mwfall

Today in Commodities: Potential Reversal Looming

what's a 'potential' reversal? is that where if it goes down you say 'see i told you so' and if it goes up you say ' i wasn't wrong- i just said it was a 'potential' reversal.

Natural Gas Extraction May Be More Expensive Than It Seems

Aint familiar with the concept of attending grammar class rather than staying home to watch tv?


On Nov 04 06:25 AM Spicer wrote:

> Not familiar with meaning of the term reserve? If it ain't economically
> viable with today's commodity market prices it ain't a reserve just
> a resource.

Airlines: Some Costs They Can't - And Shouldn't - Cut

awwwwwwww- poor little pampered, overpaid pilots. this author sounds like a typical whining union clown. and no one cares about your self-glorification, bonzo.

The Greatest Depression Is Coming

"Trends Forecast founder Gerald Celente. "

LOL- he founded himself as a blogger boy?

Flattening Oil Contango: Is It a Bullish Sign?

lots and lots of 'it might', 'it could', 'it may' etc.
then when she finally makes a prediction, it's wrong.

in article dated 9/14 she wrote:
"....So, there will likely be a painfully lower gas price on hand in the next 6 to 10 weeks or so"
and
"....we could be looking at a brief sub zero price scenario"
and
"traders should brace themselves for quite possibly the darkest days in the next 2 months for the natural gas market"

in the 10 days since then, nat gas has gone from $3.30 to $3.99 (20% higher).
babble on

Are Commodities Still a Safe Haven?

ferri has been 100% wrong on the large commodities gain for the last six months. PERIOD

Report from Europe: Does 'V' Come Before 'W'?

a

Why U.S. Government Should Cut Federal Workers' Lavish Compensation

so you retire at age 55 and then rape the taxpayers for 30 years with a very high pension.


On Sep 08 11:24 PM Falconflight wrote:

> I'm a Federal Employee with 26 years service. I have a Master Degree
> and started at 16,500 per annum.
>
> Yes, after 26 years I'm making pretty good money. I'm paying approx.
> 3,000 per annum in health plan premiums, my plan, as all FEHB plans
> pay almost nothing for dental or vision. My plan required that I
> go to PPO's in order to get 85% coverage of bills. I have family
> deductibles of $750 per annum in order to receive benefits and I
> have various copayments to meet for services rendered.
>
> I cannot retire until age 55 with 30 years service, as I am grandfathered
> under the old plan (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) which changed
> on or about 1Jan84.
>
> Everyone hired since that time relies mostly on Social Security,
> plus a 401 K (seekingalpha.com/symbo...), matched dollar
> for dollar up to 4% and 50 cents on the dollar up to 6% total. The
> Federal portion of the retirement benefits is quite small now. <br/>
>
> As for myself under the old plan, I can expect to retire at 55% of
> my base pay after averaging my last 3 years (high 3) pay.
>
> Under the new plan, these folks will not get their retirement until
> they're approaching social security age, since to receive the fed.
> pension alone would not be enough to survive.
>
> It is absolutely true that fed employees were given considerably
> higher cost of living adjustments with Pres. Bush than under Clinton.
> I do believe Obama should have opted to afford 0% cost of living
> adjustment rather than the 2.0% lowered from 2.4% based on the CPI.
> I do agree that when the country is in a downturn, especially as
> severe as this one, for symbolic value if nothing else, federal employees
> should bear some burden.
>
> I certainly realize and appreciate the wealth producers of the country,
> because they do pay my salary. Citizens should rail against the bureaucracy,
> their pay and sense of entitlement. No doubt. Too many federal employees
> get that glazed look in their eyes when I say the TaxPayer is paying
> for this or that.
>
> One more comment...while I do live reasonably well after all these
> years, I do pay substantial fed. income taxes. I do resent the multitudes
> of income earners that now pay no fed. income taxes. What nearly
> 50% no longer pay income taxes?
>
> Every income earner needs to pay income taxes, otherwise they have
> no 'skin' in the game and could care less if the "rich" get their
> earned wealth confiscated, essentially to feed the TaxEaters and
> their ever growing demands for equal outcome, not equal opportunity.
>

Why U.S. Government Should Cut Federal Workers' Lavish Compensation

and guess who's going to pay the debt? TAXPAYERS. no, it's not due to low mail volume- it's due to extreme over-compensation.


On Sep 08 08:44 AM User 92501 wrote:

> US Postal Service 767,879 employees do not receive any money from
> the Federal Government. There pay comes from the stamps and other
> service to the American people. Also, the postal service pays for
> retirement from deductions from employees wages. The US Postal Service
> is currently restructing as it is several billions in debt due to
> low volumne of mail

UNG is a strong buy at 15.35 hedged against the June strike 15 calls.

then maybe you should phrase it: " I expect 15 to hold very well... as long as you keep rolling it over and over for X number of months)


On Jul 26 05:58 PM Jack Haddad wrote:

>
> Not at all strong.... it's a good hedge if you consider rolling that
> strike month after month...
>
> On Jul 23 03:24 PM mwfall wrote:

UNG - buy, what we was waiting for! Short covering now.

does this bonzo really think god is going to be willing or unwilling to let ung go higher?

UNG is a strong buy at 15.35 hedged against the June strike 15 calls.

guess 'very well' was a little too strong

Forget Goldman, Start Worrying About the Government

"Do you have any better ideas?"
i have a better idea. i say you should run congress. i'll vote for you.

How Will CFTC Hearings Impact Commodity ETFs?

pretty lame article. you should have named it 'here's a tiny bit about
commodity ETFs that you probably already know any way"

Game Over for U.S. Oil, Natural Gas ETFs?

that's a highly irrational conclusion and pretty much shoots down your credibility.


On Jul 08 04:42 PM ETF Grind wrote:

> To me "has not yet approved the request" means they declined the
> request.
>
> Yes, they may approve it later. But the fund needs the new shares
> now. There was a deadline, and it passed without a decision. To me
> that's a decline.