Barry Gitarts

Barry Gitarts
Contributor since: 2006
The problem with this post is its all armchair economics and lacks a fundamental understanding of economics, such as the power of incentives, lower taxes create higher tax revenue because they provide the incentive for business. If higher taxes were the anwser, try raising them to 100% and see how little tax revenue the government takes in.
Technicolour, If you don't talk to investigators there is no chance of you lying to them. If you talk to them and you give information that is false (even if you think its true) you could be charged with obstruction of justice. Thats what happened to Martha, she thought she was telling the truth.
This is not being dishonest, it is a way of protecting yourself from investigators representing an organization (government) which earns its keeps by dishonest means; extortion (taxes).
Tommo, the situation you describe is exactly like Martha Stewart. She met with the SEC and look what happened to her, she was not even convicted for insider trading she was convicted for lying to the feds. Had she not met with the feds she would not have been convicted. Another is Hank Greenberg who did not met with investigators and as a result was not convicted or even trialed for anything.
From a business and legal perspective I would never want any of my company executives meeting with government investigators as there is nothing that can be gained from such meeting and everything to be lost. So just for the future, when you have a company where the executives willingly start talking to investigators, it shows poor exercise of judgement and regardless of the outcome instantly increases the risk of the company without adding any reward.
how do you know oil stocks don't lead oil?
Well there is the other alternative, which is to cut taxes more, which will raise GDP and thus increase tax revenue as did the tax cuts of 2003.
The sample size of the inversion is only 9 times, which is not statistically significant.
This seems like a daytrading method, applying the same methodology to a different timeframe could be dangerous.
This post is just arm-chair economics and only take one false assumption to collapse the dominos of this argument. BTW, your so bearish on the brokers because of this hedge fund liquidation, but you overlook the fact that prime brokering a major component of their business and in order to meet margin calls they have to sell every $1.5B in assets for about $1B in cash to the prime brokers. That means the prime brokers on $6b are going to make about $2B in profits of this liquidation.
Buffet owns COP, so he is in the oil game.
Analysts are raising their estimates
i guess this is bullish, since the information is not being reflected in price
Cant you also play this by spread shorting bonds & buying stocks, untill the spread narrows?
An excellent reatime experiment in growth vs value, GOOG vs MSFT.
Where are the stats which show "The mining industry has a long, proud and dishonorable tradition of brilliantly timing its largest investments with the absolute top of the market."? I think your mistaken, but if you have proof to the contrary, please share.
What makes you say this is not priced into semi stocks?
My problem with this type of reasoning is 1) That interest rates are not part of the fundamentals, when they are at the core. 2) If you making a prediction on rates, bet on rates, not on currency based on whats going to happen to rates, too many chinks in the chain for these predictions to work out. Remember the dollar did not start apreciating until fed funds hit 3% in US, so what makes you say the yen would apreciate from a 25 or 50 BPS hike? 3) Japan is an export driven economy because they have to import as well, so a weaker dollar benefits them, while a stronger yen can stunt growth. 4) If the yen does apreciate, then the BOJ can just stand still and not raise rates. So for the BOJ to raise rates, they probably want to see yen depreciate first.