Ray

Ray
Contributor since: 2009
Company: Annuity IQ
You were right on the money, no pun intended. Good job and great foresight.
Everyone hates Moly, therefore it is worth taking a chance on it. I partially do believe when everyone hates a company it is likely a great buying opportunity. With that said, I do not see Moly as being horribly ran, but it is an industry wide issue right now. I think we will see a rebound in rare earths, my prediction alone. So, this is worth some speculation at this point. Also, look at insider buying, if this thing was going belly up insiders would not be touching this thing, but they bought it higher than now. I see improvements in the balance sheet, not major, but it is there. I also see hedge funds and other fund companies buying or initiating positions. I am not saying put everything you own into this, but it is worth speculating on at this point. Remember, they can still raise cash in the bond market if they need to at cheap rates... not that that little fact means it is a viable company mind you, but it is an option. My advice is also worth what you paid for it so, there. Good luck.
Yea, I must be drunk considering if you bought bonds and gold over the past 10 years you would have actually made money. What a wild and crazy idea! If you read what I said I indicated that leveraged ETF's involved risks and they would be or could be a good idea when we are closer to knowing QE is at hand. Perhaps I should have mentioned TLT as well, but, frankly, the best pure play would be to buy the futures. However, I think the futures would be more risky than leveraged ETF's, no? Put it into perspective and use common sense when reading things guy. Can you see the overall point I was making or are you lost in the nuances of your own neediness to be heard? I paint in broad strokes and hope people are smart enough to figure out how to apply the strategy properly. FYI, gold is NOT a hedge against inflation, sorry. Gold is a hedge against instability be it currency or geopolitical. Inflation happens to coincide with those events which is how people began to believe it is an inflation hedge. Therefore, it is kind of, at best, an inflation hedge. I would say silver is a better inflation hedge than gold since it is actually consumed. I know, I am hard, but you know what everyone is a critic without understanding the complete strategy. If I laid out the entire strategy you would have said the article was too long. This is why I rarely read comments because few people are constructive... so to start a comment with "are you drunk" and blast 2 asset classes that destroyed the equity index averages over the past decade shows how ill informed you must really be.
Yet another commenter who has zero skin in the game and puts nothing out there. As far as no facts, check out the sales figures, or does that involve a "boredom factor" for you? Which I assume it does since you depend on others to do the work for you. The fact of the matter is retail sales are down, period. They ave zero pricing pressure and, no, I do not reference all of my sources because this is a blog. If you want to pay me to reference or write you some custom research I can source all you want. I can take criticism just fine, constructive criticism, but you add nothing to the debate, zero. As far as being obnoxious, well, look in the mirror my friend.
I guess I am not the only one thinking the same thing. Roubini came out yesterday saying that he thinks the RMB will go lower as well. The only difference is I have been pounding the table about this since the Euro started its crash over a month ago. It is a serious problem.
The firm has $29B in AUM in a multi-trillion dollar industry and charge about .60% for their services. I do not see this model in the same light you do. With cookie cutter target-date being set up as QDIA and if they can get target-date providers to get their act together, 90% equities is NOT asset allocation, it is gambling, this model might not be adopted. The cost is pretty high, IMHO, for what they offer and there is a problem with pure automation in providing advice, I seem to remember this same model being talked about in the 1990's. Sure it reduces fiduciary liability, but so can a cheaper target-date or target-risk. I think the company will grow, I am close to the firm, not a shareholder though, however, it is just another way to make money off the hard work of Americans. Average account sizes of less than $20K do not need this type of service, IMHO.
205427,
I am sorry, but you clearly are blinded by partisan politics which makes you incapable of mounting a coherent argument. Most of your ranting make no sense at all. For example, a $35 fee on a $1 overdraft is criminal, especially if you cannot opt out of it. Obama is locked in to special interest groups, check who gave him campaign money. Bunning made a point, a good point, but only when the average person would feel the impact? Why not when it is a major pork bill for special interests or real government spending. I dislike Obama and I disliked Bush not because of their parties, but because of their financial ignorance. I do not like to get down and dirty, but you are woefully ignorant of the facts. The author is right on and hit the nail on the head. I would suggest you are the one living on another planet and, apparently, have been suffering from a lack of oxygen.
The left enabled the right and the right enabled the left. The longer you ignore those basic facts and believe that one party cares more than the other party the longer the same problems will persist. Neither party cares and, I can say this with confidence, Democrats are just as guilty as Republicans. Blind partisan politics is the problem and comments like this adds to the problem not to the solution.
On Oct 18 01:50 PM dracula99 wrote:
> Remember when the Left was warning the Right that by starting fictitious
> wars, neglecting the economy, cuting taxes for the rich, outsourcing,
> not regulating wall street, we were going to pay for these mistakes
> for a generation to come? That's what's happenig now. Suck it up
> and put the blame squarely on the Republicans, starting with that
> idiot Reagan.
I agree. I was just giving suggestions to the equity players, but your best bet is buying physical. I love it under $300. Over $300 I like it, but not as much. I have an average of about $220 or so.
On Aug 28 07:44 PM The Goy wrote:
> also, Palladium dropped because all the auto companies were selling
> it to raise money to stay in business until uncle sam could bail
> them out. There are many things wrong with your article(9 times,
> more rare the pall, russia stockpiles and catalytic convertors),
> but the investment idea is right, IMO.
>
> I am a large owner of PAE from sub 200, and have sold very little
> of it. I don't understand the PAL and SWC investments as I can
> not grasp how they make any money with their cost structures.(It
> does not mean the stgocks won't be HR's, I just don't understand
> them and would rather be in the metals).
Thanks for the comments Mark. You are correct, I wrote the article quickly, my fault, but I am an advocate of Palladium as well. It is my largest physical holding and I add to it as often as I can. I think it goes much, much higher.
On Aug 28 07:28 PM Mark Anthony wrote:
> Ray:
>
> Palladium absorbs up to 900 times its own volume of hydrogen, not
> 9 times. It could be just a typo in your original article.
>
> I think I am probably one of the most outspoken advocator of palladium
> investment, once I spent time study the fundamentals of the market,
> starting with my very second Seeking Alpha article:
>
> seekingalpha.com/autho...
>
> The looming depletion of the Russian government stockpile palladium,
> which MUST happen, is a gigantic positive factor for palladium. All
> palladium supply/demand study indicates that without this annual
> Russian government stockpile sale of palladium, the global palladium
> market is in a big structural deficit.
>
> Palladium's bright future in Cold Fusion application, humanity's
> only real hope of overcoming the looming Peak Oil energy crisis,
> is another gigantic positive factor for palladium. Cold Fusion research
> is picking up momentum quickly in recent years, despite of lack of
> government research funding support, as piling experimental evidences
> in over 2 decades prove beyond reasonable doubt that the Cold Fusion
> phenomena is real. CBS 60 Minutes aired a program on Cold Fusion
> on April 19, 2009.
>
> www.cbsnews.com/video/...
>
> More over, the progress of Cultured Diamonds (versus mine diamonds)
> means it is now possible for virtually every newly-wed bride in the
> world to fulfill the dream of owning a diamond wedding ring, as the
> supply of diamond is no longer limited. The bottleneck will be available
> white precious metal (platinum and palladium) to go with the diamond
> rings.
>
> This diamond revolution alone will be a gigantic new demand on palladium
> and platinum. 99% of the world's newly wed couples can not afford
> a $5000 diamond wedding ring. But 99% of them CAN afford a $200 diamond
> wedding ring, especially as it is a once in a lifetime gift.
>
> Just remember three things in palladium: The physical palladium metal,
> and mining stocks SWC and PAL.
The article was meant to show the correlation between rising stocks and a weakening dollar. I certainly made no estimation on how deep a correction will come or if it will come. I do think we will have a strong back to reality correction soon, but the point is that this is not a 1 day correlation it is a multi-month correlation. Pull the chart and decide for yourself.
On Aug 30 05:44 PM bartpr wrote:
> since mar the dollar yen ratio has gone from 100 to 94. this is
> hardly a major downtrend in the dollar. prior to mar it rallied
> then failed. hardly a strong divergence with the market. one days
> chart is meaningless, imo. a correction will come, no doubt. a
> correctin occurred in 2004 after a strong move from the 2003 bottom.
> no one can say how deep the correction will be, certainly not based
> on your analysis..
With the immense liquidity being injected into the markets i have to agree that the market can go higher. However, we are trading a weaker currency for stronger stocks which makes no sense to me. There is no need to trash your opinion as it is valid. I happen to think the bullish indicators are high, very high. If you are comfortable buying stocks at 130x earnings then go for it, but it is highly irregular for the market to go parabolic and dangerous. Perfection is no priced into equities, in my opinion. My point is that there is a direct correlation between the weakness of the dollar and higher stock prices. One needs to be aware of such correlations to make sure they don't get hurt.
On Aug 28 11:20 PM Gtarras wrote:
> i am personally amused by claims of most bloggers, including those
> on SA, that the current sentiment is too bullish. huh? maybe it is
> not so negative as it used to be in March, but it is still overhelmingly
> bearish. i am being trashed everywhere i leave a comment suggesting
> we are still going up.
The data was, surprisingly, on CNBC.com The Real Estate Blog.
On Aug 23 12:10 PM Richard Wakefield wrote:
> Can you tell me where in the Natl Board of Realtors did you find
> sale prices by various price category? I cannot come up with that
> data. I believe, as you do, there is no real housing recovery.<br/>
>
> As an analyst, I am trying to track thru existing sales the same
> way one can analyze new home sales.
>
> Thanks
>
That's great because you did your homework and like it. I am also glad you did not buy it because someone told you to buy it in 15 seconds. You are ahead of the game!
On Aug 06 01:26 PM User 39058 wrote:
> Just had to put this out.
> I really don`t know what to think of Cramer, but the Buckle has been
> one of the very few teen retailers to be positive earners. Given
> the state of the economy, I think they have done quite well compared
> to the competition. To be fully honest, I have been a holder of BKE
> and actually increased my position early this morning. I`m a believer
> in this retailer. But then....I`m not trading day to day...
I do think people do. that is why he warns about the "Cramer effect." I like watching Jim, he is entertaining, but there is no way you can make an informed decision on a stock in 15 seconds. This is the same guy who called a bull market on January 3rd I believe it was. Furthermore, he cherry picks his calls like no tomorrow. How about Darden Restaurants he talked about for weeks on end, because it went up, but now we never heard a sell call on it or its name ever mentioned again. I admit I know nothing about BKE which is why I did not comment on it, for all I know it could be the best thing since sliced bread or not. However, I think one would be nuts to buy retail at this time, unless it is a discounter. I am neither long nor short the stock. I just made an observation where he said it was awesome, but the same store sales stunk. Don't blame me for pointing out the obvious.
On Aug 06 01:27 PM friar tuck wrote:
> i beg to differ with you ray. you are very short sighted about buckle's
> stock. do you really think that after hearing cramer's opinion about
> a stock that everybody just goes crazy buying it? you are a very
> assuming individual. just because us amateur traders are not educated
> in economic fantasy doesn't mean we are stupid. and, bronson young,
> if you happen to watch lightning round are you put under some kind
> of spell? fear the lightning, don't watch it, you'll go broke. you
> don't lose money on the stock market until you take it out and put
> it in a savings account. cramer's show is the only good entertainment
> on tv. cut the crap you short sellers.
Well said! I should have expanded on that point as well. I appreciate all your comments, good and bad. Please follow me and go to my site. Thanks!
On Aug 06 11:06 AM Living4Dividends wrote:
> "Every time the dollar declines 1% we see about a 1% increase in
> equities which means there is no real gain in stocks as Americans'
> buying power was simply reduced. The reason for the dollars descent,
> which has been years in the making I might add, is because of our
> loose monetary policy. "
>
> I agree. I also agree with Archman, Hangdog &amp; Micheal Clark's
> points. Yes, the dollar is fundamentally weak. Yes, it probably will
> continue to slide over the next decade. No, it is not good to be
> long dollars.
>
> Here is the caveat: Many of the other countries are busily trashing
> their own currencies as well. It is a global race to see who will
> trash their currencies first. The dollar's weakness does not mean
> that the other currencies are any safer.
It rose because the dollar, thankfully, is the deepest liquid currency in the world. The US guarantees the return of your investment, however they do not guarantee the value of the dollars returned to you. It is still a safe haven investment, but the risk is getting too thick for many central banks, in my opinion.
On Aug 06 02:25 AM clipper wrote:
> Nice presentation .... but why then did the dollar climb to new highs
> after and during the period when massive bailouts were delivered
> to the economy? Personally, I don't believe the cause and effect
> model explains that.
>
> Maybe it can be explained by the dollars position at the base of
> the liquidity pyramid, volatility, and risk in the market? That model
> seems to capture massive stimulous, falling equities, falling commodities,
> and a rising dollar.
Sorry for the delay. I like it here, but think if you can get in between the $950-961 would be ideal. Lower would be better as long as nothing in the fundamentals or dollar has changed. Entry point is always subjective so if you want in the do the 1/3, 1/3, 1/3 method. By a third now, buy another third in a week and hold the final third for a dip or the end of August.
I never said that its CNBC holding gold down?? I just don't understand how folks do not see that gold is a legit investment. However, there are rumors of manipulation and I always take those with a grain of salt, but I think we can agree that commodities markets can easily be manipulated, i.e. oil. Learn the markets or research it before you assume everything is a level playing field. Otherwise you do not have an informed position, period.
On Aug 04 09:36 AM Maxe Paul wrote:
> Wow, now it's CNBC's fault gold is not going up, along with the "conspiracy",
> the "manipulation" and the "banks".
>
> Thanks, i will add that one to my LOL list.
I never said I did not own physical, I do not have to disclose that, just paper positions.
On Aug 04 09:02 AM Menock wrote:
> You don't own gold and silver, you own paper. Delivery of futures
> contracts in gold and silver is allowed in bullion or GLD and SLV.
> Zerohedge.com just published how bogus the claim is that the ETFs
> back the security with bullion. Recent data on clearly fraudulent
> or grossly negligent inventory falsehoods in SLV show that this is
> how the banks, JPM is custodian of SLV, and CEO Jamie Dimon is on
> the board of the NY Federal Reserve, are soaking up demand for the
> metals while holding the price down. Sell GLD, SLV. Buy gold, silver,
> or the miners. I don't know if this is the next Enron in scale, but
> it is no different.
>
> TM
It is, but it is a trade, I have done well with it today. I got in it last night and caught a penny move.
On Aug 03 01:58 PM pkpdjh wrote:
> Why are you long the GBP? It seems just as flawed.
Hello,
No, they are my articles. I write on my blog and SA pulls them. Because of that I write for first time readers who have not read my previous posts. It is not my intent to be redundant, but I want people to know that I am not flip flopping on my stance. The rest of the article is a different angle on the dollar. It's good to know you recognize my work though! Thanks Ray
On Aug 03 01:09 PM Freya wrote:
> "I have written about the dollar for some time now and its impact
> on the markets. The lower the dollar goes, the higher stocks seem
> to go, but this is ..."
>
> The first of your articles appeared on SA five days ago. Have you
> written other Articles here under another Name?
>
> Just curious.
I implied that sometime in the future they will loose their top position, I never gave a time frame and I do not believe Yahoo or Microsoft will be a major problem for the firm. Clearly I did a bad job of clarifying my thoughts based on some of the comments. This piece was more of a blurb than anything else.
On Jul 30 07:40 AM NetNet wrote:
> Although I do agree with you for the most part, your point that Google
> will eventual lose top seat is questionable. This will only occur,
> over the next decade, if the government intervenes. This is a very
> good possibility considering the mood of the current administration
> attempting to federalize everything under the sun. My only contention
> is if the fed goes after Google, they should first go after WalMart
> first.
They haven't split their stock so that is irrelevant. I believe that given the current economic climate and Googles business model it is overpriced, that is my opinion. If ad revenue continues to slip, which it has been recently, the current forward P/E is irrelevant. Frankly, Googles acquisition history has not been that great, Youtube has yet to turn a profit compared to what they paid for it, etc. Long-term the stock is great, I just believe in the near future you will get it cheaper. The article wasn't about the share price of Google either. This is what makes a market.
On Jul 30 09:22 AM archangelms wrote:
> This guy thinks Google it is overpriced. Its trading at a fwd PE
> of around 19. Yahoo has a fwd PE of 43, Amazon 44, Biadu of 52. It
> has mored cash on the books than all three combined. It has 70% of
> all global search. No debt. They could buy many companies.
> If Google split it's stock the amount of times Yahoo, Ebay or Amazon
> has it would trade around 30-40 dollars. Thats so expensive?
I fear nothing will happen either, but hopefully we will see someone pay for this. I see no reason for the market to maintain this rally, but the trend is your friend and I do not want to get caught with my pants down so I am reducing my risk assets to 25%.