George Jurgensen 01

Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
comments7
  • Positive ratings 0
  • Negative ratings 0
  • Net rating 0
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:

Latest Comments
7 Comments

    • Fri Aug 1st 12:41 PM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The WaMu Mess: No Surprise Here
      My rough estimate is WAMU has quarterly provisions of $3B in Q3 and Q4 08 and ends the year with tangible book of about $9 a share and a still sizeable LLR. Allowing for some continuing though moderating losses into next year, stock should trade under year end book, in the 70-80% range for a target around $6.5. Sure, there are risks of a bank run, FDIC seizure, less Federal Home Loan Bank funding, and somewhat higher right offs, and the economy worsening. But the risk picture should clarify greatly as the year rolls around. Getting OREO off the books (limiting related expenses), and greater FHA intervention helping troubled homeowners, as indicated by growing sales volume in CA and the recent bailout bill signed into law, will also improve visibility. Stock is a decent value in the $5 range and a warrant on recovery into late 2009 and beyond.
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 24th 10:19 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bust, Bail, Repeat: The U.S. Enters into an Ever-Worsening Cycle
      You said "There may be euro weakness or NZD weakness or even yen weakness. But not dollar strength. Not now and, if ever again, surely not for a very long time." I couldn't agree more


      On Jul 24 10:01 AM bearfund wrote:

      > There's only one thing really wrong with your arguments: the notion
      > that the dollar is, or has been, strengthening. In fact the dollar
      > index has been in a fairly narrow trading range for months (71-74)
      > and remains there today. Relative to the 7 sizable downlegs that
      > brought the dollar from 88 to 74 over the past 2 years and change,
      > there has been no appreciable movement in either direction since
      > the last big drop in February-March.
      >
      > Everyone talks about "dollar strength" but all we've really had is
      > yet another bounce off 71, something we've seen many times already.
      > Technically, I see nothing to get excited about until there is a
      > convincing break above 74. Fundamentally, I share your view completely.
      > There is no dollar strength. There may be euro weakness or NZD weakness
      > or even yen weakness. But not dollar strength. Not now and, if
      > ever again, surely not for a very long time.
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 24th 09:50 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Bust, Bail, Repeat: The U.S. Enters into an Ever-Worsening Cycle
      FNM and FRE as the GSE's underwrite conforming mortgages, that is their mandate, and they get discounted financing due to the government's implicit guarantee and reduced capital requirements versus banks. So why did FRE and FNM have holdings of non GSE CDO's in their asset holdings, including Alt-A, subprime, and payment option mortgages, at total holdings that were well above equity capital. How on Earth can Paulson and the government justify bailing out shareholders and subordinated debt holders? Why were regulators not preventing the GSE's from holding non-conforming assets? Paulson and the SEC should be investigating fraud, not bailing out management. GSE's should be recapitalized with much subordinated debt converted to a new equity stake, and insolvent shareholders getting zilch, nada, nothing.

      GSE shareholders, including affiliated banks like WAMU, allowed management to go out on a limb in search of yield, not keeping to the GSE mandate, all while collecting fat dividends before the house of cards crumbled. No bailout for shareholders!
      View article »
    • Thu Jul 24th 09:44 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Fannie And Freddie Only $25 Billion! Act Now While Supplies Last
      FNM and FRE as the GSE's underwrite conforming mortgages, that is the mandate, and they get discounted financing due to the government's implicit guarantee and reduced capital requirements versus banks. So why they did FRE and FNM have holdings of non GSE CDO's in their asset holdings, including Alt-A, subprime, and payment option mortgages, at total holdings that were well above equity capital. How on Earth can Paulson and the government justify bailing out shareholders and subordinated debt holders? Why were regulators not preventing the GSE's from holding non-conforming assets? Paulson and the SEC should be investigating fraud, not bailing out management. GSE's should be recapitalized with much subordinated debt converted to a new equity stake, and insolvent shareholders getting zilch, nada, nothing.

      GSE shareholders, including affiliated banks like WAMU, allowed management to go out on a limb in search of yield, not keeping to the GSE mandate, all while collecting fat dividends before the house of cards crumbled. No bailout for shareholders!
      View article »
    • Tue May 13th 09:50 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Will LDK's New Company Create Competition for First Solar?
      With respect to solar, AMAT is in the PV manufacturing equipment business (capital equipment), making machines used by PV manufacturers. Brian Yerger's comments appear out of context. Beyond that, AMAT sells manufacturing equipment to plants in China and worldwide for IC wafer production. Selling equipment for pv manufacturing is a related business. The capability of the manufacturing equipment, delivery schedule, and quality are the key factors in its procurement.

      LDK's current CEO building a business to compete with LDK's products rather than building another division for thin film within LDK? I don't think any paper arrangement could hold up in court to allow that breach of fiduciary duty to shareholders of LDK.

      JMHO
      View article »
    • Wed Apr 23rd 10:31 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      When Will Solar Achieve Grid Parity? We're Already There!
      It doesn't matter when "you say" we need power, the solar plant does not generate power at its rated capacity, but only 1/5 to 1/6 of that amount. I'll concede you may ignore availability and storage issues at this stage. However you should compare actual generation not peak capacities.
      View article »
    • Tue Apr 22nd 10:31 AM
      |
      Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      When Will Solar Achieve Grid Parity? We're Already There!
      The difference is the solar plant will effectively generate at the nameplate capacity an average of 4 hours a day, maybe a bit more mounted on a rotating axis. Coal, Nuclear, and NG plants can operate very close to 24/7/365. Factor in storage costs, backup plant costs etc. to make a fair comparison, and don't forget the environmental costs of those back up supplies.

      In short, your comparison compares solar peak output ratings with other plants peak power ratings. You should compare average power output which increases the cost of solar by a factor of 5 or 6. but does not change the cost of the other plants which produce continuously, approximately 101-102 weeks of every 104, and more for NG.

      NG plants can also ramp up and down relatively quickly to meet variable demand.
      View article »