smw397

I passed on FLIR in 2003 and 2004 - even though I was impressed enough with the company that I bought one of their products. Their numbers looked great but I made the assumption that too much of their revenue was dependent on Homeland Security and military orders and that those would not be sustainable. Oops.

Well it was reported today that two spin-offs from SAC were raided by the FBI today, so there's that. http://www.marketwatch.com/story/fbi-raids-two-hedge-funds-wsj-reports-2010-11-22

By the way, I could never live in a condo...but my wife does drive a Corolla ;)

I've never understood why a specific metric like $/sq ft isn't more commonly used when talking about real estate prices and trends. It sure would remove a lot of the noise from the discussion...how useful is it to talk about median home prices if we don't know the physical characteristics of this mythical median home? What I do know is that I currently rent very comfortably in a house that was new when I moved into it six years ago, it's on five acres close to town, and I'd have to find a comparable house selling for about $125/sq ft for the mortgage to compete with my rent. Granted, I'm not gaining equity, but I don't have to pay for the water heater when it goes out either. I'd still happily pay a premium if I could find a house just a bit bigger on a one acre lot for $150/sq ft, but I'm not seeing anything that even comes close. Most acceptable properties are still asking well over $200/sq ft ... not that they appear to be selling. I reckon I'll just write out the check for another month's rent and keep waiting.

I don't know that I can refute the numbers in that article but it sure seems to me like they did some cherry picking to try to paint the rosiest picture possible. They talk about the tax credits like they were such a good thing but fail to mention what most everybody acknowledges, which is that all the tax credits did was pull demand forward and now that they're over we're seeing prices plummet. I don't monitor the whole state but I have definitely seen a good number of houses in my market (far NorCal) fall significantly just in the last two months, like from $329K in July to $279K as of last week. I see more and more houses on the market all the time and I'm not detecting a whole lot of movement. Commenters at the end of the article indicate the same thing is happening in upscale coastal markets north of San Diego. The elephant in the room of course is the HELOCs, which got not even a mention in that article. With unemployment still hovering around 10% and the affordability index (ratio of house prices to annual incomes) at historic lows, who exactly is buying?

The difference is that in 2003 there was still a huge bubble waiting to be blown, and from 2003 to 2006 we saw real estate prices escalate on a scale never before seen. An awful lot of everything else that appeared good in the economy was just caught in the updraft, particularly consumer spending on the back of HELOCs. That ain't happening again. Employment numbers are down, wages are stagnant or falling, and the home equity ATM has long since disappeared in the rear view mirror. Demand was pulled forward for a while with cars by Cash for Clunkers but that's over and last month's auto sales were dismal. Demand was pulled forward for a while with houses by the first time home buyer tax credit but that's over too. Banks are sitting on huge and growing numbers of foreclosures and even bigger numbers of delinquencies they've not yet taken action on for fear of having to book the losses, and sooner or later that massive shadow inventory is going to hit the market dragging real estate down further. Maybe there's another bubble we can blow to make next year look like 2004 but I'm not seeing it.

I suppose it's a matter of opinion and personal preference. The food scene is pretty locally focused on the two main small cities in the middle of the region. Beyond them it gets pretty rural. But there's an incredible co-op with two large stores, and two other big natural food stores they compete with. All four of them together probably aren't much bigger than some Whole Foods units in bigger cities, but for an area like this they're incredibly well stocked. This is a real hippie haven so there are lots and lots of local producers of everything from fresh fruits and vegies to an amazing variety of boutique products, local organic beef and other meats, three working marinas so lots of seafood, etc. From what I've seen prices tend to be at least as good or maybe even a bit better than most Whole Foods types stuff. The whole value added ag thing is a primary component of the local economy, which isn't completely disconnected from the outside world but a lot of people believe if there were a global catastrophe that cut us off we'd be in pretty good shape up here. We have some good restaurants too, of course nothing like SF or NYC, but variety and quality are here in a lot greater proportion than other areas with such small population. The surf...well...it gets big and it's usually not too crowded. Obviously other regions have better conditions and warmer water but with so many people scrapping over waves it's not worth it to me. 50°F water temps are a pretty good gate keeper when it comes to crowd control. We still get our share of kooks but when it's firing out there you tend to not to run into so many people unequipped to handle it. To answer your last question would require a type of profanity I'm not sure Sanjeev would appreciate. I'm pretty bearish about the macro economy generally, and somebody here is always pointing out that mean reversion can be a bitch. I think California is long overdue for a big correction and I have no idea how it's going to shake out, only that it's going to hurt. Hopefully our isolation up here will shield us from that to a certain extent but you better believe I've got plenty of water and dry goods in storage and the means to protect our resources should all hell ever break loose.

I'm in my mid-40's with three grown children so have hung onto my youth with a vengeance to make sure I still get to use it since I was working ridiculous hours at low-paying jobs just to survive through my 20's. Got to college late and didn't finish until 12 years ago, then spent a short time as an employee before starting my own consulting firm in the energy efficiency and machine reliability field. My main passion is surfing, which I did almost daily up until the last year but I'm currently trying to get over a nagging rotator cuff issue from years of intense paddling without doing much else to stay in shape. Just recently joined a gym for the first time and am enjoying yoga, gradually working my way into a weight program so I don't overdo it or burn out on it. Also do a good bit of wakeboarding and just got started with kiteboarding. Used to SCUBA dive quite a bit, not much lately but two of my kids are now more experienced divers than I am and I expect I'll dive a lot more when they're around. Beyond all the mostly water-related physical stuff, we're very into food and fortunate to live in a rural area where virtually any high quality ingredients you could ever want are readily available. Local organic produce, abundant fresh seafood, all manner of international cuisine - most big cities should have it so good and we get it without the crime and traffic. It's albacore tuna season right now and for the next month or six weeks I'll be buying 20 to 40 pounds of fish every weekend and freezing and canning like crazy so we've got enough to last the year, including some big feeds where we'll have a couple dozen people at the table. Sometimes I'm able to do work trades with commercial boat owners for large quantities of fish or dungeness crab. I'm a hack musician too, and love to accumulate and trade for all manner of sound equipment, especially guitars and vintage tube amps. If any board members have any such old gear collecting dust in the back of their closet or up in the attic let me know!

I'd direct you once again to the humble NiMH battery. Sans the platinum membrane, the chemistry is identical to the electrolysis/oxidation cycle for water. Fully charged it has hydrogen and oxygen adsorbed into the anode and cathode of its respective matrices. Apply a load and an electron travels through the circuit allowing oxidation to occur and you get a water byproduct. It all happens internally and is a reversible process when a charging current is applied. Add plumbing, external hydride storage medium, along with solar PV and you've got a completely self contained renewable system with no caustic chemicals required, and the efficiency hit is really not any greater than transmission losses in the conventional grid. Yes, it costs more to develop at this point but we're no where near realizing the economies of scale that could be achieved in this area. Capstone's efficiencies are much greater than 30% anywhere they can be put to use in combined cycle or combined heat & power applications. The same is true for SOFC but the turbines are much cheaper and will probably continue to be far more reliable and cheaper to maintain, especially for LFG or other highly contaminated biogases. My apologies for the threadjack. This was supposed to be about the Bloom Box, but any discussion about fuel cells is going to end up either here or on microturbines or both because they're all potential parts of any solution to the same problem.

I think you missed my central point... I wasn't saying efficiency in terms of dollar cost per unit of energy is unimportant. I was saying it's really the only thing that IS important. The problem is that when people talk about PV efficiency, that figure is typically an expression not of energy but power per square meter. An 18% efficient panel is capable of producing electrical power (in kW) equivalent to 18% of the net insolation power (in kW). But as Bastida pointed out, full sun only exists for a small part of the time, all the rest of which even the most "efficient" panels see dramatic dropoff in the actual energy (in kWh) delivered. Some of the lowest "efficiency" PV in terms of peak power are actually the most efficient in terms of kWh produced per dollar invested, and yes, that's over the lifetime of the system. I was only speaking theoretically of a 1% (actual systems I'm refering to are obviously much higher), but in theory, if a 1% efficient PV is cheap enough on a $/kWh basis over the lifetime of the panel, its peak power rating is irrelevant as long as you aren't space constrained. And the last time I flew anywhere I saw miles and miles and miles of rooftops just begging to be covered with cheap thin film PV laminates the next time they need replacement anyway.

I think we're basically making the same point, which is that if you can produce 8% efficient PV for less per kWh produced than higher quality 18% PV, what difference does it make? It's not like you're wasting the primary energy input because there's always more sun. Toward that end, Unisolar thin film PV, which is markedly less efficient than most other PV products in terms of watts per square meter, and also a bit more expensive on a dollars per installed PEAK watt basis, actually produces more kWh at a lower cost because it's capable of making use of lower light conditions. Where more efficient panels don't start pumping electrons at all until they're under full sun, Unisolar's laminates begin producing energy at first light and keep right on producing up until dusk. That doesn't make them better for all applications, but it certainly makes them the best choice for many...particularly when you consider that Building Integrated Photovoltaics (BIPV) are actually part of the building envelope. They are the actual roof membrane, so they offset other costs. There are no roof penetrations, no structural loading requirements, they can handle higher winds so they won't fly off in hurricane country, and you can even walk on them or put a bullet through them and they'll keep right on working. It's no small coincidence that it's the same basis in physics that governs how this amorphous silocon PV works that makes the NiMH battery work. I should add in the interest of full disclosure that I am talking my book here. I've been long ENER for a long time and am deep in the hole on it. So as far as investment advice I'm the last guy you should listen to. But as an energy engineer I know what I'm talking about and whatever happens to the company that owns this technology today, the technology itself is going to be around for a long, long time. If that's not bad enough, I'm also long Capstone Microturbine.

Years ago I worked in a hydrogen fuel cell development lab. I actually installed parts on the first hydrogen FC powered vehicle ever licensed to drive the the roads of California, powered by a fuel cell developed and manufactured right there in that lab. It was basically a modified golf cart and it cost well over a million dollars. That experience notwithstanding, I can't add a whole lot to comments already made to this thread, but I'll throw my two cents in anyway. First, I agree that this 60 Minutes was spectacularly bad reporting. Given the target audience I understand they had to dumb it down some but fuel cells have been around a while and there were some pretty critical elements of the story they glossed over, doing a disservice to their viewers in the process. I also agree with the poster above ( I think it was Bastida) who pointed out there's not a lot of difference between this and any combustion based fossil fuel generator, it's just a bit more efficient. I'd point out though that the biggest efficiency gain has less to do with the delta between this unit's specific conversion efficiency and that of a comparable IC engine or turbine, and more to do with eliminating the 30% loss you eliminate by putting the generation closer to the point of consumption. I'd furthermore point out that where renewable fuels like landfill or digester are concerned (I know a bit about those too and am currently working on development projects in both areas), the methane content of those gases tends to be only about 50% of what you get in geologic natural gas. Most of the rest is CO2, water vapor, and relatively benign constituents, but there are also significant organic and inorganic contaminants that can be highly corrosive to equipment as well as produce toxic emissions and are subject to air quality control constraints. These introduce non-trivial costs to the entire system and greatly impact maintenance and life cycle timing. I'd still like to believe there is a future for fuel cells, but frankly where combustible fuels are used I don't see the point. There are 30kW microturbines that fit in a wheelbarrow and have a single moving part that spins on air bearings requiring no lubrication that, when installed where waste heat can be put to good use can compete with fuel cell efficiencies at a fraction of the cost. But I believe despite the system inefficiencies described above in the total solar-hydrogen-fuel cell cycle, it's a system that has a lot of long term potential. It drives me nuts when people start off talking about solar conversion efficiencies as though it's no different than combustion efficiency. Solar energy is free. It doesn't matter if your conversion efficiency is just 1%. The primary reference point is installed cost per watt, and even that doesn't matter as much as life cycle cost per kilowatt hour (this is a subtle point but it makes a big difference when comparing different PV technologies). Over the long haul, PV costs will continue to come down, perhaps not quite in line with Moore's Law but I really do believe we're no more than a human generation away from building integrated PV where we wouldn't consider putting a roof on a new building that doesn't generate electricity. It will be a long time before we get to where the grid can't absorb whatever is not used locally, but eventually storage will be a requirement, and it already is a requirement where the grid is not part of the equation. Conventional batteries can fill that role but they are expensive and they do wear out. Hydrogen storage is the answer to that problem, but not without its own challenges are articulated by others here. Not often talked about because it's not well understood is that we already have a pretty darn good hydrogen storage and transport technology that many of us use daily. Nickel metal hydride (NiMH) batteries are extremely common and I'll bet every person reading this owns at least a few of them, be they rechargeable drills or flashlights or whatever. They're not quite as energy dense as lithium ion and don't get as much buzz, but they're cheaper, they last longer, and they're not subject to the lithium material constraint that I guarantee is going to prevent Li from being the global EV solution. All Toyota Prius and most other HEVs on the road have been using NiMH for over a decade. All a NiMH battery is is a hydrogen fuel cell with onboard H2 storage. Add plumbing to supply an external source of air and H2 and you've got the whole package. The metal hydride stores hydrogen gas in a solid form at extreme densities compared to compressing the gas and the plumbing is simple enough that you can get away with using stainless steel so hydrogen embrittlement isn't that big an issue. Honestly, the biggest problem with the whole system is that the genius who invented it all over 40 years ago was a pure scientist with no business sense whatsoever and in an effort to keep his labs open and developing new gee-whiz technologies that really do work and really are cost effective, he allowed other larger corporations to take control of all the potential profits which in turn have kept a lid on what he's been able to get to market. Hence Energy Conversion Devices (ENER) is right up there with Ballard (BLDP) in the pantheon of failed alternative energy investments. But Stan Ovshinsky was pushed aside a couple years ago and there are much more business oriented people running things now. I'm still hopeful for the future of this technology.

If one indicator of good humor is that you can't tell if somebody's serious or not, well then so far this thread delivers, a lot more than I thought it might.

Brilliant opinion piece by the Oracle of Onionha Read the whole thing at: http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/if_i_see_a_shirt_i_like_ill

Just giving this thread a bump in hopes that it gets back on topic now that earnings will be upon us soon.

Too much caffiene?

Yahoo! Finance actually has a pretty good portfolio tracker. It doesn't do dividends explicitly, but you can enter them as interest income and it's treated more or less the same way. The only problem I've had with it is it tends to blow up when you have a stock that splits or changes symbols (FFH is a good example actually), but you can just go back and manually adjust your basis and other details to reconcile.

Brox, I'd be very interested in your thesis for SQM. I don't have any exposure to lithium but plenty to other storage media. My belief is that long term lithium isn't going to be sustainable for much other than small portable devices and that NiMH will never be quite as 'good' but will always be more viable economically for transportation. In the meantime though, everybody's talking about lithium for EV's and it's highly likely there will be a lot of pressure on supplies of the raw material.

TD Ameritrade listed the options with no changes yesterday. I was never able to find the Toronto listed US dominated ticker for Fairfax, but the pink sheet FRFHF was there right out of the gate, albeit with very low volume and a steep drop in price at first. There was a very interesting arbitrage opportunity that resulted. The first few hundred shares of FRFHF traded as low as 325. Consequently the 230 Jan 11 LEAP (one of which I'd bought on Tuesday for 131.20) could be had for as little as 120. Eventually the bid on the underlying came back up over 350, but it took nearly an hour before the ask on the LEAP followed suit.

Ditto that for TD Ameritrade. The options are still listed as always though.

Smazz, are you suggesting the number of shorts scrambling to cover will necessarily be greater than the number of US shareholders scrambling to sell due to issues with their brokerages and limits on foreign securities?

I have done very little trading with my FFH shares, just a little tweaking here and there when necessary. While your point is well taken, my complaint today is that by taking this action, FFH is ironically forcing me OUT of being an owner and limiting me to options if I want to participate at all.

Here is my advice: 1) Move to Interactive Brokers 2) Buy FFH puts to raise your margin borrowing capacity to a safer level (when they expire worthless you at least have a tax loss) Other ideas to further reduce your margin risk at Interactive Brokers: Sell your energy holdings (assuming no taxable gain): A) replace them with deep-in-the-money LEAPS on those same energy names (if available). OR B) replace them by writing deep-in-the-money puts on those same energy names (the money you get from writing the puts helps count towards your total margin equity, thus increasing margin borrowing capacity and thereby reducing margin risk). You also benefit by not actually borrowing any money, so no margin interest expenses, but you miss out on a dividend which will be partially if not completely (and then some) offset by the volatility premium in the put contract you write. I appreciate the advice. I have trouble with most of it though. First off, I called Interactive Brokers and was left unconvinced I can even do the transfer. It was a difficult conversation where I don't believe I ever got the rep to fully understand the nature of the move from NYSE, and couldn't get a clear statement as to whether I'd be eligible for margin there or not. More importantly, she said it could take up to two weeks to complete the transfer during which I'd be completely disconnected from my portfolio, leaving almost no time to do anything should there be a problem. Waaay too risky for my blood. That leaves the options strategies. Buying LEAPs means I pay gains tax now, I'm not really an owner, and I forego the dividend. Not to mention that if I don't go to IB, I can't roll over if I'm unable to exercise (no margin, remember?). So there's a drop dead date there. I guess at least if I buy the LEAPs now it won't matter so much if it takes a few weeks to work out the kinks at IB, and I would be buying something near enough to at the money that it would get me out of margin altogether, at least until it comes time to exercise or roll over, but still too much uncertainty. Your advice on the energy stocks probably makes the most sense, and it's something I've been trying to figure out how to do anyway....but I should have been more specific that they are all alternative energy stocks, namely solars, microturbines, and smart grid tech. Small and mid-caps, lots of volume, fairly volatile, but the options in them aren't very attractive, at least to my feeble and inexperienced mind. There's almost no money to be made selling any options that I'd want to sell and the premiums for the ones I'd want to own seem too high. I'd love to quit my day job and spend the next two weeks figuring this out but I don't really have that luxury. There's gonna be a lot of late nights this week...

I think a better way of handling this would have been for Fairfax to give us all more time to arrange our affairs. Why the rush? I couldn't agree more. Talk about the Law of Unintended Consequences. I can't imagine they meant for these types of situations to arise, but how could they not have anticipated that they might? Surely these guys understand more about this stuff than 99% of retail investors - that's why I entrusted them to invest for me in the first place.

Ok. First off, it sucks to be you. You have found yourself in a complicated web of tax law, existing broker policy, willingness to change brokers, and your leveraging strategy. Obviously something's gotta give, and none of the options is exceptionally attractive. However, without wanting to seem like too much of a prick, that problem is an individual problem for which an individual must seek a solution. It is not an FFH problem, it is not FFH mismanagement, it is not FFH failing to optimize intrinsic value, it is not FFH expropriating shareholders' wealth. Ultimately, time will tell whether the de-listing is optimal for FFH (in terms of access to capital, talent, etc). However, I would not attribute this to FFH being a "bad partner." SJ I didn't explicitly refer to FFH as a "bad partner," though I can see how one might infer that. Given that this move may well benefit SOME shareholders while it clearly does not benefit me and, I would assume, many others in my position, I am having a bit of difficulty understanding how exactly this is supposed to be "fair and friendly." It was not my intention to go down this road. I was hoping for advice on what course of action to take, but I guess since I started by voicing my frustration I'll now have to settle for the value investing community wagging its finger at me and telling me I don't deserve to own FFH since I've been naughty and used leverage to do it. :-\