SteveOH

Investor Daily: Yes, it sounds like pie-in-the-sky thinking right now. But there’s reason to think good things are in store for investors.

By Andy Serwer, managing editor

Last Updated: November 20, 2008: 8:08 AM ET

NEW YORK (Fortune) — I was thinking about the financial mess the other day and I came up with this theory. I’m wary of it because it’s comforting, even uplifting, and by definition any economic supposition that has a happy ending is suspect. So with that caveat here goes:

I remember talking to a wise man at the end of the last decade who was pointing out to me how much the market had gone up during the 1990s and how stocks couldn’t possibly continue to go up at that rate. The market’s historical annual mean gain is about 8%, and yet between 1990 and 2000 the market had climbed some 15% per annum.

There is only one way to revert to the mean, the wise man pointed out, and that is for the market to go up less than that for quite some time. So we were looking at low single digit gains – or worse – for years.

But how could that be, I asked? Remember, the world looked pretty damn good back then. Sure tech stock prices were ridiculous, but other than that, what could possibly make the market tank? I have no idea, the wise man said, it’s just very likely to happen.

And of course it did happen. First tech stocks crashed – and for sure, a few people saw that coming. But who envisioned the horror of 9/11 and its fallout? Who saw Enron, Worldcom and the wave of corporate scandals? Who saw Hurricane Katrina? And who saw this current financial meltdown. No one did. Back then our big concern was Y2K.

At the end of 1999 the Dow was around 11,400. Today the Dow is at 8,400, which means the index has fallen some 26%, a decline of almost 3% per year. With just one year left in this decade – even if 2009 is a humdinger – it is increasingly likely that first 10 years of this century will be one big washout for investors. A lost decade. (Just fyi, if the Dow had climbed up 8% a year from 11,400, the index would be over 22,000 now.) As for the Dow since 1990 – the entire 19-year period – the market has climbed on average some 6% per year.

The next big thing: Green tech?

So what does this mean for us going forward? Well, we don’t really know, but we can make assumptions. First, at some point the carnage will end. The government and the markets will somehow figure a way out of this mess. Stabilization and confidence will return, and the economy will recover.

Second, at some point stock price returns will revert back up to the mean. In fact, to revert to the mean, stocks will at some point have to exceed the mean, in other words go up more than 8%. I know it could be years off, but you see my logic. It’s just math.

And there’s the rub. I believe that in order for the market to achieve a sustainable advance that is above the mean, we are due for some unforeseen positive event or events. Think about it. In the 1990s stocks went way up because of an unanticipated revolution in technology, i.e., networking and the Internet. In this decade we had a slew of unexpected negative events – bookended by 9/11 and this current meltdown. At some point, and it may be a few years from now, we will likely be subjected to an unforeseen positive.

What will it be? Of course no one knows. If we did, it would be priced in. But you could see how something like this might work. Take, for example, the discovery of a sustainable energy source or sources. You can see the incredible boost this would be to our economy and our markets. Imagine the geopolitical benefits. (And how it might defang our enemies.) Imagine the boost to our national psyche. And on and on.

I know you might think this is wishful thinking. And, of course, it is. Right now we are in for the toughest slog we’ve had in decades. We are going to have sacrifice in unimaginable ways. It’s probably even true that George Soros is right and that we are at the end of the era of American dominance. (That’s okay. Who wants to dominate anyway?)

The bigger point is this: Somewhere over the horizon is an unrealized economic benefit that will lift us up in a way that right now, in the gloom, we can’t even imagine. We have much work to do in the meantime, but some day it will come.

5:23p ET November 18, 2008 (MarketWatch)

This is an update to correct the number of mortgages the FDIC plan aims to modify.

WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) — Democratic lawmakers told Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson on Tuesday that he must reverse course and spend some of the $700 billion in bailout funds to keep individual homeowners from losing their homes.

“Some of this TARP money has to be used for mortgage foreclosure prevention,” House Financial Services Committee chairman Barney Frank told Paulson at an oversight hearing on the Troubled Asset Relief Program on Tuesday.

“When the program was passed, very explicit language was included to provide for … mortgage foreclosure diminution as one of the purposes. There’s very specific language in there,” Frank said.

Paulson reiterated his opposition to using any of the money to buy mortgage-backed securities or individual mortgages, although that was his original plan in September when he asked Congress for an unprecedented amount of money to keep global credit markets going.

Paulson also opposed a proposal introduced Friday by Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. Chairwoman Sheila Bair, who is seeking to use $24.4 billion of the $700 billion authorized by Congress to modify loans and avert 1.5 million foreclosures.

Other Democratic lawmakers also expressed opposition to Paulson’s approach of investing money in banks and other financial institutions to bolster their capital and allow more lending.

Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., expressed support for Bair’s mortgage foreclosure prevention approach. “The purchase of toxic assets was at the centerpiece of this program, because everybody agreed at that time that the sub-prime meltdown was at the epicenter of the dislocation that we were experiencing in our economy,” Waters said.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., said she was concerned that the TARP money was being used to fund bank transactions rather than getting credit into communities. “We’re basically funding mergers and acquisitions, not lending,” Maloney said.

Another Democratic lawmaker, Rep. Nydia Velazquez, D-N.Y., said she was concerned that Paulson’s capital injection approach wasn’t doing much for Main Street America. “They’re still waiting to hear an answer as to how this is benefiting them,” Velazquez said.

Paulson said he is sticking with his plan to use the first half of the allocated government capital, $350 billion, to buy significant minority stakes in large, mid-sized and small financial institutions. Paulson said he changed the approach as market realities changed with it.

“Although we are not planning to initiate another capital program beyond those already announced, an emphasis on capital seems to us to be the better strategy going forward,” Paulson told lawmakers. “Congress passed legislation to deal with financial instability, and that is what we are doing.”

He said the best way to turn around the weak housing market was to “increase access to lower cost mortgage lending.”

He argued that the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was an important step in that direction.

Overall, Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke defended on Tuesday their stewardship of the $700 billion financial market rescue plan. “A lot of it still hasn’t gone out to the banks. I think we’ve turned the corner in terms of stabilizing the markets and banks, but we will see restoration to lending” Paulson said.

Paulson said that there was “no playbook” for the Bush administration to follow and so strategy had to be adjusted. He said the financial markets would be worse off if Congress had not approved the package.

Bernanke said he saw some improvements in credit markets, but said overall conditions remain “far from normal.”

Bair said the FDIC would adopt a Temporary Liquidity Guarantee Program rule on Friday that would seek to unlock inter-bank credit markets and “restore rationality to the credit markets.”

Bair’s proposal would guarantee new, unsecured debt issued by banks, thrifts and bank holding companies issued between Oct. 14 and June 30. According to her proposal, debt issued cannot exceed 125% of senior unsecured debt that was outstanding as of Sept. 30 and scheduled to mature before June 30. The program provides insurance coverage for deposits typically used by corporations for payroll expenses.

Tech and and auto industries lead the number of planned layoffs according to a monthly survey.

By Kenneth Musante, CNNMoney.com staff writer

October 1, 2008: 7:36 AM ET

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) — The number of job cuts announced in September rose as the economy slowed, according to a report released Wednesday.

Positions on the cutting board rose 7.2% to 95,094 from 88,736 the previous month, and were 33% higher than the same month last year, when 71,739 cuts were announced, according to outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas, Inc.

September brought the announced layoff total for the third quarter to 287,142 – the largest number since 2005, according to the report.

The computer industry was the hardest hit, with 25,715 positions on the line after PC maker Hewlett-Packard (HPQ, Fortune 500) announced the largest workforce reduction of the year, the report said.

HP said it would cut 24,600 jobs worldwide as a result of its acquisition of Electronic Data Systems Corp. But since those cuts were a result of the deal and not a consequence of the ailing economy, the report noted, HP’s workforce could gain many of those jobs back.

The struggling auto industry came in second place, with plans to drop 14,595 jobs, while the apparel industry came in third place, announcing 8,350 cuts, according to the report.

Surprisingly, planned job cuts were relatively modest in the financial sector, the report said, despite the turmoil that plagued the nation’s financial institutions during the month.

Banks wait for bailout

The data showed that finance industry had announced 8,244 job cuts in September, compared with a spike of 27,169 during the same month last year as the credit crunch began to unfold. But they did jump from 2,182 in August.

September saw a major reshaping of the financial landscape as institutions such as Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch (MER, Fortune 500), AIG (AIG, Fortune 500), Wachovia (WB, Fortune 500) and Washington Mutual were acquired, bailed out, or went bankrupt.

“While all of these scenarios are being played out, the fate of the workers remains in limbo,” John A. Challenger, chief executive of Challenger, Gray & Christmas said in a statement.

Financial institutions are waiting to see if Congress passes the Bush administration’s $700 billion rescue plan that would allow the government to buy up tainted assets in order to keep their businesses from failing.

Whether the bailout plan is approved by Congress – and what form it takes – will affect the number of layoffs that may eventually be announced, according to Challenger.

“One of the big questions is: Are there going to be more runs on banks and financial institutions?’” he told CNNMoney.com.

If there is no bailout plan, financial job cuts will likely increase, according to Challenger. On the other hand, if all banks take advantage of the government’s offer, the number of layoffs could be limited, since no one institution is singled out.

But if a bailout plan passes and is only embraced by a few institutions, that would emphasize the weakness of those companies, and we might see more job cuts, he added. 

By Alexis Madrigal October 06, 2008 | 11:00:00 PM

FREMONT, California — Solar cells have been converting sunlight into electricity for years, but scientists have been much less successful at turning that technology into money.

Now, in a staid Bay Area office park, a converted hard-drive factory with a shiny new façade has begun churning out unconventional solar tubes that could change the economics of solar power.

The highly-automated factory belongs to Solyndra, a three-year-old company that has received $600 million in venture capital and $1.2 billion in orders for its new modules, which look like curtain rods. Those big investors are betting the company’s unique product will soon blanket commercial buildings across the world.

Instead of the standard panels mounted on racks that have dominated solar for the last 20 years, Solyndra’s cylindrical solar modules collect sunlight more efficiently across a broader range of angles and catch light reflected off the roof itself. The solar cells also contain no silicon, which has been a costly component of most solar systems.

Targeted at a highly specific market — office and big-box rooftops — and with signed contracts in hand, the company, along with a small cadre of other well-funded solar startups, are racing to turn their scientific and engineering marvels into profitable businesses.

The scramble, the money, and the size of the prize — a big slice of the trillions of dollars made in energy — remind the company’s founder, Chris Gronet, of his earlier experience in the industry that became the basis for the information revolution.

“We think the solar industry or market look very similar to the way semiconductor manufacturing was 20 years ago,” Gronet, Solyndra’s CEO, told Wired.com. “We say, ‘Wow this is familiar. We’ve been through this before.’”

All types of solar power have experienced growth in the wake of increasing awareness of the risks of climate change and the rising costs of fossil fuels. A report released last week by Lux Research, a solar-focused analysis firm, predicts that the total solar market will grow from $33.4 billion in 2008 to $100.4 billion in 2013. While traditional silicon-based solar cells continue to underpin most solar systems, there is a broad expectation among industry analysts and insiders that these new thin-film solar cells, such as Solyndra is making, will experience rapid growth. While thin-film cells aren’t as efficient at using the sun’s energy as their silicon competitors, they cost less to produce.

Instead of using wafers of material, a la computer chips or traditional solar PV, thin-film solar cells use tiny amounts of material deposited in ultra thin layers along the surface of glass or metal. In Solyndra’s case, vice president of business development Kelly Truman said that their process uses just a bit more than a micron of copper indium gallium diselenide, or CIGS. Using less of the expensive photovoltaic material drives the cost of their production down.

For years, CIGS technology had appeared the most promising for cheap solar power. The National Solar Technology Roadmap, created by the National Renewable Energy Laboratory, states that steady efficiency improvement “could ultimately allow CIGS to achieve the lowest module costs and levelized cost of energy among all PV technologies.”

The total solar market can be broken into three main pieces: solar for utilities, residential installations and commercial buildings. Solyndra is focusing exclusively on the commercial side. What Gronet envisions is solar panels installed on your average Home Depot or Ikea, generating a substantial percentage of the company’s power needs right on site.

On the roof of the Solyndra office buildings, they’ve installed the first Solyndra array. What’s striking about the system is how simple it appears: The solar tubes look like reverse fluorescent light bulbs that generate electricity rather than using it. The mounting system is also light and small, as you can see in the image. They don’t have to be bolted to roofs because the spacing between the cylinders makes them less susceptible to wind damage than traditional flat solar panels.

But despite the industry’s high hopes, CIGS solar cells have proven very difficult to manufacture at industrial scales. Greentech Media analyst Michael Kanellos said that the risks for CIGS thin-film players have “increased dramatically” over the last few months with the worsening financial system and increased competition.

“Some CIGS will survive, but a lot of these companies might only leave a wet spot on the pavement,” Kanellos wrote in an e-mail to Wired.com.

Kanellos noted that Solyndra’s cylindrical design was advantageous, but also the most difficult to manufacture.

“Everyone else is having trouble making efficient flat CIGS panels. Curving adds another layer of complexity,” Kanellos wrote. “It is part of the reason that their contracts call for the delivery of their solar panels from now to 2012.”

Only two other CIGS-based thin-film manufacturers have managed to start cranking out actual saleable product. Nanosolar and Global Solar started selling cells last year. Solyndra, after hundreds of millions of dollars of investment, generated its first revenue in the third quarter of this year.

If Gronet and his team can work out the manufacturing challenges and navigate the difficult financial waters, their unique design and tightly focused business model could lead them to profitability, even after government subsidies in Europe phase out.

“In any unsubsidized world, which is a few years down the road, you need a cost structure that allows you to compete,” Gronet said. “Our panel, because it’s CIGS and thin film, will beat the costs of any silicon system.”

WiSci 2.0: Alexis Madrigal’s Twitter , Google Reader feed, and webpage; Wired Science on Facebook.

So on 9/13/2008 I ordered an HP Tablet tx2500z because my old Fujitsu tablet’s keyboard began to malfunction, so I took that opportunity to upgrade the system (after much thought, of course).  There was a GREAT coupon code found on SlickDeals for an additional $150 off the already reduced price (price went from $1099 to 899), so I decided to pull the trigger on that deal.

After placing the order online, the site indicated it would take 10 days to build the machine.  10 days?  And then an additional 5 – 7 days for shipping.  Wha?  Why so long?  Well, I got a good deal, so I suppose I can wait.  Mind you, I’ve been anxiously waiting for this system, as I have a lot of work to do… and… I spent a lot of money.  So I want it!

It is now the 11th day of being “In Production”.  I called this morning to the Customer Service line and spoke to a nice Indian woman (I could tell from the accent  – and because I asked her).  She was kind, however, I was less than patient at this point.  She verified my information and then told me what I already knew

Customer Service: “The order is still in production sir.”

Me: “Yea, I knew that, that’s why I called. ”

She checked the system and there were no reported delays.

Customer Service: “Can you call back tomorrow and check?”, she said to me.

Me: “No, if I call back tomorrow, it will be to cancel my order and purchase the Dell tablet I should have ordered initially.”

Customer Service: “Ohh, sorry sir.”

Me: “I don’t want special treatment, I just want my item when it was promised to me”

Customer Service:  “I understand.  Please call back tomorrow.”

So, back to the title of this post.  If I owned HP stock, I would sell it like it were infected with ebola.  Why?  Because if it takes HP 10 days to build a laptop, and they can’t even produce a laptop in 10 days, then there’s an internal problem within this company.  Dell can produce laptops within 5 days of ordering, and have them out the door ON the 5th day.  Why in the world can’t HP do that?

Finally, while the customer service person was nice and sweet, she was not helpful.  Helpful, to me, means bringing to light something that I would not have noticed on my own, and thus, making the situation a bit more bearable, understandable, or at the very least give me some confidence that I won’t have to cancel my order and go with a competitor.  She was none of these.

This may have been a random occurrence, but I find it hard to believe. I think the cheap and low quality of the Compaq has crept its way up the chain of command, to the point where the company can’t even stay true to a very gracious and heavily padded deadline (10 days is just crazy!).

EDIT: 10.7.08

Another reason why I would sell, if I owned the stock, of course (and may explain why my experience was sub-par as a consumer): LiNK

Contributed By CainsBrain.

** Thanks Rob **

By Audrey Irvine
CNN

(CNN) — One of my girlfriends recently got engaged. Before we could even bask in her happiness, the conversation turned to the dreaded guest list.

Audrey Irvine was not only invited to her cousin’s wedding in 2004, she served as a bridesmaid.

Fun questions like, “So, honey, do we have to invite your great aunt, whom you haven’t seen since you were 10?”

So, who should get an invite?

Too often, women are pressured into inviting way too many people to their weddings out of a sense of obligation. Parents, prospective in-laws and grooms can turn a simple wedding into a grand affair.

And as soon as that engagement ring catches her eye, that occasional lunch acquaintance feels entitled to share in your happy nuptials.

Then you realize too late that the majority of people at your wedding don’t really know you or what has been going on in your life up until your big day. iReport.com: Share stories of your not-so-perfect wedding

This quiz is something I shared with friends years ago and feel inclined to share with other women.

Here are 10 questions couples can use to trim that guest list and weed out the people you really don’t want at your wedding.

1) Name the city I’m living in now (Good one to weed folks out, especially if you have moved a lot. Don’t use this if you’ve lived in the same place for 10 years).

2) Name at least two of my closest friends.

3) Name my current employer and my past employer (Again, if you’ve remained in the same job for 15 years, this does not apply).

4) Do I have any kids?

5) Do you know the name of my fiancé? Bonus question: Where and when did we meet?

6) Do you know where my parents are and whether they are still alive? (Imagine a friend at your wedding asking how long have your parents been married when they divorced years ago).

7) Name at least two of my hobbies.

How old am I? (My favorite is when family friends would query, ‘Are you 28 now?” Imagine their surprise when I proclaimed, ‘yeah, 10 years ago!’)

9) Where did I go to college? (Some people might not remember whether you attended college or even graduated.)

10) Name my last boyfriend before this engagement. Bonus question: if you can name the last two and why we broke up. If you get the bonus question right, that might automatically get you in.

Scoring helps determine whether you get invited.

If you score 50 percent or below, you definitely are not getting invited.

If you score barely over 50 percent, you are on the waiting list. If someone who scored better than you cannot attend, you might get an invitation. This barely acceptable person who might be invited may get you a great gift because of their guilt for scoring so low.

If you score over 60 percent, you get an invitation.

Now, you don’t have to be as extreme as I would love to be and send these questions with the save the date card. However, imagine if, over the course of your engagement, you pitch these questions to a few prospective guests just to see how they do.

In the end, what matters most is a beautiful wedding day and a sustained marriage.

Wouldn’t you like to celebrate it with loved ones who are invested in your past and present in addition to your future? Plus, it will help you avoid the embarrassing introduction of your new husband to someone who didn’t even realize until that moment that you didn’t marry your college sweetheart, whom you haven’t seen in 15 years!

This application is available to the general public, free of charge, and simply requires a registration to continue use after 30 days.  HOWEVER, I don’t like the idea of Microsoft tracking the use of their products, and therefore, will make mine available to everyone so that you do not have to register.

Registration Code: 4V0HNGSJ4ZTGBD

Jonathan Fahey, 07.31.08, 2:30 PM ET

MIT professor Daniel G. Nocera has long been jealous of plants. He desperately wanted to do what they do–split water into hydrogen and oxygen and use the products to do work. That, he figures, is the only way we humans can solve our energy problems; enough energy pours down from the sun in one hour to power the planet’s energy needs for a year.

In January, only a month after reevaluating his methodology in the face of a frustratingly slow process, he finally found a way. “For six months now I’ve been looking at the leaves and saying ‘I own you guys!’”

Nocera’s discovery–a cheap and easy way to store energy that he thinks will be used to change solar power into a mainstream energy source–will be published in the journal Science on Friday. “This is the nirvana of what we’ve been talking about for years,” said Nocera, the Henry Dreyfus Professor of Energy at MIT. “Solar power has always been a limited, far-off solution. Now we can seriously think about solar power as unlimited–and soon.”

Plants catch light and turn it into an electric current, then use that energy to excite catalysts that split water into hydrogen and oxygen during what is called photosynthesis’ light cycle. The energy is then used during the dark cycle to allow the plant to build sugars used for growth and energy storage.

Nocera and Matthew Kanan, a postdoctoral fellow in Nocera’s lab, focused on the water-splitting part of photosynthesis. They found cheap and simple catalysts that did a remarkably good job. They dissolved cobalt and phosphate in water and then zapped it with electricity through an electrode. The cobalt and phosphate form a thin-film catalyst around the electrode that then use electrons from the electrode to split the oxygen from water. The oxygen bubbles to the surface, leaving a proton behind.

A few inches away, another catalyst, platinum, helps that bare proton become hydrogen. (This second reaction is a well-known one, and not part of Nocera and Kanan’s study.)

The hydrogen and oxygen, separated and on-hand, can be used to power a fuel cell whenever energy is needed.

“Once you put a photovoltaic on it,” he says, “you’ve got an inorganic leaf.”

James Barber, a biochemistry professor at Imperial College London who studies artificial photosynthesis but was not involved in this research, called the discovery by Nocera and Kanan a “giant leap” toward generating clean, carbon-free energy on a massive scale.

“This is a major discovery with enormous implications for the future prosperity of humankind,” he said. “The importance of their discovery cannot be overstated.”

Nocera’s discovery arose from frustration. Disappointed with the pace of his lab’s progress, Nocera and his team decided in December to question some of the basic assumptions they had made in setting up earlier experiments.

Chemists, it turns out, are always worrying about the stability of their catalysts and end up doing backflips to try to synthesize materials that won’t corrode. Photosynthesis, though, is so violently reactive that the catalysts involved break down every 30 minutes. The leaf has to constantly rebuild them. Maybe, thought Nocera, instead of fighting corrosion, he should work with it. “It’s a bias a lot of scientists have. We want something to be structurally stable. But all it has to be is functionally stable.”

This thinking led Nocera to try his cobalt-phosphate mixture. He knew it wouldn’t hold together, but he thought it might still work. Sure enough, Nocera’s catalyst breaks down whenever the electricity is cut, but it assembles itself again when electricity is reapplied.

Nocera’s discovery is still a science experiment. It needs plenty of engineering before it can be a useful device. The cobalt and phosphate at the center of Nocera’s work is cheap and plentiful, but the hydrogen reaction uses platinum, which is rare and expensive. The electrode needs to be improved so the oxygen-making process can speed up. And the system needs to be integrated into some kind of electricity-producing device, ideally powered by solar or wind on one end and a fuel cell on the other.

But splitting the oxygen away from the water was the hard part, and Nocera has done it. “Now we can start thinking about a totally distributed solar [photovoltaic] system,” he said. “We couldn’t have a solar economy unless it could produce energy 24/7. Now we can.”

His hope is that because unlike traditional electrolysis devices, which are expensive and require toxic alkaline solutions, his system is so cheap, simple and benign that scientists and engineers around the world will be able to improve it quickly.

For his part, Nocera says he will work to understand and improve both sides of his new discovery. His lab will try to learn every detail about just how his catalyst is making the oxygen. And he is going to work with his engineering colleagues at MIT to try to integrate his storage device into systems that he hopes one day will power homes and cars all day and all night.