Welcome to earnings Q4 season

[Charmin]

Wow Doc, are you shivering?

"Snow, sleet and freezing rain made a rare appearance in central Florida along the Interstate 4 corridor Saturday morning"

[Charmin]

Speaking of a housing recovery, this ought to help California recover a bit faster.

"Homeowners forced to buy flood insurance after FEMA redraws maps"

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-fl...0,6016681.story

 

as the guy says: ""Why would I pay this money for a claim I'm never going to make?" Parham said. "It's ludicrous. You are trying to keep a shelter over your head and trying to take care of the necessities of life, and then here comes a letter that says you have to do this."

 

mdporter ought to love it

[jickiss]

jickiss is back!

 

 

jickiss is back!

 

 

and

 

here is a link to comments and projections from Noland. currency turmoil and higher interest rates maybe in USA.....??????

 

a snippet:

 

"Until proven otherwise, I’ll project 2010 as a year of escalating Monetary Disorder – disorder globally across a broad spectrum of markets. A global Bubble would seem to ensure unsettled currency markets. Dollar optimism runs surprisingly high to begin the New Year. Yet the scenario of a dollar problem leading to a jump in U.S. borrowing costs still doesn’t seem all that nutty to me. Another spike in energy and commodities wouldn’t surprise me, but the best bet is numbing volatility. The emerging markets are poised for a wild year. And, of course, all eyes on interest rates."

 

from the very bottom of the following linked article by Noland:

 

http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/credi...ew?art_id=10329

[patents]

jickiss is back!

 

 

 

jickiss is back!

 

 

and,

 

. . .

 

there is time to type to Shorty; to wit:

 

Dear Shorty, your easy math analysis of the Coin that is needed to be the "Biggest Player in the Spoozer" is Most Excellent, and it should be required to be Recited by every PhD Candidate in Economics at Every University on Planet Earth, and If they get it Wrong, well, make 'em Study More! (or Shut 'em Down, you decide....).

 

now, not to cause you to do "Over Work," but, for sure the Futures Markets for the Zombie and for the Long Bonds of the Trashury are Much Bigger than those of the mere Equities....

 

is there an easy to do MATH (as in the Simple Math Exercise for da Spoozer) Exercise that you can provide on the Fixed Income Area, in line with your Spoozer work? After all, it was Doc himself who said that da Zombie, (as a for instance, your jickiss fears to over-generalize about any topic that really matters) has not been easy to analyze based upon standard Technical Analysis.......

 

Perhaps and maybe you can show just how much Coin it takes to manip the Yield Curve. To the knowledge of your jickiss, no where has such a Simple Math Analysis ever been done, and posted on the Web. your jickiss knew well one individual, who as early as the mid 1980s suggested that the study of such matters should be Quite Vital and profitable. This boy was a Wharton guy and Harvard MBA, and was one of the first Quants on the Street. Very secretive, and very well off, now living in S. Kali, Insane Diego, actually.

 

Stoolville Expects, after all.....

 

Tanks Shorty for being the anal cyst that Takes His Results Seriously, but can Laugh along the Path....

 

to????

 

ohmigod!

 

 

Best regards,

 

jickiss!!!!!!!

 

I would like to take a different argumentative approach.

 

I request the intellectual and research help of all to make sure I understand the market structure/mechanism:

 

This relates to futures only!

 

Can anyone give me a specific citation to the regs governing the CFTC or other applicable body that says "major market players," such as GS and JPM, REQUIRE margin like ordinary slubs, such as me, when opening futures positions?

 

1. I have found CFR sections that exempt major market players. (And pointed out just some of the sections on these boards some time ago.) (The CFR sections confirm what I learned and have been told by others over the years; so, I have no basis to think otherwise.)

 

2. Also theoretically, the Heller piece (market solution) works so well because the major market players do not need the stinkin' money like we do. It would not work if they needed the "money" because when they needed it, they would not have it.

 

Again, under the Antitrust laws as interpretted by the Dept. of Justice, the major market players are interchangible with the Fed Res System, which is interchangible with the US Government.

 

In other words, after much research and observation of all types and from all perspectives, I believe the system does not even require the theoretical chump change so aptly calculated by Shorty.

 

So the research challenge is: "simply prove to me that margin rules are the same for a GS (acting as a major market player) as they are for you or me." (I will accept any timespan - intraday purchase or multiday open of a futures contract.)

 

This should be simple enough. Correct?

[DrStool]

Wow Doc, are you shivering?

"Snow, sleet and freezing rain made a rare appearance in central Florida along the Interstate 4 corridor Saturday morning"

 

I'm fine. We're having a heat wave here in Quebec. Temps have been in the 20s all week. A little cooler right now 6 degrees, going down to -2 overnight. Nothing unusual.

 

Heading back to FL next weekend, after the cold wave has left.

 

At my mother's ALF they told the residents to stay in their rooms this morning, and they delivered breakfast to the rooms. It was too cold in the dining room.

[Black Prince]

I was short PEIX from 16 and covered at 14. :( :(

 

what a POS.

 

Foxie, it's an ethanol-producing company, with very little ethanol being produced. Bid up on alternative energy mania, and then tanked when some semblance of reality sank in.

 

Too bad I didn't Hold Fast.

 

There main plant is only 25 min. away from where I live. I should go by and see if the lights are still on. Maybe take some pictures.

[TenaciousG]

For those that follow YRCW....good read....snip below to whet your appetite

_______________________

 

This was exactly what was happening in the case of YRCW.... Goldman (Sachs) et al seemingly forcing the country's biggest truck company into bankruptcy in order to get pay-offs under CDS, with 50,000 jobs at stake.

 

Hedge fund entrepreneur David Einhorn, who denounced the malign practice at an investors conference earlier this year, claims that "basis packaging"� has already been a major contributor to the bankruptcy of companies such as Abitibi-Bowater, General Growth Properties, Six Flags and even General Motors. ...How many real businesses have to fail before policy makers decide to simply ban them?

 

Waiting for policy-makers to do the right thing will take a while. Credible reports indicate that Rahm Emanuel (TD: Flithy animal, this douche caused all sorts of caca in the Cigar Boy's administration as well) is counting on Wall Street cash to get the Democrats through the 2010 election. But fortunately the YRCW workers had the backing of their union, the Teamsters.

 

With strategic input from Greenberger, the Teamsters were able to identify whom they were up against. We picked up intelligence that Goldman (Sachs) was making markets (in CDS) and then we got some direct evidence, Teamster spokesman Ian Gold tells me. But Goldman was not alone. All of Wall Street was trying to bring the company down.

 

Full Farticle <----

 

If history is any indication it appears Rahm Emanuel should not have any problems raising wall street cash.

 

Transcript from Bill Moyers show this past Friday. Worth watching. As a side, I am getting very tired of watching these shows with no real changes made to the big boys! Then again patience is not my thing.

 

Link to Bill Moyers Video

 

BILL MOYERS: Look at this. This is a list of all the contributions over the last 20 years to Members of finance-related Congressional Committees. Let's just take the first eight. Out of the first eight, six of them are Democrats. And those six Democrats have received from the financial industry some $68 million. What does it mean to take that much money? And it's Democrats at the top of this.

 

KEVIN DRUM: It's Democrats and Republicans. But, yes. Look, there's no way you can take that money. I mean, if you talk to Chuck Schumer, you talk to Barney Frank, you talk to these guys. They'll tell you that they take the money, but then they're going to do the right thing anyway. Well, that's just not possible. You know, Chuck Schumer to take an example, he raised so much money up through I think 2004-2005. He actually stopped taking personal contributions.

[bundys_dodge]

Bill Moyers - Obama, Banking, Regulations and who else but Goldman

(Keep in mind that you can control your rage by taking a deep breath, you really don't have to punch your monitor)

 

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01082010/watch.html

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/01082010/watch2.html

 

EDIT: Just noticed that Tenacious posted this as well.

[An Ant]

Usually, that is the case. In the case of an impulsive advance or decline, wave 1 is usually shorter than wave 3 and many times the shortest non-correcting wave, as the smart money is entering and there aren't an abundance of believers in the move, yet. Then the wave 2 pullback occurs and more smart people start buying the dip and, before you know it, price has eclipsed the previous high after a shallow pullback and a buying frenzy ensues with everybody jumping in as wave three unfolds. According to E-wave theory, wave three can never be the shortest of waves 1,3,5 and often times, but not always, is the longest wave. Wave fours usually take more time because participants have to digest the impulsive move before continuing in wave 5. That is one of the reasons triangles are common in wave 4's. Wave 4 doesn't have to take up more time than 2, though. The relationship between wave 2 and 4 in Elliot terms is referred to as alternation. Simply put, if wave 2 is a simple correction, look for wave 4 to be more complex and take up more time and vice-versa. In corrections, if Wave A is a simple structure, expect Wave B to be more complex. Wave C may or may not be more complex relative to A. I think with corrections, since they are more complex than motive waves, that it depends alot on what type of correction it is.

 

All I wanted to say was how can this be a 2 let alone A of 2.

[Rationalize]

I can't prove that they manipulate the stock markets through the buying of S&P futures, but I will say this: I am one that has spent a lot of hours trading and watching index futures trade in globex, in all hours of the session, and I must say that I have seen some pretty wierd sh*t go on that would make on wonder. Who is doing the buying and why? I can't answer that, but the premarket globex ramp does draw other speculators in an orgy of self-fulfilling prophecy that helps to keep a floor under the market and remember that most of the gains have come in the globex session, not the actual cash session. It is definitely a strange market. If there really is manipulation going on, it really doesn't matter because there is nothing anyone can do about except not fade them.

Remember that there are S&P500 index ETFs that trade in the Europe and Asia time zones, that need to be hedged with S&P500 futures until the US caSSh open. Blame EurAsia 'merican ETFs for dat badaSS L8 night accshun..

[Rationalize]

Until you can demonstrate the truth of this with hard math,

involving reference to the volume of futures activity,

and average volume in the underlying,

this will remain a preposterous overstatement.

 

I'll demonstrate it with easy math

 

full initial margin requirement for an e-mini S&P futures CONtract is $5,625

 

thus the entire frickin' front-month open interest of 2,406,352 CONtracts could be controlled for a paltry $13 Billion FRN's, approximately one-tenth of one percent of the total federal Gov't Great-Recession bailout tab

 

aSS to marginal cost of moving the underlying SPU, there is none, since index arbitrage kicks in and does it for you aSS soon ya gap up the fuctures

...

Nope.

 

* As you buy up the futures, and they rise above the cash market, the index arbs start BUYING cash, and SELLING futures for the arb. This slows down your manipulation as negative feedback, and increases the marginal cost of moving the underlying via futures, until it converges with the marginal cost of manipulating the underlying itself. Net net nothing. No free money. No cheap "manipulation".

 

Got tin foil?

[Rationalize]

I would like to take a different argumentative approach.

 

I request the intellectual and research help of all to make sure I understand the market structure/mechanism:

 

This relates to futures only!

 

Can anyone give me a specific citation to the regs governing the CFTC or other applicable body that says "major market players," such as GS and JPM, REQUIRE margin like ordinary slubs, such as me, when opening futures positions?

 

1. I have found CFR sections that exempt major market players. (And pointed out just some of the sections on these boards some time ago.) (The CFR sections confirm what I learned and have been told by others over the years; so, I have no basis to think otherwise.)

 

2. Also theoretically, the Heller piece (market solution) works so well because the major market players do not need the stinkin' money like we do. It would not work if they needed the "money" because when they needed it, they would not have it.

 

Again, under the Antitrust laws as interpretted by the Dept. of Justice, the major market players are interchangible with the Fed Res System, which is interchangible with the US Government.

 

In other words, after much research and observation of all types and from all perspectives, I believe the system does not even require the theoretical chump change so aptly calculated by Shorty.

 

So the research challenge is: "simply prove to me that margin rules are the same for a GS (acting as a major market player) as they are for you or me." (I will accept any timespan - intraday purchase or multiday open of a futures contract.)

 

This should be simple enough. Correct?

Patents .. seriously...

 

1. "Again, under the Antitrust laws as interpretted by the Dept. of Justice, the major market players are interchangible with the Fed Res System, which is interchangible with the US Government."

 

WTF?

 

2. "Can anyone give me a specific citation to the regs governing the CFTC or other applicable body that says "major market players," such as GS and JPM, REQUIRE margin like ordinary slubs, such as me, when opening futures positions?"

 

Exchange traded markets are specifically setup to ensure margins are paid by the biggest players. No one gives a crap if some retail douche blows up, but if for example Barings bank blows up, which it did, that's not a problem as margins were paid. Net net, the margins paid by all participants protect the integrity of the market. The big players ESPECIALLY are required to pay margins, and, they have position limits.

 

I think you are not getting the difference between exchange traded and OTC products.

 

http://www.cmegroup.com/clearing/cme-clear...ance-bonds.html

[shorty]

Nope.

 

* As you buy up the futures, and they rise above the cash market, the index arbs start BUYING cash, and SELLING futures for the arb.

Uh...no kidding. You're a maSSter of the obvious.

That's what makes the cash prices go UP.

 

 

This slows down your manipulation as negative feedback, and increases the marginal cost of moving the underlying via futures,

Your reamsoning on this pernt would be valid only if taken out of context. The context being, aSS previously alluded to reampeatedly, an effectively infinite margin capacity on the part of the Gov't to purchase those very same futures that are offered for sale aSS part of the arbitrage. They can buy 'em all, no problem.....butt they don't have to, because aSS they bang through the offers other sellers back off (pull their offers, waiting for higher prices) while more third-party buyers step up, some to open, some to cover, and the futures price rises again. Even if they didn't back off it still would not matter because aSS I've already reampeated, the Gov't can buy aSS many aSS they need to, necessitating merely a few additional mouse-clicks between yawns. Therefore yer pernt is reamjected.

 

 

until it converges with the marginal cost of manipulating the underlying itself.

This clause is in error because the marginal cost of manipulating the underlying is obviously much higher than that of manipulating the futures, due to leverage.

 

 

Net net nothing.

If by this you mean that buying futures does not drive up cash prices, you are wrong. A dramatic example corollary being Oct 19, 1987 when "portfolio insurance" selling of futures drastically drove down cash prices (aSS an aSSide that day reamains my personal best one-day percentage profit ever, since I was heavily long OTM puts on over a dozen individual conmon shlock ithues plus several fraudexes). Additional direct examples are commonly found, often on days when the future trades well above the cash (above the spread fair value) prior to the open. After the open, cash prices rise. While it is of course true that the spread converges, that is irrelevant, aSS shown empirically by the fact that it does so by a combination of falling futures prices and rising cash prices, not by only the futures price falling. Thus my pernt is proven -- buying the futures had the effect of raising the cash prices. Now by simple induction, given that it worked once, reampeating the same process with another round of futures buying can extend the effect ad infinitum.

 

 

No free money.

The Fed can, and does, create money for free.

 

 

No cheap "manipulation".

Disreamgarding fer the momernt any negative inference on my part of any intentional implication on your part, of your superfluous quotation marks, I steadfaSStly aSSert that manipulation is in fact purcisely waht is occcurrring hear my friend.

 

 

Got tin foil?

Hear your implication is cleer. Shorty is a CONspiracy whacko. On this dual pernt (i.e. the CONspiracy portion aSS well aSS the whacking portion) I plead guilty , the former habit being of immense amusement value aSS a time-paSSing diversion while I sit front the puter watchin my account balances grind higher; the latter's marginal cost having CONverged aSSymptotically to near zero due to a serendipitous abundance of cheap bandwidth and cheap women.

[psyche doctor]

All I wanted to say was how can this be a 2 let alone A of 2.

 

It's not a 2. The decline from the 2007 high is an ABC. The 2 wave is really a B wave, but the B wave might only be in its a wave with b down to come and then the c of B, then the cataclysmic C wave, the death dive, if it is of the zig zag variety.....Got it? Have you ever taken the time to watch the all time greatest movie Apocalypse Now?

[psyche doctor]

Remember that there are S&P500 index ETFs that trade in the Europe and Asia time zones, that need to be hedged with S&P500 futures until the US caSSh open. Blame EurAsia 'merican ETFs for dat badaSS L8 night accshun..

 

You can blame them, but I don't think that this hedging accounts for what I was trying to explain.