... it's ususally a bad sign. No one quits without a reason.
I don't know what it means in this case, but I'll just throw out a couple of questions about ENER's finances that have been nagging me:
- whatever happened to ENER's auction-rate securities?
.....they''re probably illiquid. are they also impaired?
- who on earth lends money to a tech company at 3% ?
.....where's the catch? from whom do the lenders expect to profit?
- why did the company facilitate the shorting of its own stock?
.....did management act AGAINST shareholder interest?
The answers to some of these questions may or may not have something to do with the CFO's departure. As usual, I can only connect the dots and arrive at my own guess as to what's going on here. But I'm assuming the worst.
I'm still out btw. Neither long nor short. No shares, no options.
... burning adw at the stake while skipping merrily around the bonfire holding hands with himself, and singing glory hallelujah.
And it's too bad this board has deteriorated to the point where intelligent, thoughtful, on-topic posts by a long-time poster are mercilessly slammed by another long-time poster who ought to know better.
* shaking my head *
Aloha from Paradise my @ss
post lux tenebras
After disrputing what used to be a decent message board for weeks and contributing nothing of substance to the discussion, plokiporter comes out of the blue and suggests that people should refrain from disrupting gatherings where peple are trying to accomplish something worthwhile.
Imo, motorcycle hooligans at Bear Butte are like plokiporter's posts on the ENER board.
PS: I'm going to buy a Harley and drive it out to Sturgis with the mufflers off.
According to the disclosure statement at the bottom of this page:
You'll see that ENER is NOT among Peter Najarian's current holdings as of 7/8/08.
So it would seem rather OBVIOUS that he sold.
It's not that hard to figrue it out...
Bush Administration knifes the utility-side solar baby...
Further dampening hopes for a big solar-energy boom, the federal Bureau of Land Management (BLM) has abruptly slapped a moratorium on new applications to put solar collectors on federal land. The agency says it has a backlog of more than 130 applications and needs to conduct a region-wide environmental-impact study on the industry before it will accept any more. The study will take 22 months to complete, however. Few argue against trying to preserve precious water sources and protect desert tortoises and other creatures that might not enjoy cohabiting with sprawling fields of mirrors. But many solar advocates wonder why the government is not acting as cautiously when it comes to drilling for oil and gas.
... achieve strategic independence by the year 2025. ..."strategic independence” is when oil is no longer the primary fuel for transportation...
- lifting the moratorium on offshore oil exploration;
- putting the country on a path to build 45 new nuclear plants
- cracking down on speculation in the oil futures market
- committing $2 billion dollars per year to clean coal research
- a $300 million prize for the first company that can create a zero-emissions automobile battery
- a $5,000 consumer tax credit for the purchase of any zero-emissions vehicles
Meanwhile, the UK (which is much much smaller than the US,) is planning to spend an amazing $200 Billion on renewable energy projects:
US energy plans from way back in May of 2001 are littered with unfunded mandates and bringt ideas that wilted on the political vine.
Page 6-6 of Dick Cheney's National Energy Policy even has a nice pic of ENER's building integrated solar products. Unbelievable but true.
I remembered this thread when I saw this article:
Nation's Spies: Climate Change Could Spark War
By Noah Shachtman June 23, 2008
Environmental groups have been warning for years that global climate change could make already-tense parts of the world even worse, and even spark whole new conflicts. Now, the nation's spies are saying pretty much the same thing...
The presumed Republican nominee is proposing a $300 million government prize to whoever can develop an automobile battery that far surpasses existing technology. The bounty would equate to $1 for every man, woman and child in the country, "a small price to pay for helping to break the back of our oil dependency," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Monday at Fresno State University in California.
McCain said such a device should deliver power at 30 percent of current costs and have "the size, capacity, cost and power to leapfrog the commercially available plug-in hybrids or electric cars."
The Arizona senator is also proposing stiffer fines for automakers who skirt existing fuel-efficiency standards, as well as incentives to increase use of domestic and foreign alcohol-based fuels such as ethanol.
In addition, a so-called Clean Car Challenge would provide U.S. automakers with a $5,000 tax credit for every zero-carbon emissions car they develop and sell.
"In the quest for alternatives to oil, our government has thrown around enough money subsidizing special interests and excusing failure," said excerpts from McCain's prepared text. "From now on, we will encourage heroic efforts in engineering, and we will reward the greatest success."
... to buy into this thing... had to wait a year...
* going silent again *
... but I feel as if I should, if only to make sure that I'm not confused with the poster who responded to a post addressed to me.
I'll just say three things then i'll go quiet until the dust has settled:
1) The suggested reading is a case study of a secondary offering for a hot stock, under the heading "in-the-hole secondary" in a section entitled "spotting tops." There are striking similarities to the present situation, even down to the naked-shorts-unable-to-deliver bit.
There's nothing to lose by reading it.
2) With options expirations coming up, and with a Cobasys/GM deal reportedly in the works, a bear attack might not be imminent. But I'm sure those of us who've been following this stock for a while remember all too well what happened the last time ENER had a profitable quarter and did a secondary offering. We've been here before. And looking at the unusual price movements recently, doesn't something smell fishy?
I believe it's the same underwriter this time around.
3) When the market is closed, I sometimes play Texas Hold'em (but not for real money) on-line. It's a game where you need to read the other players, and when something smells fishy, you have to lay down your cards. After all, no matter how good your hand, when you're beat, you're beat.
In poker, as in stock trading, those who never fold always seem to go bust.
* going into quiet mode *
Over the weekend, I re-read pages 252-255 of Jim Cramer's book, REAL MONEY, Sane Investing in an Insane World.
It's a good read. If you have the book, I suggest you read it too.
Now then, someone else on this board mentioned 4 million shares shorted by naked shorts. If this is true, and if they are trapped in the squeeze and unable to deliver, they might want to borrow the secondary from CS to get out of the bind. Once they're out of the jam and in need to return the shares they borrowed, they would have both the ability and the incentive to drive the stock down by shorting it.
FWIW, that's my "read" on the situation, and I readily admit that I could be wrong.
But if this is the case, then imo, it won't really matter AT LEAST IN THE NEAR TERM, what the ENER's solar production capacity is or will be, or how great the merits of ENER's propretary technology is. None of that will really matter as far as the stock price is concerned in the near term.
Fundamentals are important. But it's also important to understand how the market works. imo.
Btw, I currently have no position in ENER. No shares. No options.
(I'm tempted to take up a short position, but right now, a possible takeover of Cobays by GM makes it too risky for me.)
Short or long, good luck to all of you either way.
Text of remarks given by Mark Fields, executive vice president, Ford Motor Company, and president, The Americas, at the conference last week:
The legislation to channel federal funds to auto/auto parts makers is already in place. All we need now is appropriations to fund the mandates.
But given the recent defeat of a bill in Congress to repeal the tax break on oil companies, it looks like substantial federal funding won't come until at least November. If the Democrats capture the White House and a greater majority in Congress in the 08 elections, then maybe there's hope for HEVs in the US yet. Otherwise, US automakers are finished.
The Japanese and Europeans will eat their lunch.
"A major federal commitment to advance the development of the battery technology that will power these cars is needed for plug-ins to take off..."
"the biggest funding boost is needed in the development of batteries. "
"Bold and dramatic incentives are specifically needed for the development of high-power batteries"
"We must ensure that we have a domestic battery supply."
... but it looks to me like they just put a five-year ceiling on the price-per-share.
The prospectus makes it pretty clear, imo :
The existence of the share lending agreements and the short positions established in connection with the sale of the notes and potentially certain of our other securities could have the effect of causing the market price of our common stock to be lower over the term of the share lending agreement than it would have been had we not entered into the agreement.
FWIW, I'm expressing a sentiment with this post. (I usually don't.)
... something like:
"The secondary is pricing on Wednesday, and if it's anywhere 70 then it's a buy because this thing is going higher."
Let's see if he's right.
Personally, I'm somewhat skeptical.
I re-read pages 252-255 in Cramer's "Real Money" over the weekend.
Oil prices are at record highs. The overwhelming dependence of our cars and trucks on oil strains family budgets, threatens our national security and contributes to global warming. Plug-in electric vehicles have the potential to significantly reduce the United States’ dependence on oil. Yet can this potential be realized? If so, how? Is there a national interest in putting millions of plug-in vehicles on the road soon? How should policymakers in Washington, D.C., respond?
The last link is worth a read.
the guy in the White House for the past 8 years IS Forrest Gump.