Game Over for U.S. Oil, Natural Gas ETFs? [View article]
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.
Why Leveraged ETFs Are Bound to Deteriorate [View article]
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 !!
Game Over for U.S. Oil, Natural Gas ETFs? [View article]
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.
The Congressional Bailout of Madoff's Investors [View article]
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.
Sort by:
Latest | Highest ratedUNG - buy, what we was waiting for! Short covering now. [View instapost]
UNG is a strong buy at 15.35 hedged against the June strike 15 calls. [View instapost]
Forget Goldman, Start Worrying About the Government [View article]
i have a better idea. i say you should run congress. i'll vote for you.
How Will CFTC Hearings Impact Commodity ETFs? [View article]
commodity ETFs that you probably already know any way"
Game Over for U.S. Oil, Natural Gas ETFs? [View article]
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 [View article]
Why Leveraged ETFs Are Bound to Deteriorate [View article]
Why Leveraged ETFs Are Bound to Deteriorate [View article]
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 [View article]
Game Over for U.S. Oil, Natural Gas ETFs? [View article]
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 [View article]
all government worker pensions should be eliminated permanently.
The Congressional Bailout of Madoff's Investors [View article]
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? [View article]
Blackmont Capital Bullish on Gold and Silver [View article]
California: The Haves and Have-Nots [View article]