klarsolo's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/198962/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/179260/comments?source=feed#comment-825778 825778

On Dec 29 04:00 PM Drake Mansell wrote:

> Just curious, but what kind of unlevered vehicles would you suggest
> instead?]]> Tue, 29 Dec 2009 21:47:55 -0500

On Dec 29 04:00 PM Drake Mansell wrote:

> Just curious, but what kind of unlevered vehicles would you suggest
> instead?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179973/comments?source=feed#comment-823755 823755

On Dec 28 11:58 AM Old Rick wrote:

> American in Paris wrote:]]> Mon, 28 Dec 2009 12:06:05 -0500

On Dec 28 11:58 AM Old Rick wrote:

> American in Paris wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179260/comments?source=feed#comment-822820 822820
Using levered ETFs and their strong path dependency introduces a risk to trading that is not quantifiable to me, and that's why I can't recommend them. Just look at the horrible performance of ultra short REIT ETFs last year. An ultrashort play on one of the hardest hit sectors during one of the worst crashes of all time, and still you'd have LOST money holding them had you held on to them all year. The odds are just not in your favor with these vehicles if you ask me.

Why don't you just use normal, unlevered vehicles instead for your strategy? Yes, you give up some theoretical return, but also have a lot less unquantifiable risk. A worthwhile tradeoff, at least to me. Good luck.

On Dec 25 01:14 PM Brian McMorris wrote:

> Klarsolo...if you have a better options trading idea that is directly
> related to the direction of Treasury interest rates, I would be interested
> to read it. People who criticize ideas, but don't offer anything
> in return, aren't really worth reading or paying attention to, don't
> you think?]]> Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:44:35 -0500
Using levered ETFs and their strong path dependency introduces a risk to trading that is not quantifiable to me, and that's why I can't recommend them. Just look at the horrible performance of ultra short REIT ETFs last year. An ultrashort play on one of the hardest hit sectors during one of the worst crashes of all time, and still you'd have LOST money holding them had you held on to them all year. The odds are just not in your favor with these vehicles if you ask me.

Why don't you just use normal, unlevered vehicles instead for your strategy? Yes, you give up some theoretical return, but also have a lot less unquantifiable risk. A worthwhile tradeoff, at least to me. Good luck.

On Dec 25 01:14 PM Brian McMorris wrote:

> Klarsolo...if you have a better options trading idea that is directly
> related to the direction of Treasury interest rates, I would be interested
> to read it. People who criticize ideas, but don't offer anything
> in return, aren't really worth reading or paying attention to, don't
> you think?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179260/comments?source=feed#comment-816919 816919

On Dec 21 05:24 PM Brian McMorris wrote:

> I thought I made the point that the 10x factor on the price of TBT
> is an approximation (estimate) to the 20 year Treasury. There is
> no DIRECT relationship, as the price of TBT is arbitrary based on
> the futures that underly it. But it is a close guesstimate that can
> provide some handy benchmarks. Certainly, TBT will travel in the
> same direction as interest rates and more or less the same magnitude.
> Use this options tool to play the direction. It should not be played
> as though it were a bond. It is not.]]> Tue, 22 Dec 2009 09:04:44 -0500

On Dec 21 05:24 PM Brian McMorris wrote:

> I thought I made the point that the 10x factor on the price of TBT
> is an approximation (estimate) to the 20 year Treasury. There is
> no DIRECT relationship, as the price of TBT is arbitrary based on
> the futures that underly it. But it is a close guesstimate that can
> provide some handy benchmarks. Certainly, TBT will travel in the
> same direction as interest rates and more or less the same magnitude.
> Use this options tool to play the direction. It should not be played
> as though it were a bond. It is not.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/179260/comments?source=feed#comment-816294 816294
Furthermore, I don't think we can all agree that interest rates will move higher from here. What timeframe are we talking about? What part of the curve? The long end that you're focusing on can easily not move much at all over the next year, even if the economy recovers and the curve flattens in the front end.

Last but not least ultra products are extremely path dependent, which is a risk that you can maybe quantify with Monte Carlo simulation, but not at the top of your head. The levered structure of your bet can easily eat up all your profits, even if your market call turns out to be correct.]]> Mon, 21 Dec 2009 17:03:53 -0500
Furthermore, I don't think we can all agree that interest rates will move higher from here. What timeframe are we talking about? What part of the curve? The long end that you're focusing on can easily not move much at all over the next year, even if the economy recovers and the curve flattens in the front end.

Last but not least ultra products are extremely path dependent, which is a risk that you can maybe quantify with Monte Carlo simulation, but not at the top of your head. The levered structure of your bet can easily eat up all your profits, even if your market call turns out to be correct.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176324/comments?source=feed#comment-790642 790642
On Dec 03 06:36 PM Index Guy wrote:

> The likelihood of the "market jumping 40%" and pigs flying are about
> the same. Your take on this fund is fairly misguided for a number
> of reasons. First, it sounds like you may be involved in some sort
> of M&A activity by your deft knowledge of the Merger Arb strategy.
> If you actually look at the fund and methodology a bit more closely
> you'll see that it is reconstituted monthly so while you can pick
> apart any deal individually the reality is that the deals and related
> premiums are staggered across time, sector and country. You're therefore
> going to have no chance at the market "jumping 40%" and this fund
> lagging. As you rightly pointed out there is also nothing to Arb
> if it's an all cash deal it either closes or it doesn't. According
> to the website, the Index the ETF tracks is up 19.5% through the
> end of October while the market has "jumped" 40% from it's March
> lows and is up about 25% YTD. To me, the more interesting question
> is what would happen to this fund if the market fell 40%? My bet
> is you'd be much better off in MNA than any long equity ETF. A wise
> man once told me there is always more than one way to skin a cat.
> These guys may be on to something and if they are it's a mediocre
> hedge fund manager's worst nightmare.]]> Fri, 04 Dec 2009 13:34:30 -0500
On Dec 03 06:36 PM Index Guy wrote:

> The likelihood of the "market jumping 40%" and pigs flying are about
> the same. Your take on this fund is fairly misguided for a number
> of reasons. First, it sounds like you may be involved in some sort
> of M&A activity by your deft knowledge of the Merger Arb strategy.
> If you actually look at the fund and methodology a bit more closely
> you'll see that it is reconstituted monthly so while you can pick
> apart any deal individually the reality is that the deals and related
> premiums are staggered across time, sector and country. You're therefore
> going to have no chance at the market "jumping 40%" and this fund
> lagging. As you rightly pointed out there is also nothing to Arb
> if it's an all cash deal it either closes or it doesn't. According
> to the website, the Index the ETF tracks is up 19.5% through the
> end of October while the market has "jumped" 40% from it's March
> lows and is up about 25% YTD. To me, the more interesting question
> is what would happen to this fund if the market fell 40%? My bet
> is you'd be much better off in MNA than any long equity ETF. A wise
> man once told me there is always more than one way to skin a cat.
> These guys may be on to something and if they are it's a mediocre
> hedge fund manager's worst nightmare.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/37683?source=feed#comment-790361 790361 Fri, 04 Dec 2009 11:09:03 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/176319/comments?source=feed#comment-788889 788889

On Dec 03 11:36 AM Carl Martin wrote:

> Nice info on a possible investment, but you got a copper chart showing
> instead of a coffee chart. Coffee is not only a good investment,
> it also keeps people alert. Maybe you should drink a cup now and
> again.]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:57:24 -0500

On Dec 03 11:36 AM Carl Martin wrote:

> Nice info on a possible investment, but you got a copper chart showing
> instead of a coffee chart. Coffee is not only a good investment,
> it also keeps people alert. Maybe you should drink a cup now and
> again.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/176324/comments?source=feed#comment-788881 788881
The unnecessary market hedge with ultrashort ETF is just a really poor idea to bypass the difficulties of shorting the acquirer's stock and can create all kinds of problems on its own (including not being much of a hedge during times of extreme market distress...just look at the MNA index returns for last fall - it actually underperformed the S&P Merger Arbitrage index that doesn't employ such a market hedge)]]> Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:50:43 -0500
The unnecessary market hedge with ultrashort ETF is just a really poor idea to bypass the difficulties of shorting the acquirer's stock and can create all kinds of problems on its own (including not being much of a hedge during times of extreme market distress...just look at the MNA index returns for last fall - it actually underperformed the S&P Merger Arbitrage index that doesn't employ such a market hedge)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/37183?source=feed#comment-777142 777142 Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:56:09 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/171605/comments?source=feed#comment-752317 752317

On Nov 06 06:11 PM Adam Patti wrote:

> No ultra short ETFs will be used in the portfolio. Futures are used
> for short exposure. Thanks.]]> Mon, 09 Nov 2009 10:06:57 -0500

On Nov 06 06:11 PM Adam Patti wrote:

> No ultra short ETFs will be used in the portfolio. Futures are used
> for short exposure. Thanks.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171605/comments?source=feed#comment-747086 747086
If I had the choice I'd always go unhedged only. Let's hope ishares comes out with a similar fund soon based on the S&P index. With a solid index I think merger arbitrage can be core holding for any portfolio.]]> Thu, 05 Nov 2009 18:35:00 -0500
If I had the choice I'd always go unhedged only. Let's hope ishares comes out with a similar fund soon based on the S&P index. With a solid index I think merger arbitrage can be core holding for any portfolio.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170804/comments?source=feed#comment-742306 742306 Tue, 03 Nov 2009 10:48:54 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/170235/comments?source=feed#comment-737871 737871
Every time markets go down bears scream in anticipation of major selloff. And everytime markets go up bulls come out and scream "in your face!" back at the bears.

You'd think that after a while both parties learn that stocks do whatever they want and you better be prepared for *everything*. But no, not ever gonna happen.


On Oct 30 09:40 PM cstauffer wrote:

> I am frankly very glad that the sentiment on these boards and many
> others is so negative. This snap back bull market that we have had
> since March will not end with so many people scared or willing to
> be scared whenever the market goes through a profit taking period
> such as we are experiencing recently. I am really not sure what
> it is that people want at this point in the recovery coming off such
> a significant downturn. I certainly do not expect robust top line
> growth and I certainly would expect a significant portion of positive
> economic activity to have been "stimulated" by the stimulus.]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:52:10 -0400
Every time markets go down bears scream in anticipation of major selloff. And everytime markets go up bulls come out and scream "in your face!" back at the bears.

You'd think that after a while both parties learn that stocks do whatever they want and you better be prepared for *everything*. But no, not ever gonna happen.


On Oct 30 09:40 PM cstauffer wrote:

> I am frankly very glad that the sentiment on these boards and many
> others is so negative. This snap back bull market that we have had
> since March will not end with so many people scared or willing to
> be scared whenever the market goes through a profit taking period
> such as we are experiencing recently. I am really not sure what
> it is that people want at this point in the recovery coming off such
> a significant downturn. I certainly do not expect robust top line
> growth and I certainly would expect a significant portion of positive
> economic activity to have been "stimulated" by the stimulus.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170235/comments?source=feed#comment-737866 737866
But where were stocks when the biggest problems of the Great Depression were finally taken care of? Where they still at the same level?

Do you really think in 3 years from now the big problems are resolved but the S&P is magically 30 % lower or still on the same level? Or do you think in 3 years from now the problems will be even worse and we're 50 % lower?

On Oct 30 09:20 PM marketman54 wrote:

> You want the basics and the fundamentals, it is very easy, here they
> are:
>
> 1. 26 million out of work and growing.
> 2. No one going back to work in over a year.
> 3. Unemployment benefits running out.
> 4. GM wants another 50 billion or good bye!!
> 5. GE wants 80 billion or good bye!!!
> 6. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are getting flooded with additional
> foreclosures.
> 7. AIG, not worth a penny????
> 8. Financials still no clarity, foreclosures up, auto and credit
> card defaults up, credit swaps no value, loans down.....
> 9. Auto sales down from 14 million to 9 million.
> 10. Travel and business travel, way down.
> 11. Leisure industry down,
> 12. Dining down.
> 13. Heavy industry, down.
> 14. Durable goods, down.
> 15. Consumer goods, down.
>
> Virtually every sector of the market is worse off than a year ago
> but there is no reflection in the market for this.
>
> Uncle Sam is spending all my money but has run out. The balloons
> will pop and we will crash again and the small guy will be hurt a
> second time.
>
> If you think there was alot of money sitting on the side now, wait
> till the second coming!!!
>
> Things are bad and getting worse and there is nothing that my lying
> government and HOPEFUL wallstreeters can say that will make me believe
> that it is anything other than pitiful out on the street.]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:34:29 -0400
But where were stocks when the biggest problems of the Great Depression were finally taken care of? Where they still at the same level?

Do you really think in 3 years from now the big problems are resolved but the S&P is magically 30 % lower or still on the same level? Or do you think in 3 years from now the problems will be even worse and we're 50 % lower?

On Oct 30 09:20 PM marketman54 wrote:

> You want the basics and the fundamentals, it is very easy, here they
> are:
>
> 1. 26 million out of work and growing.
> 2. No one going back to work in over a year.
> 3. Unemployment benefits running out.
> 4. GM wants another 50 billion or good bye!!
> 5. GE wants 80 billion or good bye!!!
> 6. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are getting flooded with additional
> foreclosures.
> 7. AIG, not worth a penny????
> 8. Financials still no clarity, foreclosures up, auto and credit
> card defaults up, credit swaps no value, loans down.....
> 9. Auto sales down from 14 million to 9 million.
> 10. Travel and business travel, way down.
> 11. Leisure industry down,
> 12. Dining down.
> 13. Heavy industry, down.
> 14. Durable goods, down.
> 15. Consumer goods, down.
>
> Virtually every sector of the market is worse off than a year ago
> but there is no reflection in the market for this.
>
> Uncle Sam is spending all my money but has run out. The balloons
> will pop and we will crash again and the small guy will be hurt a
> second time.
>
> If you think there was alot of money sitting on the side now, wait
> till the second coming!!!
>
> Things are bad and getting worse and there is nothing that my lying
> government and HOPEFUL wallstreeters can say that will make me believe
> that it is anything other than pitiful out on the street.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170235/comments?source=feed#comment-737858 737858
I'm not refuting we've had a big rally. We've also had the worst selloff in history preceeding the largest rally in history. So what?

We can easily go down from here. But we can also easily go up from here. Only people with not much trading experience think something is obvious. Nothing ever is.

On Oct 30 08:28 PM Carl Spackler wrote:

> Let's not get ridiculous. I could play the same game and say it
> is overvalued because in 1832 the S&P was at 12 and now its at
> 1036. There is no refuting that over the last six months we have
> had an unprecedented rally. Name one other time where you got 60%
> in six months......silence .........that's right its hard to beat
> it. Face it, this baby had gone a long way and maybe, just maybe
> its over.]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 21:13:02 -0400
I'm not refuting we've had a big rally. We've also had the worst selloff in history preceeding the largest rally in history. So what?

We can easily go down from here. But we can also easily go up from here. Only people with not much trading experience think something is obvious. Nothing ever is.

On Oct 30 08:28 PM Carl Spackler wrote:

> Let's not get ridiculous. I could play the same game and say it
> is overvalued because in 1832 the S&P was at 12 and now its at
> 1036. There is no refuting that over the last six months we have
> had an unprecedented rally. Name one other time where you got 60%
> in six months......silence .........that's right its hard to beat
> it. Face it, this baby had gone a long way and maybe, just maybe
> its over.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170235/comments?source=feed#comment-737613 737613

On Oct 30 04:48 PM Carl Spackler wrote:

> If the bearishness was chart topping, what do you call 6 months and
> 60% - oversold? Everyone has a reason why the party has to continue,
> but we all know that eventually all parties end. Sometimes they end
> because everyone is tired of the party and no one wants to be the
> last one there. Everyone bought into yesterday and just assumed that
> the market would rocket up (just like it has previously). When it
> did not follow through today, everyone ran for the exits.
>
> Big question is, if you have a lot of people with profits in various
> positions, do they decide to take their profits and sell now, or
> do they get greedy and hope for more. Value and fundamentals will
> not enter into their decision very much - fear and greed will.]]> Fri, 30 Oct 2009 17:00:01 -0400

On Oct 30 04:48 PM Carl Spackler wrote:

> If the bearishness was chart topping, what do you call 6 months and
> 60% - oversold? Everyone has a reason why the party has to continue,
> but we all know that eventually all parties end. Sometimes they end
> because everyone is tired of the party and no one wants to be the
> last one there. Everyone bought into yesterday and just assumed that
> the market would rocket up (just like it has previously). When it
> did not follow through today, everyone ran for the exits.
>
> Big question is, if you have a lot of people with profits in various
> positions, do they decide to take their profits and sell now, or
> do they get greedy and hope for more. Value and fundamentals will
> not enter into their decision very much - fear and greed will.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/168343/comments?source=feed#comment-727350 727350 Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:25:10 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/164759/comments?source=feed#comment-703661 703661

On Oct 05 08:50 AM a fat panda wrote:

> " Mack is clear-eyed and doing the right thing for his employees
> and his shareholders. But how close did his gamble come to failing?
> "
>
> Felix,
>
> This story simply shows that John Mack is a gambler. He wins some
> and loses some. Remember it was his previous gambles that drove his
> company close to failing. His effort here simply shows that he is
> willing to double or nothing all the way to the end.]]> Mon, 05 Oct 2009 10:45:18 -0400

On Oct 05 08:50 AM a fat panda wrote:

> " Mack is clear-eyed and doing the right thing for his employees
> and his shareholders. But how close did his gamble come to failing?
> "
>
> Felix,
>
> This story simply shows that John Mack is a gambler. He wins some
> and loses some. Remember it was his previous gambles that drove his
> company close to failing. His effort here simply shows that he is
> willing to double or nothing all the way to the end.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/33415?source=feed#comment-697372 697372 Wed, 30 Sep 2009 17:25:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/161822/comments?source=feed#comment-679044 679044 Wed, 16 Sep 2009 11:20:45 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/30935?source=feed#comment-638334 638334 Thu, 20 Aug 2009 13:24:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/155933/comments?source=feed#comment-628700 628700 Thu, 13 Aug 2009 15:35:06 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29790?source=feed#comment-615640 615640
It's easy for people who never had any issues to rally against reform, because the issues of other people are just not real to them. But that doesn't make it less real for people who are affected.


On Aug 04 10:28 PM Henry Buttal wrote:

> klarsolo,
>
> Actually, most states have insurance for people who fall through
> the cracks. I know, b/c my wife has had health problems, and can't
> always get individual insurance. Group is no problem.
>
> So I get insurance for her through a state contracted plan (supplied
> by BCBS). My kids and I are on a regular plan, as I am consulting
> right now. So she would fall into the transient 47 million always
> thrown up as why we need Obamacare. And yet she can still get reasonable
> coverage. If you read up on the different delineations in Medicare,
> and the lack of cost control of each, you would understand better
> why even people like myself are STILL against the current badly written
> bill.]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:48:36 -0400
It's easy for people who never had any issues to rally against reform, because the issues of other people are just not real to them. But that doesn't make it less real for people who are affected.


On Aug 04 10:28 PM Henry Buttal wrote:

> klarsolo,
>
> Actually, most states have insurance for people who fall through
> the cracks. I know, b/c my wife has had health problems, and can't
> always get individual insurance. Group is no problem.
>
> So I get insurance for her through a state contracted plan (supplied
> by BCBS). My kids and I are on a regular plan, as I am consulting
> right now. So she would fall into the transient 47 million always
> thrown up as why we need Obamacare. And yet she can still get reasonable
> coverage. If you read up on the different delineations in Medicare,
> and the lack of cost control of each, you would understand better
> why even people like myself are STILL against the current badly written
> bill.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29790?source=feed#comment-615633 615633
With the current economic debacle we all know what happens eventually when incentives are misaligned.

I see a lot of lies thrown out there to thwart reform. If the system really was as good as people thought you could let facts speak for themselves. So far I haven't seen a lot of facts to maintain the status quo, except from insurance companies who love the fact that less people are insured and more profits are assured than 10 years ago.

On Aug 04 10:28 PM Henry Buttal wrote:

> klarsolo,
>
> Actually, most states have insurance for people who fall through
> the cracks. I know, b/c my wife has had health problems, and can't
> always get individual insurance. Group is no problem.
>
> So I get insurance for her through a state contracted plan (supplied
> by BCBS). My kids and I are on a regular plan, as I am consulting
> right now. So she would fall into the transient 47 million always
> thrown up as why we need Obamacare. And yet she can still get reasonable
> coverage. If you read up on the different delineations in Medicare,
> and the lack of cost control of each, you would understand better
> why even people like myself are STILL against the current badly written
> bill.]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:37:43 -0400
With the current economic debacle we all know what happens eventually when incentives are misaligned.

I see a lot of lies thrown out there to thwart reform. If the system really was as good as people thought you could let facts speak for themselves. So far I haven't seen a lot of facts to maintain the status quo, except from insurance companies who love the fact that less people are insured and more profits are assured than 10 years ago.

On Aug 04 10:28 PM Henry Buttal wrote:

> klarsolo,
>
> Actually, most states have insurance for people who fall through
> the cracks. I know, b/c my wife has had health problems, and can't
> always get individual insurance. Group is no problem.
>
> So I get insurance for her through a state contracted plan (supplied
> by BCBS). My kids and I are on a regular plan, as I am consulting
> right now. So she would fall into the transient 47 million always
> thrown up as why we need Obamacare. And yet she can still get reasonable
> coverage. If you read up on the different delineations in Medicare,
> and the lack of cost control of each, you would understand better
> why even people like myself are STILL against the current badly written
> bill.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29790?source=feed#comment-615595 615595
On Aug 04 08:15 PM Neil459 wrote:

> It all depends on the Politicians. If we can stop Obama Health Care
> and most of the other entitlements, then we have a chance at avoiding
> the double dip. Otherwise get ready for a bumpy ride.]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 21:44:43 -0400
On Aug 04 08:15 PM Neil459 wrote:

> It all depends on the Politicians. If we can stop Obama Health Care
> and most of the other entitlements, then we have a chance at avoiding
> the double dip. Otherwise get ready for a bumpy ride.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/news/market_currents/post/29750?source=feed#comment-615264 615264
Instead I just kept reading everywhere how the fake rally will be sold off soon and how you shouldn't trust it. That may be true now, but the money that was made over the last few months was by no means easy money, unless it's easy for you to put every "expert" on ignore and not heed the billions of warnings.

Easy money is what's being made in the last part of a strong bull market when any idiot makes money. You can buy whatever and it will go up, and not only does it make you money right away, you don't even have to worry about going against the herd, because the herd cheers on your every move. Now, that is easy money. Until it isn't.]]> Tue, 04 Aug 2009 16:59:19 -0400
Instead I just kept reading everywhere how the fake rally will be sold off soon and how you shouldn't trust it. That may be true now, but the money that was made over the last few months was by no means easy money, unless it's easy for you to put every "expert" on ignore and not heed the billions of warnings.

Easy money is what's being made in the last part of a strong bull market when any idiot makes money. You can buy whatever and it will go up, and not only does it make you money right away, you don't even have to worry about going against the herd, because the herd cheers on your every move. Now, that is easy money. Until it isn't.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152121/comments?source=feed#comment-610191 610191

On Jul 31 09:17 AM One Eyed Guide wrote:

> Good article except that it overstates the benefits of the public
> option: The public option is not necessary to drive down administrative
> costs and reduce excess profits in insurance companies.
>
> The requirement that people cannot be denied insurance or have rates
> adjusted due to health issues eliminates the excess profit making
> potential of health insurers and reduces them to being processors
> and bundlers of services. This will greatly increase the efficiency
> of the system.
>
> Because the government is the most efficient distributor of money
> (they eliminate the middleman by printing it) the public option is
> the lowest cost but may not be the best option for many people due
> to opportunity for insurance companies to offer special bundles of
> services.]]> Fri, 31 Jul 2009 16:18:47 -0400

On Jul 31 09:17 AM One Eyed Guide wrote:

> Good article except that it overstates the benefits of the public
> option: The public option is not necessary to drive down administrative
> costs and reduce excess profits in insurance companies.
>
> The requirement that people cannot be denied insurance or have rates
> adjusted due to health issues eliminates the excess profit making
> potential of health insurers and reduces them to being processors
> and bundlers of services. This will greatly increase the efficiency
> of the system.
>
> Because the government is the most efficient distributor of money
> (they eliminate the middleman by printing it) the public option is
> the lowest cost but may not be the best option for many people due
> to opportunity for insurance companies to offer special bundles of
> services.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152827/comments?source=feed#comment-609670 609670

On Jul 31 09:32 AM Schweizer wrote:

> After the last recession ended in 2001 the market fell almost 40%
> more over the next 16 months as the unemployment rate kept rising.
> Unemplyment rate topped in 2003 and the market bottomed, and quess
> what, the peak unemployment rate was 6.25%! This time it could be
> double that.
>
> Rally on sheep.]]> Fri, 31 Jul 2009 11:00:09 -0400

On Jul 31 09:32 AM Schweizer wrote:

> After the last recession ended in 2001 the market fell almost 40%
> more over the next 16 months as the unemployment rate kept rising.
> Unemplyment rate topped in 2003 and the market bottomed, and quess
> what, the peak unemployment rate was 6.25%! This time it could be
> double that.
>
> Rally on sheep.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/152827/comments?source=feed#comment-609513 609513
We will see a retracement of some sort. But even if we move up from here today, the probability that you'll get a second chance to buy at today's levels is very, very high.


On Jul 31 09:03 AM Blake_ca wrote:

> I agree 100% with all of the postings on this thread that the market
> is overbought. It seems all of you (including me) are expecting a
> sharp pullback; however, that's exactly what scares me into thinking
> the market will possibly breakout -- to the upside, and go higher.
> All of the professional minds think it's going to correct, so of
> course, a contrarian point of view says it's going up.
>
> Whenever I feel certain of something (the pullback) that everyone
> else is also certain of, we are usually at that point where contrarian
> movement kicks in and the market explodes the other way. For example,
> in my mind, I simply can't see ANY way the market could go higher
> from here after such an enormous run up, which is almost always the
> point where I need to go the other way. Every one says they are selling
> into the market (except for Joe Public, which is too small vol to
> matter, imho).]]> Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:15:47 -0400
We will see a retracement of some sort. But even if we move up from here today, the probability that you'll get a second chance to buy at today's levels is very, very high.


On Jul 31 09:03 AM Blake_ca wrote:

> I agree 100% with all of the postings on this thread that the market
> is overbought. It seems all of you (including me) are expecting a
> sharp pullback; however, that's exactly what scares me into thinking
> the market will possibly breakout -- to the upside, and go higher.
> All of the professional minds think it's going to correct, so of
> course, a contrarian point of view says it's going up.
>
> Whenever I feel certain of something (the pullback) that everyone
> else is also certain of, we are usually at that point where contrarian
> movement kicks in and the market explodes the other way. For example,
> in my mind, I simply can't see ANY way the market could go higher
> from here after such an enormous run up, which is almost always the
> point where I need to go the other way. Every one says they are selling
> into the market (except for Joe Public, which is too small vol to
> matter, imho).]]>