The Obama administration wants to encourage the production of cellulosic ethanol. As a story in today's WSJ (p. C2) tells us, this is a "cornerstone" of its plan to "curb greenhouse-gas emissions." Besides, it seems to have finally occurred to people that driving around on corn-based ethanol means burning what might otherwise have been somebody's food in one's car.
The story, by Naureen Malik, is devoted chiefly to the wariness of private investors to get into cellulosic ethanol, and concomitantly to the wariness of the Dept. of Energy to contribute money in this area until private investors have been lined up, in what Malik calls a "chicken-and-egg problem." (Psssst. Malik. Why consider it a 'problem'? It may be the optimal result -- the non-waste of taxpayers' dollars on a boondoogle.)
She quotes Arnold Klann, chief executive of BlueFire Ethanol Fuels, on the difficulties of finding investors for the projects he has in mind: "They all want to be the first to finance the second project, they won't finance the first."
After all these years, are we still talking as if "the first" cellulosic-ethanol project is a matter for the use of the future tense? The answer: because all the talk of break-throughs in the past has been just that: talk.
Here's a Motley Fool piece on the subject from nearly three years ago. Jack Uldrich was at that time encouraging "investors in ethanol companies such as Pacific Ethanol (Nasdaq: PEIX), Archer Daniels Midland (NYSE: ADM), and Aventine (NYSE: AVR), to begin boning up on cellulosic ethanol...."
Well, I don't suppose the reading could have done them a lot of harm, but there were other things they might more profitably have been boning-up on in terms of market-ready projects.
Showing posts with label Motley Fool. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Motley Fool. Show all posts
Monday, December 28, 2009
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Chieftain/Comcast
Glenn Greenberg, the chief of Chieftain Capital, is ticked off with Comcast, and with its CEO Brian Roberts, for an obvious reason: Comcast stock is down 40% over the past year.
Roberts' defenders, including the folks at the Motley Fool website, will tell you that the situation isn't of Roberts' making, that there are industry-wide difficulties with cable. The high cost of providing it, to start with. The increasing appeal of satellite TV.
Still, there are obvious answers to that. Is Comcast stock losing value because the company is staying in a dying industry. That's hardly a reason for confidence in its management! Couldn't Roberts' team diversify the company's assets and products?
Perhaps they don't have any very pressing incentive? The company has a dual-share structure, so that Brian Roberts and the rest of the Roberts family (Brian's father is the company founder) have 33% of its voting power, while owning only 1% of the shares.
The story in yesterday's WSJ suggested there's not a lot that Greenberg can do about the situation (except, of course, to sell his stock). He'd need allies to do more, and they haven't shown themselves yet.
Also: didn't he know about the dual share structure when he bought in? If not, why not?
For the rest of us, the question is whether such a structure, with its management-entrenching superstock, is a good or bad policy idea. Is it something the SEC ought to worry about? or just the natural result of freedom of contract? does it have a causal impact on performance?
I've been piling up a lot of questions, and offering no answers. Let's make a few simple declarative sentences to end upon.
Early this morning (before I wrote this) someone from Malaysia reached this site by running a search for the name "Glenn Greenberg." I'm always delighted at the thought of an international audience, and I hope that particular visitor found my biographical observation on Mr. Greenberg, yesterday's entry, of some value.
That's going to have to suffice as an ending!
Roberts' defenders, including the folks at the Motley Fool website, will tell you that the situation isn't of Roberts' making, that there are industry-wide difficulties with cable. The high cost of providing it, to start with. The increasing appeal of satellite TV.
Still, there are obvious answers to that. Is Comcast stock losing value because the company is staying in a dying industry. That's hardly a reason for confidence in its management! Couldn't Roberts' team diversify the company's assets and products?
Perhaps they don't have any very pressing incentive? The company has a dual-share structure, so that Brian Roberts and the rest of the Roberts family (Brian's father is the company founder) have 33% of its voting power, while owning only 1% of the shares.
The story in yesterday's WSJ suggested there's not a lot that Greenberg can do about the situation (except, of course, to sell his stock). He'd need allies to do more, and they haven't shown themselves yet.
Also: didn't he know about the dual share structure when he bought in? If not, why not?
For the rest of us, the question is whether such a structure, with its management-entrenching superstock, is a good or bad policy idea. Is it something the SEC ought to worry about? or just the natural result of freedom of contract? does it have a causal impact on performance?
I've been piling up a lot of questions, and offering no answers. Let's make a few simple declarative sentences to end upon.
Early this morning (before I wrote this) someone from Malaysia reached this site by running a search for the name "Glenn Greenberg." I'm always delighted at the thought of an international audience, and I hope that particular visitor found my biographical observation on Mr. Greenberg, yesterday's entry, of some value.
That's going to have to suffice as an ending!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
