Weight range 10/7 - 10/23: 259 - 265
Wooo! out of the 260s!
Custom Search
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Hmm
TED spread
Shows how willing the banks are to loan to one another.
Click on the five year button to get a better idea of where things stand. Before May of last year it was rarely above 0.5.
9/07 - 3/08 it hit 2 three times.
And then in 9/08 it hit 3 and now has hit 4.5.
If things continue in this fashion it will drop to 4 again before heading north of 5.
Or this could be a huge peak and it will drop just as dramatically.
But all this might be moot. If all western banks can borrow from the government why should they make loans to each other?
Shows how willing the banks are to loan to one another.
Click on the five year button to get a better idea of where things stand. Before May of last year it was rarely above 0.5.
9/07 - 3/08 it hit 2 three times.
And then in 9/08 it hit 3 and now has hit 4.5.
If things continue in this fashion it will drop to 4 again before heading north of 5.
Or this could be a huge peak and it will drop just as dramatically.
But all this might be moot. If all western banks can borrow from the government why should they make loans to each other?
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
Changed my P&F charts a bit
Switched to "close only" view.
In looking back on my last SMN trade, I would not have exited if I was following the close only chart.
Looking at the hi/lo chart, I think I would have exited three different times before the current run.
With the close only chart, I may have exited in the 40s but I generally want a two box movement past the last low or high depending on direction that I'm going.
In looking back on my last SMN trade, I would not have exited if I was following the close only chart.
Looking at the hi/lo chart, I think I would have exited three different times before the current run.
With the close only chart, I may have exited in the 40s but I generally want a two box movement past the last low or high depending on direction that I'm going.
Something I wrote to a friend
And thought I might just post here as well.
This was in response to speculation that the government will start examining what happened and determining who's to blame.
===========
I'm not so sure the heat has passed.
Also, here are more details on how this bailout is not only for Wall Street, but for the world.
"Larry Kudlow:
Let me just ask you one question. I think you are referring to foreign banks headquartered in the United States. I do not see how foreign investors get bailed out.
Rep. Brad Sherman:
Larry you have to read the bill. It's very clear. The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. I had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American entity even a subsidiary, but at least an entity in the US, the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.
The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset on September 20th that it can't be sold to the Treasury.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen."
What the executive branch started (FED and Treasury - Repub controlled) was knocked down by the legislative branch (Dem controlled) the first time. But only because of a large and loud grassroots roar. The Senate (legislative - D) tacked on all sorts of pork (a tax subsidy for wooden arrow makers? sheesh). There are claims that there are new provisions for accountability. But from my reading, the audit board has no teeth. They can't stop anything.
I like Palin and I think she'll come along nicely. My problem with her is on the topic of immigration. I know McCain is for open boarders and I know AK has sanctuary cities. I have no problem with skilled immigrants that 1) come here legally and 2) seek high US salaries (meaning they don't lowball Americans).
At this point is seems to me both parties support this kind of thing.
It is bad enough that we have so many idle hands due to cheap, illegal low-end labor. But now that model is moving up into "professional" employment.
Going back to gold/silver -- I was speaking with my wife about going ahead and starting to buy physical metal as an insurance policy. What my concern was/is that while gold's value stays the same, the dollar moves wildly. Meaning, what I buy now may be worth $30/oz in ten years and $1500/oz in twenty. On thinking about it some more, if physical metal is insurance and as it moves in cycles, I shouldn't buy if I'm anywhere near the peak. So I hunted around for some long term price graphs --
gold -
Gold 1975 to present.
Gold 1985 to present.
Gold 1995 to present.
Gold 2000 to present.
silver -
Silver 1985 to present.
Silver 1995 to present.
Silver 2000 to present.
Those tell me two things -
1) The metals have peaked
2) The metals show the nature of the economy before it is felt
#1 assumes one of two things 1) that at some point soon interest rates will be hiked and the dollar made strong or 2) like oil, there is demand destruction because people don't have the money to buy.
#2 Note the 1980 gold peak. I was pretty young but I remember things being pretty tight in the early 80s. I remember in the late 80s people decrying the rise of the consumer nation. That tends to happen when only a small potion of the population gets to play. Note that by the 90s most of those types of complaints disappeared when every single household started to get all the shiny baubles. By the late 90s everyone was tossing around money. What I'm getting at here is that I think that the next 2-4 years might be tight.
1976 bottom was around $100/oz. That climbed to a 1979 peak of $750/oz (750%) and then dropped to $350/oz (47%) low in 81. Final low in 99 at $250/oz (72% off 350/oz and 34% off peak).
From that 1999 bottom we've hit 1010/oz (400%). Does that mean it will climb near 1875/oz (750%)? I'm continuing to hold my GLD shares in case it does make a move like that.
I don't know. But I'm not sure it is prudent to buy physical metal now that it has climbed more than half the old peak.
I do know I will be buying physical gold once it hits the bottom of its cycle again. That'll be around 343/oz if 1010/oz was the peak and 637/oz if it gets to 1875/oz.
My thinking is this: if by the time I'm 60 and we're going through this again, my gold will be worth something. Should there be a huge boom going on when I'm 60, I know my girl can make use of the gold I've bought.
Also, looking at the historical silver charts, I can't see any reason to hold physical silver. Perhaps if there is total government collapse it will be needed for day to day money, but I don't see that happening.
I suggest eliminating all debt and getting a good low energy freezer. We've finally found a good price on one and are now starting to stock meat and other spendy type items when they go on sell for bulk purchases. I'd also suggest putting 6-12 months salary into a very liquid savings account of some type, regardless of what tiny return you'll get.
Why? Well, considering that both parties are moving so close together on policies, take a look at the possible ramifications of something Obama wants to pass --
"Biden -"Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.""
Why would any bank make any loan to anybody if they could be forced to adjust the principal so that they are losing on the deal? Sensing, and I agree with him, suspects that down payments of 20-30% or more along with crazy high interest rates will be on their way.
Take care.
This was in response to speculation that the government will start examining what happened and determining who's to blame.
===========
I'm not so sure the heat has passed.
Also, here are more details on how this bailout is not only for Wall Street, but for the world.
"Larry Kudlow:
Let me just ask you one question. I think you are referring to foreign banks headquartered in the United States. I do not see how foreign investors get bailed out.
Rep. Brad Sherman:
Larry you have to read the bill. It's very clear. The Bank of Shanghai can transfer all of its toxic assets to the Bank of Shanghai of Los Angeles which can then sell them the next day to the Treasury. I had a provision to say if it wasn't owned by an American entity even a subsidiary, but at least an entity in the US, the Treasury can't buy it. It was rejected.
The bill is very clear. Assets now held in China and London can be sold to US entities on Monday and then sold to the Treasury on Tuesday. Paulson has made it clear he will recommend a veto of any bill that contained a clear provision that said if Americans did not own the asset on September 20th that it can't be sold to the Treasury.
Hundreds of billions of dollars are going to bail out foreign investors. They know it, they demanded it and the bill has been carefully written to make sure that can happen."
What the executive branch started (FED and Treasury - Repub controlled) was knocked down by the legislative branch (Dem controlled) the first time. But only because of a large and loud grassroots roar. The Senate (legislative - D) tacked on all sorts of pork (a tax subsidy for wooden arrow makers? sheesh). There are claims that there are new provisions for accountability. But from my reading, the audit board has no teeth. They can't stop anything.
I like Palin and I think she'll come along nicely. My problem with her is on the topic of immigration. I know McCain is for open boarders and I know AK has sanctuary cities. I have no problem with skilled immigrants that 1) come here legally and 2) seek high US salaries (meaning they don't lowball Americans).
At this point is seems to me both parties support this kind of thing.
It is bad enough that we have so many idle hands due to cheap, illegal low-end labor. But now that model is moving up into "professional" employment.
Going back to gold/silver -- I was speaking with my wife about going ahead and starting to buy physical metal as an insurance policy. What my concern was/is that while gold's value stays the same, the dollar moves wildly. Meaning, what I buy now may be worth $30/oz in ten years and $1500/oz in twenty. On thinking about it some more, if physical metal is insurance and as it moves in cycles, I shouldn't buy if I'm anywhere near the peak. So I hunted around for some long term price graphs --
gold -
Gold 1975 to present.
Gold 1985 to present.
Gold 1995 to present.
Gold 2000 to present.
silver -
Silver 1985 to present.
Silver 1995 to present.
Silver 2000 to present.
Those tell me two things -
1) The metals have peaked
2) The metals show the nature of the economy before it is felt
#1 assumes one of two things 1) that at some point soon interest rates will be hiked and the dollar made strong or 2) like oil, there is demand destruction because people don't have the money to buy.
#2 Note the 1980 gold peak. I was pretty young but I remember things being pretty tight in the early 80s. I remember in the late 80s people decrying the rise of the consumer nation. That tends to happen when only a small potion of the population gets to play. Note that by the 90s most of those types of complaints disappeared when every single household started to get all the shiny baubles. By the late 90s everyone was tossing around money. What I'm getting at here is that I think that the next 2-4 years might be tight.
1976 bottom was around $100/oz. That climbed to a 1979 peak of $750/oz (750%) and then dropped to $350/oz (47%) low in 81. Final low in 99 at $250/oz (72% off 350/oz and 34% off peak).
From that 1999 bottom we've hit 1010/oz (400%). Does that mean it will climb near 1875/oz (750%)? I'm continuing to hold my GLD shares in case it does make a move like that.
I don't know. But I'm not sure it is prudent to buy physical metal now that it has climbed more than half the old peak.
I do know I will be buying physical gold once it hits the bottom of its cycle again. That'll be around 343/oz if 1010/oz was the peak and 637/oz if it gets to 1875/oz.
My thinking is this: if by the time I'm 60 and we're going through this again, my gold will be worth something. Should there be a huge boom going on when I'm 60, I know my girl can make use of the gold I've bought.
Also, looking at the historical silver charts, I can't see any reason to hold physical silver. Perhaps if there is total government collapse it will be needed for day to day money, but I don't see that happening.
I suggest eliminating all debt and getting a good low energy freezer. We've finally found a good price on one and are now starting to stock meat and other spendy type items when they go on sell for bulk purchases. I'd also suggest putting 6-12 months salary into a very liquid savings account of some type, regardless of what tiny return you'll get.
Why? Well, considering that both parties are moving so close together on policies, take a look at the possible ramifications of something Obama wants to pass --
"Biden -"Number two, with regard to bankruptcy now, Gwen, what we should be doing now -- and Barack Obama and I support it -- we should be allowing bankruptcy courts to be able to re-adjust not just the interest rate you're paying on your mortgage to be able to stay in your home, but be able to adjust the principal that you owe, the principal that you owe.""
Why would any bank make any loan to anybody if they could be forced to adjust the principal so that they are losing on the deal? Sensing, and I agree with him, suspects that down payments of 20-30% or more along with crazy high interest rates will be on their way.
Take care.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)