Recent

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

Inergy, L.P. Message Board

nomowk 2166 posts  |  Last Activity: May 15, 2006 3:35 PM Member since: Jan 10, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Looking at TICC

    by radwastecollector May 12, 2006 12:43 PM
    nomowk nomowk May 15, 2006 3:35 PM Flag

    for the double post. Yahoo stikes again.

  • Reply to

    Looking at TICC

    by radwastecollector May 12, 2006 12:43 PM
    nomowk nomowk May 15, 2006 3:33 PM Flag

    Hello ferdiefor
    Long time no see. I guess we went different routes for a while. Good to see you here on this board. I know you live mostly on reit boards, but by and large there are some nice folks here as well. ( A few jerks, but that goes with any active board). Anyway, welcome to the acas board.
    Nomo

  • Reply to

    Looking at TICC

    by radwastecollector May 12, 2006 12:43 PM
    nomowk nomowk May 15, 2006 3:33 PM Flag

    Hello ferdiefor
    Long time no see. I guess we went different routes for a while. Good to see you here on this board. I know you live mostly on reit boards, but by and large there are some nice folks here as well. ( A few jerks, but that goes with any active board).
    Nomo

  • Reply to

    Where to buy

    by winemake2004 May 15, 2006 1:57 PM
    nomowk nomowk May 15, 2006 3:28 PM Flag

    I use TD Waterhouse, now taken over by Ameritrade. I was completely satisfied with Waterhouse, but I am not so sure about Ameritrade. Ten buck trades and no hassle. I am trying to open a new account with Ameritrade, and so far they can't figure out how to transfer money from one account to another within their own organization. Strange.

  • Reply to

    Will buy again at 32...be patient

    by needocean May 1, 2006 5:06 PM
    nomowk nomowk May 1, 2006 8:09 PM Flag

    Maybe a great stock, but tomorrow I will be out of it. I misjudged it, and bought a couple months ago. Looks to me like the high rate of issueance of new shares has flooded the market and made the balance between demand and supply a joke. Always worried about that. It will not come back into balance in the near future unless the company stops and looks at the balance of the equation. I don't know that they can do that, as the need for new capital is intense. Maybe it will all work out, but for me, I must follow my nose, and wait it out. LIke the business plan, but hate the drive to grow that mandates new issues of stock. Good luck to those that don't buy into my thinking.

  • Reply to

    ACAS

    by stocksage49 Apr 21, 2006 11:00 AM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 21, 2006 7:46 PM Flag

    "I'm an engineer, I can read numbers pretty well, also."

    I just picked up on that statement. You sure of that? I is a injuneer too, but readin numbers in fynance is not that grate.

  • Reply to

    ACAS

    by stocksage49 Apr 21, 2006 11:00 AM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 21, 2006 5:49 PM Flag

    Here is another one to look at. This one is a first for me. Let us take the fund, NYC which reflects the NYSE large stock composite against ACAS.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=NYC&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=acas

    Right away, you can see the acas curve dipping below NYC. Go ahead and look at the 2 year chart and you will see the same. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Either ACAS is dying and going down in flames, or, OR, OR, the market is punishing them way too much in relation to their performance. I lean to the latter, stocksage seems to be leaning to the former.

  • Reply to

    ACAS

    by stocksage49 Apr 21, 2006 11:00 AM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 21, 2006 5:32 PM Flag

    "I'm up 15% this year on my REITS. So, what's the story on ACAS? "

    You have done well with your reits. The index (reit) is pretty flat for that period.

    But, indeed, reits may be doing better than ACAS right now. That is not a bad comparison when it comes to performance. Lets take a look.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=RWR&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=icf+acas

    This is a 1 year chart comparing a couple reit index funds to acas. You can expand it out to 2 years if you like. I noticed, and still point to the way ACAS has underperformed the index during the last few months. This is what you (stocksage49) are seeing with alarm. This is also, what I see as perhaps a golden opportunity. I don't think the divergence is justified, and at some time the market will recognize that and correct, one way or the other, and I am betting ACAS comes up vrs reits going down.
    You pay your money and take your choice.

  • Reply to

    ACAS

    by stocksage49 Apr 21, 2006 11:00 AM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 21, 2006 5:15 PM Flag

    I think stocksage should indeed sell. It appears he has been anticipating something here that does not exist. ACAS is not, and I repeat, NOT a growth oriented stock. ACAS performance, like its sister companies, perform more like a utility stock. Take a look at this comparison:

    http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=ACAS&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=uth

    Thats a one year against a ute index fund. IF you expand it out to a 2 year chart, you will see the ute index fund out performed ACAS. This is why I recently got back in, but since Mr. stocksage is just becoming aware of the weak performance lately, he might wish to go elsewhere, perhaps even into some ute stocks, or an index. I got in, mainly because I like the yield, and know if I hold over a long enough period, I won't lose much and most likely will make my desired 10% which is my target.
    Seems he thought this was another growth type stock/company, when indeed, it should not be compared to that class of investment.

    JMHO, folks,

  • Reply to

    What was the "real" low today ?

    by radwastecollector Apr 19, 2006 3:40 PM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 19, 2006 3:58 PM Flag

    I was watching at the open. It was all within the first one minute of trading. I can't tell exactly how many trades or what each was, but there was one big one at open of 600K shares, more or less, at 33.70. It There were a flurry of trades on the way back up to around 34.50 where it all started to settle down. My guess is as I stated, the large transaction set off a lot of stop loss covering and low buy order filling by the market makers. The large transaction was most likely pre-arranged a few days ago setting the price at a predetermined "below close" or something. A transaction that large is not handled the same as normal market flow. Always upsets things for some of us smaller players. I too, refuse to put in stop loss's too often, especially on nasdaq. I do keep my stops on a portfolio on yahoo, and watch them, but they are not automatic, and by all means I do not GTC orders. Day orders are all I will allow myself. It can work for you, if you have a buy order in at a low price and something like this happens, but don't count on it. JMHO folks.

  • Reply to

    500,000

    by tennee98_99 Apr 19, 2006 11:23 AM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 19, 2006 1:39 PM Flag

    Hi tennee
    The nasdaq, unlike the NYSE does not have specialists who are mandated to buy all and any market order when there is no offsetting order. The nasdaq uses "market makers" who are usually a brokerage. In the case this am, someone wanted to sell one large block. I can't tell the exact number of shares, but it was 500,000 or maybe 600,000. When a large transaction like that occurs, there will most likely be a negotiation between the seller and market maker to determine the price the market maker will pay and the seller will accept. Looks like the market maker was only willing to pay $33.70 knowing full well he would get a bounce and be able to unload a large part of it quickly. What is not shown, is the poor soles out there who had their 100 shares listed with a stop loss at $33.50 and got caught up in the quick dip. I like the NYSE procedure where the specialist has a mandate to buy and limitations on his movement in the market. He once was limited to 1/8th point, but I think that has changed. I think there are some on the boards who are not aware of how the markets work, and perhaps this will spur them to investigate. I am not an expert, but I have read a number of books on the subject, so you all can take it for what it is worth.

  • Reply to

    500,000

    by tennee98_99 Apr 19, 2006 11:23 AM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 19, 2006 11:36 AM Flag

    That was probably an arranged sale with a marketmaker picking up the stock. He most likely quickly sold a lot of it back on the market at 50-60 cent per share profit for a few minutes work. Not bad day for him, picking up a couple hundred thou in an hour.

  • Reply to

    "The War Is Bad for the Economy"

    by jd_carter3 Apr 8, 2006 12:49 PM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 9, 2006 9:33 PM Flag

    You are probably right. My biggest problem was the mistake of visiting this board at all. I will work hard to make amends. I will no longer comment on our use of resourse as opposed to British resouse. I have my own opinions on that subject. With that said, I will bid all a, "not too" fond goodbye, and let you all debate the fate of the world without me.

  • Reply to

    Hersh says Bush may really do it

    by oldmanknows Apr 9, 2006 2:38 PM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 9, 2006 9:27 PM Flag

    "what drivel, can somebody from the far right, write a couple of sentences that make some damn sense? "

    Boy, you make that an easy task. How about...." Stockass is a complete idiot!"

    And that from someone who is not from "the far right", as you so often put everyone in the world.

  • Reply to

    "The War Is Bad for the Economy"

    by jd_carter3 Apr 8, 2006 12:49 PM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 9, 2006 5:17 PM Flag

    hello dedds
    Sorry about the poor spelling. Mostly just typo, but indeed, I am not the worlds best speller.
    I do know a political spade from a spade. Hitler's fascist party was pure "socialist" and left by even his own definition. Socialist the world over have been trying for the last 70 years to convince everyone in the world that he came from the right, but all you have to do is look at his own words, and the party name, "National socialist". As for Stiglitz, I agree, he is not a "fascist" he is further to the left than that as is Der Spiegal.
    So now you have had your little immature rant, and I have had mine. Hope you feel better.

  • Reply to

    "The War Is Bad for the Economy"

    by jd_carter3 Apr 8, 2006 12:49 PM
    nomowk nomowk Apr 8, 2006 7:52 PM Flag

    Yes indeed. An interview by Der Spiegal of Stiglitz. And we should stand at attention and salute, you know, raise your right arm and point your hand 30 degrees above the horizon. What a crock. If you want to get some attention, don't start quotint a source like this. Nobel prizes are awarded on the basis of who is politically most to the left, rather than who is doing the most for mankind. I don't like the war any better than any body else, but if you want to get someone's attention, don't go to Hitler's alite old guard to make your point. Garbage is too good a word for this nonsense. Where is your mind? I guess you are one of the those young idiots who don't know a damn thing about anything, much less what you are trying to illustrate.
    Go back to grammer school, and when you make it to the eigth grade, let us know.

  • Reply to

    Stock issue is accretive not dilutive

    by DONEDEALER Mar 23, 2006 2:31 PM
    nomowk nomowk Mar 23, 2006 3:06 PM Flag

    I don't know how each of you defines "dilutive", but it has always been my understanding that the definition always was a reduction in "share holders equity". It had nothing to do with "profits" which are something aprart from equity. Yes, we all like to see higher and higher profit, but it apart from the share holders real part of the pie. I don't see profit being diluted, as profit refers to something that happened last year, or, is expected this year, in which case, we don't know one way or the other if the issue will dilute profits, becuse we are only guessing at what value they will be. What we do know, with good reasons to believe, is the NAV of the company, and definatly what cash assets the company holds. You can't restate a dividend, and you can't dilute last years profits.
    AS for using the proceeds for debt reduction, that may not be a bad idea, depending on how the debt is structured. We may actually see shareholder equity rise more than the pay off if the debt service is due to rise and the cost of the debt is higher than what profit we could realize from any new investment. This is a subject for the management to confront, and hopefully address correctly. Again, paying off debt will raise shareholder equity on the balance sheet.
    Maybe I just don't understand modern bookeeping, but that has always been my understanding of the term, "dilution".

  • Reply to

    9% YIELD - 7.6% DILUTION = 1.5% RETURN

    by theglassbreakers Mar 22, 2006 7:56 PM
    nomowk nomowk Mar 23, 2006 10:38 AM Flag

    Thanks for the heads up, bully. I will go over there and take a look.
    Seems these guys who only see dilution are the same one's who think a stock split doubles the value of a company.

  • Reply to

    9% YIELD - 7.6% DILUTION = 1.5% RETURN

    by theglassbreakers Mar 22, 2006 7:56 PM
    nomowk nomowk Mar 23, 2006 8:28 AM Flag

    "ACAS has 118.3 million shares outstanding. ACAS is issuing 9 million shares in its most recent announced secondary offering. That is 7.6% dilution. "
    I admit to not being the smartest dodo around, but I have a question. AS I understand it, NAV is based on equitey holdings and cash holdings, and that NAV is stated in dollars per share. When the secondary is launched, the new shares are "SOLD" at the market (or thereabouts)price, which in this case, is higher than the NAV/per share. Now, forgetting the cost of issue for now, if the company takes in those dollars as a result of the secondary, and adds them to the cash already being held, it appears to me, that instead of "dilution", or a lowering of the NAV pr share, the NAV per share should actually go up. IF the NAV were higher than the issuer price, or, if the company gave the shares away for free (as in the case with some stock "bonus" plans for exectutives)then why do all of you keep insisting that the secondary is not just "DILUTIVE", but dilutive to the full extent of the issue. In other words, it appears you think the company is getting no additions at all to the treasury. I don't get it, someone make me understand all this terrible dilution that is going on.

  • Reply to

    Chavez - U.S. Has Lost Iraq War

    by americananabolics Mar 22, 2006 9:44 AM
    nomowk nomowk Mar 22, 2006 8:10 PM Flag

    Hello berry-bob
    I read this post with a lot of interest. Seems you know a lot about the Korean war. Since you are such an expert, perhaps you can tell me about all that went on there, as I wa only a nineteen year old kid when I was there. Tell me about the dishonor of my service. Tell me how the good North Korean and Chinese soldiers were so mistreated by the likes of me and my fellows. You in all your wise understanding can perhaps tell me why I was there, and why I saw what I did. Maybe you can releave some of the nightmares that still occur after 50 years. Maybe you can put the blame for it all on me. Perhaps you can put the blame on some politcian of that time. Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps,..... No, you are what I call a complete young idiot who don't know a damn thing about life, or anything connected with it. I hope you don't ever let the wounded and killed worry you, because my guess is you never gave a damn thing for your country except to demand your "due". You got it. I don't respect you at all. You belittel "our deand wounded troops with cheap semantics" not me. I was there. Where were you? I was in Korea. I was in Viet Nam. Where were you? Don't try to tell me how you are such a wonderful patriot. I saw too many of them die, and I sure know a phoney when I see one.