Tuesday, January 31, 2006
Google Wierdness on Wall Street
You are probably hearing how google got wallopped in the stock market after hours on Tuesday. Now, I'm not a fan of Google if you are a regular reader, you know how I feel about their increasing, shall we say, hegemony, but their earnings were up 82% from the previous year in the same quarter. That is absolutely balls to the wall, incredbile. Now, Wall Street is rewarding them with a huge shellacking. I'm involved with several small businesses. If any of my businesses had earning up 82% over the previous year, same quarter, I'd be high fiving the entire office, and probably dishing out bonuses to boot, along with buying a keg of beer on a Friday afternoon, if not 2 kegs. Wall Street is just a strange, strange world of pushing the envelope of 'figgers, and never being satisfied with tangible results that are "below" expectations of some numbers crunching MBA-grad 20 something pencil pusher.
More Google--From Rexblog.com
Do know evil: John Battelle asked the following two questions to Google and in both cases they told him, the answer is "yes":
"1) "Given a list of search terms, can Google produce a list of people who searched for that term, identified by IP address and/or Google cookie value?" 2) "Given an IP address or Google cookie value, can Google produce a list of the terms searched by the user of that IP address or cookie value?"
My comment--It's true--Google is the second coming of Big Brother.
"1) "Given a list of search terms, can Google produce a list of people who searched for that term, identified by IP address and/or Google cookie value?" 2) "Given an IP address or Google cookie value, can Google produce a list of the terms searched by the user of that IP address or cookie value?"
My comment--It's true--Google is the second coming of Big Brother.
OIL Issues
I don't have a problem with Exxon making $10 Billion last quarter--did you see that their profit margin was around 8% ? As a comparison, Proctor and Gamble had a profit margin of 13% last quarter. Maybe we should get mad at P&G for making so much money off of soap and TP? I don't find myself in the windfall profit tax area of the debate.
Exxon is making a fair profit on the product they are producing, distributing, and selling. That's how an economy based on capitalism is supposed to work.
I do find myself concerned, however, that Exxon is not re-investing enough funds to look for new sources of energy--That is what we desperately need. A new source of energy that can be rapidly turned into an inexpensive source of fuel. I don't think Hydrogen is it. It is too expensive to convert to energy (although water is the only needed ingredient besides hydrogen). Hybrid fuel cells have promise--but they depend too much on oil still. I'm going to keep posting on this challenge.
Read these thoughts from Steven Leeb, a leading analyst and stock guru-
OUR DEPENDENCY ON THE KINDNESS OF ROGUES
The danger we must be ever on the lookout for is an oil spike. Today, oil prices are being driven higher by 1) a long-term gap between supply and demand and 2) the political problems within the world’s largest oil producers.
Last Thursday – to pick the most recent example – Iran’s president threatened to put an embargo on oil exports from his country if the IAEA refers the issue of Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council. Eoin O’Callaghan, an oil analyst for BNP Paribas, warned that such a move could push oil prices over $90 a barrel – exactly the type of spike we have been fearing, because it would mean we need to switch to a more defensive investment posture.
We have said several times that America’s dependence on rogue nations for our oil supply is our biggest liability. From Iran to Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia – all the big oil exporters are either undeveloped, unstable, or renegade economies. The reason for this is simple. All the stable, developed, friendly countries that have oil are already using all the oil they produce and, like us, are looking to buy more.
In a recent article by Fortune Magazine writer Nelson Schwartz, billionaire investor George Soros is quoted as being “very worried about the supply-demand balance” in oil. What’s more, Soros comments, “Iran is on a collision course and I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided.”
If that isn’t enough, the article also quotes Hermitage Capital’s Bill Browder who thinks oil could reach $262 a barrel.
My new book, The Coming Economic Collapse (which was finished last October, and will be released next month), makes a similar prediction.
So where does that leave us for the near term? Right now, stocks are still enjoying seasonal strength, having recovered a little last week. And this strength may continue for the next two weeks or so. However, our Master Key is still close to neutral, so after then all bets are off.
Again, I must stress: keep an eye on oil. If it does experience a spike above $90, that could create weakness in all stocks, even energy stocks, as it would imply the start of a recession.
Back to my thoughts----I don't have a problem with Exxon making $10 Billion last quarter--did you see that their profit margin was around 8% ? As a comparison, Proctor and Gamble had a profit margin of 13% last quarter. Maybe we should get mad at P&G for making so much money off of soap and TP? I don't find myself in the windfall profit tax area of the debate.
Exxon is making a fair profit on the product they are producing, distributing, and selling. That's how a capitality economy works.
I do find myself concerned that Exxon is not re-investing enough funds to look for new sources of energy--That is what we desperately need. A new source of energy that can be rapidly turned into an inexpensive source of fuel. I don't think Hydrogen is it.It is too expensive to convert to energy (although water is the only needed ingredient besides hydrogen). Hybrid fuel cells have promise--but they depend too much on oil still. I'm going to keep posting on this challenge.
Exxon is making a fair profit on the product they are producing, distributing, and selling. That's how an economy based on capitalism is supposed to work.
I do find myself concerned, however, that Exxon is not re-investing enough funds to look for new sources of energy--That is what we desperately need. A new source of energy that can be rapidly turned into an inexpensive source of fuel. I don't think Hydrogen is it. It is too expensive to convert to energy (although water is the only needed ingredient besides hydrogen). Hybrid fuel cells have promise--but they depend too much on oil still. I'm going to keep posting on this challenge.
Read these thoughts from Steven Leeb, a leading analyst and stock guru-
OUR DEPENDENCY ON THE KINDNESS OF ROGUES
The danger we must be ever on the lookout for is an oil spike. Today, oil prices are being driven higher by 1) a long-term gap between supply and demand and 2) the political problems within the world’s largest oil producers.
Last Thursday – to pick the most recent example – Iran’s president threatened to put an embargo on oil exports from his country if the IAEA refers the issue of Iran’s nuclear program to the UN Security Council. Eoin O’Callaghan, an oil analyst for BNP Paribas, warned that such a move could push oil prices over $90 a barrel – exactly the type of spike we have been fearing, because it would mean we need to switch to a more defensive investment posture.
We have said several times that America’s dependence on rogue nations for our oil supply is our biggest liability. From Iran to Nigeria, Venezuela, Iraq, Saudi Arabia – all the big oil exporters are either undeveloped, unstable, or renegade economies. The reason for this is simple. All the stable, developed, friendly countries that have oil are already using all the oil they produce and, like us, are looking to buy more.
In a recent article by Fortune Magazine writer Nelson Schwartz, billionaire investor George Soros is quoted as being “very worried about the supply-demand balance” in oil. What’s more, Soros comments, “Iran is on a collision course and I have a difficulty seeing how such a collision can be avoided.”
If that isn’t enough, the article also quotes Hermitage Capital’s Bill Browder who thinks oil could reach $262 a barrel.
My new book, The Coming Economic Collapse (which was finished last October, and will be released next month), makes a similar prediction.
So where does that leave us for the near term? Right now, stocks are still enjoying seasonal strength, having recovered a little last week. And this strength may continue for the next two weeks or so. However, our Master Key is still close to neutral, so after then all bets are off.
Again, I must stress: keep an eye on oil. If it does experience a spike above $90, that could create weakness in all stocks, even energy stocks, as it would imply the start of a recession.
Back to my thoughts----I don't have a problem with Exxon making $10 Billion last quarter--did you see that their profit margin was around 8% ? As a comparison, Proctor and Gamble had a profit margin of 13% last quarter. Maybe we should get mad at P&G for making so much money off of soap and TP? I don't find myself in the windfall profit tax area of the debate.
Exxon is making a fair profit on the product they are producing, distributing, and selling. That's how a capitality economy works.
I do find myself concerned that Exxon is not re-investing enough funds to look for new sources of energy--That is what we desperately need. A new source of energy that can be rapidly turned into an inexpensive source of fuel. I don't think Hydrogen is it.It is too expensive to convert to energy (although water is the only needed ingredient besides hydrogen). Hybrid fuel cells have promise--but they depend too much on oil still. I'm going to keep posting on this challenge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)