« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

November 30, 2006

Clean Car Hype and the LA Auto Show

I’ve written a fair bit about cars in the last little while, but a couple of important automotive-related news hit the wire again today ahead of the LA Auto Show’s opening on Friday.

Firstly, following Ford’s hybrid vehicle announcement, GM’s CEO Rick Wagoner announced today that his company was going ahead with plans to roll out a plug-in hybrid SUV based on its existing Saturn Vue hybrid model. A plug-in version of the Vue would be about 45% more fuel efficient than an equal-sized truck with similar characteristics. Like Ford (NYSE:F), General Motors (NYSE:GM) has been rapidly loosing market share over the past 2 years to competitors with a more expansive offering of fuel efficient models, chief among them Toyota (NYSE:TM). While GM's share price has rebounded nicely from the low it hit in January 2006, there is no doubt that the company's future is still uncertain.

So should investors pay any attention to this? Beyond goodwill considerations, probably not. For one thing, battery technology is not advanced enough to allow anyone to bring a competitively-priced plug-in hybrid to market any time soon. When discussing a time line for rolling this thing out, Wagoner spoke of “years��?, which is essentially the same kind of time frame the company has given itself to begin mass producing hydrogen fuel cell vehicles. Second, clean powertrain is hot, everybody’s talking about it in LA this week, and GM didn’t want to be left out of the enviro party. This is, after all, California, and all things green have been very popular there of late. My own guess (and I admit I’m no car industry expert); both GM and Ford still very much see SUVs and other types of trucks as their #1 strategic choice for generating sales, and we are not about to see some massive corporate repositioning in favor of small and/or clean cars. And here’s why.

The second piece of news I wanted to discuss today is the release of the 2007 Gasoline and the American People report by Cambridge Energy Research Associates (CERA). What are CERA's main findings? Well, as you would expect, the high price of oil has made a dent in gasoline demand in the US, which went from an annual average growth rate of 1.6% between 1990 and 2004 to a measly 0.3% in 2005, and 1% in 2006. How have sales of SUVs, minivans and light trucks been impacted? They declined for the 1st time since 1990 in 2005, and declined some more in 2006. What’s more, the report tells us, people still buying SUVs tend to favor the smaller, more fuel-efficient models within that category.

Now let me qualify this, and come back to GM and Ford. The share of SUVs to total car purchases reached an all-time high in 2004 at 56%. It then declined to just under 55% in 2005 and 53% in 2006 to date. In comparison, purchases of hybrids represent only about 1.4% of all new car sales in 2006 so far. I’ll let you do the math here, but it would take very healthy growth sustained over an appreciable period of time for hybrids to even begin to catch up to SUVs. What do I think GM and Ford are thinking? Americans still very much like big trucks, and 53% is high enough to justify a healthy dose of strategic focus on the SUV segment. The price of oil? It’ll come down. Demand for SUVs has shown some elasticity and that’s also true on the upside, so when gas prices soften for a good period of time sales will bounce right back.

Is that sound strategic thinking? That depends on whether you sit on the bull or the bear side of the energy price debate. I’m personally secularly bullish on fuel efficiency and clean cars, especially with all that lies on the regulatory horizon for the US auto industry. All else equal, Toyota over GM? Any day of the week!

(DISCLOSURE: We do not have any position or financial interest in any of the companies mentioned in this article)

November 29, 2006

Clean Automotive Tidbits

Ford (NYSE:F) just announced that it was going to unveil a suite of new vehicles based on clean powertrain technologies at the upcoming LA Auto Show. Too little too late? The company, which failed to anticipate the impact of sustained high gas prices on demand for gas-guzzling SUVs, has been haemorrhaging market share over the past 2 years to rivals with greater foresight like Toyota (NYSE:TM). To many observers, the future doesn’t look particularly bright for this icon of the US auto industry.

On a related note, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments today on a petition from 12 states and several environmental groups arguing that CO2 falls within the remit of the Clean Air Act, and that it should thus be regulated by the EPA. This case was identified in a recent report by Merrill Lynch and the World Resource Institute as one of the key legal developments to watch out for over the next few months. If successful, this could significantly impact the US auto industry as it would most likely mean either more stringent fuel efficiency standards or some form of a cap-and-trade system. The latter would likely represent the most efficient option for the industry.

(DISCLOSURE: We do not have any position, long or short, or any other form of financial interest in any of the companies mentioned in this article)

November 27, 2006

Clean Tech Investing and the Democrats' Victory

What are the implications of the Democrats' electoral victory for the clean tech industry? That probably won't become clear for a few more months. In the meantime, Red Herring, one of my favorite technology magazines, just published this short piece on the topic: "U.S. election a mixed bag for Cleantech".

The early conclusion of industry insiders interviewed for the article is the same as ours - namely that the defeat of Proposition 87 won't be a signficant event in the long-run...and that the future looks overall bright.

Happy reading!

November 24, 2006

Is Suntech Overvalued?

Suntech Power Holdings (NYSE:STP) got a nice 5.01% pop on Wednesday on news that it had signed a big supply agreement with a Spanish solar firm. This came a day after the company released overall pretty decent quarterly results.

But to some, STP looks richly valued, even after all the good news. Are you one of them? If you have about 5 minutes to spare, I would recommend watching the first segment of yesterday’s Stars & Dogs on Report on Business Television (ROB TV). To watch this video, scroll down to "Stars and Dogs" at 6:00pm. The link will only be available for a week or so. My apologies for not being able to provide an easier way to view the video.

ROB TV is a Canadian financial news network, and Stars & Dogs is a show where the 2 anchors each take the bull and the bear side of the story du jours. The very first item on yesterday’s agenda was STP. At the end of the segment, the show’s producer adjudicates on which side was the most convincing, and on STP he went for the bear argument.

I have owned this stock almost since the beginning, so I’ve seen it soar to unjustified heights and fall to levels where I thought I should buy more. I do find it a tad pricey at around $28 and prefer it in the lower 20s. One thing you should expect, no matter what, is a lot of volatility – the alternative energy sector is a relatively new beast and investors are just beginning to wrap their heads around how those stocks should be valued.

Any thoughts on this?

November 22, 2006

Update on the Global Carbon Market

The World Bank Carbon Finance Unit recently released its Q3 2006 update for the global market for CO2 emissions (the carbon market). The document, entitled “State and Trends of the Carbon Market 2006? (PDF file), contains some pretty interesting information that makes it difficult not to be bullish on the future of emissions trading.

Here are some numbers. At the end of Q3 2006, the total value of the market stood at $21.5 billion, up 94% on the whole of 2005 ($11.1 billion). Unsurprisingly, Europe, with its Emissions Trading Scheme, continues to account for the bulk (~99%) of the so-called “allowances? market (I’ll come back to this in a minute). Growth on the Chicago Climate Exchange is also pretty healthy, although the absolute numbers are nothing to write home about just yet. The value of the market currently stands at $27.2 million, up from $2.83 million for the whole of 2005 – I’ll let you do the math. Trading on the CCX has so far been entirely voluntary, but the Democrats’ recent victory takes regulation-driven trading one step closer. Federally-imposed CO2 caps with trading would push the value of the US emissions market far above that of Europe’s. Even without action on climate change at the federal level, the World Bank identifies California’s AB 32 and the RGGI (PDF file) as two of the three most significant global regulatory developments to watch out for in the next few years.

The global carbon market is currently broken down into 2 sub-markets: (a) the “allowances? market (~89% of total market value at Q3’06) and (b) the “project-based? market (the remaining 11%). In a nutshell, the “allowances? market is created when emitters in a jurisdiction where CO2 emissions are capped trade rights to emit on exchanges like the CCX or in OTC markets. The “project-based? market exists because the Kyoto protocol allows entities (e.g. emitters, project developers, financial institutions, etc.) to invest in projects in emerging economies that generate CO2 emissions reductions there, convert those reductions into “allowances?, and then bring the “allowances? back to jurisdictions where emissions are regulated to be sold in CO2 markets. By the World Bank's own admission, reliable data on the project-based market is relatively hard to come by as there is often a strategic angle to such investments, leading companies to be pretty secretive about them. That market is currently worth about $2.4 billion, 60% of which is attributable to investments in China.

Now the interesting thing to note about the project-based market is that while its size is not growing as rapidly as that of the carbon market as a whole, the sophistication of market players is increasing. For instance, while entities on the supply side used to be primarily concerned with generating and selling CO2 allowances, there is now evidence that the spectrum of activities they engage in is widening to include more traditional activities like debt, equipment sales, other commodity sales, etc. The World Bank notes that pure play CO2 sellers are loosing ground to more diversified entities that seek to create income streams from the range of options available to them, partly to hedge against the volatility of CO2 prices. On the flipside of this, don’t be surprised if conventional project financiers in emerging markets begin integrating “carbon income? in their valuation models and DCF analyses for certain categories of projects. This has the potential to create the right incentive, at the margin, to make it economical to go with the cleaner but more expensive technological option.

The other interesting trend highlighted in the report is the increased involvement of investor-owned insurance companies in these markets to help shield against the wealth of risks that exist both in carbon markets and in investing in emerging economies. Leading players named by the report include Swiss Re, Munich Re, AIG and Allianz, among others. (DISCLOSURE: We do not own, or otherwise have financial interests in, any of these companies)

Now I know this may not sound like anything to get too excited about at this point, but investors in the US really should have their sight set on this stuff. Besides the state-based initiatives I’ve discussed before, federally-imposed caps on CO2 emissions look increasingly likely. AltEnergyStocks.com will continue to follow developments in the emissions trading space for our readers, as we believe significant opportunities should arise in the next few years.

Note: If you are not familiar with the terms 'carbon markets' and 'emissions trading' or would like to know more, I suggest reading or looking over the following: An Overview of Carbon Markets and Emissions Trading, Carbon Credit - The Next Big Thing, and Kyoto, Carbon Credits, and a Big Market for Cleantech .

Featured Company Advertising Now Available for Alternative Energy and Clean Tech Companies

I am pleased to announce that we are now offering "Featured Company" advertising for companies who would like to deliver their message to our website visitors. Featured company advertising is described in detail on our advertising page.

Here is a summary of the service. A Featured Company will get a listing on our featured company page . This listing will include a business description which will have website links as well as contact information including investor relations contacts. At the top right of corner of every content page on our site, the featured company will also get a link to their website.

A featured company will have the option to provide us with material that will be posted to our website as a "special information supplement". One special information supplement is granted for each 3-month period of advertising. A featured company will also have the option of having one of our editors conduct an email interview with company executives. The interview will be posted to our blog and it is intended to help communicate the company's message and progress. One interview will be granted at sign up, followed by one interview with every six months of advertising.

We are only accepting companies that relate to alternative energy, clean tech, or investing. This will ensure that advertising is pertinent to our readers and this will also make the advertising most effective.

Featured Company advertising is sold on a fixed-rate, flat monthly fee. This makes it easier for advertisers and for us as there is no need to keep track of 'page impressions' or worry about 'invalid clicks'. Advertising rates at the launch of this service are being offered at a discounted rate and this is a great opportunity to take advantage of these 'charter rates'.

To sign up as a featured company or for more information including current pricing, please contact me as follows:

brian @ altenergystocks.com
Phone: 905-456-8442

We believe this a great way to allow companies to deliver their message to our visitors without compromising the integrity of our site. Advertising dollars will help us to put money back into the site to add features and deliver quality content.

We welcome all comments and questions.

November 20, 2006

How to Invest in Clean Cars

A new report by Merril Lynch and the World Resources Institute (WRI), entitled “Alternatives for the clean car evolution��?, provides good background on regulatory and other forces driving the trend toward cleaner cars, as well as 3 ways to play this trend.

The report first looks at air quality-related issues and lists 3 things to watch out for in the near term: (1) legal issues surrounding the classification of CO2 as a pollutant in the Clean Air Act, (2) whether governments, especially in Europe but eventually in the US, include road transport in their plans to fight climate change, and (3) California, as it often sets national trends on environmental regulation issues (see this post from the Cleantech Blog for some background on California’s newly adopted climate change legislation).

The authors then discuss regulatory developments around biofuels/ethanol, customer demand trends, and finally take a superficial look at the exposure of the Big Three, Toyota, Honda and Nissan to clean powertrain technologies (i.e. fuel cells, biofuels/ethanol, diesel, hybrid). What's their conclusion? The shift away from conventional automotive technologies to the 'clean car' will occur gradually, bearing more resemblance to an evolution than to a revolution.

Three Stock Picks in Clean Car Evolution
Merrill and the WRI conclude with three stock picks they believe are good plays on the “clean car evolution��?:

1) BorgWarner (NYSE:BWA) – the authors estimate that up to 70% of company sales are derived from technologies and applications that increase fuel efficiency and/or reduce emissions.

2) Valeo (EPA:FR) – the report calls Valeo “a direct play on fuel economy��? and notes that around 35% of revenues are generated from sales of fuel economy products.

3) Magna International (NYSE:MGA or TSE:MG.A/TSE:MG.B) – the company’s hydroforming business, the authors note, is a key technology in creating lighter and stronger cars, and Magna should thus see some upside from the push for greater fuel economy.

This report contains some very good material for those who want to learn more about the factors driving one of the most critical set of changes to have impacted the auto industry in the past few decades. What I like about it is that it provides a fair and thorough assessment of the situation without giving in to the over-optimism that often plagues clean tech investing commentary. For more info on this report, you can contact the WRI. I would also suggest looking at this list of reports by the WRI’s Capital Markets Research team – they have put out some insightful pieces over the past few years.

November 19, 2006

A Late Welcome to Our New Editors

This post is long overdue.

In my first post at Alt Energy Stocks a couple of months ago, I mentioned that I would be looking to bring on other editors to help deliver high quality content. I am happy to give you this (belated) announcement that Charles Morand has become the Editor-in-Chief for the site and Neal Dikeman has joined us as a Contributing Editor.

About Charles Morand
Charles Morand is someone whose passion and hobby is alternative energy, clean tech and carbon trading. Charles is a big picture thinker who provides not only news and perspectives, but deep and valuable insight on the future and direction of cleantech. He is well read, well connected and he has many bright ideas for the site. I look forward to working with him to make the site stronger and more useful.

About Neal Dikeman
Neal Dikeman is the founder of Clean Tech Blog and a founding partner of Jane Capital Partners LLC, a merchant bank focused on energy and environmental technologies. Neal's bio at Jane Capital will give you an idea of the breadth and depth of his business and management experience. Neal's blog is packed with excellent commentary and analysis in cleantech from Neal and a handful of experienced contributors. I strongly encourage you to check out the Clean Tech Blog if you have not yet had a chance to do so. Neal has shown us first hand the quality of his writing and knowledge with his post on the ethanol sector. We look forward to more insightful industry sector columns from Neal.

I am very pleased to have both Charles and Neal writing for us. So what does that mean for me? I won't be doing much blogging but I will be helping develop the site by adding features, helping shape content, and giving the site direction. Having these two excellent bloggers on board certainly makes my job of developing the site a lot easier.

Thanks Charles and Neal for joining the site and I look forward to working with the both of you.

November 14, 2006

New Fuel Cell & Hydrogen Resource Database

The following is an excerpt from a press release from the Department of Energy (DoE) that came out today:

"DOE’s Hydrogen Program and Fuel Cells 2000 have released a new searchable database of fuel cell and hydrogen activities in the United States. The database allows better access to information on stationary fuel cell installations, vehicle demonstrations and fueling stations – as well as state policies, initiatives and legislation aimed at advancing these technologies."

Try running some queries on the database of fuel cell and hydrogen activities. I didn't check out the website too extensively but from what I saw it looks pretty comprehensive.

November 12, 2006

Are Ethanol Companies Risky Investments?

By Neal Dikeman, Partner, Jane Capital Partners LLC, and Founding Contributor, Cleantechblog.com. He has no investments in or financial incentive related to ethanol or ethanol stocks.

Are ethanol stocks risky long-term investments? We think they are. Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big fan of ethanol blended fuels for a whole host of reasons, I just don’t like ethanol as an investment. Here are six solid reasons to be very, very cautious.

1. Demand vs. supply – As with most regulatory driven markets, the demand has come on very fast behind the advent of renewable fuel standards, fuel subsidies, and the phasing out of MTBE resulting in ethanol’s rise as an oxygenate of choice. As a result the demand has far outstripped the historically available supply, and while supply plays catch up the industry has done well. However, as any student of refinery cycles knows, the moment supply catches up with demand at point “n? (and it will), the “n+1? ethanol production will put tremendous price pressure on the market and drive the industry into its first down cycle. (Keep in mind, all those announcements about new ethanol plants are driving growth – but at the same time driving the industry straight for its own readymade cliff).

2. Massive commodity price risk – Ethanol companies, like refineries, typically find themselves at the mercy of massive commodity price cycles. Unfortunately for ethanol producers, they stand at the mercy of several price cycles – corn (which ethanol producers are driving up the cost of), natural gas (the primary fuel), gasoline and crude. When the confluence of cycles is in their favor - life is very good, but when it is bad, it will be very, very bad. Now, for grins, just imagine a bad cycle confluence at the same time supply outstrips demand.

3. Market size pressure – Also, the current volumes of ethanol are a few percentage points of total refining volumes, barely worth fighting over if you are an oil company (a typical ethanol plant is about 5% of the size of a typical refinery) – but if ethanol ever comes near the DOE’s 30% by 2030 goals, do you really expect the oil companies to give up market share easily – especially when they already own most of the blending and distribution? Trust me, it’s not going to be Exxon, BP, Shell, and ChevronTexaco that get crushed in the stampede (and probably not Ag giants like ADM). Just because ethanol succeeds does NOT mean ethanol companies will.

4. Technology change – As the industry matures, and each of these cycles and concerns comes into play, the emphasis on survival will move more and more to low cost and high efficiency – early players with older less efficient (and often smaller) plants may actually be at a disadvantage. On the technology side, I have recently seen technology programs working in everything from more efficient distillation columns to less energy intensive better water removal, to advanced catalysts. And as mature players take notice (oil giant BP is establishing a $500 million Environmental Bioscience Institute for R&D in part in this area), even the winners of the current land grab phase may not actually make money long-term.

5. Ethanol is fundamentally a high cost fuel – As a fuel, ethanol is a fundamentally higher cost feedstock and processing cost than gasoline – just because the oil industry sells gasoline for higher than the ethanol industry can produce it, does NOT mean ethanol is cheaper (an analysis which is so apples to oranges as to be difficult even to begin to dissect)!. I know a number of well known analysts and investors have come out stating the opposite, but the numbers don’t lie. From Is Ethanol Controversial? Should it Be?, by Vinod Khosla - “Ethanol production costs in the US today are about $1.00 per gallon before any subsidies or taxes, substantially cheaper than the production cost of gasoline, even if oil was to decline to the mid-40’s.? They of course are forgetting that when looked at on a comparable cost basis – the full cycle actual cost to make gasoline from crude is on average up to half the comparable cost of ethanol from corn. Just because oil prices are high does NOT mean gasoline is expensive to produce, in large part it means oil companies that own reserves are making lots of profits. It is correct to say that when crude is at $60/barrel, it is economic to produce ethanol (and along with subsidies sell it for a tidy profit), but ethanol will be for now, our highest cost fuel. [Note: Look for our upcoming article on Cleantech Blog detailing the cost comparison]

6. Valuations – Bottom line, these are cyclical refineries producing a commodity product, not technology companies, and refineries typically trade at a TEV/EBITDA of the mid single digits, and a PE in the high single digits to low teens. Currently the ethanol market trades at hefty premiums to the pureplay oil refiners – a recent check had the average of VeraSun (VSE) & Aventine (AVR) trading at 80% higher PE and 110% higher Enterprise Value/EBITDA than the average of Sunoco (SUN), Tesoro (TSO) , and Valero (VLO) .

Are these all possibly reasons pure plays like VeraSun and Aventine are trading at one-third and one-half off their 52 week highs respectively (See our earlier Cleantech Blog article on VeraSun’s IPO)?

Conclusion – In the short run ethanol stocks are in a land grab phase ramping to meet demand, and some of these stocks may do well while demand still outstrips supply and the industry is still small, but when this dynamic changes – watch out as the margin pressure will be brutal, and could turn already aggressively valued stocks into a dot bomb style free fall as per gallon profits get crushed. So, make your profits while you can!

November 08, 2006

Alternative Energy Investing Unfazed By Defeat of Proposition 87

Proposition 87 sure got a lot of attention in the past few months, not least because high-profile venture capitalist (and clean tech enthusiast) Vinod Khosla threw his full weight behind it. Proposition 87 would have created a tax set at between 1.5% and 6% (depending on the price of the barrel of oil) on producers of oil extracted in California, and would have established, with the proceeds, a $4 billion fund to invest in alternative energy.

Unfortunately for Khosla and his bunch, California voters defeated Proposition 87 at the ballot box on Tuesday. Unsurprisingly, this had no impact on the market value of the alternative energy sector on Wednesday. Unsurprisingly because California remains one of the hottest, if not the hottest, alternative energy spots in the world, Proposition 87 or not.

Only a few weeks ago, the California Legislature passed bill SB107 requiring investor-owned utilities to achieve a 20% renewable electricity portfolio by 2011. This represents one of the most ambitious such targets in the world, moving the 20% goal, which already existed under another program, from 2017 to 2011. What’s more, SB107 allows, for the first time, trading of Renewable Energy Credits (RECs) between power producers, introducing a necessary layer of flexibility and efficiency in the system. This could be one of the most important such initiatives in the US, covering upwards of 10,000 MW.

Beyond this, the US just moved ahead of Spain to become the single most attractive market for renewable energy in the world according to the Q3 2006 edition of the Ernst & Young Renewable Energy Country Attractiveness Index (warning, PDF). One of the key factors outlined by Ernst & Young in awarding the whole nation the top spot is the recently-passed AB 32 (warning, PDF), California’s very own climate change legislation. When looking at the US as an alternative energy market, California weighs more than any other jurisdiction, not least because of the sheer size of its economy.

So the alternative energy investor really doesn’t need to worry about Proposition 87. It would have been, in the long run, a drop in the bucket. California is on the right track, and other states will surely follow – set the appropriate regulatory framework with the right price signals, and cunning investors and smart clean tech entrepreneurs will do the rest.

November 06, 2006

UBS Launches CO2 Emissions Index

UBS (NYSE:UBS) announced on Friday the launch of the UBS World Emissions Index (UBS-WEMI) – the world’s first index based on global carbon markets. At the moment, only the two exchanges linked to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS) , the Nordic Power Exchange (Nordpool) and the European Climate Exchange (ECX), qualify for WEMI. The index is composed of future contracts on CO2 weighted between the two trading platforms as follows: ECX, 72.11% and Nordpool, 27.89%. The weights are allocated based upon the liquidity of the underlying exchanges as well as their respective share in the European carbon market. The index is calculated in USD, EUR and CHF and the following three indices are published daily: (a) price, (b) excess return, and (c) total return.

The admissibility of a given carbon trading platform to WEMI rests, beyond liquidity and open interest considerations, on links to a formal emissions reduction scheme containing an allowances program and financial penalties for non-compliance. UBS will thus be looking to expand the index as more such programs are implemented, notably in the north east and California.

Now the interesting thing about WEMI is that it will provide the first ever benchmark for derivatives referencing carbon markets. Although the word “world? is a bit of a misnomer (the conditions required by WEMI for inclusion only currently exist in Europe and won’t exist anywhere else, barring a major surprise, until RGGI goes into effect in 2009), this initiative provides an interesting first look at the spectrum of possibilities that will arise once more jurisdictions jump on the carbon trading bandwagon. Such indices will provide excellent bases for financial engineers to unleash their creativity in constructing structured products around global carbon markets. UBS already offers two products based on its index – one priced in USD and the other in CHF.

November 02, 2006

Climate change, carbon trading and America...it's only a matter of time

Just a quick follow-up on my carbon trading post a few days ago. Thanks to GreenBiz.com for the heads up on the results of a survey that were released during MIT's seventh annual Carbon Sequestration Initiative Forum. The results show that climate change now tops the list of environmental concerns for Americans. I don't want to reveal too much here since this is a GreenBiz.com story, but it suffices to say that this provides yet more ammunition to the political backers of a framework to reduce greenhouses gases in America. Momentum is building and there will definitely be some loosers but there will also be some big winners. More on this later.

Just to wrap up this morning's post, I came across a good piece on the RGGI and California's AB32 on Evolution Markets' website today. At the very bottom of their homepage, there is a link to a piece is entitled (warning, PDF) Bicoastal Carbon Trading: California and RGGI Markets Mapped Out. Evolution Markets provides a range of services related to energy and environmental markets (DISCLOSURE: I am not affiliated with them and do not have any finanical interest in them).

« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »

Search This Site

Share Us


Subscribe to this Blog

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Subscribe by RSS Feed


Certifications and Site Mentions

New York Times

Wall Street Journal

USA Today


The Scientist

USA Today

Seeking Alpha Certified

Seeking Alpha Certified

Twitter Updates