Comments on Will McClatchy's articles RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.com/author/will-mcclatchy/articles http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-623741 623741 Will! Are you kidding me? Only one S in Nusbaum, one S! LOL. > > Seriously though, the audience for my thoughts, people who devote > enough time to investing to read blogs, are more than capable of > deciding 4% for ten years is too low but 6% might be pretty good > (the example I used). > > I will say that the willingness to have a variable rate aspect to > the treasury portion of a fixed income portfolio is a turnoff to > a lot of people and I am surprised that you think it is a good idea. > > > I posted this on my blog, on Real Money's columnist conversation > and obviously Seeking Alpha picked it up. That is an audience of > several thousand people and no one else drew your conclusion. While > that proves nothing, is it possible you are in the minority on this?]]> Mon, 10 Aug 2009 15:14:42 -0400

On 2007 Jul 10 09:23 AM Roger Nusbaum wrote:

> Will! Are you kidding me? Only one S in Nusbaum, one S! LOL.
>
> Seriously though, the audience for my thoughts, people who devote
> enough time to investing to read blogs, are more than capable of
> deciding 4% for ten years is too low but 6% might be pretty good
> (the example I used).
>
> I will say that the willingness to have a variable rate aspect to
> the treasury portion of a fixed income portfolio is a turnoff to
> a lot of people and I am surprised that you think it is a good idea.
>
>
> I posted this on my blog, on Real Money's columnist conversation
> and obviously Seeking Alpha picked it up. That is an audience of
> several thousand people and no one else drew your conclusion. While
> that proves nothing, is it possible you are in the minority on this?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86457-light-and-sweet-oil-etfs-ranked?source=feed#comment-340773 340773 Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:06:56 -0500
This is very good article. I'd like to time the market by buying Oil ETF when current spot price of Oil is low and sell when it's high.

I bought USO on 12/19/2008 when spot price of Oil was about $33 for January contract. Unfortunately, USO was not reflecting spot price of oil (January Contract). Since 12/19/2008 USO has lost value while spot price of oil has gone up to $39.

Why USO is not reflecting current spot price of oil?

How to derive USO price and how to trade USO to time the market?

Is there any other Oil ETF which would closely track current spot oil price?

Thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86457-light-and-sweet-oil-etfs-ranked?source=feed#comment-212879 212879 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:06:38 -0400
There are other futures exchanges growing around the world that traders will start to use, if the U.S. Congress becomes too burdensome. Here is an article about a few:

globalcapital.blogspot...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86457-light-and-sweet-oil-etfs-ranked?source=feed#comment-212874 212874 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 22:02:11 -0400
1) Capital flight. This will further collapse the Dollar and hasten the movement away from the USD as the world's primary reserve currency. It will also cause greater inflation
2) Commodities will go to countries that are willing to pay for them. This will cause shortages in the U.S. as politicians resort to more and more strong-arm tactics to reign in inflation.
3) The super rich, instead of buying the futures, will simply use their wealth to buy the assets that produce the commodities instead. Instead of buying oil or grain futures, they'll buy the land on which they are grown or from which they are extracted, instead. Same with metals; they'll buy the mines. In rapidly higher inflation, its easy to buy the oil well and just sit on it, waiting for prices to rise.

Study Hugo Chavez' methods in Venezuela. The U.S. Congress isn't that far behind Chavez in their methods -- or in the results they'll obtain. Hyperinflation, plunging production, shortages!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86457-light-and-sweet-oil-etfs-ranked?source=feed#comment-212868 212868 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:55:25 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/86457-light-and-sweet-oil-etfs-ranked?source=feed#comment-212855 212855 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 21:40:10 -0400
There is a recent surge in speculation, no doubt about it, and at least temporarily that has to have impacted prices. Long-term it should stimulate production of all types of energy and not affect prices so dramatically. I suspect that the big institutional funds serving pension plans will simply go to London and trade Brent Sea crude or Middle Eastern varieties, and these funds represent the lion's share of the financial buyers (not oil industry players) in the market. Smaller amounts of capital in the hands of individual investors may be dissuaded. USO and OIL use wait until the regulators come knocking on the door but they are simply long at all times. I am having a hard time picturing how regulators could put the ETFs out of business without yanking many, many other players with vast amounts of capital out of the futures markets. Seems unlikely to me. Hope that helps.

-Will McClatchy]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/86457-light-and-sweet-oil-etfs-ranked?source=feed#comment-212392 212392 Wed, 23 Jul 2008 11:21:24 -0400
I know your focus is ETFs rather than investment in crude oil, but could I interest you in an assignment? With all the proposals floating in Congress now to "stamp out speculation," what effect will these various proposals have, if any, on the ability of USO and OIL to continue their core investment strategy?

I think Congress is being somewhat sloppy with its terminology, using "speculation" and "manipulation" more or less interchangeably. If Congress acts to counter manipulation, it would be doing a service to the investment community. If it acts to reduce speculation, however, my assumption is that it will succeed only in moving oil speculation to other countries. It may then be harder or impossible for U.S. investors to speculate, but the speculation will nevertheless occur. Do you have any thoughts on this?

]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90850 90850 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:23:46 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90849 90849 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 21:19:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90842 90842 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:49:06 -0400
In trying to manage a portfolio for growth and income something that lessens predictability of income stream is less desirable.

Your GKD is the winner comment doesn't really apply or appeal in the real world of people living off their portfolios which is who my clients are and what we all will probably need to do at some point.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90840 90840 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:18:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90838 90838 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 18:16:35 -0400
I am happy to be in the minority. ETFzone considers its main mission to dispelling myths regarding ETFs. Let's follow your example in your blog:

"If the yield on the ten year was 6% and you thought that was pretty good, you risk getting a lower rate with GKD if the yield in the marketplace goes down. That which might yield 6% today could yield 4% next year. If you buy an individual treasury, your yield will be whatever it was when you bought it -- which makes managing this portion of your portfolio much easier."

After one year GKD, which maintains a constant 10-year average maturity, still has a 10-year maturity. But the individual Treasury is now equivalent to a 9-Year maturity because it has 9 years left. If as you say the marketplace yield (essentially interest rate) for a 10-year bond goes from 6% to 4%, then the value of both holdings will rise, because both entitle the holder to many more years of 2% higher-than-market interest. The longer maturity GKD will get a bit more of a boost from its extra year. So actually, in your example GKD is the winner at that moment in time. Each month at Treasury auction as GKD turns over its holdings for new 10 year Treasuries, GKD takes its winnings (or losses) and plows them into the next batch.

I have no idea what you mean by "variable rate aspect to the treasury portion of a fixed income portfolio". GKD is not a variable rate product. It contains only fixed rate 10-year Treasuries. It does turn over its portfolio to maintain that 10-year duration, but that is not a variable rate as most people understand it.

My main point is that investors need to be clear whether they are maintaining a portfolio with set asset allocation targets, or if they are saving for a balloon payment or steady income over a known period. Most pension funds asset allocate with set targets, as do most investors saving for retirement. Clearly if one is saving for balloon payments such as college education or if one has set income requirements over a known period and no longer, then an individual bond is perfect. But when you essentially say that "average" investors should not asset allocate with bonds, I worry about how that advice will be taken.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90825 90825 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 14:55:18 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90794 90794 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 11:11:44 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90790 90790 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 10:36:45 -0400
bob lee]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/40591-response-to-roger-nusbaum-on-bond-etfs?source=feed#comment-90779 90779 Tue, 10 Jul 2007 09:23:05 -0400
Seriously though, the audience for my thoughts, people who devote enough time to investing to read blogs, are more than capable of deciding 4% for ten years is too low but 6% might be pretty good (the example I used).

I will say that the willingness to have a variable rate aspect to the treasury portion of a fixed income portfolio is a turnoff to a lot of people and I am surprised that you think it is a good idea.

I posted this on my blog, on Real Money's columnist conversation and obviously Seeking Alpha picked it up. That is an audience of several thousand people and no one else drew your conclusion. While that proves nothing, is it possible you are in the minority on this?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/37873-clearing-up-etf-misinformation?source=feed#comment-88282 88282 Mon, 11 Jun 2007 22:54:09 -0400