Seeking Alpha


Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View ilc's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Stock Market: Non-Standard Behavior [View article]
    "the temporal sequence of the selling seems to suggest a different trigger than the election outcome altogether, namely very bad economic news coming out of Europe." - Misses the point. As ZeroHedge has been stating for weeks, the Europeans (and likely the media) held up some bad news, including a report on Greece, deliberately because of the U.S. election. Something about the Obama administration asking to not have any surprises. The point is, there was always going to be a wave of bad news (pent-up) as soon as the election was over. Those who saw it coming, bet accordingly. P.S., along the same lines, guess what else is going to happen in the next few weeks? The unemployment rate will be revised slightly upward. Again, now that the election is over.
    Nov 8, 2012. 10:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • 4 ETFs For The Presidential Election [View article]
    Because Romney wants U.S. energy independence (which, he has made clear, includes natural gas, solar, nuclear and more domestically-produced oil), you think an oil fund with the name "United States" in it will do well? I hope not, because that would be one stupid suggestion. Oil is basically fungible, worldwide. The name of the futures fund has nothing to do with it. As to factors driving its price: Increased U.S. oil production may tend to weigh on the price of oil, but dollar weakening and continued EM demand will likely continue to weigh in the other direction, no matter who is elected. Are you suggesting that a Romney win would cause USO to swing down, then up? That may be rather too clever.
    Nov 5, 2012. 09:17 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The Scourge Of Central Banking [View article]
    "I'm not going to bother to explain it to you. I can tell you are set in your beliefs" - That's cowardly. Not only refusing to answer a *reasonable* question, but also trying to make it sound like the fault is with the person who dared ask it.
    Oct 11, 2012. 12:06 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Regime Change, Economist Style [View article]
    Spitballing here... just making up a theory, see if it works halfway.

    We know that velocity is the inverse of the demand for money, that is, the inverse of people's desire to hoard cash (or to deleverage).

    Greenspan/1987 began a new era in terms of the "Greenspan Put", Plunge Protection Team, manipulated markets, bubble-blowing and/or bailouts through low interest rates and monetary expansion, etc.

    Before the Greenspan bubble-blowing regime, people took profits as asset markets overheated / asset valuations stretched up, implying more cash hoarded / less velocity. People bought equity and other assets as their valuation levels tended downward, implying less cash hoarded / more velocity.

    After the Greenspan bubble-blowing regime (which continues today), people squeezed their cash balances to speculate on assets as their valuations stretched up, implying less cash hoarded / more velocity. People hoarded cash - in large part, courtesy of a Fed willing to supply tons of cash - as asset bubbles burst (valuations tended down), implying more cash hoarded / less velocity.

    Does the theory work? :-) Note that it talks about "asset valuations" broadly; not only the S&P. Which may be too much of a fudge factor.

    The gist would be that the bubble-blowing Fed changes the relationship between money and asset markets, so that people become less like value-oriented investors (buy low, hold, sell high) and more like speculators or "momentum" investors (buy when rising, sell when falling).
    Aug 29, 2012. 03:31 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Flags In Gold: Which Way Will The Wind Blow? [View article]
    Could you please stop calling it the "Weekly 100DMA", or the "100DMA" on a weekly chart?

    It's grating, because DMA means **DAILY** Moving Average. It has **DAILY** built into the term, by definition.

    The term you are looking for is simply "MA", which means Moving Average. As in, the "Weekly 100MA", or the 100MA of the weekly chart.

    It's right there, on the charts you include. says, for the GLD(Weekly), here is the MA(100). MA... Moving Average. Not DMA! Thanks.

    By the way, a 100-week MA is nearly a 500DMA (since there are usually 5 trading days in a week, excepting the occasional holiday). So, if you prefer, you could equivalently talk about the 500DMA. On a Weekly chart, a true 100DMA would be the MA(20), the 20-week MA.
    Aug 1, 2012. 09:13 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Asset Managers: A First Look At The Alternatives [View article]
    Sorry, I was joking - a bit too cryptically - toward a point that the article never offers a definition of "alternative" manager and I couldn't say what you mean by it.

    "Alternative" is one of those descriptors like "advanced", "next generation" and so forth, that people like to throw around but they don't mean a lot.

    As to FNGN: it is a large asset manager, is certainly not traditional, and at 61 times earnings, seems to be priced as a growth stock.
    Jul 11, 2012. 11:46 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Asset Managers: A First Look At The Alternatives [View article]
    No FNGN?
    Jul 10, 2012. 08:58 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Morgan Stanley's Failure To Segregate Client Assets Creates Default Risk [View article]
    "Allocated ownership means that the physical precious metals (bars and coins) you order from Morgan Stanley Smith Barney's Precious Metals Trading Desk are purchased and stored on your behalf, but no specific metal bar or coin is specifically identified as belonging to you. Your precious metals will be stored together with precious metals that are owned by and stored for other customers..."

    Hey - isn't the above basically what does? Do we trust If so, why do we trust them and not Morgan Stanley?
    Mar 24, 2012. 01:36 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Morgan Stanley's Failure To Segregate Client Assets Creates Default Risk [View article]
    It's worth pointing out that in the Great Depression, the dollar was defined as a fixed amount of gold. Roosevelt reduced the amount, from just under 1/20 oz. to 1/35 oz., and denied citizens the right to hold actual gold. But a fixed amount of gold, the dollar was and remained (e.g., in central bank transactions). To hoard dollars, was to hoard a rough approximation of gold.

    Not so, today. We should expect the collapse of a fiat-dollar regime to look very different from the collapse of a gold-dollar regime.
    Mar 24, 2012. 01:16 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • What's In The Cards For Timber ETF CUT? [View article]
    Your view of the timber industry, as being primarily about the paper industry, is curious. Ever heard of the construction industry? Land? Water rights? etc.
    Feb 12, 2012. 11:28 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • China's Hooverian Twist And The New Asian Financial Crisis [View article]
    Who said "China can't lose no matter what happens"? I know I didn't.

    China certainly can have a recession, a real estate crash, etc. But my comment addressed the yuan's persistent under-valuation relative to the dollar which is, again, driven by the structural US trade deficit with China. If you can think of a scenario where that goes down (e.g. U.S. imposes tariffs? China starts consuming a lot more? China abandons the dollar peg, lets the yuan appreciate?), then the situation changes.

    The article seems to assume that a China recession and/or real estate bust will auto-magically weaken the yuan's true value. It won't. As long as China remains "the world's factory" (i.e. productive), and the US permits its large trade deficit with China, the yuan will be subject to appreciation pressure, and the PBOC will have to print yuan if it still wants to maintain its "dollar peg" which under-values the yuan.
    Dec 21, 2011. 12:01 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • China's Hooverian Twist And The New Asian Financial Crisis [View article]
    This article ignores the actual nature of the yuan's undervaluation. The yuan is undervalued relative to the US dollar, and because of the US trade deficit with China which gives China an ever-growing surplus of dollars. Rather than let the yuan rise against the dollar to rectify the trade imbalance, China prints yuan to maintain its "dollar peg". The fact that China's real estate bubble bursts, does not change it. A proposed China recession does not change it. If anything, a China recession will reduce China's imports from the US (tariff or not) and thus widen the imbalance and make the yuan even more undervalued - relative to the dollar.

    In short, China recession and real estate decline do nothing to fix the yuan's undervaluation, relative to the dollar. And by the way, if real estate is no longer a good store of value for the Chinese people, their appetite for gold should be fueled even further (not cut), which benefits gold. Commodities probably will drop in the near term, but not by very much more. Demand for commodities is global; prices needn't fall much further, to get many other developing/EM countries (plus the U.S.) to pick up the slack from falling Chinese demand.
    Dec 20, 2011. 04:43 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • No Monetary Virgin: The ECB's Backdoor Easing [View article]
    levin70, whether money supply has increased depends on which one you are looking at. M0 has unquestionably skyrocketed. Also M1 and M2 have been up. M3 not so much; maybe that is the one you had in mind. But that's no surprise since M3 is mainly various forms of debt, and we're in a secular deleveraging cycle; the Fed juiced M0 in part to prevent an M3 collapse. M1, M2 and M3 are "higher than they would have been" without Fed action, so yes, Fed action to triple M0 (since 2008) has effectively increased the US money supply at all levels.
    Dec 18, 2011. 01:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • No Monetary Virgin: The ECB's Backdoor Easing [View article]
    I had the same thought: The Fed still has lots of MBS which are not saleable at current interest rates. But, it has a lot of Treasuries too. I take the main point as simply that the ECB's balance sheet quality is no better than the Fed's, and arguably worse.
    Dec 18, 2011. 01:43 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • No Monetary Virgin: The ECB's Backdoor Easing [View article]
    Mr. Kostohryz, did your article include a link to ECB balance sheet statistics? If not, could you add one?

    I'm looking on the ECB web site and so far, I have not found it. Of course, I'm not sure what to look for.
    Dec 17, 2011. 11:25 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment