Seeking Alpha

mwfall » Comments |

Sort by:
Latest | Highest rated
  • UNG - buy, what we was waiting for! Short covering now. [View instapost]
    does this bonzo really think god is going to be willing or unwilling to let ung go higher?
    Aug 04 22:07 pm |Rating: 0 -1 |Link to Comment
  • UNG is a strong buy at 15.35 hedged against the June strike 15 calls. [View instapost]
    guess 'very well' was a little too strong
    Jul 23 15:24 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • Forget Goldman, Start Worrying About the Government [View article]
    "Do you have any better ideas?"
    i have a better idea. i say you should run congress. i'll vote for you.
    Jul 20 01:37 am |Rating: 0 -2 |Link to Comment
  • How Will CFTC Hearings Impact Commodity ETFs? [View article]
    pretty lame article. you should have named it 'here's a tiny bit about
    commodity ETFs that you probably already know any way"
    Jul 18 01:58 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Jul 17 19:09 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment
  • Washington's Dilemma: This Isn't a Recession, It's a Collapse [View article]
    government workers are raping the taxpayers with over-inflated benefits/pensions. bettter get of the union clowns before it's too late.
    Jul 16 15:16 pm |Rating: +5 -3 |Link to Comment
  • Why Leveraged ETFs Are Bound to Deteriorate  [View article]
    you should post a new article explaining your mistake for all the people that read your false mis-information.
    Jul 15 21:04 pm |Rating: +1 -2 |Link to Comment
  • 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 !!
    Jul 15 20:58 pm |Rating: 0 -2 |Link to Comment
  • Natural Gas ETF: Nowhere to Go but Up, Yet It Keeps Going Down [View article]
    good article
    Jul 10 01:23 am |Rating: +2 0 |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Jul 09 01:32 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment
  • How Public Pension Funds Avoid the Truth [View article]
    taxpayers are getting raped by excessive government worker benefits.
    all government worker pensions should be eliminated permanently.
    Jul 07 20:15 pm |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment
  • 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.
    Jul 06 03:04 am |Rating: +1 0 |Link to Comment
  • Are Airlines Going Bankrupt Again? [View article]
    blah blah babble babble. if you really want to make progress get rid of the clown pilot, etc. unions.
    Jul 06 01:08 am |Rating: +3 -6 |Link to Comment
  • Blackmont Capital Bullish on Gold and Silver [View article]
    don't be so hard on toilet paper.
    Jul 03 10:34 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment
  • California: The Haves and Have-Nots [View article]
    taxpayers are being raped by way overinflated pensions of government workers and way over rated, over paid lawyers (judges)
    Jul 03 02:25 am |Rating: +6 -1 |Link to Comment
mwfall's
Comments Stats
67 comments
Rating: -2 (138 - 140 )