polishlogician

Housing Starts Rebound: Don't Get Too Excited

With a 22% increase in housing starts, one might be justified in assuming that there would be some metro market with increased construction. My own informal survey on the web found nothing--all major markets down for the month--the report does not cite individual markets in its research only 'regions' in the US.

Furthermore the the National Association of Home Builders survey, announced just yesterday (as mentioned above) was dismal and unchanged from last month; so apparently the home builders, themselves, failed to take into account all the homes they were building.

This Housing Starts increase also allows Spin-Meisters more time to shine. Briefly, when Housing Starts were Down more than expected in January, and February, CNBC analysts claimed it was a good thing because with 2.8 million homes in inventory (for sale) in the US, less building meant more use of pre-existing inventory; hence, housing prices would eventually rise.

Today, with Housing Starts Up, this was explained as a good thing too, as CNBC analysts pointed out this is a bullish figure for the US markets (as it traditionally is). Seems you can lose for losing.

(Note: Home Depot has announced 7000 layoffs for Q1/2009, poor Home Depot didn't think Housing Starts were all that bullish, but what do they know?)

60 Minutes on Oil: Did Anyone Verify Anything?

I agree that supply and demand isn't the whole picture, but "expectations" caused a perception of this dire lack of supply? Has the Mid-East marketedly improved so much over the past...what...5 months? Otherwise, were there supply problems in Norway, England, Mexico, the Gulf, Alaska, or even Venezuela that I'm simply not aware of? To me, it seems excessive reliance upon the "perceived expectation of possible demand shortage" is outweighed by own ignorance, as I didn't understand it then, and I don't today, I guess they were just wrong with their perceptions? Gosh, I hope they didn't lose any money being so unbelievably wrong.


On Jan 12 08:51 AM huangjin wrote:

> Markets work on expectations, not the current supply and demand.
> People believed supply would not meet demand, and the price reflected
> their beliefs. This is why current supply and demand is not always
> the whole picture. Was oil at $147 ridiculous, and a bubble? Sure.
> But speculators cannot control reality, and they lost billions with
> their bets. And the reason oil fell so far is because the economy
> has imploded. Oil speculators lost because they pushed prices too
> far, and they failed to consider a massive drop in demand.
>
>

Global Earnings Downturn Only 25% Done - Citi

I agree, though you might be better advised to stay in the ETF's for about a week or so (just looking at past trends, decide for yourself, i.e., don't necessarily day trade at this point, unless you love to do that with options) but don't stay in them "too long" as a straight buy, as there are many explanations on this site of the 'eroding' profits of ETF's that get compounded with NAV's computed daily. Now, what's the exact entry and exit points to take advantage of volatile market, well if I knew that I'd pry never tell, and if I did tell, I wouldn't even believe myself, but overall, I agree with your comments, it's a smart play. And I've done very well so far with 3x bear and bulls.

On Jan 09 01:00 AM Fitz919 wrote:

> When Citigroup talks...consider the source, and their agenda.

>
>
> If you want to make real money and have time for very focused day-trading,
> check out the new Triple Leveraged ETFs. Here are some statistics
> from some research I did yesterday. Each of these covers 18 days
> worth of data from Dec 10 through Jan 6. This is the average swing
> between the low price and high price for each of those 18 days.

>
>
> FAZ Financial Bear 3X 14.37%
> FAS Financial Bull 3X 14.11%
>
> TZA Small Cap Bear 3X 13.31%
> TNA Small Cap Bull 3X 12.52%
>
> They are all trading a few million shares each day. If you were
> to catch just a 5% gain each day, you will double your money each
> month. If you have a margin account you can use the margin to more
> than cover the cost of Capital Gains taxes or even the 35% top tax
> bracket if you are a mark to market day trader.
>
> It doesn't matter if the market goes up or down, you always have
> a bull, or a bear going up, you just have to stay very focussed.
> When it rises, let it run until you grab your gain. If it goes into
> reverse, you sell at market price instantly.
>
> These are fast movers, so you can't leave your screen once you buy
> one. But the market rarely runs in one direction more than 3 hours.
> Take your restroom or food breaks only after you have sold your position.

>
>
> Mark to market people can deduct their losses from the gains, everyone
> else will have to throw their losses away because of the wash sale
> rule.

A Market Pullback Would Be Healthy

I agree with you also Jeff, which scares me because when there is such smart money agreement, I get worried. Not that it's a shorter's market, but that so many people think so, crowds of consensus usually seem to miss the mark, but they are pry right also 30% of the time.

A Trend-Follower Positions for 2009

I was wondering if anyone could help me out today; namely, if you examine the ETF BGZ (3x bear large cap) it shows a meek gain, though the index it tracks was much lower. There are some BGZ holders pissed that this ETF did not leverage today's declines effectively, the Russell 1000, I believe. However, one commentator wrote that the spread between NAV and pps today were so wide that this created the problem. Can anyone explain or point to where I could study how the effects of the NAV spread (premium/discount) make an ETF (3x) move relative to its index? Thanks.

Sirius' Future Looks More Promising Than Ever

Siri looked 'more promising' at $9 pps; why? Because of the hype, where's the hype gone? Some say it doesn't deserve 12 cents pps, pry not, but why not? Is there a cent of profit? I love the service (lifetime sub), and I think that if any firm can get TARP money (cars, steel, housing)--then give it to SIRI also, they will show a profit in time, they need a loan/refi at good terms now, and the FCC can be said to be part of the problem with their incredibly long and stupid merger process, so let the Feds make up for it. I just hope some of that GM money finds its way to the Siri coffers, where it can do some good.

Iraq Production, Conservation Could Keep Oil Price in Check for Years

I think oil supply problems are exaggerated for speculative profit, I believe that Big Oil purposely capped Iraq at 1.5MM/bbl in line with OPEC quotas and on par with Iran's quotas, as well. We won't see increased production (6MM) nor any need for increased production, the price of crude may rise dramatically, but it won't be for lack of supply.

Where Will Oil End 2009?

...does anyone have an opinion on what Obama's strategy for petrodollars is going to be? That is, will he cozy up to Chavez and allow him to skirt the World Bank, as part of renewed Latin American relations; will he favor a range of oil to trade only in a band, say $50-60/bbl like Clinton to appease OPEC, Russia; or will he favor lower oil across the board if only in the short-term as a means towards stimulus (I wouldn't say long term as I personally think he'd have to help prop up the price by the end of the year)?

Sirius' Future Looks More Promising Than Ever

I agree, though I'd also say that within the next 6 months, I could see it going to 36 cents, which is to say it wouldn't surprise me in the least, in fact, why bottom out at 12 or 8 or any low number, 36 is as good as anything else when you're looking just towards the future, and if they get the refinancing behind them, they have the R/S looming to pull out of the bag, they will also, going forward, pry state a lot of reductions in expenses with the merger and also tightening the belts, it could easily be a 300% gain, and that's just in the short term...and this an odd question, perhaps someone out there who's in the know could answer this, but how many satellites do they have total (on ground, in orbit), and how many do they really need, isn't there anyone willing to lease a few satellites, I had thought such might be another revenue stream.

On Jan 02 11:50 AM sl62 wrote:

> Sorry Brandon, while I agree with your basic premise, I can't agree
> with how you are getting there in every case.
>
> What I will agree with you on is shorts bet the farm on BK and thus
> the .12 (and as low as .111 as they took it (the .08 recorded .52wk
> low was a one trade spike). But the point is, they bet the farm on
> either "actual" BK or "the concept" of BK, and for which they will
> be rewarded once they decide to reconcile their positions (and some
> that have been already). Either way, it was a successful 1.65 to
> .11 takedown...so I guess bully for them.
>
> Now we sit here at the bottom, awaiting imminent reconciliation from
> both the company and SP. This company and stock price will ALWAYS
> be not what the company "IS" but what the company "CAN" or "WILL"
> be someday. Back in 2003, when the SP hit .38, it would have been
> (and probably was) called a broken penney stock (as how most detractors
> seem to love to refer to it) but then was no different than now in
> how the Street will respond if they believe once again in "the future."
> With stocks like this even a short-term future works for the Street
> because if nothing else, it gives traders and short-term investors
> a great vehicle in which to make some money. Back in 2003 it was
> Howard and then Mel coming aboard. Now, even in the face of the LT
> debt picture, as details begin coming out about partner contract
> re-negotiations, debt restructuring, possible new significant investor
> stakes via Preferred being taken in the company, positive Q releases,
> and who knows what else (of which the possibilities are enumerable),
> you will once again see what happens when the Street wants another
> (then more stable) piece of this company. Don't forget, the company
> has no debt due in 2010 and Howard's contract is not up until the
> END of 2010 (which is a full two years out still--so whether he's
> going to retire or not, means little at this stage). Two years from
> now is way too far off to know what anything will look like. Everyone
> knows that "Buy and Hold" (for more than 1 or 2 years) in the general
> market has ended. Investors and traders alike are now focused on
> looking for plays that will give them a decent return within 6 months
> to 1 year or 18 months. As SIRI begins to "manage" (or maybe "disarm"
> is a better word) the current toxicity it carries, it will be looking
> pretty damn good over the next 12-18 months. It is for these reasons
> I believe that the company will begin to see an SP rally in '09 (without
> a reverse). If later this year, they decide to reverse, it will be
> more of a positive because they won't be doing it in dire straits
> (and probably would be a good move overall). They know that and aren't
> stupid, so don't look for any reverse prior to, I would say June.
> Reverses aren't always a bad thing. When done in desperation, they
> will attract flies because they stink. When done in times of upturn,
> they are looked at as positives and can foster better sentiment.
> But it should not be assumed that just because a company winds up
> with "less shares out" they cannot still be shorted back to from
> whence they came (and then worse because of the split factor).

>
>
> Will SIRI's LT problems disappear in the next 3-6 months? Hell no.
> They will still have some viability issues no matter what, looking
> out to 2014. But the market doesn't look at 2014 in 2009. It looks
> at 2009 and some of 2010. And given the moves the company can and
> will make (without a BK), the market I believe will applaud these
> moves and view them as a great short-term story. Frankly, that's
> all some of us into this company are focused on also. From here on
> out, given the company's now 10 year SP history in relation to where
> it is today, that's probably all any investors at any given time
> will be looking at from this company. Not many will be willing to
> throwing SIRI shares in a drawer for the next 10 years, or even 5
> years for that matter. Regardless, that would just not be sound for
> anyone (smart OR dumb) IMHO...

Congress Considers Bailing Out Its Ethanol Mistakes

...is corn is safer than importing oil? Well dependence upon anything pry incurs risk. But what is the sustainability of ethanol during the next 3-5 year drought?

I ask this because it's not at all outside the realm of reason and probably will occur (i.e, as it did in the mid-to-late 30's, early-60's, late-80's); in fact, we're pry due, though proponents of ethanol see only good weather, year in and year out, decade after decade as a given, in fact they have to as an underlying assumption of its sheer sustainability.

On Dec 27 01:37 AM M-F wrote:

> Corn ethanol will be a bridge to cellulosic ethanol and perhaps ethanol
> from 'sugarcorn' a promising new plant which has no kernels or cobs.

>
>
> We have simply relied on the free market to give us cheap oil for
> too long and hoped that cartels and political instability would go
> away. Well, with war in the Middle East and the recent $150/bbl price
> in oil, it makes sense for the US to ultimately replace 25% of it's
> gasoline with ethanol. It can be part of the solution.
>
> Of course corn ethanol doesn't yield as much energy as oil, but you
> have to see the big picture and take off the geek hat with the propellor
> on top. If the US imports 70% of it's oil and most of those imports
> become unavailable, the US national security is put at a severe risk.
> So oil is the cheapest source of energy right now... this doesn't
> mean we put our head in the sand for another 5 years until the next
> oil embargo, war or price spike. We need US energy independence ASAP...
> and I don't see a better plan on the table with a reasonable chance
> of being implemented. Get real everyone.

The Real Rationale Behind Current Supply and Demand for Oil and Other Commodities

well said, and let me reiterate your point:

"It's the end of December now and the annual Russian government stockpile palladium shipment has NOT showed up in Switzerland. Maybe the Russian palladium stockpile sale has finally ended for good. It's in Russia's strategic defense stockpile."

In fact, the cited link ("stockpile palladium shipment") is a .pdf and its 2nd paragraph reads: “Russia, the largest producer and holder of palladium stocks, did not ship large quantities of palladium to Switzerland in December 2005, as we had expected. Instead, shipments to the US hit a record monthly high in December and this, together with a large shipment to Switzerland in January, indicates an acceleration of Russian palladium shipments.”

I've never seen 3 things so misleading in just one sentence of a Contributor's article, namely: "It's the end of December now and the annual Russian government stockpile palladium shipment has NOT showed up in Switzerland":

(1) it's true that the Russians didn't send their stockpile in December but that was 2005; (2) they sent it in January 2006; and (3) and there was was/is no defensive stockpile hoarding, in fact they've sent it every year since.

For a more current and straightforward article concerning CURRENT Russian shipments and production, please see, "The Russian palladium stockpile - do we need to worry?":

www.mineweb.net/minewe...

"From 1999 - 2007 inclusive, the net movement of Russian palladium amounted to 11.4 million ounces or 354 tonnes. During this period there was one year, 2002, in which Russian metal was withdrawn from the market; over the other eight years, inventory movements averaged 1.5 million ounces per annum."

On Dec 26 09:21 PM montyman wrote:

> OMG!!! ALERT!!
>
> I checked out the article that M.A. claims shows a missed shipment
> of Palladium to Switzerland this December. The article is from 2005-06!!
> To add insult to injury, the article concludes by saying that the
> lowered shipment in December was made up for by a larger shipment
> in January (of 2006) !!
>
> What a liar! Seeking Alpha needs to ban this guy NOW!!!!!!!
>
> (From having read his previous articles, it's seems to me this Mark
> Anthony guy has some kind of "complex". I don't mean to hurl insults,
> but rather to warn other readers.)

The Real Rationale Behind Current Supply and Demand for Oil and Other Commodities

"It's the end of December now and the annual Russian government stockpile palladium shipment has NOT showed up in Switzerland. Maybe the Russian palladium stockpile sale has finally ended for good."

--the linked cited in the article, concerning the ANNUAL Russian palladium stockpile in Switzerland is 3 years old