Comments on TWS Investments' articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/tws-investments/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-828462 828462 Thu, 31 Dec 2009 16:34:27 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-827406 827406 Wed, 30 Dec 2009 23:24:00 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-827182 827182 Wed, 30 Dec 2009 20:39:42 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-826815 826815 I tend to agree and think that we will need another stimulus package > as well as a very extended period of low interest rates to avoid > going over the cliff]]> Wed, 30 Dec 2009 15:00:17 -0500

On Dec 30 02:06 PM user396040 wrote:

> I tend to agree and think that we will need another stimulus package
> as well as a very extended period of low interest rates to avoid
> going over the cliff]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-826706 826706 Wed, 30 Dec 2009 14:06:04 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-826664 826664 Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:27:52 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/180351/comments?source=feed#comment-826539 826539 Wed, 30 Dec 2009 12:17:51 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-599356 599356 the futures market is a zero sum transaction. for every winner > there is a loser. what is the problem with that. contracts that > are long may be sold as short. one will gain and the other lose. > there regulators dont want to tlk about the real workings of speculators. > without them there is no market. who will porvide the liquidity. > just the seller of oil for future delivery and the buyers of oil > for future delivery. what is there is a massive imbalance of one > or the other at a given moment. > then you will see massive swings in futures prices.]]> Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:22:12 -0400

On Jul 23 08:34 AM bartpr wrote:

> the futures market is a zero sum transaction. for every winner
> there is a loser. what is the problem with that. contracts that
> are long may be sold as short. one will gain and the other lose.
> there regulators dont want to tlk about the real workings of speculators.
> without them there is no market. who will porvide the liquidity.
> just the seller of oil for future delivery and the buyers of oil
> for future delivery. what is there is a massive imbalance of one
> or the other at a given moment.
> then you will see massive swings in futures prices.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-599157 599157 Thu, 23 Jul 2009 08:34:34 -0400 then you will see massive swings in futures prices.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-597544 597544 The more speculation, the easier it is to hedge. I can't understand > how anyone can fail to understand that, because when futures markets > fail it is because of a shortage of liquidity - the liquidity provided > by speculators. > > And A BARREL FULL, it's nice to see the reference to the tulip bubble, > but I have some diffifulty equating tulips with a commodity like > oil.]]> Wed, 22 Jul 2009 02:07:55 -0400
Everything has a value to someone and normally the best measure of that value is market price. However, when investors all start buying something, stock, commodity, real estate, not for the cash flows, but for the chance to sell it to a bigger mug, then market price starts to reflect something other than reality.


On Jul 21 12:54 PM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> The more speculation, the easier it is to hedge. I can't understand
> how anyone can fail to understand that, because when futures markets
> fail it is because of a shortage of liquidity - the liquidity provided
> by speculators.
>
> And A BARREL FULL, it's nice to see the reference to the tulip bubble,
> but I have some diffifulty equating tulips with a commodity like
> oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-597007 597007 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 16:24:02 -0400
I've been talking about this subject on this site since $150 oil. the correlation between the dollar short trade and oil bet and the stock market collapse.

It's absurd in this day and age that markets can be controlled with so little capital- so little at risk.

The idea that our economic system can be brought to it's knees with by so few is amazing. There is nothing efficient about market dynamics that are so easily manipulated.
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596889 596889 The more speculation, the easier it is to hedge. I can't understand > how anyone can fail to understand that, because when futures markets > fail it is because of a shortage of liquidity - the liquidity provided > by speculators. > > And A BARREL FULL, it's nice to see the reference to the tulip bubble, > but I have some diffifulty equating tulips with a commodity like > oil.]]> Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:54:03 -0400
Thank you all for your comments on my article! I appreciate the interest.


On Jul 21 12:54 PM Ferdinand E. Banks wrote:

> The more speculation, the easier it is to hedge. I can't understand
> how anyone can fail to understand that, because when futures markets
> fail it is because of a shortage of liquidity - the liquidity provided
> by speculators.
>
> And A BARREL FULL, it's nice to see the reference to the tulip bubble,
> but I have some diffifulty equating tulips with a commodity like
> oil.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596794 596794 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:49:53 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596777 596777 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 13:32:19 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596718 596718 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 12:54:55 -0400
And A BARREL FULL, it's nice to see the reference to the tulip bubble, but I have some diffifulty equating tulips with a commodity like oil. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596558 596558 I am in the oil business, and when I hedge, I do not take possession > of the oil that I do a futures contract on, nor do I ship my production > to Cushing, Oklahoma where contracted oil is stored, nor do other > oil companies that I know. If my oil does not sell for the price > that I hedge it for, I sell it at market where it is, and make up > the difference with the profit or loss from my hedge that month, > with the net result being that I net the price that I hedged, thus > keeping my bank happy. Similarly the buyer of oil who hedges, does > not normally take possession of the oil in Cushing, but buys it in > the normal course of his business, using the profit or loss on his > hedge to end up with the net price hedged.]]> Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:27:31 -0400
This has had some unintended consequences. I am trying to propose a solution that would not hamper business hedging risks yet not give unnecessary leverage to participants simply betting on price movements. I have absolutely no problem with speculation, I just do not understand why we give them 10-to-1 leverage as a basis for the contract. That leverage, I argue, exacerbates price movements in markets crucial to our economic health.


On Jul 21 11:01 AM Jrbarnes wrote:

> I am in the oil business, and when I hedge, I do not take possession
> of the oil that I do a futures contract on, nor do I ship my production
> to Cushing, Oklahoma where contracted oil is stored, nor do other
> oil companies that I know. If my oil does not sell for the price
> that I hedge it for, I sell it at market where it is, and make up
> the difference with the profit or loss from my hedge that month,
> with the net result being that I net the price that I hedged, thus
> keeping my bank happy. Similarly the buyer of oil who hedges, does
> not normally take possession of the oil in Cushing, but buys it in
> the normal course of his business, using the profit or loss on his
> hedge to end up with the net price hedged.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596526 596526 ....Speculators dominate futures markets and fewer than 5% of contracts > actually result in an exchange of the physical commodity......
> > When you want to hedge a price risk, you do not need to enter into > a contract that actually involves a physical product. You already > have the product you need, you just don't want the associated risk. > > > So equate the lack of exchange of physical product with speculation > is wrong. > > Working as I do in the oil sector, being immersed in the atmosphere > that existed in 2008, I don't need to look for bogeymen to blame > the anomalies on. It was a clear case of GROUP THINK. Everyone really > thought that oil could only go up. So everyone was building stock > to sell tomorrow at a better price. When it didn't there was complete > panic. Everyone sold off inventories, whatever the price. > > Intellectually it was on a par with the Tulip buyers of old.]]> Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:03:25 -0400

On Jul 21 05:05 AM A Barrel Full wrote:

> ....Speculators dominate futures markets and fewer than 5% of contracts
> actually result in an exchange of the physical commodity......

>
> When you want to hedge a price risk, you do not need to enter into
> a contract that actually involves a physical product. You already
> have the product you need, you just don't want the associated risk.
>
>
> So equate the lack of exchange of physical product with speculation
> is wrong.
>
> Working as I do in the oil sector, being immersed in the atmosphere
> that existed in 2008, I don't need to look for bogeymen to blame
> the anomalies on. It was a clear case of GROUP THINK. Everyone really
> thought that oil could only go up. So everyone was building stock
> to sell tomorrow at a better price. When it didn't there was complete
> panic. Everyone sold off inventories, whatever the price.
>
> Intellectually it was on a par with the Tulip buyers of old.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596523 596523 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 11:01:51 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596219 596219 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 07:51:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596191 596191 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 06:58:28 -0400
Surely a reasonable argument can be made that market participants who either have possession of or are able to take possession of oil are less risky than those who cannot. Why should "non" participants enjoy the same risk profile as those with a tangible stake in the marketplace. More regulation along these lines can help minimize the price gyrations of GROUP THINK speculators whose actions only disrupt demand/supply dynamics and negatively impact consumers in an artificial yoyo market. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/150005/comments?source=feed#comment-596141 596141 Tue, 21 Jul 2009 05:05:13 -0400
When you want to hedge a price risk, you do not need to enter into a contract that actually involves a physical product. You already have the product you need, you just don't want the associated risk.

So equate the lack of exchange of physical product with speculation is wrong.

Working as I do in the oil sector, being immersed in the atmosphere that existed in 2008, I don't need to look for bogeymen to blame the anomalies on. It was a clear case of GROUP THINK. Everyone really thought that oil could only go up. So everyone was building stock to sell tomorrow at a better price. When it didn't there was complete panic. Everyone sold off inventories, whatever the price.

Intellectually it was on a par with the Tulip buyers of old. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146622/comments?source=feed#comment-573452 573452 Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:24:14 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146622/comments?source=feed#comment-571583 571583 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:32:19 -0400
Nice try, though!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146622/comments?source=feed#comment-571222 571222 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:46:22 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146622/comments?source=feed#comment-571220 571220 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:45:39 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146162/comments?source=feed#comment-569414 569414 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 23:41:56 -0400
He may be against solar for ulterior reasons, I'm just against the bulldozing of thousands of sq miles. No problem, the desert can easily withstand post erected mirrors, or what have you without the need to pave over the desert

~Without unlimited clean energy~
~Freedom is lost~]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146162/comments?source=feed#comment-568962 568962 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 16:20:35 -0400 Billp37, your posts here and on your website are completely wrong technically. You putting up Fast Neutron show how little you, he knows. Rattie is just as bad.

While by utility standards solar, wind are not concentrated, by any other they are plentiful.

For instance solar is over 100watts/sq' with a 1000sq' roof, that's enough, 100kw/hr for 4-6hrs/day in most areas average, for many homes if used correctly. Using 25% eff solar thermal gives 100kwhrs/day of electricity and 250kwhrs of heat for hot water, heating. FN says only 5-6sqmeter!!

Wind only takes up enough space for a small base and 4 guy wires. Certainly many times more than FN's 1.2watts/sq meter as one can put up a 10kw unit only using a couple sq meters.

If wind is so bad why then last yr it was the US's largest new electric source? More than coal, NG, hydro or nuke. Big wind is now competitive with coal.

I explained this to you a couple days ago yet you still put up such misinformation.

You are a fraud. Are you just trying to drive people to your site?

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146162/comments?source=feed#comment-568457 568457 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:24:54 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142856/comments?source=feed#comment-544006 544006 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:56:52 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/142856/comments?source=feed#comment-543995 543995 Fri, 12 Jun 2009 11:52:18 -0400 Giving me the right to vote my 200 shares for pay compensation is really funny.
You have to use your gray matter more.....]]>