How to obtain supercars

[graywolf624]

futures price equal to? Spot price + cost of carry....

Yes.. And as any person will tell you spot price includes the price of any future expectations of increases and scarcity. Given these have had no connection any actualy shortage, and have led several speculatory events:

There has been no rationing or lines in front of gas stations outside of immediately following Katrina(a short run event). Speculators are subject to groups like goldmen(sp?) sachs saying the the price will rise to x, and the news media crying 4 dollars a gallon. They are also subject to the myth in the general media that running out of oil is even possible. Stock traders arent supermen, they are subject to falling for the same lies anyone else is.

Of course, the price of oil cannot rise forever, i didnt suggest it would

It wont just not rise.. It will decrease over the long haul of 10-20 years.

Debating what makes a good trader could take a while. But if you think there is no analysis involved you are insane. You think that Goldmans trader in the City cashed a $50m bonus last year because he's quick on the draw?

I never said analysis wasnt used. I said analysis of past shows no valid way of buy a stock that will earn money. The price of all previous earnings and expected earnings based on past experience is already priced into the stock. Statistical analysis of said estimates show a complete random percentage of correct pics based on this. Understanding the past has benefits, but predicting the future is not one of them.

When one says 'fundamentals', it means fundamental drivers, which don't necessarily carry a price. I would have thought someone with market experience would know that. And no, there was no precedent for valuing dotcom companies, which is why people lost a lot of money.

One has to wonder where I said it didnt.. I said 'none of them have increase other then...'
Dont put words in my mouth.

[graywolf624]

Some points to ponder... The second largest oil trader after goldman Sachs has predicted a price of gas decrease in next few years from what it was last year(this being morgan stanley).
Meanwhile, Forbes has said the same thing, coining the term bubble.

And myself, I called this prediction before either of them.. Ive actually considering buying futures short.. Im not sure enough about whether the price will be back below 50 within 1 year or 2.. Forbes says 1.

Fair enough, but things changed a bit when hedge funds came into the mix. I used to work for a fund that invested with a 1-2 year horizon. We were considered long-term investors by the sell-side.

Hedge funds are primarily speculation, and where the crux of high oil prices currently lies at the moment(as Ive been telling you).
Hedge funds did change things, they did so by adding more speculation into the mix.
The reason 1-2 years is considered long term is because hedge funds only work on what is actually the short run. The long run requires time to adjust pay rates and move around capita, 2 years doesnt cut that.

[graywolf624]

Yeah oh so off.. and you could attempt to spell the name right while your at it.

Should I get out my graduate level finance text book mentioning the 30 year study on trend analysis being ineffective and that the law of effective markets is a true law, Im sure I could find a scanner and send it your way.. A google search im sure would show you the same info.

A quick glance gives this:

While technical analysis is widely used (if only as one input among many) by both professional and amateur traders as a means of predicting future market moves, it is generally not used by economists in any academic sense. Criticism of Technical Analysis Lack of scientific evidence Although many chartists believe that their techniques provide excess returns over time, this has not been proven through academic research. In fact, after trading costs are factored in, the returns generated by many technical analysis strategies tend to underperform a simple buy and hold strategy according to some studies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technical_analysis


And another: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/101502.asp

But perhaps in 1970 my name was Eugene Fema and I made up this idea.. Oh wait, I wasnt even alive yet.

And I guess Forbes and Morgan Stanely are just blowing smoke.. And of course I dont see any speculation tied to the flow of prices in the market.. Come on man.. I know you have issues with me, but if your gonna talk smack, bring the tech.

And no, there was no precedent for valuing dotcom companies

Yet again incorrect.. The problem was the assumption to value the dotcom companies any way different then anyother economy.. The screwed up idea of a new economy. There are no new economies. The economy works the same, and valuation of dot coms was based on speculation that somehow this new economy would work differently.. patently false.

Unfortunately the same thing is happening in oil as people are assuming that oil will eventually run out and that the price will go into the stratosphere. The assumptions that somehow oil is different and will not follow natural resource paths is a direct parallel to the previous paragraph. Yet again Forbes, one of the biggest market movers/analyzers in the world, backs it up.. But I guess we are both wackjobs right?

[nthfinity]

I've been thinking along the lines of realistically when the alternative fuels vehicles will be hitting the market. and with the arguments about hydrogen, despite the amount of manufacturers working on it, i'm thinking it is going to be about 15 years until they emerge and oil starts to slip. Gray will probably tell me i'm being a bit optimistic in that thought though

IMHO, for alternative fuels to be successful, burried fuel cannot be its source, as creating hydrogen gas is more costly in burned fossil fuels then the benefit from spitting water out the tail pipe offsets. the laws governing automotive exhaust are far more strict than the stacks on power plants, particularly in the trade-barter between less polluting plants, and the alternative.

hydroelectric, nuclear, wind, and geothermal power stations are really the only renewable sources that would make driving a hydrogen car much more realistic.

i have no problem with burning hydrogen,... more efficiant (roughly 40%), more power! but FUCK electric cars :fist:

[callen]

so....supercars?

[dingo]

just put your money into 'floats' and make 50% or so on day 1 - thats where I am making money on the market.

[graywolf624]

screw with the buying stock, and start shorting stock thats a much faster way to make money.

Shorts make me cringe unless its a sure thing(which frankly is impossible over the time period of a short).
Id rather do commercial property, non taxable municipal bonds, and perhaps rental property. That being said Im also fairly conservative cause Im not in a rush.

[crayzayjay]

Originally Posted by graywolf624 One has to wonder where I said it didnt.. I said 'none of them have increase other then...' Dont put words in my mouth.

Is that so?

Originally Posted by graywolf624 The price of none of the fundamentals has increased other then the price per barrel driven by the speculation

The rest of your post isnt worth replying to.

[graywolf624]

none of the fundamentals has increased other then

none of them have increase other then.

Read those again, maybe its a dialect thing between UK and here, or maybe its cause I wasnt entirely clear but those two sentences have the same meaning with them inserted or cut out for fundamental.

I clearly intended, whether you read it that way or not, to say that only speculation is driving the market.

Perhaps instead of running off you should take the time to discuss. I think you could learn something. Your in the trading market.. Im more a macroeconomics guy. You would be suprised how much of it applys. Or you could just say I dont want to argue with you and run off.. Your call. Either way what I have told you are all the key discussion points of market theory from economics(guess what my degree focus was) and they are easily backed up through any economics book.

[graywolf624]

aslong as you have enough cash to cover your loses incase it goes the other way, theres nothing wrong with shorting. its a greater risk then buying low and selling high yes, but its much more short term then buying/selling, and could me much much more profitable.

The part that makes me cringe is often you need a much higher buyin for margin shorting. The idea of losing more then I started with and having to start with a higher amount just isnt appealing to my conservative nature.

Higher risks of course equal much higher potential profitability though... Im just more risk averse then your average person.