Seeking Alpha
Seeking Alpha Portfolio App for iPad


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View johnnyvolvo's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest comments  |  Highest rated
  • Is Now The Time To Double Down In REIT Town? [View article]
    Seriously? Why can't you can like it at $50 and LOVE IT at $40?

    I own several companies that I would snap up more shares like a pit bull with a hamburger if their PPS fell 20%, and I would consider myself VERY fortunate to be able to do so...

    Value is value.
    Aug 19 01:09 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
    Brad also said he thought there could be better entry points ahead, and he was correct.
    Aug 19 07:36 AM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Ignore The 'Beat': Problems Continue At Thompson Creek [View article]
    Ok Vince, this is a decent article, but we do need to dance here a little. While I do not take issue with your facts, I do with some of your conclusions and your overall tone. You sound like one of those that were hoping not so long ago TC would prove itself to be one of those rare quick 5 baggers, or even more so (and I must admit, so was I!). The new reality of the TC situation is a bit more pedestrian. TC will make money, TC will deleverage their balance sheet and TC’s stock will rise, not sharply as many had hoped for (and some still do) but rather gradually over the next 3 to 4 years. We won’t have a $15 stock next year. We very well might get that (or even higher) in 4 years. That’s the new reality. And I am okay with that, slow growth is not as sexy as fast, but it’s still a fantastic return on my capital.

    First, concerning molybdenum production. TC remains one of the lowest pure moly producers in the world. And it is soon to be one of the lowest copper producers in the world too, thanks to Mt Milligan.
    The issues (suspended striping etc.) concerning the moly properties are well known and are baked into the current pps. The quarter was good probably thanks in part to Bingham Canyon, and they did need it! Moly is now trading below nominal costs of production for most producers, and while it can get worse it is unlikely to continue indefinitely.

    The gold, while shiny, is really just being used to offset the costs of mining copper. in reality. TC is also at the mercy of a large number of macro-economic forces, including metals supply, metals demand, global economic health, Chinese politics, the lovely Fed QE tapering, currency fluctuations and more. That’s the bad news. The good news is that TC is one of the lowest cost metals producers, and can make money in this environment and worse, while many mining companies are currently operating at or below breakeven status with current metals pricing, and are subject to additional geopolitical pressures that TC is not, on top of that. It’s nice that TC made some money on their moly operations, and hopefully they can continue to do so, but the real “beat” is that Mt Milligan remains on schedule to begin commissioning this month, with commercial production starting in Q-4. Metals pricing will not remain depressed forever, and while they may go lower, TC will be equipped come 2014 to ride it out far better than many of their peers can. Let’s look at a couple of other points.

    Slide one – You said, “Gross annual profit comes to $220 million, down from $240 million”. Ok, a 10% slides is nothing to be happy about but neither is it the end of the world. Once Mt Milligan is up and running, it will be generating big cash flow numbers, even down to (the unlikely) prices of $2.25/lb cu and $900/oz. au which still allows TC to service its debt. Again, metals markets, and the world economy will not be down forever.

    Slide two – showing basically how metals pricing has tumbled in the last 15 months. You said “the trend is terrifying for Thompson Creek”. Really? Terrifying? That’s some serious use of hyperbole there. First of all, this is not news, anyone investing in the mining industry, or even paying attention to the news knows this. Metals pricing is at, or nearing a cyclical bottom for a number of fairly obvious macro-economic reasons that I touched on above. TC has transformed itself from a one trick pony to a very low cost diversified metals producer, for the next 20 or 30 years, albeit at a cost. If they had not done so, they might well be “terrified” right now, as I am sure a number of junior gold miners and single, high cost metal producers actually are.

    Let’s go to slide three and four. Here we agree, capital cost expenditures have risen modestly. (I myself wonder what kind of permanent residences they are building for $40 to $50 million dollars – a 5 star hotel?). I wonder if some of the cost increase projections may be baked in assessment of the weak Canadian dollar right now and I would hardly describe it as “adding insult to injury”. It is simply, just business. Quite frankly, TC picked one of the worst possible time periods in recent history to undertake a new greenfield project as big as Mt Milligan. However, many Jr Miners are looking at that project enviously, wishing they had the foresight to so as well. Because, now, most of them could not even contemplate starting such a project in today’s terrible metals environment. And if they could, it would cost them more dearly. TC at least had the foresight and conviction to start the project and see it through, a project that ensured the company’s very survival. And that’s not hyperbole.

    I am not happy either about the projected decline in their cash cushion, but that is something that bears monitoring, not worrying about. I do not see them needing to go back to the capital markets at this time, or in the near future. The more troubling information to me is the possible pit wall instability or movement at the TC named mine. Let’s hope they are just being proactive here, and this does not develop into anything more. As we saw at Bingham Canyon, anything can happen anywhere.

    As far as new funding needed. If the cost over runs were to be more significant than “modest”, if one of their moly properties were to experience a shut down, if Mt Milligan ran off the tracks and we had a significant delay, then we will have problems with funding and a real reason to worry instead of just being vigilant. As far as declining commodity pricing, that is the business that TC is in. It comes with the territory. It also swings both ways. Modest upticks in the price of (soon to be) any one of three metals could give TC a nice booster shot for that particular quarter. And a recovering worldwide economy in 2014, 2015 and 2016 is likely to provide some of that impetus.

    TC is really a play on using the cash flow of Mt Milligan to deleverage its balance sheet while waiting for better times, which will eventually come. In the meantime, you can pick up a nice asset for well under half of book, which if you’re a value investor is a happy occurrence.

    The downside is backed in, as are the primary issues that the moly franchise part of the company faces. We did not discuss the fact that there is always the possibility TC could be bought out. If so, it should sell for over book value. Right now, BV is estimated a between $8 and $9 per share, depending how you want to crunch the numbers. But that figures only a 22 year mine life at the Mt Milligan property. If you go back and read over the 2nd NI-43-101 report, you might also come to the conclusion there are cards on the table that are still face down regarding that number.

    One final thought. While management has been visionary, they have done an average job of executing the plan. During the EOY fiscal meeting, their stock option comp plan was voted down for that very reason. Suffice to say they were not happy. Some astute analysis might lead one to think that they don’t have a huge vested interest in seeing this stock “pop”, as it were, until they can vote their gravy train back in. Political? Sure. Does it happen all the time? Absolutely!

    In conclusion, your statement “The success of Thompson Creek will, for the most part, come down to execution at Mt. Milligan” is the real takeaway here. TC can actually withstand lower metal prices. Although no wants to see that happen. And again the real “beat” this quarter was not moly production figures, but the fact that Mt Milligan remains on schedule to start commercial production in the rapidly approaching fourth quarter.
    Aug 8 03:06 AM | 9 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Thompson Creek Appears Destined To Fail [View article]

    Let me respond here. My intent is to be civil, even though Obviously our viewpoints are completely incongruent.

    I am making an assumption that the figures that TC has made available in the past (over and over, consistently) concerning probable output of the Mt Milligan mine and operational costs will give TC enough cash flow in 2014 to meet all of it's financial obligations, with a (growing) pile cash left over in the bank. Even at today's metals prices. Even assuming up to a 20% or more long term deterioration in today's metals prices.

    Therefore, barring the sort of "black swan" type of event which could befall any company, at any time, I see no need for them to do a dilutive stock offering, or an ill advised debt restructuring. and even if the ceased all operations at Mt Milligan today, TC would be over a year or more away from any sort of court ordered restructuring. (However, in such a scenario the lawsuits would start the very next day, lol.)

    Apparently, you hold the opposite view. Yet you refuse to back it up with anything but vague dissertations. I enjoyed your discussion on all in cash costs. It was not the best, but definitely one of the better ones I have read. But that discussion has zero bearing on if TC Metals Co can pay its bills or not. And that is really the only pertinent discussion here. If they can, they will be solvent and none of your possible scenarios are even on the table Bob. However, if they cannot, then one or more the grimmer financial events you describe could or will occur. If they have the cash to pay their bills, they WILL pay them. They will NOT withhold money.

    so, in spite of you saying cash flow is not the point, but in reality, cash flow is the ONLY point. And not just for TC, but for most other companies as well, both public and private.

    You may be upset that TC is not giving you what you consider to be more current numbers, or firm 2014 guidance right now. That's your right to be upset and to take it out on them by assuming the worst possible case scenarios, as others have recently done. However, it's also TC's right to release such guidance at the time of their choosing, and not when investors feel they should. I follow more than one company, as do you. So I'm sure you know while uncommon, this is not unusual. Now if you really believe that TC is withholding information to be disingenuous or to conceal some kind of non reported shortfall, so be it. But the numbers just don't support that sort of a supposition.

    You said "I can only say there are strong indications that failure is coming" and you say by failure you mean insolvency, which is a VERY serious charge to levy against a company. And yet, the ONLY two things you can offer up in support of your statement is the fact the share price is doing poorly and one out of about 5 or 6 analysts has put forth something of a worst case scenario for TC.

    You also said "My article is intended to be based on facts, actionable"........tho... provoking....."
    Bob, out of those three things, only one is true. Your article is NOT based on facts, in fact you refuse to consider the existing facts as they are and instead want new "facts" from the company. Your article is not actionable because you chose to lay out a highly improbable scenario for TC and admit it's basically your opinion, and you do not back it up with any hard data. However, based on all your comments, it does certainly seem to that you have met your goal of being "thought provoking"!

    Again, if you believe that TC is going to go insolvent, then show your work. There is more than enough data available for you to do that.

    Otherwise, just admit it's just your opinion, and it is based on your emotions coupled with a disappointing share price and an offbeat analyst report. Because based on what you just told me, that appears to be the case.

    No one will deny the share price performance has been terrible. That is the possible subject of another, very long article. TC's main problem currently is that the share price has become decoupled from the fundamental prospects of the company, which is not surprising given past management's penchant for disappointing shareholders.

    And it's going to take more than a quarter for that trust to be regained. I happen to believe that Perron is going about it the correct way. We shall see. I will also say that right now TC should be viewed as a speculative stock, and a longer term hold, and not as a slam dunk or as a short term trade as a number of previous articles (which you alluded to) painted it as.
    Maybe the tables have turned, and TC will just to endure the opposite for a while, until investor trust is regained through execution.

    But Bob, it is highly, highly unlikely that TC even comes close to insolvency, barring a world wide global economic meltdown next year. In which case I suspect that we would all have greater things to worry about than the share price of TC.
    Dec 18 01:17 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
    If we are going to have a greater buying opportunity in REITs, you won't have to wait 6 months. Less than a year, and far more likely less than 6 months. "Taper Panic". That is not to day you might not get MORE than one buying opportunity.

    Waiting a little while seems prudent, waiting a year or two may not be.
    Aug 19 08:01 AM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why The 'Mean Reversion' Focus Can Be A Costly Blunder [View article]
    Lots of great comments here, some that will take me quite a while to digest, I must admit. Also, probably lots of irrelevance as well. Maybe we should go back to basics 101 for a minute?

    A few observations from a layman.
    A stock is worth what people are willing to pay for it, in the purest sense, how much are they willing to pay to get a piece of the future revenue generated by that company who's stock they are buying. (As an aside, in the purest sense therefore, buying any stock that does not offer a dividend could be seen as speculation, not investing - but that's another book).

    A stock's profits are generated by the company, which in turn produces "something", (real or virtual, it does not matter). This company is worth whatever it can produce, plus some future multiple which is then priced into the stock. How much money the company can make is predicated on many variables, the demand for it's product, (which may be artificially induced, or based on reality - the water VS soda argument) the product class (necessity VS luxury), the product's sector, other global economic factors (the ability to purchase the product, the size of the market etc) and of course the cost of producing and delivering the product.

    However several other factors IN ADDITION to profits now also affect the price paid for the stock of a company as much if not more. The demand (popularity) of the actual stock itself (too much money chasing too few shares IE. Tesla). The availability of alternative options similar to that company (BOA, C, WF, etc) the liquidity, ease, and safety of trading in that company's stock (listed on NYSE, SSE, of KASE?), the ability of the investor to purchase the stock (availability of discretionary investor funds) and last but not least the media coverage of both the company and the stock.

    In a perfect world, investors are focused on the companies profits, and the ability of that company to both keep producing, and to grow those profits into the future, as well as return some of those profits to investors (by way of dividends, share buybacks and share appreciation). And nothing else.

    However, being in an increasingly interrelated world, I would argue that the advent of near instantaneous global communications (facilitated by among other avenues,the internet) has made those other factors as important, if not (much) more important in some cases, as profits in determining the price paid for a particular stock. Many would argue that by not actively trying to discount for those other factors you are not really investing, but simply either speculating or gambling instead. Others would say you are merely factoring in the total value of the company and the stock and investing in a more comprehensive way.

    I am not trying to make an argument for or against either position. I am merely saying I don't think we can even have this discussion without framing all the parameters first. Just talking about revenues or profits in the historical sense is ignoring a host of other factors driving markets and stock prices these days. As one example, no one can deny there is a global ("safety") premium attached to buying stocks of U.S. companies, stocks of companies that operate primarily in the U.S., as well as stocks of companies that operate in historically "open market" countries. And that this particular premium has been growing for a number of years.
    That is but one factor out of many peripheral ones that need to be considered when looking at the price of stocks versus their actual or relative value compared to historical perspectives.

    How can you discuss profit margin, revenues, or PE in the modern environment without factoring in some of the most important of outside variables that are exerting a significant distorting influence on stock prices?
    Feb 20 10:29 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Thompson Creek Appears Destined To Fail [View article]
    Bob, thanks for the replies. With all due respect, at the risk of harping on the points I've made though, you have made my argument for me.

    You said your article is about TC Metals. So are my comment's and the comments of ultra and the others responding to you. We are focusing on Mt Milligan as it is the cash cow of the company, that is all. We all understand corporate overhead, all in costs, etc. None of us are are looking at Mt Milligan as a stand alone entity. We are focusing on is though, because currently the rest of the company without Mt Milligan can stand on it's own. The new debt, the new operational overhead, and the new cash flow are all due to Mt Milligan. Believe me when I say we are all on the same page in regards to that.

    You also keep referring to TD Securities report. Bob, as you point out, there are numerous reports on TC. For what it's worth, I happen to have about a half dozen of the most current ones. The TD report is an outlier, and more respected institutions have a much more realistic outlook on TC Metals than TD does.

    I am not sure why TD is about two and a half dollars (500%) lower than the consensus average projection of the other reports, but it is. If anything, that makes me suspicious of TD's methods or motives..
    And please note that I said realistic. No analyst is painting a rosy picture here. Neither am I. They all recognize that serious execution has to take place, and the bottom cannot fall out of the copper or gold market (bottom falling out being about 25-30% lower prices for a protracted period of time, as I mentioned earlier).

    The reason you are getting so much flack on here is that you picked an outlier opinion on which to expound upon, and did not do your diligence to see if this opinion, TD's opinion, was actually based on facts or even realistic or probable scenarios. I assume you did this just for the purpose of writing an article. Having read some of your past comments and articles, I highly doubt you would ever be so lax in your research if you were personally considering TC for your own investment.

    TC Metals is not insolvent, it is not even close to insolvency. If Mt Milligan did not produce a dime (and they have already sent the first shipment of concentrate out fyi) they should be able to survive for at least 3/4's of a year on cash in the bank and the cash flow from their other three molybdenum properties. As a minimum. But MT Milligan is producing, and by the beginning of 2015 will be on a run rate to produce $350 - $525 million dollars of gross revenue per year, depending on the direction of copper and gold pricing.

    I like most of what you've written that Ive read. You're pretty sharp, you just happened to not do your full research on this one, and this stock happens the followed by a few dozen people that pretty much know it inside and out. Probably even a better that at least of the analysts that are supposed to be covering this company, from what I've read in their reports.

    Anyway Bob, enough on this. You should have enough page views now to get a little Christmas bonus. I'm sure that we'll talk again at some point.

    Merry Christmas Bob and a Happy New year to you and yours. And do yourself a favor, go and pick up 2k or 3k shares of TC at these prices and just tuck it away for 3 or 4 years or so. It won't cost very much to do so right now. (Just look it as a lottery ticket money.)

    I have a pretty good idea that you'll be glad that you did....
    Dec 18 11:46 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Thompson Creek Appears Destined To Fail [View article]

    Reading your bio, I would agree, TC would be a bad fit for your investment philosophy.
    But is TC a bad investment? Stock wise, really, who knows?

    But will TC become insolvent, and go out of business, as you claim above?

    You give a very thorough discussion of all in cost for miners above, which is appreciated. It is a good way to compare different miners and to look at overall ROI. It's great for a theoretical discussion. But it;s terrible if you are looking at cash flow, bank balances, credit lines and solvency.

    As far as your assertion that Thompson Creek will fail, what exactly does that mean? Fail by going out of business, right? Ubnable to pay the bills. C;losing the doors.

    Since that appears to be what you mean Bob, then please lay out the numbers - show us how you arrived at this. Show us your math, so to speak. Because all you have given us so far is your opinion on what could happen, absent any actual facts, and a nice theoretical discussion on miners valuations.

    We will keep this all on a cash basis, since cash is what TC needs to spend to generate the cash flow to pay creditors, stay in business, and possibly refinance debt at more favorable terms.
    Cash. The rest is a nice exercise and will affect share price - but how many dollars will come in, and how many dollars will go out?
    That is the bottom line, right?

    Tell me please at current metals pricing, what is your revenue projection for MT Milligan at, say, 50% of total capacity and at 75% of total capacity? Do you believe that TC will not even achieve a 75% run rate with Mt Milligan after 18 months (which is December 2014) even though that is the industry average.

    What do you make of the CEO's assurances that Mt Milligan is "ahead of schedule" and "will be cash flow positive by mid year" 2014?

    So we'll take those numbers. Then we'll run them against current and projected cash burn. For the operational "costs" of Mt Milligan we'll use the same figure the company has used for about 2 years without modification I believe it is $280 million. We'll assume that is all cash costs. Many people believe that is a high number but we'll leave it be for now.

    Then add in the net revenue from he moly operations. Again at current costs. And again, that information is readily available in TC's reports.

    Add in existing cash, from last quarter, plus guidance for revenue and costs for Q4 2013 and lets see where we start from.

    To be conservative, you'll need to run those revenue projections over for 10%, 20% and even 30% lower copper and gold prices.
    To be fair, 30% lower copper would require a much lower global economic forecast than we presently have for next year. While there is significant supply projected to come on the market projections indicate most of it will not be hitting until Mid 2015 or early 2016.

    For moly, we can assume the price will not drop much more than 10%. We are already below cost for most non by product moly mining operations, demand, while stagnant now, is much more likely to increase than decrease from here, and again, although there is a substantial amount of moly production that is going to hit the market, the bulk of it is projected to be in 2015, ramping up to 2016 and beyond.

    As far as gold, we know most gold miners have an all in cost of between $1000 and $1200, and we know demand from China and India (according to reports) is expected to increase. What we don't know is how soon money printing will cause inflation to hit (probably NOT in 2014) or what effect the Fed's tapering will have on gold prices. Being as gold has a large emotional component and little industrial use, it is a very unpredictable commodity.

    FYI, consensus metal pricing forecasts from multiple sources show moly and copper flat to slightly up in 2014, and gold lower early in the year but finishing up 2014 flat or slightly higher than EOY 2013. It is possible that metals pricing could increase, but we'll ignore that for the time being.

    So, if you want to be taken seriously go ahead and run the numbers
    and let's see in what quarter next year, and at what metals pricing TC actually DOES run out of cash. (Hint- it is impossible in Q-1).
    I would do it, but, it's not my article and I am not the one claiming (without backing it up with any actual facts) that a company is going to go out of business. This is your article, and your credibility at stake, I realize that SA probably chose the headline and not you, but you gave them the vehicle to put it on.

    Yes, you will need to assume that the projections that are available from TC, as well as the guidance that is available is accurate, but so you would for any company. We also won't look at the notes due in 4 years as part of this, because best case they have enough cash flow to pay it all off, or they pay some of it off and refinance the rest, or they are, as you believe, insolvent well before that time.

    Bob - you are an analytical guy, let''s look at all the facts and see just how, when and even IF, under what scenario TC actually runs out of cold hard cash and taps out it's credit facilities, and has to shut the doors as insolvent.

    I believe that you are going to be surprised with just how bad everything has to be before TC is threatened with insolvency.

    I am sorry if this sounds harsh, I don't mean it to be, but you cannot just go posting your opinion as fact without backing it up with actual calculations, dates and figures, and expect to be taken seriously.

    I look forward to seeing your calculations and actual conclusions.
    Please also let us know from what report or presentation you are pulling the company's projections and balances from.

    Dec 17 07:18 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Yahoo faces uproar over partial e-mail outage [View news story]
    Since Marissa took over Yahoo, the Yahoo email, message boards and news format have all gotten terrible. Not to mention there is no semblance of customer support. If I had wanted a lousy imitation of gmail I would have gone with hotmail. All the good features that made Yahoo distinct and likable are nearly gone. Nice job Marissa....
    Dec 11 08:26 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Short Seller Targets Herbalife's China Operations [View article]
    I am not getting into whether HLF is a good short or not. (I don't care.)
    Or whether it is a good investment or not. (I don't own it, I don't care.)
    Or whether or not it makes good products or not. (My common sense and business experience tells me they are probably good products that are being oversold.)
    Nor do I know whether or not the company is executing very well, or poorly (I am not going to do all that research for a company I don't own.)
    I am also not affiliated with HLF, have never worked for HLF, and (to my recollection) have never even purchased a product from a HLF distributor.

    This is what I can tell you. By legal and practical definition, (again, based on what I know without taking a detailed look at their compensation plan) HLF is NOT a pyramid scheme. That is really a pretty easy idea for anyone that has ANY business background at all, and ANYONE with ANY experience at all with a multilevel marketing company should be able to tell you in 10 minutes or so (Be it the Amway, or Tupperware, or Avon or Primerica, etc. etc. etc.).

    Now, HLF may be considered by some people that are not financially literate to be a "socially defined" pyramid company, because let's face it, much of the population does not understand the difference and considers virtually any organization that uses multi-level marketing to be a defacto "pyramid scheme".
    (Note - Let me emphasize again I am not saying that ANY of these companies represent a good business opportunity, or sell great products at fair prices. That is another, much more detailed and much, much longer conversation to have. Also, there are ethics involved that I am not going to delve into. I am just looking at the allegation of legality.)

    I am saying is that these types of companies, which DOES include HLF, do NOT meet the legal definition of a "pyramid scheme", at least within the U.S.
    As for China, I am not up on Chinese law, and cannot tell you what is legal in China.
    Chinese laws may be different.
    But a company like HLF with such a high (and let's face it, controversial) profile has to have a team of lawyers to vet their distribution operations, recruiting, sales and compensation tactics so as to NOT run afoul of any legal issues, wherever they operate, in China or Moldova.

    For William Ackman to say that HLF is a "pyramid scheme", and make these allegations in such a public manner, really makes me wonder "why"?

    Why is he doing that?

    I would think a businessman and investor with his experience and credentials MOST certainly should know the difference, even if the average Joe on the street does not.
    (Whether he LIKES HLF's business model or not, is of course a different matter entirely.)
    So why would he come out and make public allegations he cannot prove?
    The only reasons I can think of myself for someone to do such a thing is for personal gain or for some sort of emotionally charged revenge factor. Can anyone else think of other reasons?

    While I have no idea if any of that is the case or not, again, I find this entire campaign of his against HLF to be very odd, almost bordering on the bizarre.
    (Although not as bizarre as what comes out of Washington on a regular basis these days, lol.)

    It would seem like this would provide a great opportunity to trade this stock as the allegations and counter allegations fly back and forth.
    However, that type of trading is above my personal risk tolerance level.
    If it's not above yours, good luck, don't get caught up in the rhetoric, and be very careful.
    Mar 12 05:44 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Misfortunes Of The Big 4 In China [View article]
    Agree. Chinese companies are just too risky to invest capital into. To paraphrase a famous line from Forest Gump, they are like a box of chocolates, you never know just what you're really getting.

    You certainly cannot trust the Chinese government's massaged figures. (They don't even know what their own "real" figures are, as the process is 10X more political in China than in the U.S., and there are no such things as "checks and balances", or even the trappings thereof.

    If you can't trust the government to regulate the companies, and you can't trust the auditors to be truthful, why would you invest a dime?

    The big four got off far, far too easy here imho.
    Jan 28 05:20 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Gevo Is On The Wrong Side Of The Fence [View article]
    It is happening on the 16th, it was just announced.

    Also, the author fails to take into account that GEVO is setting itself up to be a player in the "green" specialty chemical building block market and has partnerships with both Coke and Ford. Also it's main product isobutanol is a much better product for blending into gasoline than ethanol is, and they are likely to make significant revenues there. Gasoline will not become cheap enough to cease to blended with a bio energy product, and other factors such as environmental concerns, renewability and political concerns will fully support blending.

    As a stand alone biofuel product producer, the author is correct about GEVO. In fact, he is correct about the entire biofuel industry. However, the story has shifted, GEVO is making a admirable transition, it has the IP and facilities to become a force in these two industries. (FYI, the reason current "cost of goods" is so hih right now is a matter of economies of scale, NOT the technology. Scale is correctable, technology rarely is.)

    GEVO will not go bankrupt as the author suggests.
    This is another erroneous SA article written from headlines with little in the way of substantive facts to back it up.

    However it should be noted that GEVO's suitability as an investment retains it's highly speculative nature, even more so after this necessary dilution.

    I retain a small, speculative position in GEVO for the long term possibilities which it's IP and processes represent.
    Dec 12 01:14 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Taseko Mines: Target Price Of $2 Without New Prosperity And $7 With New Prosperity [View article]
    TGB represents an amazing opportunity now, own the stock as a call on Prosperity with virtually now downside if it does not go through.
    I don't see how TGB can pull of the development of Prosperity with the current management team though, as badly as the have stumbled through both the Gibraltar upgrade and the previous Prosperity approval process.
    TGB will have to have new management, or be sold, in order to unlock it's true potential value.
    However, that is no reason to not buy the stock now pending approval.

    Chances of approval may be 50-50. Both sides have made their points, and it appears TGB 1) Did a much better job of both pre-empting the opposition argument as well as marshaling local support this time 2) Have more than adequately answered the environmetal smokescreen thrown up by the First Nations Environmental lobbyists and 3) Actually have a sympathetic federal as well as local government this time.

    On the other hand The First Nations 1) Dislike (hate is not too strong of a word) TGB management for trying to strong arm them with the rule of law the first time instead of giving in to their extortionist demands that First Nations actually own the land rights as squatters and TGB's mineral rights are meaningless 2) Have once again put up a good smokescreen by manipulating the far left wing environmentalist lobby into rabidly going to war for them.

    This might be a good made for TV movie were it not for the sad reality that the Canadian government has knuckled under to the demands of a minority group much to the detriment of ALL of it's citizens and made a mess of land ownership rights and the rule of law in Canada in regards to contested lands.
    Sep 12 05:28 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Solazyme Announces U.S. Commercial Production of Renewable™ Algal Oils at Iowa Facilities [View article]
    This is the very beginning of a new era. Ground floor. This technology will prove to be as disruptive to particular industries over time (specialty oils and lubricants, certain oil based chemical industries, the prepackaged food industry, and eventually, possibly even certain fuels as well) as the internet was to communications.

    Very excited for this company and it's prospects five and ten years (or even more) down the road as they refine their processes and build on their patents here.
    Jan 30 06:05 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • David Slays Goliath: Vringo Awarded Billion-Dollar Victory Over Google [View article]
    You all just may want to hold onto your shares for awhile......

    "(Maxim's) Tinker said. "To date, only a handful (of patents) have been acted upon. VRNG has the in-house expertise to sue internationally, unlike most US patent companies who have a "US only" strategy which is subject to potential Government involvement given the backlash against patent trolls."

    Lots of potential revenue. International courts and judges less tolerant of the delaying tactics that are par for the course in the U.S An unfavorable view of infringement in Europe.. It all adds up to lots more revenue for VRNG down the road...
    Jan 29 01:25 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment