Mathman Prophecy

Marc Faber: 'It Will All End in Disaster'

"Obama's proposed programs are less "socialistic" than anything in the UK or Western Europe and they were doing great until they bought into our mortgage backed securities. It was our laizzez faire capitalism that has brought them down along with us."

You should look up the defintion of laissez faire. Our government has been intervening in our capital markets to an escalating degree throughout the century. Government has consumed more 40% of worker's incomes, it has depegged and inflated our currency, it has set up various social programs from social security to medicare, it has regulated housing industries, loans, interest rates, etc etc. We did NOT have laissez faire capitalism (if we did, one of hte biggest contributors to housing woes, Freddie Mac & Fannie Mae would not have been subsidized by tax dollars).

Also, to a previous post, Hoover was a maniacal interventionest. The guy passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act... how can anyone remotely call this guy a free market capitalist?! I don't know whether to laugh or cry at such commentary.

Silver Wheaton: More than Likely to Move Up

If you're only looking toward the ratio, then any number of things can happen: Gold can move down, both move down w/ gold moreso, both move up with silver moreso, etc.

If you look at a chart of Oil, Silver, and Gold, Silver's performance is more or less in the middle (it has exposure as both an industrial commodity (oil) and as a precious medal (gold)).

I think Silver is an ideal investment, which has similar risk level of a portfolio consisting of both Oil & Gold.

Assuming Inflationary pressure & commodity demand both occurr in unison, it would poise Silver to outperform both Gold & Oil.

On the other end, it provides a nice hedge, as industrial commodity demand is down (see: Oil), precious metals are up (Gold)... and silver is getting the push and pull from both.

Don't be greedy, buy the stock and sell Calls short on SLW.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

eddie6442:

Market value is what the market is willing to pay. If the government tells you, or allows you to state that your House is worth $500,000, yet no one is willing to pay more than $300,000... then you're house is worth $300,000. Of course, if YOU perceive it to be worth more, than don't sell it. But the Market perception will still be that it's worth $300,000, and rescinding mark to market isn't going to make your house worth more. That applies to ANY asset.

If rescinding 'mark to market' would have any effect, then McDonalds should just change its dollar money to a $50 menu instead. It'll make 50x more money, right? Of course, like your rant, that's at best wrong and at worst absurd.

Bond Wars Update: International and Junk

Long UUP??? This reminds me of Goldman Sach's prediction that Oil is going to $250 a barrel when it was at $140 (though, actualy, in a not too distantant/inflationar... future this will come to fruition). The dollar's rise is illusory based on market conditions - redemptions, less credit, less spending (demand for dollars has increased). And yet, our government has been borrowing and printing trillions of dollars to counteract this deflationary environment. Once this government monetary policy works its way through the system, your dollar will be worth a quarter at best. Good Luck!

Chesapeake Energy Unable to Rally Even After Positive News

Look at a 5 year chart of ticker GOLD compared to ticker CHK. As of July 2008, CHK was up over 250%, and GOLD was up 250% over those 5 years as well. Now, GOLD is still holding at close to 250% return, but CHK is down about -15% from 5 years ago. So either GOLD is about to plummet (I doubt that due to the absurd increase in money supply) or CHK will soon start closing the gap, after all commodities have value too, even though they are tied more closely to industrial demands which are currently down, and they also hedge well against inflation. Looking forward, CHK may have some downside in the short term, but anyone shorting this stock should consider investing with Madoff.

Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30

While Jason was more or less correct on calling $30 oil, his reasoning was still off base. As cited in my above posting, only 40% of oil is converted into gasoline. The rest is used for Jetfuel, Instustrial energy needs, and Petro-Chemicals - plastics, tar, rubber, pharmaceuticals, make-up. A slow down in economy/industry is leading reason behind oil price collapse -- Not less driving paired with increase in fuel efficienct cars.

Global Recession Is an Economic Reality

Keynesian economics are socialist ie, they are the cause of our problems, not the solution. Milton Friedman has predicted, accurately, stagflation as a result of Keynesian economics. Too bad no one is the wiser. Keynesianism is stil being practiced (see: US Government) and preached (US schools).

MetLife: No Longer Bankruptcy Candidate Material

I'd put Prudential on a very safe list, these guys have a very low risk profile. You didn't mention Genworth (GNW), but I'd keep on eye on them. But I suppose the market value on Genworth has already reflected this outlook.

Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News

If you're looking for a job, I think the best place to work nowadays is for head hunters. This is bad, but at least Lehman didn't get bailed out by the Fed...

Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30

But seriously, $30?! The cheaper it gets, the more it will be used regardless of alternative fuels.

You keep mentioning hybrids and new fuels, but Gasoline consumption accounts for about 40% of a barrel of oil. The rest is used for Jetfuel, Instustrial energy needs, and Petro-Chemicals - plastics, tar, rubber, pharmaceuticals, make-up.

The only way oil will go to $30 is if they create a very cheap way to manufacture hydro-carbons. Until then, the world will need Oil and the demand will most certainly be strong enough to keep prices of Oil at twice above your estimate.

Forget $100 a Barrel - Oil Will Plummet to $30

The underlining ends</b> here.

Priceline and Visa: Two Stocks To Buy Now

Priceline has absurdly high growth rates (which is why it fell like crazy even when it posted 'good' number), has zero competitive advantage from similar offerings like Expedia, Orbitz, and Travelocity, has a market that have small barrier to entry, will suffer from decreased travel by consumers, will suffer from deals being directly offered by airlines. All it will take is for Google to make a service for these deals and you can kiss Priceline goodbye. Sorry, William Shatner can only drive up the stock to a point, this stock has absolutely no credibility as a good investment, unless gambling is your forte.

Starbucks on Sale (Part I)

I had done a case study on Starbucks 6 years ago, though since then I have not revisited the company, nor have I really cared. However, one interesting finding was that each store opening infringes on other stores within the vicinity. This did result in net sales to go up, so the general effect on their bottom line was positive. The investment on each store was paid back after 3 years of operation. Nonetheless, I recall their high growth expansion plan was to achieve for 1 store per 50,000 people. That was 6 years ago. From the looks of it, they were opening stores in line with that goal, but ignored the concept of saturation. Their business model should be more inline with Coca-Cola; as they got big growth should be slow and steady. Instead, it looks to me as though they kept pursuing their high growth model.

Instead of opening more stores, they should just have more than 1 bar inside each store. Yet management opted to change their cup logos from green to brown, give away promotions, and lock down all of the stores for 3 hours of training?! I can't help but laugh.

Cheap? Perhaps... but I wouldn't delude myself into expectations that it will rebound to previous valuations any time soon.

Will Tate Approve Radio Merger with $20 Million Fine?

Do shareholders or customers have any legal recourse against the FCC? Seriously. Do they? None of their actions have had the consumer in mind. As a Sirius subscriber, I couldn't wait for the merger to go through and the manner and reasoning with which the FCC dragged its feat is sickening.

Has the FCC Gone Communist?

Brazen23,

At the point government controls private enterprises, it's communism. Listing degrees of government control is simply splitting hairs.

While I have no problems with 'monopolies', because I think the market will mediate them eventually -- like Microsoft, for instance, which had vast control for many software applications like Internet Explorer, and Windows, has begun to lose significant market share to other offerings with no goverment assistance to those alternatives.

Nevertheless, I have cannot understand how Siri/XM can be called a monopoly. First of all, there was a time when SIRI did not exist, and XM was the SOLE PROVIDER of Satellite Radio! Was there any talk of a monopoly back then?

I'm a Sirius subscriber, and I do not own the stock. The reason I got Sirius was because I hated listening to the public radio stations that played the same songs, which were constantly interrupted by commercials. I chose to Pay for satellite radio to replace terrestrial radio. REPLACE is the key word.

Before that, there were no options. Terrestrial Radio was the monopoly!!!

Under the guise of consumer interest, the NAB is trying to protect its interests in the name of capitalism , and the illusory claims of a monopoly. But the stark truth is that the NAB is simply reacting to its loss of monopolistic control over the radio waves and is using the FCC in its fight to sustain its own monopoly!