“Operation Global Rescue” Stocks — Breakaway Investor

On a day when the faces walking by my house on their way to work at Fannie Mae headquarters are looking a little bit glum and uncertain, let’s stroll over to an entirely different section of the investing neighborhood.

This is the subject line that has been filling up my inbox of late:

“Controversial ‘Relief Fund’ Makes BIG MONEY Payouts to Charitable Americans!”

This is another ad for a newsletter we’ve looked at quite a few times before, but things have changed a little bit. BreakAway investor was for quite a while edited by Andrew Mickey, but apparently a few years of failed teaser stocks (and, I imagine, some weak performance by the newsletter as a whole) has led to a changing of the guard. Christian DeHaemer, who edits or contributes to many other Taipan newsletters (Red Zone profits, Crisis Trader, Material Profits, etc.), is now at the Breakaway Investor helm. Will his picks do any better?

(I don’t actually know anything about why Mickey left, just guessing — he’s still in the business and is now investment strategist for a much smaller organization called Q1 Publishing.)

This time around, the promise of the ad is a bit novel — they tell us that you can do well by doing good. That you can contribute to what they call “Operation Global Rescue” by investing in this “Global Relief Fund” and help feed the world, and also get rich. You don’t have to read between the lines too much to notice that, of course, they just made up the terms “Operation Global Rescue” and “Global Relief Fund” — what they’re talking about is investing in the companies that help modern agriculture run. I guess you can make the argument that these investments will help to feed the hungry if you like, though they do go a bit aboveboard comparing investing in Potash and John Deere to making a charitable contribution.

And they make you feel like you can be “controversial” in making money by doing good — which, of course, conjures up images of big returns (why else would there be a “controversy?”).

If you want to save the world or feed a family, send your money to Heifer Project International or whatever your favorite charity might be … but perhaps you can still make some money with agricultural stocks, and have more money to fuel your generosity. Let’s have a look:

“‘Operation Global Rescue’ Stock #1: Feeding the World!”

Here’s an excerpt from DeHaemer’s spiel:

“If you could only own one stock for the next five years… this would be the one. Kiplinger’s calls this company a “real growth stock”… .

“This company is a leader in agriculture biotechnology. They produce seeds and herbicides …

“According to a survey by Thomson Financial News, their earnings are expected to grow 37% annually over the next three to five years.

“And they can charge a pretty penny for seeds that grow corn that is resistant to pests.

“In fact, in June this company launched a new push to help feed the world by funding wheat and rice research projects, handing out seeds to African farmers and pledging to double corn and soy yields over the next 22 years.”

We get some specifics, too, thankfully — so the Thinkolator needn’t go hungry today.

Net income grew 107% year over year in the last quarter.

Profit margin is 18%.

Trades at a PE of about 30.

Big mutual funds have been adding to their positions.

DeHaemer doesn’t softpedal the promise — he sees 250% gains for this one, and says that you should … “put this company in your portfolio now. It’s the buy of the decade — and you don’t want to miss out!”

So what is it?

Well, as you may well have guessed if you’ve spent any time looking at ag stocks, this is …

Monsanto (MON)

Monsanto is essentially a biotech company that focuses on seeds — they develop genetically engineered seeds that can grow in harsh conditions, or that won’t be affected by their herbicides, or otherwise will help to increase yields, save money, or allow farming in areas that are not particularly suited to it.

In the big picture, I think technology like this is critically important — but there are certainly folks who disagree, some quite vehemently. Just picture the “frankenfood” protests in any country in Europe over the last ten years, there are some places that just don’t want these seeds, or any crops grown with them.

That said, Monsanto is making an awful lot of money, and I can’t imagine that we’ll be able to effectively feed a growing population without more and better genetically engineered crops, though of course there’s always a risk that this gets pushed too far and we all start growing rabbit ears or having our toenails turn green. Personally, I see this as primarily an extension of the hybridization that farmers have been spearheading for hundreds of years, and that my recent ancestors worked on every day on their corn and soybean farms in Illinois. On the other hand, stuff like growth hormones in dairy cattle, which Monsanto was also involved with a few years ago (and may still be, I don’t know), give me the heebie jeebies. Didn’t say I was consistent, just sharing my opinion.

But my personal feelings about “frankenfood” don’t mean much — what’s the investment potential for Monsanto?

Well, DeHaemer is clearly not alone — lots of folks think the promise is huge here. Morningstar pegs the fair value at $145 and thinks you should consider buying at these levels (it’s at $107 before the open today, looks like it will probably open higher than that).

The news has been fairly thick for Monsanto lately, too — they got permission to export their latest “Roundup Ready” Soybeans to China just last week, and they got an upgrade on Friday by Credit Suisse, along with plenty of articles recently on what a value these shares represent (one from from Investopedia here, just to get you started). Kevin Kerr, who has made a name for himself with some great picks in various commodity sectors over the years, also thinks Monsanto is a good bet.

Keep in mind, if it’s this “operation global rescue” stuff that appeals to you, that Monsanto is in the act of actively preventing the most basic farming practice, seed saving. There’s not necessarily anything wrong with that — Monsanto has to protect their intellectual property and patents, and the only way for them to do that is by preventing farmers from making their own seed, so that they can force them to buy seed from the owner of those patents, but it does make them look bad on occasion when they have to sue farming cooperatives. And it does mean that as their technology spreads around the world, it may be tougher to keep a handle on that intellectual property — if you think it’s hard to keep a teenager from uploading a CD to bittorrent, imagine how hard it is to make sure farmers don’t let plants reproduce themselves. I’m not an ag expert — I remember the Llama that my second cousin owned much better than I remember what his corn fields looked like — this is just my personal take on one of the company’s challenges.

If you’re interested in this part of the agricultural space — seeds and herbicides and the basic inputs for agriculture (except fertilizer), there are also a few other places you can look. The closest competitor to Monsanto is Syngenta (SYT), which is growing more slowly and doesn’t have some of the powerhouse products like Monsanto does (Roundup in particular), but is much cheaper and in the same agricultural biotechnology business, or you could also look at a diversified and perhaps more stable company that has a big seed and agricultural protection (read, pesticides and herbicides) business like DuPont (DD), which is relying on its ag business for growth in some ways but is cheaper still (thanks in part to cost pressures in their basic chemicals businesses).

Most ag companies have had some big moves up in the last couple years, but I do like that the seed companies at least rely less a massive price climb than have the raw fertilizer companies, the Potash Corps and Mosaics of the world, and it is nice to have a product that is patent protected, not just a commodity whose price can swing wildly.

And don’t worry, you’ll get the fabulous opportunity to read some Gumshoe chatterboxing about the several other ag companies touted as the investments for this “Global Rescue Fund,” too — I’ll be looking at them soon.

But it’s your money … what do you think of Monsanto?

P.S. I do actually live just a few blocks from the palatial Fannie Mae headquarters … I normally see the employees all come swarming out for lunch in the neighborhood eateries with lanyards around their necks and smiles around their faces. I wonder if the bars will be a little fuller at lunchtime today (not that I would know), and I hope there weren’t as many employees who had their full retirements socked away in FNM stock as there were at Bear Stearns or Enron. I know the news crews are certainly gumming up traffic quite a bit as the stern reporters do their standups in front of the building, I’ll let you know if the circus gets exciting in these parts.

The author will always disclose any direct long or short equity, debt or option position in any stocks written about as of the day of publication, and will not trade in any stocks mentioned for three days (72 hours) after publication. Full disclaimer is at the bottom of the page.

Related Articles:

“Operation Global Rescue #2: A VERY Precious Commodity”

"Secret Defense Department Technology Crosses Over"

"Turns Dry Wells into Profits"

Cell Phone GPS — A Quickie

“Illegal for Every American Investor – UNTIL NOW”

1. Here’s the real story on this global ogre.

   http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Next-Battleground–The-by-Deb-Della-Piana-080713-916.html

   [Reply]

   

   StockGumshoe Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 10:35 am

   Bob, that’s an interesting article on more of the dark side of Monsanto, thanks. FYI, I deleted the other link because it wouldn’t load, not an editorial decision.

   [Reply]

   

   Bob Reply:
   September 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm

   For anyone interested, there’s a link in the first paragraph of this article to a video called something like “The World According to Monsanto,” which (if they haven’t suppressed it already) will give a fuller and more heartbreaking account of this soul destroying enterprise. Imagine a world the food supply of which is controlled by the machinations of a corporation whose only agenda, aside from profit, is a TOTAL LOCK on the flora and fauna, not of the Greek pastoral poem sort, but of the immediate and urgently necessary eating sort. It will quite literally have everyone in the world, if something is not done about it pronto, eating out of its hand!!!!!! This machiavellian bunch outdoes even the illuminati, if it isn’t that group itself in its vilest and most sinister disguise.

   And if provoked, I can REALLY wax eloquent on the subject, LOL.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Bob | September 8, 2008, 10:04 am

2. I read recently (I wish I had kept the link) that in the southern U.S. there is a new weed running wild because it is immune to Roundup.

   MON could have future problems if nature produces more weeds like that.

   [Reply]

   

   StockGumshoe Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 10:32 am

   Really good point, Herb — sorry I didn’t mention it. Roundup has been around for something like 30 years, and roundup-resistant weeds are a problem in some areas, and appear to be a cyclical problem generally. Conceptually, it’s not too different from the problems with antibiotic-resistant bacteria like MRSA, after being overexposed to the antibiotic/herbicide for many years, bacteria/weeds that are resistant either develop through mutation, or are given a chance to thrive by the absence of competitors. I don’t know if there’s a point where you can call a winner in the arms race between biotech and nature, but it’s probably something worth considering. Thanks again.

   [Reply]

   

   Sally Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am

   I believe HERB might be referring to “Cogon Grass” which has several other names. It has been added to the “Ten Most Noxious Weeds in the World” list!
   I have it in my yard after hurricane Ivan sent it to me in 2004. It’s true that NOTHING yet works to kill this weed. A fortune awaits the company who can find a way to kill this!

   [Reply]

   

   JAY RICHARDS Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 11:36 pm

   The “weed” is actually a prolific and productive food stock amaranth seed plant, which is considered a staple in some parts of the world…hazardous to cotton harvest machinery due to it’s height and thick rapid growth. Drought resistant.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Herb Walker | September 8, 2008, 10:25 am

3. http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS63085 23-

   The above is a link to a news release about the patent sharing agreement between Monsanto & Syngenta. RE; Round-up

   I think I would rather go with Syngenta (SYT) for a couple reasons:
   1. For some reason, although the occupy the same ag niche, Syngenta doesn’t have the same Frankenfood rep as Monsanto. This is especially true in Europe, Asia and the Mid-East.

   2. Syngenta has done extensive research in mapping the rice genome. Sure there is a growing middle class world-wide but there are a heck of a lot more poor people, to whom rice is the major diet component.

   3. Syngenta is about to open a major Ag research center in China. Monsanto is big in Latin America but no so much in Asia.

   [Reply]

   

   A. Nony Mouse Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 10:43 am

   And I don’t know why the link takes you to page not found…but if you do a google search “Monsanto Syngenta patent sharing agreement” it’s there.

   [Reply]

   Posted by A. Nony Mouse | September 8, 2008, 10:41 am

4. As far as Roundup (glyphosate) tolerant and resistant weeds, they will definitely be a problem in the future unless farmers either rotate to other herbicides or tank-mix Roundup with other products.

   Here’s my theory on why Roundup Ready crops have been banned in Europe: It’s really nothing more than protectionism in the name of food safety, since Monsanto (an American company) was the first to develop herbicide tolerant corn, soybeans and cotton. If one of the huge European crop protection companies (Syngenta, Bayer or BASF) had been first to market, I have a feeling the European Union’s stance might have been completely different.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Steve | September 8, 2008, 11:14 am

5. Monsanto is messing with the world’s food supply via genetic manipulation and seed stock monopoly. Their motive is profit. They do not care about our health or that of our enviroment. If they did they would not creat seeds that become plants that can and do destroy bees and invade organic farm fields. They actually sue and take farmer’s lands because their (Monsanto’s) seeds fall off trucks and grow on farms that did not plant them. The farmer did not pay for the priveledge of using Monsanto’s seeds!!. Monsanto is patenting every seed that exists in the U.S. and world seed banks just so they can profit whenever someone uses one of them. Patenting seed is patenting life. That is criminal in my book and really scary as hell.
   Patently life forms so you can profit from anyone growing it is a monopolization of life. Monsanto wants to collect from every farmer everywhere who grows any crop at all. They want to sell engineered seed or any seed that they have a patent on (just about all seeds available to patent). They have proved they can enforce thier patents because they already have. They take land from farmers who can not pay for their royalties.
   These Monsanto people are trying to monopolize the food we eat. Think about that. They can then charge whatever they want. Pay or starve.
   Whoa, there! Can that be? Yes, it can and is.
   The money they make is bankrupting farmers and indirectly causing food prices to increase. This insures that many people will not eat.
   I consider this company to be evil. Not just greedy. Evil. Inform yourselves about this company more fully. See the Future of Food video.

   [Reply]

   

   Larry Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 1:27 pm

   Its really a shame to have someone (Beach) put such misleading information on this site when stockgumshoe works so hard at getting the facts right. I’m a scientist, there have been very good studies in the very best independent labs (most in anti-GMO Europe) and the plants absolutely don’t harm bees. There has never been any negative health effects from GMO plants. These plants are not weeds; nor do they invade organic farms any more than non-GMO plants.

   The reason they get patents for their work is because they are inventions! They take many years, usually over ten, to develop a new crop and GMO crops can cost many 10s of millions of dollars to develop. Why shouldn’t they get reimbursed for their investment? Readers of this site should appreciate that farming is a business; like in any business you get paid for a good product. If you steal, why shouldn’t you be punished? Farmers around the world have adapted these products because they can make more money with less input of dangerous chemicals; its more sustainable to plant Round-up Ready seeds with low till than to use conventional methods. The studies have shown the energy saved is like taking millions of cars off the highway.

   Monsanto is on to something and when they produce plants that yield more with less fertilizer and a lot less what the world will be able to grow more food without destroying rain forests or using a precious resource, water.

   Too bad that some people can seem to be skeptical of wild financial schemes but still believe the misinformation on the Internet about GMOs.

   [Reply]

   

   farley 5 Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 1:51 pm

   Thank you so much for your clarity on this subject. My aunt was the industry leader in making new rose colors and no one had a problem with her GMO flowers. I have a client that raises bees. He does not worry one bit about GMO’s. He is upset whenever the crop duster comes by and does not warn him to cover his hives. BTW – He has lost more bees to bears and the lice than spraying crops.

   [Reply]

   

   destry Reply:
   September 8th, 2008 at 11:11 pm

   To pile in on this would “Guilding the Lilly”
   Nice job of “Red Doggin’ “. You two make me proud.

   Posted by Tom Beach | September 8, 2008, 11:15 am

6. Hey Folks!
   One important point about Intellectual Property rights for AG biotechs like Monsanto. They have developed a technology called TERMINATOR which actually does not allow farmers to replant the seeds from the current harvest. The seeds are genetically modified to become infertile.
   This forces farmers to buy seeds every year. Thers been a big furore in countries like India where similar products have forced farmers to buy from Monsanto.

   [Reply]

   Posted by ProBhi | September 8, 2008, 11:43 am

7. In spite of good results Monsanto is sitting on a potential time bomb.
   There are many questions ethical and others that linger and that the company is pushing under the rug
   Monsanto and other biotech companies are vulnerable to a problem that will tank their stocks.
   They are in a race against bad publicity
   There is a strong consummer movement in Europe and in the US against GMOS and there are independent studies that shows serious problems relating to biotech foods.
   Monsanto is trying to hush It.
   I do not want to take that kind of risk.
   All that shines is not always gold….

   [Reply]

   Posted by emmanuel | September 8, 2008, 12:18 pm

8. Roundup itself is no longer under patent…I believe. There are certainly lots of generic versions. Roundup tolerance is something that is present in nature…many weeds are becoming tolerant to it, or more correctly the use of Roundup is providing selection pressure for glysophate tolerant varieties.

   This is true of every ag chemical as far as I know. And glysophate is one of the safest and best there is…still. In the “good old days” using atrazine to produce corn was very much more scary than using roundup.

   Genetically modified crops are probably one of the safest technologies ever invented by man because all you are doing essentially is producing different natural substances. Moving genes around from one species to another is generally playing with proteins, and personally whether I get a particular protein from a tomatoe or a chicken doesn’t really matter to me.

   The scare tactics and fear in the above posts are typcial of modern “Luditism” and “ChickenLittleism”.

   The issue of seed use and terminator genes, etc. is not a lot different than trying to protect music on the internet. And there are always alternatives to using Monsanto seed…just use one of the thousands of non-Roundup ready varieties.

   By the way…I have nothing to do with any of the companies, etc. in this discussion, nor with the industry. I am a retired agricultural real estate appraiser.

   [Reply]

   Posted by boband | September 8, 2008, 1:02 pm

9. Although the FDA and the food industry claim GMO foods are safe, properly tested, and necessary to feed a hungry world, it is just not true!

   Many consumers mistakenly believe that the FDA “approves” GM foods after rigorous and in-depth, long-term studies. In reality, the agency has absolutely no safety testing requirements. Instead the agency relies on research done by Monsanto itself. Monsanto’s research is designed to avoid finding problems.

   It’s also easy to understand the FDA’s industry-friendly policy on regulation of GMOs when you consider the cross pollination occurring between FDA regulators and the companies they are supposed to regulate.

   The original person in charge of developing the FDA’s policies on GMOs was a former Monsanto attorney, who later returned to Monsanto as their vice president.

   The FDA has claimed it was not aware of any information showing GM crops were different in any meaningful way, from non-GMO crops… and therefore didn’t require rigorous testing. But over 40,000 internal FDA documents, made public by a lawsuit, show that this was a complete lie.

   The overwhelming consensus among the FDA’s own scientists was that GM foods were quite “different” and could lead to unpredictable and hard-to-detect allergens, toxins, new diseases and health problems.

   Consider this… in a Philippine village, residents woke up one morning to a “really pungent smell” coming from a nearby cornfield. “It was like we were breathing in pesticides.”, said one villager. When one person ventured into the corn field, his face began to swell and he started having trouble breathing. This occurred at the time of year when the corn (containing the Bt-toxin from Monasanto) was pollinating. Shortly afterwards, other villagers began experiencing fevers, skin, respiratory and intestinal symptoms, starting first with those who lived closest to the cornfield and then spreading to those living further away. A total of 96 people reported getting sick. In addition, 9 horses, 4 water buffalos, and 37 chickens died shortly after feeding on GM corn. All villagers (39 total) who agreed to participate in blood testing showed an antibody response to Bt-toxin.

   Ask yourself why corporations spreading GMOs are so secretive and why they’ve spent hundreds of millions of dollars to keep us from even knowing which foods contain GMOs. They don’t want us to examine the shoddy science, the suppressed evidence, and, most of all, the real health risks that GMOs present. Read “Genetic Roulette” or visit seeds of deception on the internet to find out the indepth story of GMOs. Again and again this planet is being reminded that we cannot mess with mother nature without dire consequences.

   [Reply]

   

   destry Reply:
   September 9th, 2008 at 12:11 am

   There is no doubt that great care should be taken in any genetic engineering…However, to imply any
   “for profit” company would purposely sell harmful, or untested products,that could destroy their reputation as a business, is irresponsible…
   Man has been doing genetic engineering as long as
   the existence of any civilization…The potato famine in Ireland was caused by the Irish choosing the wrong potato to cultivate, as opposed the Germans choosing a rot resistant strain…
   Corn is a more productive crop, as opposed to
   it’s “Indian corn” ancestor; A product of genetic engineering…Secrecy? Yes…Billions are spent in
   research…And industrial spying and theft of ideas
   and years of research is a fact of life…The FDA,
   as a typical bureaucracy, tends to dissappoint.
   Mistakes? You bet…Humans, no matter how dedicated, smart or clever…Are after-all,
   only human. If the tremendous potential advances in agriculture, should be cancelled out by; Or
   abandoned, until perfection in avoiding any errors
   is achieved…Then I really hope you enjoy; Rust phague, planting indian corn one seed at a time, with dead fish for fertilizer…And a return to the brink of starvation because of failed crops.
   Oh,Wait. That is still what 3/4’s of the world experiences…You belong to a relatively small percentage of fortunates, who know what a grocery store is…Let alone are fed by one…
   Don’t like pesticides? Then crops need genetic engineering to become resistant to infestations, and disease, and weather…Don’t like DDT? Regardless, 20 years research showing it harmless,
   to wildlife and humans,since the 1980’s, The urban
   myth, still relegates, millions less fortunate,to
   die from the malaria, which had been all but wiped out before DDT’s ban…
   The point is…Nothing comes with guarantees…
   But none but a psychopath, purposely sets out to harm his fellow man through genetically engineered crop strains…Personally, I’ll demand absolute
   perfection from others,in this imperfect world…
   When I myself achieve perfection……………..
   Which should be any day now.

   [Reply]

   

   Hans Reply:
   September 9th, 2008 at 7:46 am

   “to imply any
   “for profit” company would purposely sell harmful, ……products”…sorry I just can’t resist: How about tobacco just as one example?

   [Reply]

   

   Bob Reply:
   September 9th, 2008 at 7:20 pm

   Hahahahahaahha. And that’s just for starters. It could go on for pages and would do nothing to demonstrate the depth of my mirth over the puppets who will do obeisance to their dark overlords and think that there isn’t anyone out there who is capable of pointing out that their argument does nothing to dissuade anyone who can see that those same overlords have various of their private parts hanging in full view without protective garments or coloration.

   As Hans in a pithy way demonstrates, the sort of reasoning that Destry is capable of shows one of two things: he’s in the thrall (for whatever reason) to the folks who would just as soon populate the world with frankenfruit as have their backs scratched by nubian slaves (but preferably both), OR his classes in logic and reasoning have been even more woefully deficient than I remember mine being, and that’s as worthy of a tome of its own as the present subject–tampering with nature and nature’s God.

   

   Andreakw Reply:
   September 18th, 2008 at 3:35 am

   Firstly – a respectable UK newspaper published an article outlining the fact that scientific chat sites had been infiltrated by PR organisations EMPLOYED by Monsanto with the express purpose of trying to discredit scientists who published anti-gm articles. In fact one such scientist who had published a peer reviewed article in Nature (one of the most prestigious scientific journals in the world) had his peer reviewed article retracted by Nature because of a smear campaign by somone purporting to be a credible scientist in the scientific community. When the “scientist” was traced via the internet/email trail, the origination of the communication was in the office of the PR company working for Monsanto.
   Has anyone seen the film the corporation? In it it looks at the definition of a psychopath, according to the DSM IV, the ‘bible’ of psych pathology. According to the DSM IV, a corporation quite easily fits the behavioural profile of a psychopath. Check it out.
   The recent “melt down” in the financial markets makes me question whether one can give any credence to the statement:
   “However, to imply any “for profit” company would purposely sell harmful, or untested products,that could destroy their reputation as a business, is irresponsible…”
   We have, before our very eyes, the spectacle of very “clever” financial people who are so impressed with their product developemnt that the global financial markets are in danger of collapsing, taking most people’s comfortable retirements with them. They have all been working for companies who are very proud of their reputations as good corporate citizens! AND they get millions of dollars in payment for (australianism) “stuffing it up”.
   I am a microbiologist by qualification. Genetic modification happens all the time, for good or bad. It is a natural process. It’s not GM that concerns me, but rather that in 50 years time one or two global gorillas will control all the food staples of the world – rice corn wheat. Has anyone seen what the Saudis and the middle east does with oil? It would appear that the only motive for companies these days is profit – the more the better – fuelled by the need to give “shareholder value”. I grant that few of the people working in science labs for monsanto, drug companies tobacco companies etc etc believe that they are doing evil things. But there is a paradigm around all these enterprises that deludes us – eg better drugs stop us from studying health. no-one puts in research into ‘natural’ remedies that just might work becasue THEY CAN’T BE PATENTED. What opportunities do we miss because some company can’t turn a buck?
   Let’s not paint the Monsantos of the world as innocent victims of smear campaigns impugning their virtuous reputations as defenders of the world’s poor people. the fact that they can make crops that are better yielding etc is a good thing, without a doubt, but history is littered with companies suppressing information that is contrary to their products – sometimes with fatal consequences to innocent people. Anyone seen the chinese with infant formula recently? 6000 sick children becasue the chinese didn’t want to spoil the country’s image during the best PR opportunity they would ever have – the Olympics.

   [Reply]

   

   destry Reply:
   September 19th, 2008 at 4:24 pm

   With deeper thought…I’ll grant you your point.
   I look on it as more of a “Just because you can do it…Should you?”.
   And I’ll grant you further that there are greedy types that would rather pay insurance claims
   for unethical behavior (Or escape accusations, and liability entirely), and line their pockets, at the expense of people whose lives and health do not matter. Or…Scientists falsefying (sp.) research reports, for grants, awards, and rewards.
   No segment of the world’s population is free of that 10% +or- of various preditors, that make humanity look bad. Some of it is also ignorance,
   and /or arrogance….
   Still, there are more honest, dedicated scientists,
   at all levels, who do much good…And shouldn’t be lumped in with the low-life bottomfeeding bounders.

   

   boband Reply:
   September 9th, 2008 at 12:19 pm

   Ginny’s response is exactly the sort of fear I talked about in my earlier post. My question is why one would choose to believe the story from the Phillipines….if it were true there would be millions of dead animals all over the southern USA and worldwide. Because BT corn is being used in feed as we speak, and probably in most of the feed supply.

   Anyway…if you choose to believe the anti-science sorts of sources you will live in constant fear…and probably suffer healthwise as well as lots of those good old home and folk remedies really are dangerous.

   [Reply]

   Posted by Ginny | September 8, 2008, 4:25 pm

10. On a more positive note….Even the relatively small list of agriculture companies above, are daunting as to investment choices….
    I personally prefer to invest in one company,for example; And in the industry itself, t5houg, in this case; Van Eck Agriculture ETF…A very diverse portfolio of Seed, fertilizer, farm machinery,etc. An excellent long-term hold.
    Symbol: (MOO)

    [Reply]

    

    A. Nony Mouse Reply:
    September 9th, 2008 at 11:59 am

    I agree with you about MOO. I’m also watching the Rogers Van Eck ETF HAP or Hard asset producers Exchange traded Fund. It includes, Ag, mining,petroleum, water, and alternative energy. It just came out and the volume is very light, and it has some other negatives. Given what’s going on with ETF’s it may not be around in 6 months, but I have put it on my watch & wait list

    [Reply]

    Posted by destry | September 9, 2008, 12:19 am

11. 1. Colorful language often clouds logic and fact.
    2. It is seldom clearly only good or only
    negative.
    3. Look at the history of business. A vicous
    cycle of different industries placing profit
    over principle. To naively (sp?) trust
    industry is dangerous. (Similar to my simple
    sister-in law who went into a car dealership and
    said to the salesman who approached her, “I’m here
    to buy a car please don’t screw me” True story.
    4. It is a company by company decision based on
    what they are doing at this point in time.
    5. As long as I do not have the money to buy large
    enough blocks of stock to gain admission to
    the BOD’s or the time, intelligence, energy and
    determination to mount a populace movement.
    This entire discussion is interesting mental
    masturbation.
    6. The only applicable question is, “How do I make enough money to protect my family.?”

    David

    [Reply]

    

    farley 5 Reply:
    September 11th, 2008 at 8:43 am

    Follow the MAGIC Three: 1. Pay yourself first. Target would be 10% but that is tough raising a family. 2. Maximize your retirement contribution. You would be surprised to know how many people do not contribute or do not at least do enough to maximize the company match. 3. Contribute monthly payments to your children’s 529 plans. In the begining I could not afford the monthly payments for my two children. However, I did it anyway. Because college payments were going up twice as fast as inflation, I even had to raise the monthly contributions.

    By putting money away every month, I was able to let the kids go to any school they wanted, retire when I want, and have funds for travel. Monthly is the key. Sure, we did not have new cars, take expensive vacations, etc., but I took care of my family. Try it – you’ll like the results.

    [Reply]

    

    David Hathaway Reply:
    September 12th, 2008 at 4:03 pm

    Farley 5,

    You are exactly correct. Wish I had done more of
    #2. Am at the point now where I lean on the likes
    of you, Travis and a few others to keep a decent
    investment productivity. Goal is 15% but current
    events are temporarily disrupting this.
    David

    [Reply]

    Posted by David Hathaway | September 10, 2008, 9:03 pm

12. I think “Hans”, and “Bob” are going to be my favorite vaudville act…
    Anybody who can use the word “mirth”; Seven “Haha’s
    and call me a “Thrall”,in two paragraphs,gets big points….
    The “dark overlords” was the darlin’ part.
    I really like “tomes”, as well.
    It makes me proud to be insulted by such educated
    lads as yourselves.
    …Seven “Haha’s”… I am impressed…

    [Reply]

    

    Bob Reply:
    September 16th, 2008 at 4:59 pm

    Ha!!!!!!!!! (With nine, count ‘em, nine, exclamation points, just to keep things movin’ along! Whoops, there’s another! Just can’t keep up with myself, LOL.) I in turn must confess to being proud to be put into that classy group of performers called vaudevillians (sorry I got the spelling right and you didn’t, but in keeping with Gumshoe’s admirable policy of transparency, I am forced to admit I hadda look it up). I’m afraid, however,that I’ll never make it up to the level of that class act called the Dick and Dubya Hour of (Illegitimate) State Power, and their follow-up acts, the Make the World Safe for the Halliburton and Monsanto Twin Monsters Act, the Federal Reserve is here to Help Act, and the Blackwater and Homeland Security Patriot Act for Naughty Constitutionalists, state-of-the-art performers, all. No matter how hard I try, I’ll never be able to rise to the breath-taking audacity (remember: audacity, audacity, and more audacity) that these clever fellows bring to the stage. Thanks for the effort, if only by implication, to put me into their sterling company. Hope that they’re paying you well, or if you are offering your obeisance as an act of love, that you are at least able to feel the thrill (not as commanding a term as “mirth” or “thrall,” granted, but still in possession of that “thur” sense of urgency and combativeness that I detect underpinning your hard cutting analysis) of a nod in your general direction. Don’t want your efforts to go ENTIRELY unappreciated. Of course, had I, I wouldn’t have responded in fear that your cloaked masters (that better than “dark overlords”?), who are not overly generous with the proceeds of their ill-gotten gains, had not acknowleged your usefulness.

    I want EVERYONE to get what’s comin’ to ‘em!!!

    PS

    [Reply]

    Posted by destry | September 12, 2008, 10:21 pm

13. Whoops again.

    PS You may wanna stay away from GMO foodstuffs just as a slight precaution that every professional objective observer of the matter has weighed in with a warning that the stuff is unfit for human (and other sentient beings’) consumption.

    [Reply]

    Posted by Bob | September 16, 2008, 5:03 pm

14. PS – sorry about the typos – no automatic spell check on this window.
    End of rant

    [Reply]

    Posted by Andreakw | September 18, 2008, 3:41 am

15. Bob, I was right….
    You’re more fun than a rock fight over an open grave.
    All the talking points…Every one.
    One little thing…Too few “periods”…Too many
    “take-a-breath, commas”. You were hyperventalating.
    Are you allowed access to a computer without adult supervision?…Or did you escape?
    I apologize…I really like you…It could be though; Because I had a pet squirrel as a kid.

    [Reply]

    Posted by destry | September 19, 2008, 4:45 pm