econjunkie's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/303112/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/175860/comments?source=feed#comment-784688 784688
Secondly, this was 2008's budget, and unfortunately the deficits for the next ten years will likely be at least double this number.]]> Tue, 01 Dec 2009 13:17:23 -0500
Secondly, this was 2008's budget, and unfortunately the deficits for the next ten years will likely be at least double this number.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/162839/comments?source=feed#comment-689227 689227
- JC]]> Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:57:23 -0400
- JC]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163135/comments?source=feed#comment-689099 689099
Why?

I agree that fundamentals should have crude lower, but I don't understand that statement. There is no supporting framework in your analysis for how you arrive at such a precise target. I've heard that number thrown around, but you don't provide facts to support it.

The physical relationship achieved through a shrinking contango does not seem obvious here, as front month prices should trend lower as inventories continue to build, but really have not done so.

The only sense I can try and make from what has happened to crude prices is that they have been like many other asset classes, in that they have been subjected to the expectation of a major and nearly immediate economic recovery. I also feel that investors are not that much more enthusiastic about oil's prospects for appreciation out to February as they are about it today, given how fast assets have appreciated in such a short period of time, and hence are only willing to pay as much for oil six months out.

Like many, I am guessing about the oil market, and the market will likely keep us guessing. ]]> Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:05:43 -0400
Why?

I agree that fundamentals should have crude lower, but I don't understand that statement. There is no supporting framework in your analysis for how you arrive at such a precise target. I've heard that number thrown around, but you don't provide facts to support it.

The physical relationship achieved through a shrinking contango does not seem obvious here, as front month prices should trend lower as inventories continue to build, but really have not done so.

The only sense I can try and make from what has happened to crude prices is that they have been like many other asset classes, in that they have been subjected to the expectation of a major and nearly immediate economic recovery. I also feel that investors are not that much more enthusiastic about oil's prospects for appreciation out to February as they are about it today, given how fast assets have appreciated in such a short period of time, and hence are only willing to pay as much for oil six months out.

Like many, I am guessing about the oil market, and the market will likely keep us guessing. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/163166/comments?source=feed#comment-689059 689059 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:54:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/163037/comments?source=feed#comment-689041 689041 Thu, 24 Sep 2009 10:42:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/162080/comments?source=feed#comment-684158 684158 Sun, 20 Sep 2009 16:08:28 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/161487/comments?source=feed#comment-677550 677550

On Sep 15 09:15 AM axelrod608 wrote:

> I've often heard that the time to buy anything was when there were
> no buyers left and the time to sell anything was when everyone was
> buying. These days every cabbie, every shoeshine boy and every waitress
> is giving unsolicited advice to "buy gold". That may not constitute
> fundamental research, but it has been on my mind. I don't have an
> answer other than to hedge every dollar I have in gold.]]> Tue, 15 Sep 2009 11:38:50 -0400

On Sep 15 09:15 AM axelrod608 wrote:

> I've often heard that the time to buy anything was when there were
> no buyers left and the time to sell anything was when everyone was
> buying. These days every cabbie, every shoeshine boy and every waitress
> is giving unsolicited advice to "buy gold". That may not constitute
> fundamental research, but it has been on my mind. I don't have an
> answer other than to hedge every dollar I have in gold.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160616/comments?source=feed#comment-670464 670464 Thu, 10 Sep 2009 12:11:01 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/160262/comments?source=feed#comment-666254 666254 Tue, 08 Sep 2009 10:16:16 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/156736/comments?source=feed#comment-636883 636883 Wed, 19 Aug 2009 14:09:24 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147994/comments?source=feed#comment-635174 635174 Tue, 18 Aug 2009 14:21:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/155422/comments?source=feed#comment-629894 629894
The price of gas is not as nuts...]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:10:08 -0400
The price of gas is not as nuts...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155422/comments?source=feed#comment-629881 629881

On Aug 12 08:20 AM perceptions_now wrote:

> Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 11:06:55 -0400

On Aug 12 08:20 AM perceptions_now wrote:

> Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155878/comments?source=feed#comment-629862 629862 Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:56:57 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/155746/comments?source=feed#comment-629797 629797
1. If the US recovers and starts doing business like it once did, Canada's exports will increase in kind.
2. If you compare the trade surplus to the price of oil and other commodities, you can see that the trade surplus does not narrow until commodities prices start to fall off, starting around August '08.

The combination of a U.S. recovery and an increase back to astronomical levels of commodity prices, if it happens, will likely push these indicators apart again.]]> Fri, 14 Aug 2009 10:38:50 -0400
1. If the US recovers and starts doing business like it once did, Canada's exports will increase in kind.
2. If you compare the trade surplus to the price of oil and other commodities, you can see that the trade surplus does not narrow until commodities prices start to fall off, starting around August '08.

The combination of a U.S. recovery and an increase back to astronomical levels of commodity prices, if it happens, will likely push these indicators apart again.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/151402/comments?source=feed#comment-604315 604315 Mon, 27 Jul 2009 18:35:15 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146621/comments?source=feed#comment-571891 571891
S&P 440-450? This year? 120 days left in the second half? This year?
]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:58:40 -0400
S&P 440-450? This year? 120 days left in the second half? This year?
]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146423/comments?source=feed#comment-571526 571526
First, "maximum price" is not necessarily the equilbrium price. Short supply and/or excess demand relative to it can push the price up and make it greater than the equilibrium price in the short-run.

Second, the term "maximum price" is misleading as you are not necessarily maximizing profit. If there is any variation in agents' willingness to pay, you can just sell to that/those agent(s) and earn said price without optimizing your profit function. The highest profit margin might also not exist at equilibrium (Ex. a market that is not perfectly competitive).

On Jul 01 08:59 AM TripleG wrote:

> I'd have to disagree with most of this article and especially George
> Soros. Bubbles are real. They have happened and will continue to
> happen because they are built into the DNA of the capitalist infrastructure.
>
> We are all trained, as MBAs, to ride a profit margin to it's point
> of maximum profit (and then bail out). Economists call it, the point
> of equilibrium where Price = Maximum P.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:07:59 -0400
First, "maximum price" is not necessarily the equilbrium price. Short supply and/or excess demand relative to it can push the price up and make it greater than the equilibrium price in the short-run.

Second, the term "maximum price" is misleading as you are not necessarily maximizing profit. If there is any variation in agents' willingness to pay, you can just sell to that/those agent(s) and earn said price without optimizing your profit function. The highest profit margin might also not exist at equilibrium (Ex. a market that is not perfectly competitive).

On Jul 01 08:59 AM TripleG wrote:

> I'd have to disagree with most of this article and especially George
> Soros. Bubbles are real. They have happened and will continue to
> happen because they are built into the DNA of the capitalist infrastructure.
>
> We are all trained, as MBAs, to ride a profit margin to it's point
> of maximum profit (and then bail out). Economists call it, the point
> of equilibrium where Price = Maximum P.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144541/comments?source=feed#comment-557456 557456 Mon, 22 Jun 2009 11:39:55 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/133832/comments?source=feed#comment-514820 514820 Fri, 22 May 2009 15:04:02 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/138876/comments?source=feed#comment-514789 514789 Fri, 22 May 2009 14:49:35 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/129509/comments?source=feed#comment-454943 454943 Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:57:50 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/129509/comments?source=feed#comment-453440 453440
I don't think I understand your headline. Are you buying the crack spread? If so, why are you suggesting bullish crude and bearish products. I think you mean, expect crack spread to narrow.

A widening crack spread must be the other way around, unless it's negative (not as common, because you can't crack below variable cost over the long term). If you are buying the crack, you are the next of (short oil/long products).]]> Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:39:11 -0400
I don't think I understand your headline. Are you buying the crack spread? If so, why are you suggesting bullish crude and bearish products. I think you mean, expect crack spread to narrow.

A widening crack spread must be the other way around, unless it's negative (not as common, because you can't crack below variable cost over the long term). If you are buying the crack, you are the next of (short oil/long products).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129509/comments?source=feed#comment-453431 453431 Mon, 06 Apr 2009 11:34:37 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127517/comments?source=feed#comment-439671 439671
What about producers that require cash flow to cover debt service, retirement obligations, and operating expenses? Especially if they have just been expanding rapidly and taking on debt, which a lot of firms have. What if they can't refi their debt (a familiar situation, especially for juniors)? The project starts with profit as an end, but you're ignoring the financing of these projects. I agree with the spirit of your statement however, the business cycle is frustrating.


On Mar 24 09:14 AM long_on_oil wrote:

> When the price of oil was high the oil companies tried to maximize
> profits by drilling new wells and increasing supply. Now that the
> price is low the opposite will be the rule. The stockholders must
> demand profit maximization irregardless of the price of oil. This
> is just business 101.
> Why the natural gas companies aren't cutting production is beyond
> me. We stockholders should be writing our management to insist they
> cut production to protect our investment. We are tired of giving
> our product away. No responsible management of any successful company
> operates like these natural gas companies.]]> Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:37:14 -0400
What about producers that require cash flow to cover debt service, retirement obligations, and operating expenses? Especially if they have just been expanding rapidly and taking on debt, which a lot of firms have. What if they can't refi their debt (a familiar situation, especially for juniors)? The project starts with profit as an end, but you're ignoring the financing of these projects. I agree with the spirit of your statement however, the business cycle is frustrating.


On Mar 24 09:14 AM long_on_oil wrote:

> When the price of oil was high the oil companies tried to maximize
> profits by drilling new wells and increasing supply. Now that the
> price is low the opposite will be the rule. The stockholders must
> demand profit maximization irregardless of the price of oil. This
> is just business 101.
> Why the natural gas companies aren't cutting production is beyond
> me. We stockholders should be writing our management to insist they
> cut production to protect our investment. We are tired of giving
> our product away. No responsible management of any successful company
> operates like these natural gas companies.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126739/comments?source=feed#comment-439650 439650
How do you get there? The 4.10 peak happened during a recession. So, was it a predictor of a recession? No. Your thesis is baseless. Where are the empirics that support your claim? Please support your statement.]]> Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:24:59 -0400
How do you get there? The 4.10 peak happened during a recession. So, was it a predictor of a recession? No. Your thesis is baseless. Where are the empirics that support your claim? Please support your statement.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127289/comments?source=feed#comment-438415 438415 Tue, 24 Mar 2009 13:29:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/127036/comments?source=feed#comment-434093 434093

On Mar 20 03:46 PM The Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> There have been 14 bear markets in the postwar period with an average
> 25% decline. This bear market is down 58%, and it still may have
> farther to go. No wonder everyone’s risk models are blowing up. This
> time it really is different. Over the last 100 years the average
> return on stocks has been 10% a year, with 40% of that coming from
> dividends. Today there are dozens of prime industrial companies offering
> dividends rates in the mid teens. Why investors are not loading the
> boat with General Electric (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) stock
> yielding 12% at $9/share is beyond me. Take systemic risk out of
> the equation, and investors will leap at these.
> ]]> Fri, 20 Mar 2009 18:34:17 -0400

On Mar 20 03:46 PM The Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> There have been 14 bear markets in the postwar period with an average
> 25% decline. This bear market is down 58%, and it still may have
> farther to go. No wonder everyone’s risk models are blowing up. This
> time it really is different. Over the last 100 years the average
> return on stocks has been 10% a year, with 40% of that coming from
> dividends. Today there are dozens of prime industrial companies offering
> dividends rates in the mid teens. Why investors are not loading the
> boat with General Electric (seekingalpha.com/symbo...) stock
> yielding 12% at $9/share is beyond me. Take systemic risk out of
> the equation, and investors will leap at these.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/126802/comments?source=feed#comment-432876 432876
I would sooner argue that the relative value of the U.S. dollar is positively correlated with gov't bond prices, and therefore negatively with bond yields, though I haven't regressed the dollar on these variables. You are suggesting the opposite sign.]]> Thu, 19 Mar 2009 17:51:13 -0400
I would sooner argue that the relative value of the U.S. dollar is positively correlated with gov't bond prices, and therefore negatively with bond yields, though I haven't regressed the dollar on these variables. You are suggesting the opposite sign.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/119247/comments?source=feed#comment-382318 382318 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 10:40:16 -0500