polishlogician's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/326450/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/126466-housing-starts-rebound-don-t-get-too-excited?source=feed#comment-430073 430073
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?)]]> Tue, 17 Mar 2009 23:16:12 -0400
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?)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/114302-60-minutes-on-oil-did-anyone-verify-anything?source=feed#comment-356148 356148

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.
>
> ]]> Wed, 14 Jan 2009 22:14:08 -0500

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.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113920-global-earnings-downturn-only-25-done-citi?source=feed#comment-351299 351299
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.]]> Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:38:00 -0500
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/113593-a-market-pullback-would-be-healthy?source=feed#comment-350542 350542 Fri, 09 Jan 2009 08:53:22 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113088-a-trend-follower-positions-for-2009?source=feed#comment-346755 346755 Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:24:15 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/112919-sirius-future-looks-more-promising-than-ever?source=feed#comment-345720 345720 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:39:28 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113124-iraq-production-conservation-could-keep-oil-price-in-check-for-years?source=feed#comment-345650 345650 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:57:17 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/113035-where-will-oil-end-2009?source=feed#comment-345639 345639 Sun, 04 Jan 2009 14:47:43 -0500 http://seekingalpha.com/article/112919-sirius-future-looks-more-promising-than-ever?source=feed#comment-344531 344531
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...]]> Fri, 02 Jan 2009 17:21:59 -0500
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...]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112285-congress-considers-bailing-out-its-ethanol-mistakes?source=feed#comment-339123 339123
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.]]> Sat, 27 Dec 2008 03:22:28 -0500
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.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112291-the-real-rationale-behind-current-supply-and-demand-for-oil-and-other-commodities?source=feed#comment-339115 339115
"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.)]]> Sat, 27 Dec 2008 02:26:20 -0500
"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.)]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/112291-the-real-rationale-behind-current-supply-and-demand-for-oil-and-other-commodities?source=feed#comment-339111 339111
--the linked cited in the article, concerning the ANNUAL Russian palladium stockpile in Switzerland is 3 years old
]]> Sat, 27 Dec 2008 01:59:09 -0500
--the linked cited in the article, concerning the ANNUAL Russian palladium stockpile in Switzerland is 3 years old
]]>