Search results

Any takers at $2 a share?

Interesting considering the recent new panic in IBs http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aqkUfaAII6xs Gross Says Bernanke's Dollar-Emphasis Was for Oil, CNBC Reports By Daniel Kruger June 3 (Bloomberg) -- Bill Gross, who manages the world's largest bond fund, said...

I am sure the US has the collective prayers of the entire Arab OPEC world on their side, just like how the US was concerned about the economic well-being of the oil exporting nations when crude was trading at $10. Poetic justice.

I don't find anything fishy about him? He's talking his short book, what's wrong with that. Why can Warren Buffet talk his long book and Einhorn can't do the opposite?

You can trade ES (US time zone), ESTX50 (EUR time zone) and N225 (Asian time zone) pretty much 24h a day. All are very liquid during their RTH, you can easily trade 100s of contracts each.

Unfortunately we will never know the motivation for such a trade. A directional trade (short)? A mutual fund hedging their long exposure? A hedge fund hedging their counterparty risk on CDS they own with LEH on the other side?

Bitter? How is asking posters to stick with reality and facts a sign of bitterness? S2007S has been screaming all the way up through 120 SPX handles on how he's shorting and averaging into all kinds of ultra short ETFs because the markets got it all wrong. Now we're down 5 ES points today and...

You got your head handed to you on a plate by the markets in the last three months and still running your mouth I see.

'Justifies'? You think the markets give a flying f*** if you think the price is too high? The price is what it is, if you like it or not. We're better off spending more time trying to be on the right side of a trade rather than justifying and rationalizing where the market should trade. Last...

Again, if US demand growth sinks the rest of the world including China is happy to take the excess supply:

Could you please explain why an increase of 3% in demand can not explain a 42% price increase? I don't quite understand why this would be impossible. What economy theorem states that a 1.0% increase in demand results in a perfect 1.0% increase in price? Who says it can't cause a 10% increase in...

'Only' as in 'The US' share of global consumption used to be a lot higher'. If US demand dropped by 10% over three years (which would be a lot) that would - all other things equal & very hypothetically - only have a 2% net effect on global supply/demand. 20% less would mean a 4% net effect...

You mean like it didn't work anymore in 1982? And the 1990 fallout? And 1998?

It's funny all people talk about is 'all those evil speculators that go long oil'. What about those idiots trying to pick tops all the way from $50 to $120, going short crude and getting squeezed all the way up, increasing upside price momentum? Aren't the shorts equally 'guilty'?

Unfortunately the US only accounts for around 20% of total global consumption. 5% less demand in the US means a total of 1% in lower demand that became 'available' on the supply side and was easily gobbled up by emerging markets.

I think you're spot on. People love conspiracy and manipulation theories, ET is full of them.

Time to abolish efficient allocation and price discovery in global markets and simply have the government decree crude oil prices? What didn't work in socialist Eastern Europe 1945 - 1990 won't work today.

So why doesn't somebody come in and simply take advantage of those inflated oil prices? Surely, if the 'real' price is closer to $80 than $120 somebody could simply increase production and take advantage of the risk free arbitrage that presents itself here to the naked eye and simply burn all...

The reaction to Fridays job report will probably be a big big clue to the next couple of weeks.

Closed at $320 yesterday. Who said momentum trading doesn't work? :)