Did you know Roundup Ready sweet corn is now available?

[DFB]

I grew a gmo zucchini one year. One sat on the table for weeks never shrunk never went bad almost like a macdonlands hamburger

 

[Pine Strip]

From a reliable source;
Not only has Japan Banned GMO crops, but all of Europe and Mexico as well. The science and research coming out of Europe is 'Dramatic Cancer increases and sterility' , but these studies have been Banned here in this country by Monsanto.
For A nation banking on leading the world in patented Biotech crops ...It seems capitalistic greed has shot it's self in the foot big time ! I suspect this could be the reason the stock market is declining so rapidly of late.

 

[ohio farmer04]

sweet corn up

 

[DFB]

Anybody keeping abreast with Monsanto in the stock market? Except for a few sound bites in main stream media sources you need to look to the financial sector to find out what's really going on. Stock price has been slightly volatile since the recent discovery of non approved GMO wheat growing in a US wheat field and the subsequent market fallout jumping from a high of $105.86 on May 29 down to $97.05 on June 6 slightly more than an 8% change. Trading closed at $101.65 Friday afternoon.

So the next big thing is Monsanto announced it would buy back up to 2 billion in publicly traded shares over the next 3 years, this coming on the completion of an already existing 1 billion dollar share repurchase program from started last July and expires at the end of this month.

This is what Wiki has to say about share repurchase programs

"When a company repurchases its own shares, it reduces the number of shares held by the public. The reduction of the float, or publicly traded shares, means that even if profits remain the same, the earnings per share increase. Repurchasing shares when a company's share price is undervalued benefits non-selling shareholders (frequently insiders) and extracts value from shareholders who sell. There is strong evidence that companies are able to profitably repurchase shares when the company is widely held by retail investors who are unsophisticated and more likely to sell their shares to the company when those shares are undervalued. By contrast, when the company is held primarily by insiders and institutional investors, who are more sophisticated, it is harder for companies to profitably repurchase shares. Companies can also more readily repurchase shares at a profit when the stock is liquidly traded and the companies' activity is less likely to move the share price."

Pretty slick move dontcha think!

Monsanto to repurchase up to $2 billion of shares

 

[sixdogs]

Many companies are buying back their shares now. It's not slick, it's just conventional wisdom since there isn't the business confidence to expand with the uncertainties facing the economy. Everybody's doing it and no big deal either way. Companies have cash and they don't know what to do with it.

The stock exchange is merely an auction market, just like a farm auction, and the little guy with 100 shares and equal opportunity with the gazillion share buyer. It's based on who is willing to pay what price. If somebody shows up to buy 100 shares for a few pennies more than a pending huge order, the little guy wins and gets the stock. The whole thing is the marvel of capitalism.

For many years, Monsanto was a $10 to $20 dog that was a weight on anyone that owned it and wished they never heard of it. Come Roundup and Roundup Ready stuff, however, and those with the foresight to recognize what an amazing development it was and what the future held did very well. We may not like Roundup for ideological or emotional reasons but the market (which is a collection of all voices with money at stake in the stock) gave it two thumbs up.

More likely affecting Monsanto shares was that a lot of people sold the stock "short" anticipating a price drop. When it didn't happen, they now have to chase it higher in price to get out of that position and the price can rise from that demand.

Move along people; nothing to see here.

 

[NorTracNY]

I'll agree that stock buybacks mean nothing. Many companies are doing it. Companies are reluctant to hire and they are sitting on hordes of cash. They need to do something with it or the shareholders will have a fit. They could give a dividend or increase their dividend to make their shareholders happy. With a dividend they need to be confident it will be a continuous flow of cash that they can give over time. If they just want to try and raise their stock price (make the shareholders happy) they could also do a stock buyback.

 

[DFB]

I dunno...I think the company is trying to anticipate a hard sell off because of all negative publicity surrounding their business products and practices. Even the major food processing manufactures are looking to revamp their game plans based on the latest consumer demands. With insiders holding the major portion they will weather that better. Of course an individual stock is easier to move away from. You would be hard pressed to find a major mutual fund that didn't include Monsanto but just like with the cigarette companies some people actively chose not to support them and will seek out alternative investments. Will be interesting to watch how it all plays out.

 

[Car Doc]

Personally I dont give a big rats crap about the stocks etc or who did what and why doesn't concern me at all. I cant wait until next year and I get some bt rr sweet corn seeds in and watch all that science go to work for me. It may not be as good of corn as I expect but wont know until I try. ymmv as always

 

[Pine Strip]

Michael Taylor's GMO freak-nutrition scandal is a ticking time bomb. You only have to look abroad where the healthcare systems are not for profit to see a tie in to the USA's 'sick driven for profit' disease model, to see it's time to move away from GMO as fast as we can while we still have the health and stamina to do so.

Jeffrey Smith: You're Appointing Who? Please Obama, Say It's Not So!

 

[DFB]

Retired government research scientist Dr. Thierry Vrain, who once described himself as the spokesperson on all matters relating to genetic engineering has shifted his thinking on the subject. When he retired 10 years ago after 30 years in the industry he was head of the department of biotechnology at a federal research center in Summerland, where he once explained to all audiences that there was no possible danger or even controversy about growing or eating genetically engineered plants.

However since the genetically altered crops have taken over our food system, especially in the last few years, there has been a flurry of peer reviewed publications showing that GMOs fail to live up to their claims, he said in a news release, "and that according to the growing body of scientific literature, GMOs do not reduce the use of pesticides, do not increase yields, are not mild on the environment and are not safe to eat."

I like the part on lateral gene transfer