User 305589's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/305589/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/167756-not-a-sucker-s-rally-it-s-a-new-bull-market?source=feed#comment-723201 723201 First, valuations are NOT at all near normal levels. Even if one were to take the 16 P/E handle for the DJIA at face value, this is actually pretty expensive given the normalized earnings outlook for the next couple of years. Earnings rebounded because of record govt. stimulus and record cost cutting. Anyone expecting rising earnings (except for selected companies) for the next year and thereafter is invited to provide the rationale against the macroeconomic backdrop that is inevitable to happen!

Second, the big banks have been playing this rally with the free money printed by the fed, frontrunning virtually everyone. Look at any of the big commercial and investment banks' earnings reports. they made tons of money from bond and stock trading and collecting fees from the US treasury while ther loand books continue to suck and will do so for many quarters to come. Now we get earnings reports left and right "better than analysts' expectations". And the market? It goes pretty much nowhere. Gapping up on the earnings "beats" and giving it all back therafter. Nobody can say for sure, but my guts telle me, Goldman and Co are sellers here - distributing into "good" news while preparing for the next downturn.
I fully realize that the market could go higher another 10 or 20% from here - especially given all the "benchmark"-oriented fund managers out there who likely are underinvested and who have to buy even more into any further rise.

And, btw: the big delevaraging - i.e. paying down debt has barely begun. I expect a severe cash crunch over the next 2-3 years to develop. At that time, watch out below as we face the possibility of a replay of Q4/2008-Q1/2009.

I stay long but i continue to lighten up into the rally and to put the proceeds into cash and highly liquid and safe short-term bonds.
Sucker rally or not - you will be glad to have cash on hand over the next 1-3 years when real opportunities will arise. Todays markets barely offer anything worthwhile to invest in.]]> Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:34:52 -0400 First, valuations are NOT at all near normal levels. Even if one were to take the 16 P/E handle for the DJIA at face value, this is actually pretty expensive given the normalized earnings outlook for the next couple of years. Earnings rebounded because of record govt. stimulus and record cost cutting. Anyone expecting rising earnings (except for selected companies) for the next year and thereafter is invited to provide the rationale against the macroeconomic backdrop that is inevitable to happen!

Second, the big banks have been playing this rally with the free money printed by the fed, frontrunning virtually everyone. Look at any of the big commercial and investment banks' earnings reports. they made tons of money from bond and stock trading and collecting fees from the US treasury while ther loand books continue to suck and will do so for many quarters to come. Now we get earnings reports left and right "better than analysts' expectations". And the market? It goes pretty much nowhere. Gapping up on the earnings "beats" and giving it all back therafter. Nobody can say for sure, but my guts telle me, Goldman and Co are sellers here - distributing into "good" news while preparing for the next downturn.
I fully realize that the market could go higher another 10 or 20% from here - especially given all the "benchmark"-oriented fund managers out there who likely are underinvested and who have to buy even more into any further rise.

And, btw: the big delevaraging - i.e. paying down debt has barely begun. I expect a severe cash crunch over the next 2-3 years to develop. At that time, watch out below as we face the possibility of a replay of Q4/2008-Q1/2009.

I stay long but i continue to lighten up into the rally and to put the proceeds into cash and highly liquid and safe short-term bonds.
Sucker rally or not - you will be glad to have cash on hand over the next 1-3 years when real opportunities will arise. Todays markets barely offer anything worthwhile to invest in.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160285-essay-on-macroeconomics-where-krugman-fails?source=feed#comment-665929 665929 The scary thing is, I start noticing this trend among economists , too, recently.
But then again, why should those people who didn't see the debacle coming in the first place (though they are paid exactly to anticipate this stuff) now succeed in anticipating it's end? And yes, that includes Krugman, who is just another example in a long list of economists getting a Nobel price for essentially, crap.]]> Tue, 08 Sep 2009 07:20:16 -0400 The scary thing is, I start noticing this trend among economists , too, recently.
But then again, why should those people who didn't see the debacle coming in the first place (though they are paid exactly to anticipate this stuff) now succeed in anticipating it's end? And yes, that includes Krugman, who is just another example in a long list of economists getting a Nobel price for essentially, crap.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/160310-recent-contraction-has-barely-affected-decades-of-sustained-economic-growth?source=feed#comment-665871 665871
Sorry, but when it comes to the sustainability of the economic growth of the past decade, the jury is still out. Statistics clearly and undeniably show that every $ of gdp growth has been achieved with ever higher borrowings - the count now stands at $5 to borrow for every $1 in growth achieved. GDP growth of course doesn't equal overall growth of profits and incomes - especially the latter have been flat or declining over the past decade (except, of course for govt workers and most of all legions of vastly overpaid corporate execs and bankers). assuming (very optimistically) that this $1 of economic growth translates into about $0.10 of incomes/profits growth you arrive at $5 in fresh borrowings getting you 0.10$ in additional net income. At (historically very low) long term interst rates of about 3.5% you are already paying 0.175$ for the additional interst expenses, though - or a net 0.075$ loss!!. It is obvious, that this isn't sustainable at all. Not to speak of what will happen once the interest rate cycle turns up in earnest!

''The living standards of the next generation will not be chiefly determined by the severity of cyclical fluctuations, but by the long-term rate of growth in the intervening years.''

true - but it looks as if that longterm growth rate will be much lower than the atrificially propped-up short-term cyclical rates of the pat 20 years. Let's look at the same chart 2-3 years from...]]> Tue, 08 Sep 2009 05:50:04 -0400
Sorry, but when it comes to the sustainability of the economic growth of the past decade, the jury is still out. Statistics clearly and undeniably show that every $ of gdp growth has been achieved with ever higher borrowings - the count now stands at $5 to borrow for every $1 in growth achieved. GDP growth of course doesn't equal overall growth of profits and incomes - especially the latter have been flat or declining over the past decade (except, of course for govt workers and most of all legions of vastly overpaid corporate execs and bankers). assuming (very optimistically) that this $1 of economic growth translates into about $0.10 of incomes/profits growth you arrive at $5 in fresh borrowings getting you 0.10$ in additional net income. At (historically very low) long term interst rates of about 3.5% you are already paying 0.175$ for the additional interst expenses, though - or a net 0.075$ loss!!. It is obvious, that this isn't sustainable at all. Not to speak of what will happen once the interest rate cycle turns up in earnest!

''The living standards of the next generation will not be chiefly determined by the severity of cyclical fluctuations, but by the long-term rate of growth in the intervening years.''

true - but it looks as if that longterm growth rate will be much lower than the atrificially propped-up short-term cyclical rates of the pat 20 years. Let's look at the same chart 2-3 years from...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159835-another-natural-gas-bull-sticks-his-neck-out?source=feed#comment-661388 661388 LOl, really funny that you picked the best of the breed as a bk
try kwk and other crappy producers...



On Sep 03 07:28 PM Tsy Fox wrote:

> At today's rate of injection, in just 9 short weeks we will reach
> the 3.9 trillion cap. Looking at the calendar, it's starting to look
> like we will be having a Halloween party like we've never had before,
> with a possible CHK Bankruptcy filing.]]> Fri, 04 Sep 2009 05:47:09 -0400 LOl, really funny that you picked the best of the breed as a bk
try kwk and other crappy producers...



On Sep 03 07:28 PM Tsy Fox wrote:

> At today's rate of injection, in just 9 short weeks we will reach
> the 3.9 trillion cap. Looking at the calendar, it's starting to look
> like we will be having a Halloween party like we've never had before,
> with a possible CHK Bankruptcy filing.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158870-apple-vs-microsoft-apple-s-os-wins-hands-down?source=feed#comment-658370 658370 that old apple 7 OS certainly cannot and will not support the modern hard- and software. This is just biased crap, what you have told here. it's fine that you like AAPL's stuff and that you hate mr. softie's - i have no issue with that. But making bold claims that do not hold water and then sell this as facts is a different matter.
btw, I have had no problems with win xp and even vista, which i installed 3 months ago, doesn't suck as much as i had feared. Though I will certainly replace it with windows 7 as soon as the latter runs stable and with the necessary device drivers issued for my pc.

i really don't get it why people make a religion out of - OS software. Aren't there already enough religious wars fought allover the planet?]]> Wed, 02 Sep 2009 11:33:59 -0400 that old apple 7 OS certainly cannot and will not support the modern hard- and software. This is just biased crap, what you have told here. it's fine that you like AAPL's stuff and that you hate mr. softie's - i have no issue with that. But making bold claims that do not hold water and then sell this as facts is a different matter.
btw, I have had no problems with win xp and even vista, which i installed 3 months ago, doesn't suck as much as i had feared. Though I will certainly replace it with windows 7 as soon as the latter runs stable and with the necessary device drivers issued for my pc.

i really don't get it why people make a religion out of - OS software. Aren't there already enough religious wars fought allover the planet?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/159453-natural-gas-etf-premium-reaches-20-time-to-unload?source=feed#comment-658299 658299 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:59:17 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/158778-auditing-the-fed-is-economic-suicide?source=feed#comment-658276 658276 Wed, 02 Sep 2009 10:48:12 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/159222-due-for-a-correction-market-is-already-priced-for-grim-future?source=feed#comment-658140 658140
First, 2001/2002 definitely didn't mark the worst environment for corporate bonds since the Great depression. This claim by the author is absolutely off-base and ridiculous
I may just point to the wave of ever higher leverage and so-called financial innovation that worked to DEPRESS credit spreads to artficially low levels for much of the past 10-15 years. Viewed in the proper historical context, current corporate bond yields are NOT bargains any more (some select opportunities in individual companies notwithstanding)

Second: I aggree that the market doesn't price in happy days to be here again by this time next year. You may call that 'grim" if you want to. Problem is, times may look much more grim 1-2 years from now than Mr. market currently anticipates. And the odds for that to happen are extremely high.

bottom line: a repeat of past secular bear market cycles is very likely - with violent rallies and steep sell-offs over the next 5 years at a minimum]]> Wed, 02 Sep 2009 09:58:38 -0400
First, 2001/2002 definitely didn't mark the worst environment for corporate bonds since the Great depression. This claim by the author is absolutely off-base and ridiculous
I may just point to the wave of ever higher leverage and so-called financial innovation that worked to DEPRESS credit spreads to artficially low levels for much of the past 10-15 years. Viewed in the proper historical context, current corporate bond yields are NOT bargains any more (some select opportunities in individual companies notwithstanding)

Second: I aggree that the market doesn't price in happy days to be here again by this time next year. You may call that 'grim" if you want to. Problem is, times may look much more grim 1-2 years from now than Mr. market currently anticipates. And the odds for that to happen are extremely high.

bottom line: a repeat of past secular bear market cycles is very likely - with violent rallies and steep sell-offs over the next 5 years at a minimum]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147721-goldman-code-theft-bombshell?source=feed#comment-580322 580322
But someone with your professional background should know that the shareholder is the last in line at GS. First come the partners and then the employees, when it comes to profit distribution. Shareholders get what is left - and shoulder all the risk. And that there are huge risks becomes apparent by just a brief look at their L3 assets and the fact that GS has been cash flow negative for the past 5 years despite all the supposed mega-profits.
Why do you think has Warren Buffet opted for perpetual preferred stock yielding 10% p.a. AND attached the strings that Goldman's major partners are not allowed to cash out from the company before he got his investments back? This imho is the clearest message there can be from one of the best investors ever that you can make a ton of money with GS, but only if you know exactly how and if you protect yourself from the GS guys. Good luck with buying Goldman#s stock. You may still make good money, mind you, but the risk-reward is pretty awful.


On Jul 08 05:54 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> This is the
> most forceful buy recommendation of a stock I have ever seen. If
> GS really is that powerful, back up the truck. I want to own a stock
> with a “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” management who that
> will boost earnings at any cost. They’re just the alpha males in
> a world of predators. ]]> Thu, 09 Jul 2009 09:07:20 -0400
But someone with your professional background should know that the shareholder is the last in line at GS. First come the partners and then the employees, when it comes to profit distribution. Shareholders get what is left - and shoulder all the risk. And that there are huge risks becomes apparent by just a brief look at their L3 assets and the fact that GS has been cash flow negative for the past 5 years despite all the supposed mega-profits.
Why do you think has Warren Buffet opted for perpetual preferred stock yielding 10% p.a. AND attached the strings that Goldman's major partners are not allowed to cash out from the company before he got his investments back? This imho is the clearest message there can be from one of the best investors ever that you can make a ton of money with GS, but only if you know exactly how and if you protect yourself from the GS guys. Good luck with buying Goldman#s stock. You may still make good money, mind you, but the risk-reward is pretty awful.


On Jul 08 05:54 PM Mad Hedge Fund Trader wrote:

> This is the
> most forceful buy recommendation of a stock I have ever seen. If
> GS really is that powerful, back up the truck. I want to own a stock
> with a “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” management who that
> will boost earnings at any cost. They’re just the alpha males in
> a world of predators. ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147494-google-drops-a-nuclear-bomb-on-microsoft-and-it-s-made-of-chrome?source=feed#comment-578975 578975 For all the hate against MSFT, Google isn't any better, quite the opposite. Their privacy protection is nonexistant. they are the biggest data collectors and spys on the internet. No rules, no regulations. I will never ever install any google software on any of my PCs, notebooks or handys. They offer a terrific search engine and Google earth is a nice application, fine - but that's about it. I will not work on office documents via the web - how could I be sure that the data and information will not end up at places where i don't want them to be?
All the people who - often correctly - criticise Mr Softie today should learn to look at Google not as a smart innovator but as a company that increasingly tries to establish a giant hegemony over all that is web/handy and communications-related. Windows might be annoying at times. Google surely could become a real threat to freedom and privacy much sooner than most people think.
All the google admirers are now free to downthumb my post.]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 11:51:57 -0400 For all the hate against MSFT, Google isn't any better, quite the opposite. Their privacy protection is nonexistant. they are the biggest data collectors and spys on the internet. No rules, no regulations. I will never ever install any google software on any of my PCs, notebooks or handys. They offer a terrific search engine and Google earth is a nice application, fine - but that's about it. I will not work on office documents via the web - how could I be sure that the data and information will not end up at places where i don't want them to be?
All the people who - often correctly - criticise Mr Softie today should learn to look at Google not as a smart innovator but as a company that increasingly tries to establish a giant hegemony over all that is web/handy and communications-related. Windows might be annoying at times. Google surely could become a real threat to freedom and privacy much sooner than most people think.
All the google admirers are now free to downthumb my post.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147552-google-chrome-redefining-the-operating-system?source=feed#comment-578857 578857 All the people who - often correctly - critisize Mr Softie today should learn to look at Google not as a smart innovator but as a company that increasingly tries to establish a giant hegemony over all that is web/handy and communications-related. Windows might be annoying at times. Google surely could become a real threat to freedom and privacy much sooner than most people think.
All the google admirers are now free to downthumb my post.]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 10:54:02 -0400 All the people who - often correctly - critisize Mr Softie today should learn to look at Google not as a smart innovator but as a company that increasingly tries to establish a giant hegemony over all that is web/handy and communications-related. Windows might be annoying at times. Google surely could become a real threat to freedom and privacy much sooner than most people think.
All the google admirers are now free to downthumb my post.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/147598-the-full-aleynikov-transcript?source=feed#comment-578678 578678
Detain the guy, torture him, threaten germany to immediately hand the server over to goldman - it's in the interest of Goldman's national security! Obama should interrupt his Russia visit and fly straight to Berlin! Nothing could be more important to the ordinary U.S. citizen and his well being than the safety of Goldman Sachs' profits.]]> Wed, 08 Jul 2009 09:28:44 -0400
Detain the guy, torture him, threaten germany to immediately hand the server over to goldman - it's in the interest of Goldman's national security! Obama should interrupt his Russia visit and fly straight to Berlin! Nothing could be more important to the ordinary U.S. citizen and his well being than the safety of Goldman Sachs' profits.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146956-are-airlines-going-bankrupt-again?source=feed#comment-575179 575179 Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:34:05 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/147029-teck-surprises-with-equity-issue-and-sale?source=feed#comment-575178 575178 That being said, I may scale bacl my short position on Teck since they have of course improved their financial position considerably. Over the longer term , though, this company will continue to baldy lag its competitors, unless competent management takes over. maybe thew Chinese will press for it, eventually.]]> Mon, 06 Jul 2009 04:29:33 -0400 That being said, I may scale bacl my short position on Teck since they have of course improved their financial position considerably. Over the longer term , though, this company will continue to baldy lag its competitors, unless competent management takes over. maybe thew Chinese will press for it, eventually.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146611-unwinding-the-goldman-sachs-myth?source=feed#comment-572882 572882

On Jul 02 02:56 PM Peter Iwanowicz wrote:

> A little too much conflict of interest going on here for my taste]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 05:14:51 -0400

On Jul 02 02:56 PM Peter Iwanowicz wrote:

> A little too much conflict of interest going on here for my taste]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146611-unwinding-the-goldman-sachs-myth?source=feed#comment-571794 571794 You got into the stock at a great price, rode it up and made money. fine. You could have done almost the same (with similar performance) with BAC, WFC...
But what has catching a stock market rally to do with GS, and the way Goldman Sucks its profits out of the US economy and the taxpayers (or doesn't suck tmne out this way, as you and/or the author of this article might alledge) ?

p.s. you seem to care a lot about other people's opinion regarding yourselves, when just one down-thumbing of your comment by some anonymous reader already stirres your blood pressure.

On Jul 02 12:01 PM Gravity404 wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying MY understanding of GS.
>
> One thing I do understand, is that when GS hit the low 50s, I bought
> a lot of shares. I dont care if they shoot cash into space or shove
> it in their asses. I have almost tripled my money in less than six
> months.
>
> So keep bashing GS and giving thumbs down to people that don't agree
> with you.
> ]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 13:01:18 -0400 You got into the stock at a great price, rode it up and made money. fine. You could have done almost the same (with similar performance) with BAC, WFC...
But what has catching a stock market rally to do with GS, and the way Goldman Sucks its profits out of the US economy and the taxpayers (or doesn't suck tmne out this way, as you and/or the author of this article might alledge) ?

p.s. you seem to care a lot about other people's opinion regarding yourselves, when just one down-thumbing of your comment by some anonymous reader already stirres your blood pressure.

On Jul 02 12:01 PM Gravity404 wrote:

> Thanks for clarifying MY understanding of GS.
>
> One thing I do understand, is that when GS hit the low 50s, I bought
> a lot of shares. I dont care if they shoot cash into space or shove
> it in their asses. I have almost tripled my money in less than six
> months.
>
> So keep bashing GS and giving thumbs down to people that don't agree
> with you.
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146648-6-ways-to-short-the-obama-health-plan?source=feed#comment-571636 571636 As for PFE and lipitor, just look at the company, its current cash flow, its cost cutting measures and its clear path towards much improved profitability. While Liptor has been discounted by the market long, long ago, the positive factors have not. And I am not even talking about PFE's future move into generics - which will scare the living daylights out of smaller generic producers. PFE might be one of the few large cap stocks that may actually make investors money over the next 3-5 years - after lagging badly over the past 5 years.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:56:14 -0400 As for PFE and lipitor, just look at the company, its current cash flow, its cost cutting measures and its clear path towards much improved profitability. While Liptor has been discounted by the market long, long ago, the positive factors have not. And I am not even talking about PFE's future move into generics - which will scare the living daylights out of smaller generic producers. PFE might be one of the few large cap stocks that may actually make investors money over the next 3-5 years - after lagging badly over the past 5 years.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146611-unwinding-the-goldman-sachs-myth?source=feed#comment-571562 571562 That's a cute way to make money on GS - but you have to be buffet and come with his reputation and cash-hoard exactly in times of a crisis.

> BOTTOM LINE – If GS has this power, BUY THEM AND MAKE MILLIONS! FREEDOM
> bitches, FREEDOM!]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 11:23:14 -0400 That's a cute way to make money on GS - but you have to be buffet and come with his reputation and cash-hoard exactly in times of a crisis.

> BOTTOM LINE – If GS has this power, BUY THEM AND MAKE MILLIONS! FREEDOM
> bitches, FREEDOM!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146611-unwinding-the-goldman-sachs-myth?source=feed#comment-571410 571410
Your article does nothing to unwind anything. In short, you just claim that all these guys are wrong in their accusations and that GS is just an honest private bank making money because they are smarter than the rest.
Obviously, you haven't even bothered to read a single piece of evidence to the contrary and there are TONS of it.
heck, some of the allegations may indeed be false, but the case against goldman as such, is outright overwhelmingly convincing. And by extension, the case against the FED (and JPM), too.
But of course, everybody is free to live in his own state of denial as long as he pleases.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:57:37 -0400
Your article does nothing to unwind anything. In short, you just claim that all these guys are wrong in their accusations and that GS is just an honest private bank making money because they are smarter than the rest.
Obviously, you haven't even bothered to read a single piece of evidence to the contrary and there are TONS of it.
heck, some of the allegations may indeed be false, but the case against goldman as such, is outright overwhelmingly convincing. And by extension, the case against the FED (and JPM), too.
But of course, everybody is free to live in his own state of denial as long as he pleases.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146521-is-goldman-frontrunning-its-clients?source=feed#comment-571305 571305

On Jul 01 10:38 PM fed_alchemy wrote:

> GS ..The fourth branch of government...you havent seen to big to
> fail yet.]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:17:20 -0400

On Jul 01 10:38 PM fed_alchemy wrote:

> GS ..The fourth branch of government...you havent seen to big to
> fail yet.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/144550-tax-dollars-at-work-goldman-sachs-to-pay-record-bonuses?source=feed#comment-571289 571289 I have no issue with private bankers making money, not even from a crisis. I have huge iossues when they do so with taxpayer money, by infiltrating and corrupting the entire administration and by transferring all the risks to taxpayers, shareholders and creditors while reaping all the profits just for themselves.
GS ought to be shut down asap!


On Jun 22 10:07 AM Fund Insider wrote:

> Enough bashing the banks. If they do poorly, people complain.
> If they do well, people complain. What should they do, just close
> the doors ? They are no Angels at GS but they are doing what they
> are supposed to do, make a profilt. They avoided heavy investment
> in sub prime and that's why they are still here to take advantage
> of the current voids in the marketplace. They are smart, and others
> are jealous of them. Would you prefer if they go under and there
> are more mass layoffs and another 40% stockmarket slide ?]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:13:04 -0400 I have no issue with private bankers making money, not even from a crisis. I have huge iossues when they do so with taxpayer money, by infiltrating and corrupting the entire administration and by transferring all the risks to taxpayers, shareholders and creditors while reaping all the profits just for themselves.
GS ought to be shut down asap!


On Jun 22 10:07 AM Fund Insider wrote:

> Enough bashing the banks. If they do poorly, people complain.
> If they do well, people complain. What should they do, just close
> the doors ? They are no Angels at GS but they are doing what they
> are supposed to do, make a profilt. They avoided heavy investment
> in sub prime and that's why they are still here to take advantage
> of the current voids in the marketplace. They are smart, and others
> are jealous of them. Would you prefer if they go under and there
> are more mass layoffs and another 40% stockmarket slide ?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146250-cap-and-trade-and-the-cheap-energy-illusion?source=feed#comment-571257 571257 Thu, 02 Jul 2009 09:01:32 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/146546-no-bailout-for-the-governator-california-s-fiscal-emergency?source=feed#comment-571185 571185 The chicken of the legalised fraud called 'fractional reserve banking' are finally coming home to roost.


On Jul 01 07:38 PM conceptwizard wrote:

> Looking at California’s budget figures, projected state revenues
> for 2009 are $128 billion. At a reserve requirement of 10%, if California
> deposited all $128 billion in its own state-owned bank, it could
> issue $1.28 trillion in loans, far more than it would need to cover
> its $23 billion budget shortfall. To lend itself the money to cover
> the shortfall, it would need only $2.3 billion in deposits and about
> $2 billion in capital (assuming an 8% capital requirement). What
> Sheldon Emry wrote of nations is equally true of states:
>
> It is as ridiculous for a nation to say to its citizens, ‘You must
> consume less because we are short of money,’ as it would be for an
> airline to say, ‘Our planes are flying, but we cannot take you because
> we are short of tickets.’”
>
> As a card-carrying member of the banking elite, California could
> create all the credit it needs to fund its operations, with money
> to spare]]> Thu, 02 Jul 2009 08:17:54 -0400 The chicken of the legalised fraud called 'fractional reserve banking' are finally coming home to roost.


On Jul 01 07:38 PM conceptwizard wrote:

> Looking at California’s budget figures, projected state revenues
> for 2009 are $128 billion. At a reserve requirement of 10%, if California
> deposited all $128 billion in its own state-owned bank, it could
> issue $1.28 trillion in loans, far more than it would need to cover
> its $23 billion budget shortfall. To lend itself the money to cover
> the shortfall, it would need only $2.3 billion in deposits and about
> $2 billion in capital (assuming an 8% capital requirement). What
> Sheldon Emry wrote of nations is equally true of states:
>
> It is as ridiculous for a nation to say to its citizens, ‘You must
> consume less because we are short of money,’ as it would be for an
> airline to say, ‘Our planes are flying, but we cannot take you because
> we are short of tickets.’”
>
> As a card-carrying member of the banking elite, California could
> create all the credit it needs to fund its operations, with money
> to spare]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/137703-mbia-and-bofa-thoughts-on-litigation?source=feed#comment-569506 569506 Yourt fixation on some adjusted book value is grossly misplaced, imho. Even marty whitman, a long time defender of mbia, is severly dispappointed by mbia's mgmt and sees enormous risks for the surplus notes from the asset-stripping. which, of course, rank far superior to the common shares.

On May 14 11:37 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> dok tari and Gtarras,
>
> Reason to be long, nonGAAP metric adjusted book value stands at 37.61,
> and does not include any possible recoveries from litigation. In
> the past MBIA traded at roughly 1X this metric, so a successful resumption
> of writing municiapl bonds and a resolution of the questions about
> the cost of their CDO liabilities could entail a recovery to that
> area.
>
> There are a lot of uncertainties but it's a 6 bagger if it works
> out, from 5.90 as I type this.
>
> I have a negative reaction to BAC due to the situations noted in
> the article, whether they can create value from what they bought
> is not something I want to guess at, hence neither long nor short.
>
> ]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 05:17:40 -0400 Yourt fixation on some adjusted book value is grossly misplaced, imho. Even marty whitman, a long time defender of mbia, is severly dispappointed by mbia's mgmt and sees enormous risks for the surplus notes from the asset-stripping. which, of course, rank far superior to the common shares.

On May 14 11:37 AM Tom Armistead wrote:

> dok tari and Gtarras,
>
> Reason to be long, nonGAAP metric adjusted book value stands at 37.61,
> and does not include any possible recoveries from litigation. In
> the past MBIA traded at roughly 1X this metric, so a successful resumption
> of writing municiapl bonds and a resolution of the questions about
> the cost of their CDO liabilities could entail a recovery to that
> area.
>
> There are a lot of uncertainties but it's a 6 bagger if it works
> out, from 5.90 as I type this.
>
> I have a negative reaction to BAC due to the situations noted in
> the article, whether they can create value from what they bought
> is not something I want to guess at, hence neither long nor short.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145277-now-questions-about-bidz-com-s-auditors?source=feed#comment-569499 569499

On Jun 29 06:43 PM Veneratio wrote:

> Why aren't you short then, Sam...?]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:59:54 -0400

On Jun 29 06:43 PM Veneratio wrote:

> Why aren't you short then, Sam...?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/146294-7-reasons-to-like-chile-and-its-etf?source=feed#comment-569497 569497 I'd be very, very careful at this point to add any equity exposure, no matter at what place of the globe. There are still some individual bargain stocks out there, but they have become very few, compared to just 2 months ago.]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:51:34 -0400 I'd be very, very careful at this point to add any equity exposure, no matter at what place of the globe. There are still some individual bargain stocks out there, but they have become very few, compared to just 2 months ago.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145808-ailing-italian-economy-ripe-for-shorting?source=feed#comment-569490 569490 In part this also explains why the Germans are so reluctant to pump any more taxpayer money into their economy. being heavily export-dependent all the govt. stimulus in the world could help the domestic german economy only so much. Btw. this is exactly the same problem Japan and China face and all those bulls on China may be in for a very rude awakening down the road.]]> Wed, 01 Jul 2009 04:24:31 -0400 In part this also explains why the Germans are so reluctant to pump any more taxpayer money into their economy. being heavily export-dependent all the govt. stimulus in the world could help the domestic german economy only so much. Btw. this is exactly the same problem Japan and China face and all those bulls on China may be in for a very rude awakening down the road.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145906-the-fall-in-natural-gas-is-over?source=feed#comment-568468 568468 investment implication:
suggestion 1)
buy UNG (or ditm calls on UNG with long dated expirations 2010/20011) and sell covered calls against those every month. watch the market carefully, especially the fundamentals to decide when to stop this.

suggestion 2) accumulate high quality, low cost ng producers at rock bottom valuations (MCF; CHK)]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:30:16 -0400 investment implication:
suggestion 1)
buy UNG (or ditm calls on UNG with long dated expirations 2010/20011) and sell covered calls against those every month. watch the market carefully, especially the fundamentals to decide when to stop this.

suggestion 2) accumulate high quality, low cost ng producers at rock bottom valuations (MCF; CHK)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145885-nothing-is-ever-truly-off-the-books-in-the-financial-world?source=feed#comment-568070 568070 Tue, 30 Jun 2009 08:03:33 -0400 http://seekingalpha.com/article/145810-goldman-s-lucas-van-praag-responds-to-matt-taibbi-s-allegations?source=feed#comment-566797 566797
Of course, The CFTC neither wants to nor can it include the IPE positions - a Goldman-sponsored commodity exchange that has established a pretty consistent history by now of leading almost each and every major Nymex move. Talk about Goldman doing the ugly stuff offshore (in london) and then showing a clean chit from the onshore regulators. Outright laughable, if it weren't so serious an issue for main street.

Second, the cftc has long ceased to really regulate the commodity markets - at least when it comes to standing in the way opf the big guys (goldman, JPM etc) they had earlier (just a year ago) found no evidence for index investing/speculating to having caused any major price movements - while Michael Masters provided compelling evidence to the contrary before a Senate comittee.
Goldman needs to be shut down before this state within the US of A has completely destroyed the country for the benefit of a handful of greedy, unscrupoulos private bankers.]]> Mon, 29 Jun 2009 09:43:26 -0400
Of course, The CFTC neither wants to nor can it include the IPE positions - a Goldman-sponsored commodity exchange that has established a pretty consistent history by now of leading almost each and every major Nymex move. Talk about Goldman doing the ugly stuff offshore (in london) and then showing a clean chit from the onshore regulators. Outright laughable, if it weren't so serious an issue for main street.

Second, the cftc has long ceased to really regulate the commodity markets - at least when it comes to standing in the way opf the big guys (goldman, JPM etc) they had earlier (just a year ago) found no evidence for index investing/speculating to having caused any major price movements - while Michael Masters provided compelling evidence to the contrary before a Senate comittee.
Goldman needs to be shut down before this state within the US of A has completely destroyed the country for the benefit of a handful of greedy, unscrupoulos private bankers.]]>