Author Topic: Watch a stock  (Read 8118 times)

0 Members and 4 Guests are viewing this topic.

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #15 on: April 28, 2008, 10:33:34 PM »
http://www.gurit.com/


Part of the problem is that there are several supplyers of Carbon fibre so competition will not treat them all kindly .


What can you do to determine which ones are likely to build themselves the best?


http://www.medibix.com/CompanySearch.jsp?cs_choice=c&clt_choice=t&treepath=16157&stype=i

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #16 on: April 28, 2008, 10:39:12 PM »
Now at 28.


I plan to look in on this a few months from now , looking at the price day to day is too often.

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #17 on: April 28, 2008, 11:11:22 PM »
weekly or biweekly would be the best strategy
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #18 on: April 29, 2008, 06:34:58 PM »
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=researchers-build-micro-s


Spider fiber , another potential building materiel

the things that might be developed are very unpredictable.

Rich

  • Guest
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #19 on: April 29, 2008, 06:38:37 PM »
>>Eventually, carbon fiber will make tons of money, but apparently its time has not arrived as of yet.<<

I revently saw a program about a group of scientists working together to improve the automobile. One of the things they came up with is making the body out of carbon fiber. It would be a great improvement in both weight and strength. One problem, it would be enormously expensive to machine to the parts. They are working on creating the machines to machine the parts right now. Hopefully it will work.

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11149
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #20 on: April 29, 2008, 07:03:18 PM »
how safe is it rich?
the tree huggers all want us in yugos
but i think stats show injuries and death happen more in tin can cars
again is the leftist medicine worse than the disease?
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #21 on: April 29, 2008, 08:44:40 PM »
the tree huggers all want us in yugos
but i think stats show injuries and death happen more in tin can cars
again is the leftist medicine worse than the disease?

====================================
What drivel. No one wants anyone in Yugos. No one ever wanted anyone in Yugos. No one has been able to buy a Yugo for a decade.

I think you do not know diddly about statistics. A small car like a Caliber is safer than a 1980's larger car, like a Regal/Citation/Ciera.

The disease is a car that no one can afford to drive anywhere. Large SUVs make most people less safe, since they damage more when they crash and they are a larger target. Plus, they are trucks with poor handling, driven by fools who think they are driving a car.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Christians4LessGvt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 11149
    • View Profile
    • "The Religion Of Peace"
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #22 on: April 29, 2008, 09:16:17 PM »
"I think you do not know diddly about statistics"




People buy small cars even though they can be deadly

MORE DRIVERS DIE IN SMALL CARS
 
Driver deaths per million vehicles: 
All small cars   108
Midsize cars  70
Large cars  67
SUVs  55

Source: Insurance Institute for Highway Safety
 
By James R. Healey, USA TODAY

Americans are buying more small cars to cut fuel costs, and that might kill them.

As a group, occupants of small cars are more likely to die in crashes than those in bigger, heavier vehicles are, according to data from the government, the insurance industry and the National Academy of Sciences (NAS).

The newest small vehicles, of course, meet today's strict safety standards and can be laden with the latest safety hardware, such as stability control and side air bags. They are safer than ever. And differing designs mean some small cars are safer than average. But even the safest are governed by the laws of physics, which rule in favor of bigger, heavier vehicles, even in single-vehicle crashes.

If the switch to smaller, lighter vehicles continues to grow, the result could be anywhere from dozens to thousands of traffic deaths that would have been avoided in bigger vehicles, according to fatality records and safety forecasters. The number depends on how many bigger, heavier vehicles ultimately are replaced by smaller, lighter cars.

"People are looking for ways to save fuel, and they need to know that if they decide to buy a much smaller vehicle, they are putting themselves and their families at risk," says Adrian Lund, president of the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. IIHS, supported by auto insurance companies, follows traffic deaths closely.

Lund was on an NAS panel that examined potential safety impacts and other consequences of stricter fuel-economy regulations. The panel's report, published in 2002, noted that there are safe, cost-effective ways to boost mileage, but cutting the size and weight of vehicles is not one of them. Years of statistics show that small cars "are involved in more collisions than larger vehicles," and "Small vehicles have higher fatality rates than larger ones," the NAS report said.

When the NAS report was published, small-car sales were 13.7% of the new-vehicle market, and dropping. Today, they have climbed to 15.4%.

High fuel prices, which topped $3 a gallon earlier this year for the third-consecutive year and now average about $2.75, have whipped up interest in fuel-saving small cars.

"With the price of gasoline, it's a fuel-economy thing," says Robin Dey, 56, a nurse in Santa Barbara, Calif., who is shopping for a Honda Civic small car for her daughter in college and drives a Volkswagen New Beetle herself. She says prices got to $3.89 a gallon in her area before they began declining.

"Small cars are more economical, which is important to me because I do a lot of home health care and a lot of driving," she says, running up nearly 100,000 miles on her 2001 Beetle.

Small cars are the only cars selling better this year than last. In fact, they are the only vehicles of any kind, except SUVs, doing better in a new-vehicle market that's down 3.2% from a year ago, according to sales tracker Autodata. Small-car sales are up 0.2% this year from a year ago.

Sales and registration data show that small cars ? what most people call compacts and subcompacts, such as Civic, Toyota Corolla, Ford Focus, Mazda3, Nissan Sentra, Chevrolet Cobalt and smaller ? are about 14% of vehicles on the road. But they accounted for nearly 24% of occupants killed in one- and two-vehicle crashes in 2005, the latest year for which specific information is available.

Crashes involving three or more vehicles, which accounted for 7% of fatalities, are excluded from this analysis because the number of vehicles involved in those crashes makes it impossible to determine the fatal contribution of each. Deaths of pedestrians, cyclists, skateboarders and others who weren't riding in vehicles, 13% of the total, also are excluded.

Even when you adjust for the typically younger and less-experienced drivers often behind the wheel in small cars and focus even more tightly by counting only driver deaths, the statistics still are troubling.

A driver is up to twice as likely to die in a small car as in a midsize, just one step up the size scale, according to IIHS data. A 2003 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) report showed similar results.

But you can't simply buy a big, heavy vehicle and assume you're safe. Studies show that extra weight does little or no good after about 4,500 pounds, roughly the weight of a minivan or midsize SUV. And the heaviest vehicles, full-size pickups, have driver death rates about the same as small cars.

Small cars can be made safer, but that can boost the price and cut the mileage, undermining the reasons for buying a small car in the first place.

"One of the safest vehicles is the VW Jetta, and it's a relatively small vehicle. VW has designed it very carefully ? and charges for it," says Marc Ross, professor emeritus in the physics department at the University of Michigan. He's written a number of papers on small cars and safety.

Volkswagens, in general, he says, "tend to be safe, but they are heavier and get lower fuel economy. If you improve safety, you make a vehicle heavier, at least with today's technology."

Jetta, a compact, weighs more than 3,200 pounds, the same as a midsize car and about 500 pounds more than a typical compact. The weight of its safety hardware and extra-robust structure drags Jetta's mileage per gallon into the mid-20s in combined city-highway driving, same as a midsize car and about 5 mpg less than a typical compact. And Jetta's starting price of $17,000 is about $2,000 more than other popular compacts.

"There are lots of answers" to the question of small-car safety, Ross says. "There just aren't any simple ones."

A June report by a group called the International Council on Clean Transportation (ICCT) includes some data from Ross and co-author Tom Wenzel of the U.S. Energy Department's Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. That Ross-Wenzel data show that drivers of the safest small cars are only 13% to 15% more likely to die in crashes than drivers of midsize and full-size cars are. But the chart also shows that the least-safe small cars are at least 90% more dangerous than midsize and full-size cars, meaning the driver is almost twice as likely to be killed.

"If you say light cars are more dangerous, in an average sense they are, and some are much more dangerous," Ross says.

The ICCT report was meant to show Congress that it could impose higher fuel-economy standards without compromising safety. The report insists there are "no trade-offs" between size and safety and applauds Honda and Volkswagen for "designing their lighter vehicles to be as safe as heavier vehicles."

But the automakers themselves dispute that.

"We have never made such a statement. Safety is important, but we have never contended that (smaller, lighter vehicles) are at the same level of occupant protection as large vehicles. There are laws of physics involved," says Keith Price, VW's U.S. spokesman. "A 2,000-pound (VW) Rabbit against a 6,000-pound Hummer ? well, it's going to be the 6,000-pound Hummer."

"All else being equal, large will trump small," Honda Vice President Ed Cohen said when the ICCT report was released.

There's no single index to the overall safety of small cars, or any vehicles, but several lists are useful. Ross favors the driver death rates published periodically by IIHS in "Status Report" updates at www.iihs.org. Crash-test scores published by NHTSA (www.safercar.gov) and by IIHS can help you weed out the flimsiest vehicles and those with the poorest designs and least-effective safety features.

"If you drive responsibly, you should be safe in a small car," says NHTSA spokesman Rae Tyson. "The important thing is that consumers have a choice. If they want to buy big cars, they should be able to do that. If they want to buy small cars, they should be able to do that, too."

Chris Garlington, 28, a Los Angeles photographer, bought a Toyota Matrix last month, partly because it had room for his photo gear and partly because it was the biggest of the low-price, fuel-saving small cars he was considering.

"I figured I should get the largest I can afford," Garlington says. "That's what they recommend at (shopping service) Fighting Chance, to get the biggest vehicle within the class that you can, for safety."

Matrix scores well in most NHTSA categories but requires the optional side air bags for a good score in side-crash tests.

Safety-minded buyers should "pass up very small light vehicles," IIHS says in its publication Shopping for a Safer Car 2007. Size and weight are "the first crashworthiness attributes to consider," the publication says. Yet multiple air bags, stability control and other modern safety features have convinced people that small cars aren't dangerous.

"I did take safety into account, which is why I wanted to be sure the car has side and head-curtain air bags," says Karen Jennings, 39, a saleswoman in Chattanooga, Tenn.

She's shopping for a replacement for her 1998 Chevrolet Cavalier small car. She's restricted her search to small cars because she's short, 5-foot-2, and believes that small cars "are a little cheaper to run, less expensive to buy."

She's unconcerned about small cars' relatively poor safety record because of the available air bags and because "I'm a very defensive driver. I haven't had an accident in 20-some years of driving."

Dey, the nurse in Santa Barbara, also cites safety hardware: "It seems like every car I look at has at least six air bags."

Often heard is that small cars' agility lets them avoid crashes. But the NAS report found no data to back that up.

And the 2003 NHTSA report written by Charles Kahane, whose size-vs.-safety studies often are cited in other safety reports, went further. Kahane suggested, "Small cars, because they felt more maneuverable, might even have induced drivers to weave in traffic or take other risks they would ordinarily have avoided in a larger vehicle."

The deadly potential of small cars isn't, as many people presume, because SUVs crash into them. Just one of every 11 people ? 9% ? who died in small cars died as the result of collisions with SUVs, NHTSA data show.

By contrast, 53% of small-car deaths in 2005 involved only small cars. Either a single small car crashed into something such as a guardrail or tree or two small cars crashed into each other, according to the NHTSA data.

Back in the '80s

Small cars' zenith was 1981. Americans still were smarting over petroleum shortages, rationing and record prices after two oil embargoes by Middle East nations in the 1970s. The government had imposed the first fuel-economy regulations. As a result, small cars were 37.7% of the new-vehicle market in '81 ? a bigger slice than, for example, the 28.8% that SUVs have today.

Their share of sales eroded to a nadir of 13% in 2004, according to Autodata figures. It climbed to 13.5% in '05, when gasoline first hit $3 a gallon after hurricanes damaged petroleum production in the Gulf of Mexico. Last year, small cars were 14.5%, and this year, they are 15.4% of new-vehicle sales.

The lower prices and better mileage of small cars are alluring. But the statistics defining their safety trade-offs are striking.

In its publication about buying a safer car, IIHS lists its "Top Safety Pick" in each size category.

Under small cars, instead of naming two or three high-scoring models, IIHS declares: "No winners."

Do you think smaller cars are too big a price to pay for better fuel economy?

 http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-08-19-small-cars_N.htm
"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" - Ronald Reagan - June 12, 1987

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #23 on: April 30, 2008, 06:06:36 AM »
Why not quote the government statistics? Why not mention CU?

Why not address whether a person wearing his/her seat belt in a small car is safer/less safe than someone in an SUV wearing none?

Actually, the survival rate in all auto accidents is a lot better than it was in the 1950's or 1960's, when there were fewer small cars.

Is insurance less for drivers of SUVs (and crewcab and other pickup trucks) than it is for drivers of small cars? Does the Insurance Institute put its money where its mouth is?

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Maccus Germanis

  • Guest
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #24 on: April 30, 2008, 05:32:19 PM »
http://finance.aol.com/quotes/zoltek-companies-inc/zolt/nas

http://www.zoltek.com/

at 27.


I am certain the product will be in demand (carbon fiber ) but is the company being run by dummies?

With a P/E of 144.28, I'd advise that you may look, but don't touch. -But, I'm largely a value investor-
HXL makes enough carbon fiber, and other products, to keep their P/E at 29.71.
DOW - 13.49

Though they don't make carbon fiber, GTI, by making high temp graphite components, earns enough to have a ratio to price (19.58) of 14.36.

And as long as you're content to look, or willing to trade on foreign markets, Toray (3402 JAP) and Unidym (not-publically traded) are interesting.
« Last Edit: April 30, 2008, 06:01:01 PM by Maccus Germanis »

Amianthus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7574
  • Bring on the flames...
    • View Profile
    • Mario's Home Page
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #25 on: April 30, 2008, 05:55:00 PM »
Why not quote the government statistics?

Why don't you? After all, you have said that small cars are safer than SUVs. Do you have those statistics?
Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight. (Benjamin Franklin)

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #26 on: May 01, 2008, 06:04:23 AM »
http://finance.aol.com/quotes/zoltek-companies-inc/zolt/nas

http://www.zoltek.com/

at 27.


I am certain the product will be in demand (carbon fiber ) but is the company being run by dummies?

With a P/E of 144.28, I'd advise that you may look, but don't touch. -But, I'm largely a value investor-
HXL makes enough carbon fiber, and other products, to keep their P/E at 29.71.
DOW - 13.49

Though they don't make carbon fiber, GTI, by making high temp graphite components, earns enough to have a ratio to price (19.58) of 14.36.

And as long as you're content to look, or willing to trade on foreign markets, Toray (3402 JAP) and Unidym (not-publically traded) are interesting.


No, I haven't bought yet, not sure I will. I am planning to watch a few for a while .

A high P/E means a lot of investors have high expectations , this reduces the potential for a large payback somewhat , but if a product has a bright future won't a high P/E naturally occur?
« Last Edit: May 01, 2008, 06:47:23 AM by Plane »

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #27 on: May 01, 2008, 06:19:49 AM »
A high P/E means a lot of investors have high expectations , this reduces the potently for a large payback somewhat , but if a product has a bright future won't a high P/E naturally occur?

===============================================================
Well, yes.

Other things that 'naturally occur' are small uninformed investors get reamed with surprising regularity. The NYSE is no place for people who do not know what beta, technical analysis and (pick a number) moving averages are. Or at least, not for long.

Buying Ben & Jerry's because you find Cherry Garcia delicious is NOT aways the most clever of plans.

The "I bought the stock because I liked the product, and now I am rich", articles one reads all the time are similar to "man bites dog" articles: they are about people who have been extremely lucky. Articles about people claiming "I bought the stock because I liked the product and I lost money" articles do not get published.

Stock market trends are not magical. They are based on fear and greed.
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."

Plane

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 26993
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #28 on: May 01, 2008, 06:44:11 AM »
A high P/E means a lot of investors have high expectations , this reduces the potently for a large payback somewhat , but if a product has a bright future won't a high P/E naturally occur?

===============================================================
Well, yes.

Other things that 'naturally occur' are small uninformed investors get reamed with surprising regularity. The NYSE is no place for people who do not know what beta, technical analysis and (pick a number) moving averages are. Or at least, not for long.

Buying Ben & Jerry's because you find Cherry Garcia delicious is NOT aways the most clever of plans.

The "I bought the stock because I liked the product, and now I am rich", articles one reads all the time are similar to "man bites dog" articles: they are about people who have been extremely lucky. Articles about people claiming "I bought the stock because I liked the product and I lost money" articles do not get published.

Stock market trends are not magical. They are based on fear and greed.


How much diffrence do the qualitys of the product and the wisdom of the company management make , compared with the factors that are  the nature of the market?

Xavier_Onassis

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 27916
    • View Profile
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Watch a stock
« Reply #29 on: May 01, 2008, 09:26:21 AM »
How much diffrence do the qualitys of the product and the wisdom of the company management make , compared with the factors that are  the nature of the market?

-----------------------------------------------------------
How could anyone answer such a question? The quality should be above 8 on a scale or 1 to 10, and the management should be four times as smart as Roger Smith of GM? What sort of answer could anyone expect to this question? As I said, fear and greed drive stock buys and sales. It is my belief that these are not measurable in any useful way.

Still, if the product does not sell, eventually people will not want the stock. If the management seems to be composed of dolts, the stock will be unwanted, and everyone will sell it, causing the price to collapse to around zero.

But those are not the only factors involved. Even if the product has a good demand, and management is running the company well, it is still possible that the price will rise far above the earnings it could make, or fall below what would be a reasonable investment, based on dividends.

Say Disney is doing well and management is growing the company. But then some fool gets killed a particularly horrible way on Space Mountain, with a video camera running, and the ghastly beheading (or, let us say, a sweet little girl) is put on YouTube. This could cause the stock to fall greatly, and if people cancel their plans to se Mickey, it will continue to fall.

If you owned Disney at this point and had half a brain, you would wait three to six months before selling. But a huge number of fools buy on margin and can't do this, and sell at a loss. And every such sale drives the price down still more.  Disney has fluctuated in the past year between 26.3 to 36.8. When it dips below 26.3, it is likely that greed will take over from fear and the buzzards will start buying and the price will go up again.

The price is not around 32, with a dividend of a rather pitiful 1.1% (that is below the rate of inflation). This does not mean that Disney is a bad investment, but it isn't going to be bought for the current dismal dividend.

"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana."