Lee Eugene Munson

Using Closed-End Funds vs. Master-Limited Partnerships

AMJ is new, and needed to trade a bit to see if there was enough volume to support the issue.


On Aug 13 12:22 AM Alan Young wrote:

> Thanks for a useful and well-written article. I was aware of the
> problems of multiple K-1s vs. premium-priced CEFs, but I was not
> aware of AMJ. I'll check into it.

What I am looking to add this week . . .

You are describing a dividend pickup. Similar to a scalp, you are in it for a quick profit or loss. When I say it, it usually means just picking something up for the day. But, that can also mean picking up a stock on ex-dividend date with the 'hope' the stock will recover to the ex-date quickly. MO is a favorite dividend pickup for me. . .

BAC - I know, I can't be cured

My losses don't . . .

Return to actual knowledge and skill for managers and analysts

Totally!!!!


On Jun 22 01:24 PM Graham and Dodd Investor wrote:

> 14% YOY rise in CFA exam sittings. Another sign of a bubble.

Linn, Tortoise Energy: Risk vs. Reward

As you pointed out, the time line is important in the decision to purchase one or the other asset. Though it cannot be forgotten that even relatively fixed assets such as pipelines eventually need to be replaced, and are dependent upon the more rapidly depleting assets to make money.

On Jun 18 07:46 AM sligoo wrote:

> TYG's assets are relatively fixed ( pipelines, etc ) whereas LINE"s
> assets are depleting. So, for me TYG is the best over the long haul.

Linn, Tortoise Energy: Risk vs. Reward

Sorry for the confusion, by the time of publishing we had gotten stopped out of the LINE, though it's a recurring holding of ours. We're looking at getting back into LINE soon as we expect a pullback.


On Jun 18 02:13 PM Kinabalu wrote:

> Authors disclosure is confusing. In the article he says he owns both
> stocks but at the end he only says he's long TYG??
>
> The following sentence was the most important in the article for
> me:
>
> "At the end of the day it comes down to concentrating risk (and getting
> paid for it), versus diluting your risk (along with return)."
>
> Getting paid for concentrating risk is a win - win. I'll go for that
> every time. And thank you Prairiedog for the comment on fees.

The Short Term Case for Long Term Deflation

I'm a big fan of zero hedge, but I'm not a fan of his point about inflation. I also don't like people using pseudonyms from one of my favorite movies and hiding behind a Bloomberg. I question somebody who is clearly a sophisticated operator but doesn't publicly expose themselves...

On Jun 16 06:14 PM dcb wrote:

> not correct. you need to look at who is doing the buying. check out
> tyelr durdens posts. he shows the fed is doing a lot of the buying.
> this means nothing and suggests increasing inflation instead of less.
>

The Short Term Case for Long Term Deflation

Absolutely, thank you for getting to the heart of the matter. No demand, no inflation. All this crap about China is just digging a hole and filling it again. Love the comment.


On Jun 16 04:43 PM six wrote:

> Less people working + people working making less money + more money
> being saved = ???
> How freaking stupid can the world be? Inflation is too much money
> chasing too few goods/services. Just because more money is being
> printed means NOTHING if it is not being spent. And money is NOT
> being spent, check the numbers. To have real inflation you have
> to have DEMAND. Prices can not rise without demand. What in the
> above equation equates to increased demand.
> DEFLATIONARY DEBT DESTRUCTION

The Short Term Case for Long Term Deflation

The current issue we have with commodities is if demand truly exists or ramped up by the stampede. We're cautious until given more evidence.

The second point is spot on and one of the reasons we don't foresee deflation for the future.


On Jun 16 04:11 PM capitalisthero.com wrote:

> I think the better play is to divest yourself of dollars and t-bills
> and buy commodities. Commodities are a win win. If the economy
> recovers then there will be a greater demand for commodities. If
> hyperinflation occurs, then commodities are a great hedge.
>
> Also, realize that deflation is very bad for debtors because it increases
> the cost of servicing their debt. The U.S. govt. is the biggest
> debtor the world has ever known. The govt. cannot allow deflation
> because it would make its debt even more unmanageable than it is
> now with moderate inflation.

The Short Term Case for Long Term Deflation

This is an interesting point. We'd love to see more on this, perhaps you could write on it. We're wondering about how you are differentiating credit from the money supply in so far as you claim that the velocity isn't stable now because we still believe credit is a 2nd derivative of the money supply, and wouldn't use it as the primary determining factor.


On Jun 16 04:07 PM odin wrote:

> In modern times, when houses, cars and all manner of consumables
> get bought on credit, its growth/decline becomes a more reliable
> indicator of inflation than purely money supply.
>
> In the past (as under constant velocity conditions), money supply
> has been a good proxy for credit growth. In recent history, it
> has even understated the case for inflation around the world as shadow-banking
> took hold. On the flip-side, we now have shadow-banking assets
> moving back on the books in some places overstating the level of
> lending going on.
>
> I dont think we can rely on money supply entirely to make the case
> for inflation or delfation any longer as the velocity of money is
> no longer stable.
>
> The inflation/deflation equation will be predicated on where economic
> growth and credit growth balance. Right now, it does seem that
> credit is contracting faster than the economy (deflationary).

The Short Term Case for Long Term Deflation

Looking at the yields of the ten year tracking down to the 3.7 range shows that investors are less concerned with inflation this week. And hedge funds running with commodities recently makes us pause to see if there really is innate demand, which doesn't seem to be true. And as we noted, this is on the short term. Inflation seems to be the long term phenomenon we're expecting.


On Jun 16 03:07 PM Larry House wrote:

> It goes against my grain to be long Treasuries now. I think inflation
> is the greater threat. I would have to have more evidence of deflation
> before I want to hold Treasuries and cash.

Congrats to SA author Shaun Rein who recently appeared on CNBC

Yo Shaun!
Good one and keep it up. I know how the live TV stuff works, not easy. You should drop me a line sometime to chat.

Lee

Congrats to SA author Lee Munson who just appeared on CNBC!

thanks everyone for the kind words, live TV is tough!!!

Congrats to SA author Lee Munson who just appeared on CNBC!

Thanks Boaz!!!!! You Rock!!!!!!!!!

BAC - adding to position

I understand your point. However, banks have been bankrupt since the Fed introduced the fractional banking system 80 years ago. Also, I need to hedge my SKF position. WFC can be traded here as well, but if you like fundamentals, don't buy banks. If you like horrible firms that borrow from the government at zero percent and lend at 5% AND can get bailed out if they blow up, then BAC has your name on it. . .