Billionaire conservatives have done everything else, from spending millions attacking health reform, millions more attacking the president through their front groups, collaborated with right-wing media to punish the volt (american ingenuity) for being associated with GM (hence, associated with president Obama because he loaned them money).
Why wouldn’t they be shorting solar stocks too?
A bit of searching lead me to Wall Street’s Irrational, Dangerous Hatred of Solar Stocks.
For most of 2011, the stocks of solar power companies of all kinds, from providers of raw polysilicon to developers of finished utility-scale plants, have been taking a beating on world and U.S. stock markets, partly because solar has been the industry most singled out for attack by bearish short sellers.
Solar is hated in spite of being the fastest-growing energy sector in the U.S. (67% 2010 growth; 66% growth just in the first quarter of 2011) and in the world (70% 2010 growth), and also even though its shares trade at very low valuations already.
Does this sound like an investment opportunity?
It does to me also.
Hard to be sure which ones will survive, however.
And another highlight.
Meanwhile, on the electricity side, solar is quietly becoming competitive with the average grid price (especially in sunnier climates) and is rapidly getting cheaper still. “Price per watt of solar modules (not counting installation) [have] drop[ed] from $22 â€¦ in 1980 down to under $3 today,” according to Ramez Naam, in a great piece for Scientific American. And, as this trend continues, “in 2030, solar electricity is likely to cost half what coal electricity does today.“
“Does Wall Street to some degree answer to the huge buckets of money represented by Big Oil? Yes.”
Conservative billionaires = koch brothers are oil billionaires and their company is one of america’s most offensive polluters.
And still further along, the author notes:
CNBC reported on-air that Arizona’s First Solar (Nasdaq: FSLR ) , a Green Alpha holding, missed its first-quarter earnings, when in fact the company’s earnings had beaten expectations by 15%. The stock plunged 10%.
Since I’m not real energetic right now, I’m not looking far for corroboration, but the second search result from the great oracle google is this.
As a green investor, you are most likely acutely aware of how poorly most solar stocks have performed over the past several years, especially given the impressive rate of growth of the industry. What’s causing this disconnect? Is there something deeper going on that’s keeping solar stocks depressed?
Ok, the guy has my attention. I hope that he’ll come to a conclusion that vindicates my speculation in some small way. Talk politics guy. Yup, further vindication.
From a purely investment management point of view, it makes absolutely no sense to short stocks that are already ridiculously low – how much further down can they go? That leads me to believe the people putting short squeezes on these stocks have something other than a financial reason – and the only reason left is an ideological one.
Apparently CNBC did not issue a correction for their faulty reporting of that solar company mentioned above.
“By and large, Wall Street is run by hard core Republicans, who are very ideologically motivated to love oil and hate solar. ”
Yup, I thought so.
And the apparent motivation is summarized with “By shorting solar – by creating a culture where solar is hated – they can probably push its mass adoption out more years”
Robert Draper has documented the seemingly treasonous (my word, not his) actions of republicans as soon as Obama took office.
As President Barack Obama was celebrating his inauguration at various balls, top Republican lawmakers and strategists were conjuring up ways to submarine his presidency at a private dinner in Washington.
This is something I suspected.
The president received no cooperation except in instances where the republicans were losing the public relations battle (such as their efforts to end the payroll tax cut – a middle class tax cut).
Actually, the stimulus did get a couple republican votes.
Without it, we’d be in recession like europe.
The three tenets of republican politics (tenets may be the wrong word there, but I stopped giving a crap already):
build up a huge deficit (it only took them 8 years) and then cry “we’re broke”, so they can attack social security and medicare.
- deception (and repetition)
lie about the debt (90% republican) and deficit, blaming democrats. Blame “spending” by democrats over and over for 3 years. Dumb people (republican base) believe it.
- voter suppression
The topic of this post. This is about republican efforts to prevent people from voting.
This is about trying to steal an election.
But its not exactly new.
“States used dubious ‘list management’ rules to scrub at least 10 million voters from their rolls.”
“If Democrats are to win the 2008 election, they must not simply beat McCain at the polls – they must beat him by a margin that exceeds the level of GOP vote tampering.”
My co-author for my 2008 Rolling Stone exposÃ©, Bobby Kennedy and I figured 6 million votes and voters were “disappeared” in 2008. The 2012 race will get uglier.
Some additional links that are worth reading.
Its well known by now that the republican candidates each had a billionaire backing them (aside from perhaps, santorum – I can’t recall) during the primaries.
If the sugar daddies get their way in November, we know what it means for the country. But itâ€™s equally worth contemplating what will happen if they donâ€™t. Obama is talking the talk of the two Roosevelts, whose reformist zeal and political courage helped bring America back from the brink after the privileged plundered it in the Gilded Age and the Jazz Age. But if he is willing to take on those interests as forcefully as they did, he has yet to show it in his actions and governance. Unless and until he does, itâ€™s hard to see how the sugar daddies could lose over the long run, even if Obama wins on Election Day. They have, after all, only just begun to spend.
This is something I’ve pointed out to numerous dumb cons over the last 3 years.
Mr. Romney constantly talks about job losses under Mr. Obama. Yet all of the net job loss took place in the first few months of 2009, that is, before any of the new administrationâ€™s policies had time to take effect.
Another point I’ve made to conservative propagandists and dummies.
The famous bikini graph of job growth illustrates it very well.
Oh, and where have those mass layoffs of schoolteachers been taking place? Largely in states controlled by the G.O.P.: 70 percent of public job losses have been either in Texas or in states where Republicans recently took control.
We’ve lost more than half a million public sector jobs – largely due to budget cuts by republican controlled state governments.
Mr. Romney wants you to attribute all of the shortfalls in economic policy since 2009 (and some that happened in 2008) to the man in the White House, and forget both the role of Republican-controlled state governments and the fact that Mr. Obama has faced scorched-earth political opposition since his first day in office. Basically, the G.O.P. has blocked the administrationâ€™s efforts to the maximum extent possible, then turned around and blamed the administration for not doing enough.