Sid:
I am not going to jump all over you. But I must confess to being
disappointed by the misinformation in your post. I usually find
your posting well reasoned and thought provoking, but not this time.
I agree that this is a fast run up, which cannot be sustained.
I also agree that some profit taking is always prudent along the
way, and that there will be pullbacks.
However, your other points are fundamentally wrong:
>The probability of some car company other than Daimler
>wanting to get involved, in the form of a takeover, or
>even starting a new program to test Ballard's fuel cells
>out, is pretty slim, IMO.
Well, slim or not, it has already happened. No takeover, but
check the newswire archives. Deals with other co's have been
signed since the Daimler deal, and the others are moving ahead as
planned. I personally don't want a takeover at this point,
since it would cap the long term growth potential.
>I somehow have trouble seeing BMW looking with relish on the
>idea of being beholden to Mercedes to get its engines.
Why bring this old argument up again. You got several counter-
examples last time you made this erroneous comment. BMW used
VW engine in early 80's, North American auto's use Suzuki engines
(Sprint & Firefly, for example). The facts are against you here, too.
>In fact there is a significant probability that Daimler will fail
>- maybe 25%, maybe 75%, I don't know
More Turtlemanian math??? Daimler is about $400 million dollars
sure that they can and will succeed.
>- but in that event the stock goes to zero.
I'm not even going to grace this obviously bone-headed remark
with an argument.
Ballard's long term potential is still phenomenal. I am also
enjoying this current uptrend - how about you?
Garth. |
