What stocks would be a good buy right now?

Yup, it is TIPS that will bankrupt US in the end, where $ bonds never could.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Certainly, promising to pay more than face value when inflation gets worse, will accelerate the debt, make the inflation get worse even faster, so I agree with you, but TIPs are NOT the fundamental problem. Bonds can bankrupt a nation too, Look at Argentina, but it takes a lot of them when your currency is the basis of internatinal trade. The fundamental cause was mainly three things when Republicans controlled Congress:

(1)Greenspan's excessive long and low rates trying to avoid greater effect of the "dot.com" bubble bursting, etc. that only converted that bubble into a more dangerous /damaging real estate bubble.

(2a) GWB's administration operating on Republican "trickle down" economic theory reduced taxes on the already wealthy, who used their increased cash to invest in modern Chinese (et. al.) factories so now China is the world leader in car sales, wind machine production and instillations, largest maker of solar cells, the run-away- world leader in Hybrid cars (> 500,000 will made in and sold in 2009, with BYD making 400,000 and W. Buffett a 10% owner of the factory - excess cash is invested where the expected yield to risk is most attractive.)

(2b) GWB's administration attacked Iraq, to get the oil contracts away from France & Russia, instead of his biggest financial supporters, the Saudi Royal family, that financed and trained 15 of the 19 terrorists of 9/11.

(2c) GWB's administration that turned a blind SEC eye to market abuses like Madoff and in general believed that the markets would "self-regulate" well, better than government could, so Government should not interfere - not even enforce the laws or regulate.

(3) On the very last day of the last Congress of Clinton's administration, late in the afternoon, a rider was attached to an important bill, by a Republican Senator, which allowed investment banks to be also being commercial banks (prohibited since the mid 1930s). Not one Senator even read this amendment and the bill passed 99 to 1 in the Senate as all Senators wanted to catch their planes home. This made a built in conflict of interest: Banks which were writing mortgages, etc. need not be concerned with the ability of borrower to repay as they could, via their investment arm, package these mortgages into what is now called "toxic assets" and sell them to investors all over the world, especially with the help of dishonest AA ratings. Etc.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Alcoa was selling for $35 per share in the last 5-10 years. It is now selling for about $12-13 per share.

I do not think they will go out of business, in which case they are likely to get back to $25-40 per share.

Historically, companies which survive have always gotten back to or exceeded their previous highs.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jeff Immelt has Obama in his back pocket. Buy GE.

 

6 months later


The S&P, the measuring stick for American stock pickers, up 27%

joepistole's pick
GLS up 138%

nirakar's picks
RSX up 76%
EWZ up 72%
VALE up 70%
IFN up 57%
Rig up 38%
ETF up 32%

River Ape's picks
SGO.PA up about 53% including Euro rise
EDF.PA up about 37% including Euro rise
CA.PA up about 20% including Euro rise

The Euro is up about 14% over the last 6 months

Captain Kremmen's pick
Nintendo NTO.BE down about 15% in Euros, NTDOY.PK down about 2% in dollars

fedr808 picks
Platinum the commodity up about 17%
Rhodium the commodity up about 26%

All above picks April 21-April 23

Scorpious May 2 GM pick for longer term than 6 months.
MTLQQ.PK down about 60%

joepistole's June 13 picks
FCX up 40%
BAC up 19%
WFC up 16%

Since June 13 S&P up 15%

EmeraldAxe June 13 pick
GSK up 10%


August 16th picks
Dinosaur Alcoa AA up 11%
nietzschefan GE up 14%
S&P since August 16th up 10%

As a group we beat the S&P decisively while the S&P was having a good six months.

 

Playing the Market

Does anyone else here invest in the stock market?

I did for years but pulled out all my money in August of last year and bought a house.

Now I'm thinking about starting over again and throwing some in there here very shortly.

Having not been involved in the market for over a year, I was curious as to what stocks seem to be worth investing in.

What stocks do you put $$$ in?

 

I told you to buy ADRs of Brazilian and Indian companies at least seven years ago. If you had when I first told you to, you would have at least doubled your dollars in India and tripled them in Brazil, despite the current recession downturn in stocks.(As these markets are more volatile than the DOW, I am comparing to a 200 day moving average. For example, yesterday the Dow dropped 2.61% and Brazil’s “dow” is down 4,73% after 143% dollar gain in only 2009.)

Here are Jim Jubak’s three reasons why this is still good advice.

(1) There's a strong correlation between the age of a population and how fast an economy grows. The younger a country's population, the faster its economy generally grows. By 2020 about 16.3% of the U.S. population is projected to be 65 or older. In China only 12.4% of the population will be 65 or older in 2020; in Brazil 8.7% and India only 6,7%. Almost all the world looks ancient compared with India. Developing countries will grow faster than the U.S. because they will be supporting fewer retirees.

(2) I do have problems seeing how global industries with mature technologies can avoid destructive price wars that result in nobody making a whole lot of money. That's why, when I'm building my country allocations for this long-term stock portfolio, I'd give extra weight to economies with big domestic markets (as a percentage of GDP). China, with a 36% consumer-consumption-to-GDP ratio, is on the low end of the scale. Brazil, at 65%, comes in close to the 70% share in the U.S. I'd give extra points to Poland on this factor because the country is a low-cost producer of many goods and it now belongs to the huge consumer market of the European Union. {Billy T notes that Brazil’s GDP is 87% domestic when internal development/ investment is added to the 65% consumer consumption. Many falsely think exports dominate but they are only 13% of the GDP.}

(3) I would overweight Brazil in my global stock portfolio. While China, India and much of Eastern Europe are duking it out over information services and automobile manufacturing, Brazil is heading down a road with little global competition. You can see the outlines of this road in a recent joint venture between Brazil's Cosan, the largest sugar and ethanol processor in the world, and Royal Dutch Shell. The joint venture will combine Shell's distribution system in Brazil with Cosan's sugar and ethanol production assets. And Shell will throw in $1.6 billion in cash as part of its contribution to the venture. The cash payment tells you something important about who controls the scarce resources and technology here. The oil company is the one coughing up the cash.

If you want to be a part of the cutting edge in crop-to-energy technologies and, increasingly, in other areas of plant technology, the day is coming when you'll need a presence in Brazil.

Condensed form: http://articles.moneycentral.msn.co.../how-to-pick-2020s-hot-stocks-now.aspx?page=1 (and pages 2 & 3)

Billy T will expand this last point: One Brazilian company, Denidi, (unfortunately still privately owned -no stock available) makes more than 80% of all the cane to alcohol production plants in the world (ships them to India etc.) In 2008 Cosan bought all of ExxonMobil’s 1,500 Brazilian post of gasoline for 826million USD (mainly to sell its alcohol to stations other producers could not sell to). Worldwide, Shell has 45,000 gas stations now 46,500. I.e. about half of the 1.6 billion can be considered as buying 1500 gas stations (a half interest in them). This new joint venture still has no name -only announced three days ago.

Shell wants to greatly expand the alcohol part of its fuel system and knows how to lobby US Congressmen ($) etc. The stupidity of US tax payers paying about twice what they should for car fuel may soon end. – In “twice” I included the subsidy to corn, the subsidy to US alcohol producers, the “blender’s bonus” and the 54 cents / gallon tariff, which along with quotas keeps cheaper alcohol produced in tropical lands from sugar cane (with much lower land and labor cost) out of USA.

Joe American, is a slow learner and quite stupid at times, but Shell will use TV etc. to help him understand how he is being screwed by big oil and Detroit’s gas guzzlers. Shell can see that oil’s day’s as a cheap fuel are numbered and is moving to adapt. (Shell is targeting Japan and EU also, perhaps even China as they badly need a clean burning fuel for their rapidly expanding fleet of IC engines powered cars.) Shell/ Cosan's buying of Brazilian alcohol producers and cane fields may just be starting as less than 2% of Brazil's farm land grows cane. - I.e. Alcohol production can expand at least five times even if only abandoned pasture land starts growing cane.

More on alcohol fuel here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=50183 Thread is "Alcohol the obvious answer -Yes or No?"
More on "stupid Joe" here: http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=55882 Thread is: "How Dumb can US voters be?"

 

I largely agree with BillyT with the exception of crop to energy technology. I just do not see crop to energy technology as viable. The Brazilian solution to energy will not work for the US. It is expensive to produce and distribute and can affect food prices - something we saw a few years ago here in the US.

Specfically I like Vale (Brazil) and Standard Pacific (US), Ford (US), and I like the Matthews Fund (China). I don't like investing in individual companies in China as I just don't have the required expertise/knowledge for that market.

On the energy front, I like natural gas. I agree with BillyT that Joe American is pretty ignorant with respect to energy. But the US is very rich in natural gas and if we ever got our act together we could rather quickly become energy independent by using our natural gas instead of buying oil from overseas.

So I like the pipeline companies that pay a nice quarterly cash distribution (6-9 percent annualized) which is also tax deferred. And in that space, I like EPD (Enterprise Products Partners) and KMP (Kender, Morgan Energy).

I also like some beaten down bank stocks like Bank of America and Zions Bank (regional bank). These are recovery stories. You have the US government and Federal Reserve working their hearts out to get these banks thriving again.

At worst, Bank of America will be forced to sell off its nonbank investments. And that would yield a hugh cash benefit to stockholders. I am convinced the governement is not stupid enough to force a fire sale on bank assets as that would be really stupid, like shooting itself in the heart or pretty close to it anyway.

 

I agree. Growing energy crops where part of the year the ground is frozen makes no sense. (Why I try to be careful to always say "tropical sugar cane" does.)

If second generation alcohol (waste cellulose source) is viable then the US may eventually get significant green energy as US does grow a lot of cellulose with no current use.)

I also agree that US has a lot of natural gas and it (CH4) is less polluting than other fossil sources. It will be an economic question, not yet answered, if Tropical Sugar Cane alcohol is cheaper fuel than natural gas. - It is completely green (actually a slight negative source of CO2 when the cane roots and stored fuel is considered.) and a liquid (high energy density is easier to move via pipelines and to store). Possibly the carbon credits will tip the economic balance in favor of Tropical Sugar Cane alcohol?

 

What about companies in the renewable energies like solar,wind etc? Anything worth pursuing there?

 

Personally, I would stay away from them...too much risk versus payback. It is not at all clear that Obama and the Democrats will be able to pass Cap and Trade legislation at this point. Oil prices are going to have to get a lot higher and stay higher for wind to become more attractive.

 

Is Baidu worth a punt? I love to gamble.

 

By following this advice you promise to give me 5% of your profit

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Buy GTHP.OB

New technology that tests for Breast cancer. Works better than the current standard of testing.

I know you're saying, "OTC! Hell no!"... but its an opportunity..

The risk with OTC is primarily that companies could be bsing everything. But I think this one is different.

Their technology is being backed by NCI... receiving grants isn't a piece of cake- its a competitive market to get grants.

( http://finance.yahoo.com/news/National-Cancer-Institute-bw-3610559626.html?x=0&.v=1 )

Their trial results are very good. Find the article yourself its been some time..

Lastly they have submitted a completed PMA to FDA already- (at least as far as I can tell)

They are awaiting FDA response-

Low market cap, and a big potential because of the industry.

You weigh the risk and reward..

Good luck, and remember my 5%

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Las Vegas Sand. It might be a little late, but it went from $2 to $50 in 2 years....

 

I doubt that. Here is review of HOLX's breast cancer section:

"The Breast Health segment offers breast imaging products, such as selenia full field digital mammography system, breast tomosynthesis, screen-film mammography systems, securview workstation, cad systems, stereotactic breast biopsy systems, breast biopsy products, mammosite radiation therapy systems, mammopad breast cushions, and photoconductor coatings. This segment also develops a breast imaging platform, Dimensions, which utilizes a tomosynthesis technology to produce 3D images. ... "

For years they have had world's only immediate 2D mammograms. (There is no film to develop.) They developed a 3D version, which picks up smaller tumors that all 2D systems often miss or needs expensive and delaying patent call-back to confirm. They sent final request to market their 3D "tomosynthesis technology" to FDA and all thought it would get quick approval, but FDA was not sure it was such a great improvement over 2D and asked for more evidence, as it cost more and may expose patient to slightly more X-rays.

That surprising FDA request for more data was quite a shock to the stock, but fortunately I had sold my shares on the rise up as I wanted to dump some stocks and use their funds to buy C. Schwab's relatively new ETF called SCHP* which holds only TIPS. I now own 5,555 units of that now and have very little cash in my credit unions now as the dollar will go down more rapidly now I am betting.

--------------
* It has no fee to buy or sell and only 0.14% annual fee, compared to the 0.25% fee Vanguard charges me for my 403b retirement plan investment, now recently moved to be 100% in their "TIP -like" fund (0119 is fund number).

I am "battening down the hatches" as too old to rebuild my fortune - just trying to keep the purchasing power of what I have now although I have some exposure to oil industry and more to the miners of silver (and gold) plus SLW. The US will have gridlock for at least two years. Some foolishly think that will be good for the US but "gridlock" will not in the slightest lessen the US's many and growing problems. Thinking it will is like an ostrich sticking it head in the sand to hid from the charging lion.

 

Gambling is not investing. I suggest that you consider Billy T's advice to buy and EFT in developing countries like Brazil, China or India. In buying an ETF you get diversification. If you are not a serious investor, buy the ETF. You don't want to wake up one morning to learn you have been wiped out because of an accounting fraud.

 

Well I wouldn't gamble more than I was prepared to lose. I did say I liked to gamble. I bought 6 shares at $110 each....now I'm off to the slots.

 

Imaging is something different...FDA approval depends on being better in the field that it is in. The question was is 3D actually providing any benefit over current 2D devices. What GTHP is developing is not an imaging device.. so FDA procedure is different.

The 'standard' testing which is used is not imaging- but usually tissue tests... GTHP is non-invasive way to test it...

No doctor refers you to imaging outright because it costs too much to insurance- and they would probably not approve referral without first getting less expensive PAP tests or something to somehow show that further thorough testing is needed.. GTHP test work better than this standard. Imaging tumors is a later step in diagnosis.

Peace be unto you

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Mammograms are the standard way to screen for breast cancer (after only perhaps manual self examination but hard to know how much or well that is practiced). Tissue testing comes only some indication from a mammogram. The standard confirming test of the mammogram detected lumps is with a needle extraction for biopsy (as is true for closely related prostate cancer)

Can you give a link to their web page or describe their alternative to extraction of tissue for testing? Not all limps found in the breast are cancer - it takes a skilled and specialized, pathologist to tell which are by microscopic examination so I am very curious how discrimination between benign and cancer lump can be done without invasive extraction of tiny tissue sample.

Even if such a procedure exists, it will be more than a decade before it gains much acceptance, which is not good for stock appreciation rate.

Wrong on both points:

(1) Currently insurance companies pay for any preventive testing (or treatments) that has been approved by FDA (is safe and effective) which your doctor may want to use.* Soon, I hope, they will only pay the fee associated with equally effective but less expensive testing when after a three year period in which the new, more expensive, tests (and treatments) have been found to be no more effective than the older cheaper tests. See more discussion of the newly proposed plan for reducing needless cost of health care in the US here: http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2640077&postcount=65

(2) PAP test is used to diagnose cervical cancer disease - nothing to do with breast cancer and I am almost sure it is not even correlated with breast cancer, which is a hormone sensitive disease, like prostate cancer is.

* After the new plan goes into effect, he can still treat you by any FDA approved procedure - only he will not get paid more for it than equally effective treatments. The health care / drug industry pays doctors huge sums annually and falsely informs them with sales reps that their treatment is better even if much more expensive. Now that GWB is no longer POTUS, this is being better curbed and major drug companies have paid more than seven billion dollars in fines. For example:


“…Since May 2004, Pfizer, Eli Lilly,Bristol-Myers Squibb and four other drug companies have paid a total of $7 billion in fines and penalties. Six of the companies admitted in court that they marketed medicines for unapproved uses. In September 2007, New York-based Bristol-Myers paid $515 million -- without admitting or denying wrongdoing …

From: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/19/AR2010031905578.html

But they can also skirt the law to pay doctors even more to use and recommend their drugs as follows:

"Tens of thousands of U.S. physicians are paid to spread the word about pharma's favored pills and to advise the companies about research and marketing," the group says in its report, … investigation by journalism group ProPublica, Consumer Reports magazine, NPR radio and several publications showed doctors were sometimes urged to recommend "off-label" prescriptions of drugs, meaning using them for conditions they are not approved for. “Tens of thousands of U.S. physicians are paid to spread the word about pharma's favored pills and to advise the companies about research and marketing,"

From: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69I3PO20101019

SUMMARY It is little wonder that the US's "for profit" health care system is twice as expensive as European public health care systems yet delivers several years LESS life expectancy! The AMA (American Medical Association) is the world's most successful labor union as it restricts the supply of doctors via its and their control of admissions to medical school (a prevention of new medical school form forming). Doctors in the US collect many times more in "fee for services" than salaried European doctors do - They are definitely part of the US "for profit" health care system (and plan to keep it that way).

European doctors view a medical career as a way to serve their community. In the US the view is that it is a very lucrative business, with some few exceptions.