Good for you! I've got to admit though, you're braver than I. I am still wary of options trading since I barely know what I'm doing with stocks. Having said that I wish I had short privileges on my account over this past year or so. Of course picking what to short isn't much different than what to buy, but with much worse consequences when you're wrong.
As for GLD, I owned CEF. which is pretty similar. I sold it a bunch of times, often too early, and had to rebuy it to continue with the upside a few times too. I bought back in each time with a smaller position. I still made a lot, but would have made double or triple had I just left it alone.
ABX (Barrick) seems to trade just like gold and I watched it go from 39 to finally 47 last week over FM/FM. The last big scare in the spring it hit 53 (when gold was 1037). It's PE is stupid (40:1) which stopped me from buying it at 39. It's funny, fundamentals don't seem to matter with these type of fear stocks.
I am mostly cash right now (60% or so) with small holdings in two mutuals, some CIBC, and Uranium, which is down 47% since I bought it. I don't know why I didn't dump it, I guess I'm just stubborn (and dumb).
Good for you! I've got to admit though, you're braver than I. I am still wary of options trading since I barely know what I'm doing with stocks.
Well..basically my account is so small that if I didn't trade options, I wouldn't be able to move enough volume to make the brokerage fees worth it. Deep in the money options that are at least a couple of weeks from expiration behave very much like the underlying stock, just cheaper. The deeper you are in the money, the more expensive the option is, but also the less you have to worry about time decay and changes in implied volatility. I definitely understand that it's not without risks, but the money I'm trading is money I can afford to lose if something disastrous happens. Actually, it seems to me that the bigger risk is trading commodity ETFs. The futures trade 24/5, but the ETF only trades 9:30 to 4:00. There's a potential for things to move against you overnight and blow through your stops on the open. With options, being short is no different from being long at all. Just buy puts instead of calls.
My biggest struggle initially was learning to back off my stops enough to give things room to move. I kept setting them too tight and getting stopped out. I think my next big adjustment is going to be moving from trading single swings to letting things run out a bit longer. I'm killing myself on brokerage fees and slippage at this point, although it was definitely a good thing for me when I realized that I could haggle the slippage using limit orders. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
...I definitely understand that it's not without risks, but the money I'm trading is money I can afford to lose if something disastrous happens. Actually, it seems to me that the bigger risk is trading commodity ETFs. The futures trade 24/5, but the ETF only trades 9:30 to 4:00.
...
Actually I prefer futures instead of options, but that's just me.
It's necessary to pick a contract that will expire quickly, like maybe within 4 months (depends).
Why not just pick a contract that won't expire until next year?
If money was that easy to make then we can all be rich!
Most of the action / movement happens near the end of a future's contracts expiration like the last couple months.
So if I bought a 1 year contract I'd be sitting there for the first 6 months twiddling my thumbs while almost nothing happens.
Basically I'm forced to pick a contract that will expire quickly....in other words I have to "time" the market.
You've heard people say: "In a bull market it's pretty easy to make money. Just buy and hold and you'll eventually make money."
yes and no
If you're playing an un-leveraged position by actually purchasing the security then yes that would be true.
But a futures contract might expire within 3 months and even in a bull market prices can be at the exact same level (or even lower) within 3 months.
I think the futures market have been unfairly given the reputation as being super complex. I disagree.
In fact I think the actual mechanics is pretty simple.
However making money is definitely more "tricky" because timing is paramount. Simply taking a buy position in a bull market isn't good enough for the futures market.
The entry point MUST be timed.
Anybody who wants to make "corrections" to what I said above feel free.
The only thing that keeps me out of futures is that I don't have enough capital. My account isn't big enough to leverage to 1000 barrels of crude (or even a 500 barrel MiNY contract). An option contract on USO gets me about 150 barrels of leverage depending on the delta of the option. That's a good starting point for me and I can pyramid up if things are going well. If I had $25,000 in my trading account, I'd probably start trading the MiNY contracts. I think that it really is a huge advantage for your stops to work the whole time the market is open. I'm in put options on USO right now. If the US decides to bomb Iran unexpectedly tonight, I could be in for some serious pain by time the options markets open at 9:30. If you were in the actual futures, you'd get out a lot closer to your actual stop. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 1:13 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
Once again I will post links to the following charts as the images are too big and they distort the screen. Click on Full Size for best results. Thanks.
EUR/JPY looks toppish at 170. I certainly think it could come tumbling down on any risk reversal scenario. However, JPY is still an important funding currency with lending rates around 1% p.a., so given that credit conditions are tight it would still make sense to fund in yen if possible.
Never the less, separating naked speculation from funding plays we see that NZD, and to a lesser degree AUD, have been sold-off. That indicates to me that the hot money flows into those two obvious carry trades are unwinding to some extent. If I look at another global risk barometer like ZAR I also see a steady sell-off in recent weeks.
The US dollar is the obvious beneficiary in the short-term as many players have simply been positioned to be short USD, and now they are closing those open positions as commodities come down and the stock market corrects from being over-sold. That in turn has taken some shine off gold's safe-haven status.
We can only see major bottoms in hindsight, but I would still treat this as a relief rally, partially in response to rule changes surrounding short-selling, and not as a major reversal and the start of a new bull rally.
Quote:
Bank of America's (BAC) up 72% in five days. That's beyond ludicrous. So my first point is obvious: These are not normal times.
The second point is the rapidity of the move. What happened? Yes, the company reported better-than-terrible earnings, but discerning people know how they managed it: Assuming the worst was over, they lowered reserve requirements.
But even this would be met by buying in a more intelligent way. Certainly sellers would disagree with buyers, given the evidence, so any rise in the stock would be much more moderate if driven by purely fundamental forces.
But the bottom in the stock coincided with an arcane rule change by the SEC. The change seems so innocuous to a normal investor that it's beneath most people's radar. But for those borrowing the stock to short it, the rule change has been a nightmare - and it was orchestrated to be one.
Short selling's still possible, but 3 things have changed: First, there was a temporary shortage of borrowing, thus forcing a fair amount of shorts to cover. Second, the cost of borrowing has risen, such that the marginal short seller has left the market. Finally, sellers' psychology has changed: They ask, “Will the SEC make the rules even more onerous, so that I maybe shouldn’t short at all?” The objective has been accomplished: A vacuum of selling on the upside.
The situation's getting worse, not better, for credit markets and for the consumers they're lending to. The American Express (AXP) report showed that plainly: Amex was down $4 yesterday, when the rest of the financials went screaming higher. Bank of America, which has significant credit card exposure, rose 7% in an hour and a half.
So much for truth tellers.
And now the Feds are close to bailing out Fannie Mae (FNM) and Freddie Mac (FRE). At the same time, our foreign lenders (China alone owns about $400 billion in GSE debt) have undoubtedly been calling Mr. Paulson at home. Does it instill confidence in our capital markets, as Mr. Paulson gives the "raison de jour" to bailout these companies? As the list of companies bailed out grows, I would think it does the opposite.
As the price of these stocks rise, we'll start to see secondary stock offerings. The companies caught in one of the most massive short squeezes in history are in desperate need of capital. The Fed needs them to raise capital, because it's lending directly to them.
The shuffle game continues. But the game does nothing to change the reality: The system has a massive need for capital.
When buying these stocks, remember that a vacuum has been created on the downside. Short sellers produce demand for stocks as they go down. If there's no short interest (and something bad happens), this source of buying is gone.
Risk is very high.
Source: Minyanville's Mr. Practical: dissecting The Short Squeeze
By Mr. Practical
www.minyanville.com _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2778 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 3:19 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
smallpoxgirl wrote:
If the US decides to bomb Iran unexpectedly tonight, I could be in for some serious pain by time the options markets open at 9:30.
So would the Iranians.
I can just imagine the scene. You wake up, put on some coffee and turn on the news: "Reuters reports that several hundred US and Israeli warplanes are bombing Iranian targets, beginning ten minutes ago. Attacks are still under way. Iranian officials say 2000 civilians have already been killed, that they are mining the straits of Hormuz and have sunk one aircraft carrier with anti-ship missiles and "martyr boats"."
SPG's proverbial jaw hits her breakfast table. She then panicks and runs to her computer, screaming incoherently just to face... the dreaded windows bluescreen.
The poor neighbours hear her screams, thinking she has kin deployed in the area. But oh no, something much more precious is at stake.
_________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 7:06 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
MrBill Gross on Cows, Bulls and Udder Stuff
Quote:
The deflating U.S./global asset markets are much like Churchill’s Russia: a riddle wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma. “Who is driving delevering?” asks the Financial Times, and the answer comes back, “all of us;” yet it is hard to see it except in the headlines or to fix it, given a lineup of 6.8 billion suspects. Accustomed to the inevitable credit expansion spawned in the bowels of WWII finance, investors wonder why levered government agencies, banks and hedge funds must sell assets, raise capital or in the extreme, meet the market’s grim reaper in bankruptcy court. Aside from cyclical contractions and a brief bout of deflationary monetary policy in the Volkerian 80s, credit has always been available and at a relatively cheap price. Credit and debt finance is, in fact, the mother’s milk of capitalism: without it, entrepreneurs may transact, but economic progress would be most difficult with seashells or gold bars for mediums of exchange. And so governments and modern day central banks do their best to provide just enough milk in the form of credit to their economies so that business and employment thrive, while the rancid taste of inflation is disguised.
Yet credit creation modeled after mother’s or better yet – cow’s milk – is not always a predictable event. Almost always the milkmaid or modern-day farmhand is blessed with an ever increasing pail of the white elixir. Occasionally, however, because of irritable bovine bowel syndrome or just bad grass, Old Bessie doesn’t produce. So it is in today’s financial markets. Debtors in need of more milk are squeezing the teat and not much is coming out. And this deflating supply of credit is in effect the financial market’s version of Mad Cow disease. It can be deadly.
Quote:
While the ultimate explanation rests with a host of factors associated with leverage, financial derivatives, lax regulation, and indeed the sociological willingness of the investment public to take excessive risk in search of diminishing returns, let’s just simplistically point – in keeping with our bovine analogy – to the one asset that best typifies all of these fragilities. Let’s blame it on the barn, or if you must, home prices. Here is one asset that all observers can agree is going down in price for justifiable reasons. Maybe not Donald Trump’s Palm Beach mansion at $95 million big ones – thank you very much – but everybody else’s. They’re going down because quite simply, they went up too much and were financed with excessive debt. The housing bubble was well inflated by low interest rates, easy, and in some cases fraudulent credit, a lack of federal and state regulation, and a gullible public who read the history books for the past half century and knew full well that home prices never, ever go down. Not much of an enigma there. No riddle to be solved it would seem. It was simply a fairy tale too good to be true.
Yet housing, unlike other asset classes, carries with it an aura more like a bad dream than a fairy tale. Unlike the frog that when kissed turns into a handsome prince, housing can morph a froglike economy into something resembling Godzilla. That is because it is the most levered asset class and the one held by more “investor” citizens than any other. U.S. homes are market valued at over 20 trillion dollars with nearly half of the value supported by mortgage finance of one sort or another. At first blush that appears to be reasonably levered, but at the margin, homes purchased in 2004 and beyond are now at risk of turning upside down – negative equity – and there are some 25 million or so of those. The “upsidedownness” in many cases results in foreclosures, or outright abandonment and most certainly serves as an example of what not to do for millions of twenty-somethings or new citizens choosing between homeownership and renting. The dominoes fall month-by-month, forcing prices ever lower as shown in Chart 1 provided by Case-Shiller. An asset deflation in turn becomes a debt deflation, as subprimes, alt-As, and finally prime mortgages surrender to the seemingly inevitable tide. PIMCO estimates a total of 5 trillion dollars of mortgage loans are in risky asset categories and that nearly 1 trillion dollars of cumulative losses will finally mark the gravestone of this housing bubble. The problem with writing off 1 trillion dollars from the finance industry’s cumulative balance sheet is that if not matched by capital raising, it necessitates a sale of assets, a reduction in lending or both that in turn begins to affect economic growth, creating what Mohamed El-Erian fears as a “negative feedback loop.”
Quote:
A trillion dollars is a lot of money, but in this age of photoshop wizardry it seems that experts can make just about anyone or anything look good. Lose a trillion? Well, just write it off a little more slowly, or suggest that mark-to-market accounting is not applicable to banks and investment banks. As a matter of fact it may not be. GaveKal’s Anatole Kaletsky points out that “the whole point of a bank is to exchange short-term, liquid liabilities for long-term illiquid assets whose value is hard to gauge. This liquidity and maturity transformation, in fact is the main social function that a banking system provides.” I and others on PIMCO’s Investment Committee wholeheartedly agree. But the reluctance to remark rancid mortgage loans rests on the heretofore inevitable conclusion that home prices will bottom and then reflate within a reasonable period of time. If they go down even more, and stay down, well then Washington – Wall Street – and ultimately, Main Street – we have a problem. That is why Hank Paulson and in turn Christopher Cox are waving their independent but coordinated wands in an effort to 1) prevent a market run on the price of bank and investment bank stocks until there is enough time to reflate the U.S. housing market, and 2) ultimately recapitalize our primary mortgage lenders – FNMA and Freddie Mac. An interesting press release by the CBO on July 22nd, by the way, points out that the GSEs are barely solvent (9 billion dollars) when their assets are valued at current market prices. Housing’s cow needs to turn into a bull real quick.
Make no mistake, the current conundrum that must be solved is: how to make the price of 120 million U.S. barns stop going down in price and then to make them go up again. That, however, is easier said than done. One of the wisest men I know has this serious but admittedly impractical solution: have the government buy one million new/unoccupied homes, blow them up, and then start all over again. Absent that, he’s not quite sure what to do, nor am I, with the exception of the next paragraph’s proposal.
Quote:
Up until this point, the joint efforts of the Fed and the Treasury have been directed towards maintaining the stability of our major financial institutions, recapitalizing their balance sheets in “current form,” and lowering the cost of mortgage credit. All are crucial to any solution, but it is this third and last point where markets have failed to cooperate. With Fed Funds having been lowered from 5¼% to 2%, it would have been logical to assume that the price of mortgage credit would go down as well and that the price of homes would at least slow their current descent. Not so. As Chart 2 points out, the yield on a 30-year agency mortgage-backed loan has actually risen since the Fed somewhat unexpectedly began to lower Fed Funds in early September of 2007. Add to that of course, the increased fees, points, and total spread that an actual homebuyer pays to finance his purchase now as opposed to then, and it is obvious that homes are not the bargains that starving realtors claim they might be. Financial asset prices, as well as those for homes, are really the discounted present value of what investors believe those assets will be worth far into the future. When the discount rate – in this case a 30-year mortgage – rises faster than the expectations for home prices themselves – then the price of a home falls. 7% + “all in” yields for current home financing, in contrast to prior periods of monetary easing, are lowering, not raising the discounted present value of an existing home. Blow them up? Well, yes, I suppose if we could. But absent that, lowering the cost of mortgage credit via the omnibus housing/GSE bill now placed before the Congress and the President is the best way to begin the long journey back to normalcy.
To return the housing, cow milking, asset price deflating metaphor to its broader context, the increasing price of credit is a common denominator worldwide in the delevering process which it drives, or in turn, is driven by. If the cost of credit – the discount rate for present value – would go down, then asset prices would be better supported. Stocks wouldn’t sink so fast, commercial real estate wouldn’t wobble so, and Donald Trump wouldn’t have to exaggerate as often about how rich he is (make sure to buy T-Bills or GSE mortgages with that $95 million, Donald – if it closes). But the cost of credit is going up, not down, in contrast to prior cycles, because astute investors recognize the myriad of global imbalances that threaten future stability. In addition to home prices, $130 a barrel oil and their resultant distortion of global wealth and financial flows head that list. For now, investors should remain in high quality assets – until – until, well…until the prospect for home prices points skyward or until the cows come home, whichever one’s first.
Source: Investment Outlook _________________ The organized state is a wonderful invention whereby everyone can live at someone else's expense.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2778 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Thu Jul 24, 2008 9:58 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
Quote:
Christmas rarely comes in July
In spite of many analysts’ attempts to talk up the financial sector, we are still staring into the abyss, writes portfolio manager Kristoffer Stensrud [known as "the Warren Buffet of Scandinavia"] in a guest commentary in Norwegian financial daily, Dagens Naeringsliv.
16.07.2008
It was expected that the markets would breathe a sigh of relief after a nerve-racking weekend, when the fate of two guarantors for half of the outstanding 12 trillion dollars in US mortgages was decided in the bondholders’ favour. This occurred after the dramatic weekend just before Easter when investment bank Bear Stearns was saved by taxpayers via J.P. Morgan.
The outcome was not the same this time round. Despite many analysts’ attempts to talk up the financial sector, we are still staring into the abyss. Losses seem to be accelerating and investors’ desire to make up the losses up is falling. It seems that national banks are – as they should be – the lenders of last resort. This will not contribute to shareholders’ values being the first to be safeguarded. On the contrary. With public support comes public control. That the sector should subsequently give returns which are better than risk-free interest rates seems optimistic.
A good parallel may be found historically in the latest IT crash. From the peak in March 2000 to the trough on 9 October 2002, median shares (S&P technology) fell by a whole 81 percent. It is not difficult to work out that the process took two years and six months. The financial meltdown by comparison has so far taken one year and scarcely one quarter, the peak being 20 February 2007. The median share has not even halved. As of Friday 11 July, it has fallen by 40 percent, even after a long line of well-publicised catastrophes.
It is also worth noting that before 1982, financials constituted a very modest proportion of the world index. That was not particularly surprising. The sector was strictly regulated, return on net capital was poor, historically achieved results were weak and, since they largely owned financial assets, equity capital eroded somewhat more rapidly than inflation. Two separate circumstances caused the sector to grow considerably. The first was when the Japanese financial institutions went from having a well-founded fundamental history in the early 80s to experiencing super speculation in the late 80s. The aftermath proved to be gloomy; Japanese bankers’ share of the world index is 0.9 percent compared to almost 20 percent on Christmas Eve 1989.
Global financial companies’ share of the world index, which now consists of huge US banks and trans-European giants, rose from less than 10 percent in 2000 to 28 percent in the spring of 2007. As of Friday, the share has fallen to 19.8 percent, after inclusion of Chinese and Indian banks which had previously not been open to investment. It is still the leading global sector. The next biggest group (according to the rough MSCI evaluation) is energy, which even after having seen the oil price double over the past 12 months, only constitutes 13.9 percent. The sector (ex Asia) is now trading at book value. This can only be reasonable to a certain extent, because no one really knows what the equity capital is. But it doesn’t look like we are going to get return on equity in the near future.
The lesson once again seems to be: be wary of investing in the index and apparent values. Many asset holders thought finance gave value for money last year because the key figures were low. It has since become apparent that the key figures were wrong. A reality check would have revealed this – did the finance sector really stand for 28 percent of the world’s value creation last spring? With this as the backdrop, the rest of the investment year 2008 will probably be more focused on real rather than imaginary value creation.
Posted: Fri Jul 25, 2008 12:18 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
Excellent reality-check piece! Thanks Starvid.
Quote:
Natural Gas Weekly
NYMEX natural gas selloff: too much, too soon
US natural gas likely undervalued, as we approach the peak of hurricane season with below-average inventories
After the significant selloff in US natural gas prices seen so far this
month, we believe NYMEX natural gas prices are currently undervalued. Warmer-than-average weather forecasts for the coming weeks, combined with signs of a stronger-than-normal hurricane season, reinforce the risk that inventories, which are still below 5-year average levels, will not reach full by the end of October without an increase in US LNG imports. Accordingly, we
maintain our NYMEX natural gas price forecasts for average August-October 2008 and the 2008/2009 winter at $12.90/mmBtu and $13.40/mmBtu, respectively. However, given the large inventory builds from the past two weeks, the possibility of a faster-than-expected refill of US natural gas inventories in the coming weeks/months poses a downside risk to our price forecast.
Opening trade recommendation: Long NYMEX natural gas
Following our view that US natural gas prices are now undervalued, we are opening a long October 2008 NYMEX natural gas trading recommendation.
source: Goldman Sachs Commodities Research
July 24, 2008
UPDATE: ECB forced to go it alone as Fed shirks and PBoC smirks
Quote:
Reuters) - The U.S. Federal Reserve should raise interest rates to stem the slide in the value of the dollar and curb global inflationary pressure, European G7 sources have told Reuters, but concede they are unlikely to get their wish.
With the euro hitting record highs against the dollar and the European Central Bank raising interest rates to combat inflation, euro zone G7 officials are getting very frustrated with U.S. policy. There is no coordination, said the senior officials from monetary and economic policy circles.
They are also frustrated by China. European G7 officials said Beijing could do more to help the world financial system by raising rates, but is constrained by domestic politics.
The absence of action in the face of a year-old credit crunch, soaring inflation and stagnating growth has left many investors fearful that the world economy could slip into its most perilous state since the Great Depression of the 1930s.
Joined: Feb 20, 2005 Posts: 2778 Location: Uppsala, Sweden
Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 2:07 pm Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
Here
comes a guy from the same fund company my last post was from. I have a considerable fraction of my savings in the fund this guy manages. I also have direct share ownership in some of the companies owned by the fund.
Quote:
AAA-rated global equity manager turns bearish on raw materials
By Danielle Levy | 06:30:00 | 22 July 2008
Citywire AAA-rated Weintraub, who manages the Skagen Global fund, believes the raw materials sector is looking increasingly overvalued, particularly as costs rise.
Weintraub, who has been AAA-rated for 17 months, says that aside from a few outstanding materials companies, he is still ‘extremely cautious’ on the sector. Despite attractive valuations, he believes growth in the sector has already been recognised and tends to be overpriced – particularly as he sees a ‘mountain of cost over-runs’.
Since Citywire last spoke to Weintraub in April, the AAA-rated manager says that despite being a long-term investor he has paused and taken heed of ‘extreme developments’ in the form of what he calls the ‘second tranche of lower credibility in the system’. He says this is typified by the recent shareprice falls and rescue plans for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, alongside soaring commodities prices.
In fact, earlier in the year Weintraub switched some of his oil services exposure to natural gas companies. He says this has been a profitable decision, highlighting his position in Nabors as a key contributor to recent performance and also his reluctance to take an active view on the direction of commodities prices.
However, that is not to say that Weintraub has gone completely cold on oil services companies: the AAA-rated manager still has large stakes in Pride International and Petrobras.
Financials, on the other hand, is an area Weintraub is now steering clear of.
‘For many years the sector has contributed around 27% of overall company earnings, particularly in the US. Is it sustainable? It is absurd to think how much of your money goes into financials. They created a securitised this and that and now it has come home to roost. Earnings will not be as sustainable as was once thought,’ he says.
Weintraub is expecting further writedowns, particularly as he points out there were problems in the sector before the general market downturn. ‘This is the hangover from the previous party. They have not necessarily started the writedowns of the normal cycle going forward,’ he says.
Yet Weintraub’s stockpicks within the financial sector have not all spelled doom and gloom. He has benefited from Bank Austria, which sits in his top 10 holdings and has been in his portfolio since 2003, following its takeover by Unicredito. ‘We were not too happy with the price but when a stock is up 400%, one shouldn’t be bitter,’ he says.
The AAA-rated manager is also bullish on the fund’s new position in Societe Fonciere, Financiere et de Participations, which is the holding company of Peugeot amongst others. This holding allows him to gain access to Peugeot at a 40% discount, he says. Despite being cautious on the autos sector, he points to the firm’s relatively new management team which is starting to restructure the business and to the outsourcing of production to lower cost countries which translates to ‘internal potential for cost-cutting to create value’.
‘It is one of those situations where it is a consumer stock in an over-supplied sector, but it is an opportunity at the right price,’ he says.
He also points out that Peugeot is a leading producer of small diesel engines and so stands to benefit from rising energy costs and a growing environmental consciousness, particularly as fuel regulations will make the production of gas-guzzling cars more expensive and less attractive to the consumer.
Over the three years to the end of June, Weintraub has posted a 43.1% return in euro terms with the Skagen Global fund compared to a 3.7% rise by the FTSE World TR index.
More interesting than the 43 % mentioned above, the 10-year annual increase is 20 %. That's not luck. _________________ Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 7:59 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
I have CEF stock and a few junior mining stocks (Canadian companies). They are OTC listed. I was wondering what would happen to the value of these stocks if the US $ completely tanks or we go into hyper-inflation? Can I go to Canada and redeem them in Canadian dollars? (assuming their $ doesn't also collapse). It seems alot of countries are no longer interested in US $$ - so it would be nice to have an alternative in the event of a collapse.
Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2008 8:45 am Post subject: Re: Trader's Corner 2008
tugboat wrote:
I have CEF stock and a few junior mining stocks (Canadian companies). They are OTC listed. I was wondering what would happen to the value of these stocks if the US $ completely tanks or we go into hyper-inflation? Can I go to Canada and redeem them in Canadian dollars? (assuming their $ doesn't also collapse). It seems alot of countries are no longer interested in US $$ - so it would be nice to have an alternative in the event of a collapse.
Do you know if they're exchange traded in Canada? I know I was looking at Bombardier which is a French Canadian Company. You can buy Bombardier OTC in the US, but it's actively traded on the Toronto Exchange in Canadian $. With ETrade you can convert funds into CAD$ and trade stocks on the Toronto exchange. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
