What is up with ethanol

Lets get back on topic. I know Ethanol is a joke. The death will come one day, Im sure. Im not a big fan of ethanol myself, I wouldnt put the stuff in a gas tank of any cars in my possesion in the future if I have the say. I think its a nightmare for investors in general. . .

The question is not about our own opinions of Ethanol, but the trading of stocks like VSE and PEIX which seem to be very volatile. I think VSE or PEIX will arrive at a double bottom fairly soon creating an opportunity. VSE just did a round trip from the teens to the twenties and back to the teens. The roundtrip was 60% up and then 36% down in less then 30 days. Thats a good trading stock if you ask me.

On a side note, the funny part is when you go to the Yahoo messageboard and see guys with messages like "Oh man, I bought this at 23 and what happened..."
 
Ok, I don't know about vse or peix, but some companies branching out into ethanol make more on management fees (for the investors) and trading then they do selling ethanol. Also farmer coops in the business can break even year in and year out, as long as they have a market for their corn at a great price. Dividends from the coop are the kicker.

If a company is not adopting the managing, trading model and is strickly betting long term on the ethonal production model, I would be concerned when competitive forces will sell it all day long a break even.

There is a guaranteed demand on ethanol (and likewise corn) for the next 5 years. The only way to expand margins is to adopt to trading corn and ethanol. However this brings into question the kind of pe value you should place on the company. Look at gs, minting money with a pe under 10.

There will be many great trading opps as the market is upside down on outlook and valuations.
 
My concentration is the intermediate term. I want to get into VSE in the teens and ride it back to the 20s, then dump it on one of the silly Yahoo message board posters. I figure getting in right now at the right price point will achieve this pop in 30-60 days. That price point will be the double bottom and the upside is 50% in a month.

In the last two years, oil prices have gone up right after the New Year. In the current oil chart, we see a rounded bottom suggesting a break to the upside soon. Iran will give it a few reasons soon enough.

Sentiment is the key right now. Everyone is so bearish on Ethanol that any good news will send it to the upside. No one is expecting anything good in the energy sector.

I believe oil will probably hit between 80-90 a barrel this year just because everyone is thinking that it will hit 50. When everyone believes it will hit 100, then it will hit 50. When everyone believes it will hit 50, then it goes to 100.

I've caught on to you Mr. Market...


Quote from bsparkyman:

Ok, I don't know about vse or peix, but some companies branching out into ethanol make more on management fees (for the investors) and trading then they do selling ethanol. Also farmer coops in the business can break even year in and year out, as long as they have a market for their corn at a great price. Dividends from the coop are the kicker.

If a company is not adopting the managing, trading model and is strickly betting long term on the ethonal production model, I would be concerned when competitive forces will sell it all day long a break even.

There is a guaranteed demand on ethanol (and likewise corn) for the next 5 years. The only way to expand margins is to adopt to trading corn and ethanol. However this brings into question the kind of pe value you should place on the company. Look at gs, minting money with a pe under 10.

There will be many great trading opps as the market is upside down on outlook and valuations.
More...
 
Quote from whitster:

get a clue blunt. bush can't throw any subsidies at anything

hint: who makes economic policy?

the LEGISLATIVE branch.

bush can veto bills.

but it is congress that sets spending and that writes bills

jeeeeeeeeez
More...

Yes and we went after Iraq for WMDs.

Bill was passed with a Republican Congress, Bush as president. And when I say Bush, I really mean the Bush administration as I think it's a bit obvious to anyone above the average American intelligence that the public figure is rarely the one who runs the show.

You are very naive if you think the branches of government do not influence one another. Hey, I got a bridge for sale, you interested?

But hey, it's obvious you do not even know the economics behind corn/wheat/sugar/biomass ethanol, so I think you are the one who needs a clue. You can start at studying Brazil's movement toward ethanol, how long it took and what it really cost. Once you can lay a decision whether Brazil's move was a success or not, then you can start to figure out the story behind ethanol in this country. Here is a question, why is it very important that ADM has little plans to expand ethanol production?
 
Just as I thought. They started talking about rising oil prices this morning on CNBC. Oil was ticking up in Asia and it appears hedge funds are betting on higher oil the next few months. . .
 
hydroblunt, your post was a great example of cognitive dissonance

you said bush would provide subsidies.

i explained why that was incorrect. the PRESIDENT does not write bills, and set economic policy

and then you go off into a tangent about WMD"s and other totally unrelated rubbish

have some intellectual honesty (lord forbid) and admit you were wrong

congress may or may not change economic policy vis a vis alt. energy

but if and when this happens, it will be CONGRESS with the subsidies, not the president

again, have some honesty

ignorance is one thing

repeated denial of facts is another
 
Quote from whitster:

More...

So you interested in that bridge? I will give you a bargain price. It's a prime location, 2 major NYC boroughs.

From Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_branch

"The term "executive" comes from wording of the Constitution of the United States, which charges the President to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed".Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the executive is not supposed to make laws (role of the legislature), nor to interpret them (role of the judiciary): in practice, this separation is rarely (if ever) absolute."

I just find it hard to believe some can be so gullible even with the obvious influences over a Republican Congress by the Bush administration, prior to November. One would think that the actions by Congress after 9/11 would hint to that. Hint: the Senate and House were Bush's b*tches.
 
Come on guys, I was hoping we could discuss a swing trade on the VSE. I was hoping someone would jump out and throw some more information into the pool. My information wont fill it up and you guys are just clogging up the filter.
 
again, hydro you ignore the issue

the president cannot subsidize ANYTHING

any industry, etc.

congress can

your cognitive dissonance continues

lord forbid you could just admit the mistake and move on

congress writes budgets, congress subsidizes (see: pork) etc.

presidents don't

that is a fact that any person who has an understanding of govt. can accept

you can't, since your ego forbids you to simply admit error

how sad.
 
Quote from whitster:

get a clue blunt. bush can't throw any subsidies at anything

hint: who makes economic policy?

the LEGISLATIVE branch.

bush can veto bills.

but it is congress that sets spending and that writes bills

jeeeeeeeeez
More...

Here we go again.

Get a clue yourself Whistler, don't you know how your own government WORKS?

The PRESIDENT submits the Federal Budget to Congress every year. Congress then takes this budget and studies it, amends, changes it, then, if it passes both houses in identical form, sends it back to the President to sign off or Veto.

Get a clue whitster. Who makes economic policy in the USA?

The President of the USA.

That's the EXECUTIVE branch. You know? The boss? The Legislative branch are the equivalent of the CFO's, the President is the CEO. Congress is supposed to be the bean counters and the checks and balances for the President's overwhelming power. They verify his need for the budget he submits, and then makes amendments or changes.

The Judiciary, Supreme Court, ratifies laws passed by the legislative branch and make sure they do not go against the Constitution, the 3rd checks and balances in the government. The President appoints the Supreme Court, the round robin in the checks and balances (doesn't happen til one retires however, and they are lifelong appointments).

The Federal Budget, aka how our taxdollars are spent, is submitted by the President of the United States to the Congress.

The Congress has more to do with where that money comes from, taxes (where the Federal Budget submitted by the President also has a say), and to verify that the President isn't being a spendthrift with our money.

Over the last few decades, Congress, instead of being the watchdog, has become the sidekick, greedily sucking at the trough too with their own demands for pork. THEY are in charge of how to get the money to pay for the President's costs, so they must approve any increase or decrease in taxes. Get it now?

As for Bush, here's an article detailing his budget and fiscal responsibilities. The figures are repeated in many places, all available for verification on government sites all over the net: http://www.reason.com/news/show/34112.html

This is the same crap you pulled on me as you're doing to Hydro. Do you think that by putting on arrogance and insult to cover your own ignorance, you can convince people of the accuracy of what you say?

When it comes to something as basic as people's own government, I should think the majority wouldn't be as ignorant as you about how something that affects their lives daily WORKS. Good grief.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top