mwfall's Comments

The Outlook for Natural Gas in 2010: Invest with Caution

Thu, 10 Dec 2009 02:26:31 -0500

"invest with caution"
lol- what a dumb title. sounds like you're saying sometimes we should invest recklessly.

Natural Gas: What's Going On?

Wed, 09 Dec 2009 01:25:40 -0500

what's going on?? what's going on is that you missed out. you had a chance to buy at 8.5 but you got greedy. now it's 9.5. lol

Natural Gas Will Rise Again: UNG and FCG Provide Two Ways to Play

Thu, 03 Dec 2009 16:25:54 -0500

guess the auther stuck out on this article. ung now at 8.5. lol

Today in Commodities: Potential Reversal Looming

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:02:59 -0500

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

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 03:57:09 -0500

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

Fri, 06 Nov 2009 02:50:39 -0500

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

Sun, 18 Oct 2009 02:24:33 -0400

"Trends Forecast founder Gerald Celente. "

LOL- he founded himself as a blogger boy?

Flattening Oil Contango: Is It a Bullish Sign?

Fri, 25 Sep 2009 01:09:47 -0400

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?

Tue, 22 Sep 2009 23:45:17 -0400

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

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

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:28:35 -0400

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

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:25:36 -0400

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.

>
> 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

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 01:17:32 -0400

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.

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:36:49 -0400

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.

Tue, 04 Aug 2009 22:07:14 -0400

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.

Thu, 23 Jul 2009 15:24:20 -0400

guess 'very well' was a little too strong

Forget Goldman, Start Worrying About the Government

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 01:37:56 -0400

"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?

Sat, 18 Jul 2009 01:58:05 -0400

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?

Fri, 17 Jul 2009 19:09:24 -0400

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.

Washington's Dilemma: This Isn't a Recession, It's a Collapse

Thu, 16 Jul 2009 15:16:09 -0400

government workers are raping the taxpayers with over-inflated benefits/pensions. bettter get of the union clowns before it's too late.

Why Leveraged ETFs Are Bound to Deteriorate

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 21:04:01 -0400

you should post a new article explaining your mistake for all the people that read your false mis-information.

Why Leveraged ETFs Are Bound to Deteriorate

Wed, 15 Jul 2009 20:58:04 -0400

THE AUTHOR IS 100% WRONG. HIS ARTICLE IS WORTHLESS AND HE'S A MATH DUNCE.

HERE'S HIS MISTAKE:

take the triple levereged one.
when it goes from 100 to 70 the percentage loss is calculated by dividing 30 into 100 equals 30% (he was right on that one)
when it goes from 70 to 100 the percentage gain is calculated by dividing 30 into 70 equals 42.85% gain !!

Natural Gas ETF: Nowhere to Go but Up, Yet It Keeps Going Down

Fri, 10 Jul 2009 01:23:43 -0400

good article

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

Thu, 09 Jul 2009 01:32:33 -0400

guess you won't be drinking one to your grammer education. try 'my mates and i...'

On Jul 08 07:12 PM ETF Grind wrote:

> Well, USCF employees aside most people do have a problem with these
> funds.
>
> Yes, people can sell the UNG every month, but they would have to
> buy it back it again if they wanted back into the market - thus rollover.
>
>
> And individual futures traders can buy contracts of different maturities!
> How can you not know that? They don't have to roll over six one-month
> contracts like the UNG, they can buy a six-month contract instead!
>
>
> The market conditions I described are known as "contango". Google
> it.
>
> And I find it convenient you didn't address my point about the USO's
> under performance and the possibility that the UNG could miss the
> mark by that much as well.
>
> Cheers. Me and my mates drink one to your education tonight at the
> pub.

How Public Pension Funds Avoid the Truth

Tue, 07 Jul 2009 20:15:58 -0400

taxpayers are getting raped by excessive government worker benefits.
all government worker pensions should be eliminated permanently.

The Congressional Bailout of Madoff's Investors

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 03:04:22 -0400

honest, hard working stock traders should not bail out wreckless, irresponsible people trying to cut corners to get wealthier.

On Jul 05 11:36 AM OnWallStreetSince1974 wrote:

> You end your story assuming that the taxpayer pays all. This is NOT
> the case. SIPC is authorized to charge a transaction fee for all
> securities transactions in order to raise enough funds to pay back
> their loans, and build up their indemnification fund.
>
> With currently some, e.g., 100 billion shares traded per month upon
> the listed exchanges, not incl. derivatives, charging a mere $0.01
> per side [buy & sell] per share fee would yield $2 billion per
> month, or some $24 billion per annum. At the very extreme, if each
> of the Madoff submitted to SIPC now 15,000 claims were paid the correct
> inflation adjusted $1.69 million [assuming each account was, at a
> minimum, valued as such upon their 11/30/2008 statement, adjusted
> for post 11/30/2008 cash additions & withdrawals], that would
> amount to $25.35 billion. Furthermore, said fee charge could be continued
> in order to fund the SIPC indemnification fund for future contingencies,
> with said funds held in U.S. Treasuries.

Are Airlines Going Bankrupt Again?

Mon, 06 Jul 2009 01:08:05 -0400

blah blah babble babble. if you really want to make progress get rid of the clown pilot, etc. unions.

Blackmont Capital Bullish on Gold and Silver

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 10:34:33 -0400

don't be so hard on toilet paper.

California: The Haves and Have-Nots

Fri, 03 Jul 2009 02:25:27 -0400

taxpayers are being raped by way overinflated pensions of government workers and way over rated, over paid lawyers (judges)

15 Stocks with the Stamina to Survive This Crisis

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 13:21:39 -0400

Disclosure: Hillbent.com, Inc. or its affiliates may own positions in the equities mentioned in our reports

what kind of a dumb disclososure is that? anybody in the world "may" own a stock.

Why Not Start Defaulting on Your Credit Cards?

Wed, 17 Jun 2009 01:03:21 -0400

sure but your credit rating is going to be trashed.