The "problem" that Nikola has, or has, was representing that it had that which it did not really have. That does tend to bother those who have paid a lot to gain possession of what was represented as existing.

So this will be an interesting tale when the truth is revealed.

Quite an interesting disclosure in this article. Certainly following the fed as it bulldozes a path for it's friends will be a bit smoother than picking through the jungle. So certainly following can be quite effective, providing that the bulldozer does not drive off of a cliff. (WOW, what a graphic analogy, that!)

There does seem to be a shadow growing, which is that bit of debt that the fed has been creating. The nasty thing about debt is that eventually it must be paid off, or somehow settled. Nothing is free in the long term.

Selling mortgage backed securities is what lead to that disaster back in 2008. At least the total dishonesty involved with the issuing of mortgages was the problem. The total lack of oversight was an incredibly foolhardy situation.

The whole concept of mortgage backed securities is an open invitation to repeat the same financial collapse again.

So while the housing sector wants freely available financing, until adequate means of regulation are in place it is begging for a repeat of the disaster.

Interesting. One individuals tale of woe on a specific portfolio. This is, after all, a NEW developing market, meaning that there is not even a record of past performance, which we are often reminded is not a reliable predictor of future performance.

This is an area that may not appeal to all kinds of investors, and so once a need has been satisfied it is not likely to attract additional buyers until there is some increase in demand. So those who can hold should hold, in my opinion, at least.

The dance of the giants does not indicate the condition of the non-giants. That needs to be fully understood.

Certainly this is an interesting drama unfolding. The claims and counter-claims are very serious, and so this is really not a "shades of gray" situation. Either the technology claimed does exist, or it does not.

The appearance looks to me like a case of the "Jim Moore syndrome", thinking that wanting something to be true will makes it be true. That seldom works in the real world. (Note that this is NOT the same Moore of "Moore's law" fame. )

With such a success story why would a company want to go public? The need is not obvious to me, at least. A privately held company can avoid the rules and restrictions placed on publicly traded companies, which I would consider a benefit.

Setting targets for the future is an interesting activity, I suppose, and possibly more certain than wishing on a star.

But exactly as the disclaimer stated: "Futures and forex trading contains substantial risk", and thus should not include any funds that one can not afford to lose. That frequently repeated caution applies well in this instance, as I see it.

A well run pipeline company can usually be a good and stable operation. The one obvious exception is ENBRIDGE, because of the Line Five hazard at the straights. The liabilities arising from a failure and the resulting cleanup costs will be astronomical, and with that organization's refusal to cooperate the courts will show no mercy in the punishment and fines.

Natural gas for power generation is an assured source of income for Berkshire and so certainly it would be a good long term investment.

Interesting article with a whole lot of historical data. So te future is not looking as happy as many wish.