levels of northern hemisphere ice and snow cover.
Cryosphere reports the northern sea ice area anomaly is down about 900,000 sq. km. and the southern sea ice area anomaly is up about 1,300,000 sq. km. giving a global sea ice area anomaly of a positive 400,000 sq. kms. All this over the last...33 years.
Who is anybody to say what is happening over the last 33 years man-made or CAGW? There is not a scientist out there who can say for sure if we are through warming up from the Little Ice Age. There is also not an 18 year old alive today that has experienced any global warming since they were born. And it is quite clear that we are not as warm as several warmer periods in the past 10,000 years.
Despite those who 'think' they know what is going on, the fact that we have loads of data on both sides of the argument means there is no one that really knows what is going on. Whatever IS going on is so ethereal that neither side can pin anything down as to what is, or is not, causing what. That's why we still spend hundreds of billions of dollars sending out research vessels, launching satellites and crunching numbers..precisely because we DON'T know. But from my viewpoint, for every paper that purports to have discovered a piece of the puzzle, there is another paper that disputes it. Nothing is clear. And certainly nothing is catastrophic, either.
In doing some checking of various world government expenditures over the last couple decades, I can find sources that claim we have spent approximately 1-2.5 trillion dollars to date on research funding and mitigation efforts/regulations for combating climate change. According to the GAO the US has spent approximately 65 billion dollars directly on research efforts not counting any mitigation efforts or costs of new regulations. Add in contributions to foreign countries and subsidies the number grows to almost 400 billion. Add in the cost of new regulations paid for by the consumer and the cost is estimated to be approximately 1.5 trillion to date.
The rest of the world has spent approximately 350 billion directly and regulations and mitigation are about 1.0 trillion.
(All these numbers are rounded off as different sources claim different costs and inclusions)
But any way you cut it the costs are in the trillions so far and more trillions to come. Has it been worth it? Have we saved the world from impending climate doom? Was there ever impending climate doom in the first place? How would we have known? We can't even decide that today after all the efforts so far...
Let me pick (cherry pick) several ranges for you...
If you were born in 1880 you would have seen the temperatures drop 0.25 degrees in 30 years. (What caused that?)
If you were born in 1910 you would have seen the temperatures rise 0.5 degrees in 30 years (What would have caused that? Certainly not CO2!)
If you were born in 1940 you would have seen the temperatures flat for 30 years. (What caused that when CO2 concentrations were strongly rising?)
If you were born in 1970 you would have seen the temperatures rise 0.45 degrees in 30 years. (CO2 caused that, right?)
If you were born in 2000 you would have seen the temperatures flat in the last 15 years. (What caused that? Haven't we seen the largest CO2 emissions growth per year during this time?)
Curiously the rate of warming was just as fast from 1910 to 1940 as it was from 1970 to 2000, even though there was negligible growth in CO2 during the early period and almost max growth rate of CO2 during the latter period. So just what effect does CO2 really have anyway? From the above data...very little. There must be other factors as important, or more important than CO2.
We have warmed (if you can still believe all the manipulated databases) approximately 0.8 degrees C since temperature measurements 'officially' began in earnest in 1880. We have been warming from a notable cool period (the LIA) in that same time frame. How can you latch onto the CO2 meme when no-one can yet tell us if we have warmed up from natural causes or man-made causes? The fact is...you can't. The evidence for CO2 induced warming is real, but very weak. The evidence for artificially rising temperatures from poorly placed monitoring stations is real. (That's why the satellite measurements have more credibility and, surprise!, show less warming).
Yes the temperature you experienced if you were born 18 years ago was no different than today despite brief forays up and down in the meantime. The slope is zero.
"Scientists have known for a long time what’s causing current climate change. What’s been less clear is why so many U.S. politicians aren’t listening."
Scientists have speculated for a long time what's causing current climate change. Unfortunately 95% of the time their speculations have been proven wrong. What's been less clear is why so many people have become devoted followers of the wrong speculations and are rejecting the real world data.
There. Fixed it for you.
I can understand you confusion, so let me clarify...
For 23+ years since James Hansen turned off the A/C in the chambers of Congress in a shameless attempt to tell them we are headed for a runaway temperature catastrophe if we didn't limit CO2 emissions we have seen...
-All predictions of sea ice disappearance fail to date.
-A great number of model global temperature predictions fail (over 95%).
-A large number of climate alarmist scientists trapped in their own lies and manipulating data (Climategate, James Hansen, Michael Mann, GISS, etc.)
-Al Gore completely discredited due to faulty predictions and information.
-Predictions of more droughts fail.
-Predictions of more floods fail.
-Predictions of accelerating sea level fail.
-Predictions of sinking tropical islands fail.
-Predictions of more and stronger tropical storms and hurricanes fail.
-Predictions of record 'acidity' of the oceans fail.
-Predictions of unprecedented temperatures fail.
-Predictions of slower Gulf Stream currents fail.
-Predictions of troposphere 'hot spots' fail.
-Predictions of positive feedbacks fail.
-Predictions of mass heat casualties fail.
-Predictions of mass climate refugees fail.
-Predictions of rising crop failures fail.
-Failure to run the temperature models with the latest experimental CO2 forcing numbers (because that would show no significant warming)
Movies and horrible shorts showing global catastrophies that have no place in science or ethics.
-Predictions of Himalaya glaciers gone in a few decades fail.
-Predictions of mass species extinction fail.
What we have seen as a result of climate alarmism...
-Less than 1 degree rise in temperature in the last 150 degrees that no-one can separate from natural processes and that exist within natural variations.
-20-30% rise in crop yields due to increased CO2 concentrations.
-Massive wealth transfer to researchers and AE technologies many of which have failed miserably.
-Substantially higher energy production costs.
You are new to this board. I have long advocated AE projects, lower pollution, recycling, conservation, improved building energy standards, lower gasoline consumption, a replacement for fossil fuels, residential energy savings projects, high mileage cars, etc. For many years I ran an on-the-side business that sealed and insulated residential homes to achieve big savings in energy costs.
But all those are real issues. CO2 as a 'pollutant' that causes global warming isn't happening in any appreciable way. There is no science that supports that. Only failed climate models, climate alarmist 'research', scare tactics and the actual statements from the UN and related one-world 'agencies' that say they are using global warming as a control mechanism to promote one world government policies.
I am not standing in the way of anything except propaganda. I am a realist. If the alarmist bag of claims can't be documented by real world data, then said bag of claims is without merit. And I don't know what this obsession with Fox news is all about with the alarmists... I watch 60 Minutes, ABC, NBC, CBS and Fox in order to get both sides of the story. Do you? I read and research and look at both sides of the arguments to get to the real conclusions. Do you?
The 100 millions the fossil fuel industry spends on a highly effective propaganda campaign? Really? And what about the hundreds of billions the alarmist industry spends to promote their side of CAGW? You don't think that has been effective? More than 40% of the people polled now believe all kinds of claims that have no basis in real world data.
The mass exodus of people from Africa is due to Muslim extremist groups, malevolent dictators and pathetic governance...not 'climate change'. Drought on the West coast, rashes of tornadoes and flooding in the south? Those things have always happened periodically and extremely. Do you ever think to go back more than a few years to see what weather conditions have done over century time frames? You really ought to do some real research and enlighten your extremely narrow view of historical weather patterns.
We set records every day, month, year and century. Both cold and hot, wet and dry, rough weather and calm weather, more tornadic energy and less tornadic energy. The really smart people, including many on the warmist side said there can't be any surety that these 'extreme' events have any basis in ACC and may very well be due to natural variations.
If the real experts can't say, then how can all the alarmist 'experts' say they do?
Don't swallow any more Kool-Ade without checking the world-wide databases to see if you can back up any of your claims of droughts, tornados or flooding. And then see if you can provide any link...any link whatsoever...that man or CO2 caused them.
Please do not put words in my mouth. I put 'pollutant' in quotations because others have labeled it as a pollutant, but not me. It is just as much a major substance in life on Earth as oxygen. CO2's purpose on this planet apparently is to initially provide a thermal base warmth to the planet and this effect is major from 0 to ~300 ppm. After 300 ppm the effectiveness of providing that warmth drops off to near nothing. Going to 400, 500, 600 ppm adds only a couple tenth's of additional heat. The second apparent reason for CO2 is to act as the a major nutrient for plant growth. Below 150 ppm atmospheric all plant life stops and we die. But at levels from 150 to 5000 ppm plant life thrives...the more the better. At the pre-industrial ~280 ppm, we were at some of the lowest global levels of CO2 in the history of the planet outside the major ice ages. It was already low enough to slow down plant growth...we just didn't know that until recently. Todays 400 ppm is a huge boon to plant growth ie. food. Other than this, CO2 is one of the most benign gases on the planet...adding or subtracting to virtually nothing at the current levels.
About the glaciers/poles/sea ice? We are warming from a Little Ice Age where it was ~1.5 degrees cooler for ~350 years up until ~1850. What do you expect? During the LIA glaciers advanced, sea levels moderated and land/sea ice expanded. Now we are warming for 150 years. Ice is melting. The sea is rising again. Is it natural? Or man-made?
Thermodynamically, the effect of CO2 concentration on air temperature is logarithmic ie. The first bit of CO2 causes the greatest heating of the atmosphere above ambient. The next bit causes less. The third bit even less. And so on.
For the case of our Earth, the first 20 ppm above zero amounted to about 1.7 degrees Celsius. The next 20 ppm resulted in about an additional 0.4 degrees. The third 20 ppm increase resulted in about an additional 0.2 degrees. The fourth 20 ppm only about 0.15 degrees. By the time you reach 300 ppm the effect of adding another 20 ppm is negligible. For instance, if you double from 400 to 800 ppm the rise in temperature is calculated to be ~1.1 degrees.
Of course all this is a normalized number with any positive or negative feedbacks from scores of other sources. But it has followed pretty much as expected as much as can be determined in the last 80 years. The difficulty is separating any CO2 temperature increase effect from any naturally occurring temperature increase effects and here is the big problem. No-one has been able to do that with any confidence level at this time.
The rise in temperature of ~0.8 degrees in the last 180 years is possibly due to a contribution of ~0.2 degrees from the increased CO2, some unknown amount from natural causes and a 0.4 degree increase from 'adjusting' the databases by Hansen/GISS. Given that we are just scratching the surface to understand cyclical temperature changes, ocean current effects, cloud contributions, effects of black particulate, effects of farming, effects of the sun, effects of poor siting of measurement stations... we just can't say with any confidence whatsoever how much influence CO2 or man has had on the 180 year temperature record.
So many people are absolutely convinced of man's effect when none are quantifiable. And the clincher? Everyone is freaked out about warmer being 'bad' when it might very well be 'good'.