But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional to
the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)

"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:42:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
ink.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.


Hmm... maybe the events the "futures trader" chose to put on his graph
had little, or nothing, to do with the changes in the oil prices.

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:42:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly
proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil
produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.


Hmm... maybe the events the "futures trader" chose to put on his graph
had little, or nothing, to do with the changes in the oil prices.

He put them there because they resembled events which had, in the past,
caused blips.

Are you familiar with the way some individual investors dump half their
mutual funds because just one corporation fires its CEO?

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:58:27 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:


"Jack Goff" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 16:42:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"NOYB" wrote in message
hlink.net...
But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly
proportional
to the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)



It's not always that simple. On the PBS news show I mentioned earlier, the
futures trader had a graph of price changes going back a month or two, and
labels indicating news events that either caused price changes, or didn't.
In some cases, there were events that really should've caused spikes, but
nothing happened. And, events which had no imaginable impact on oil
produced
jumps. This is the investor stupidity I pointed out a few days back, which
Bertie got so inflamed about.


Hmm... maybe the events the "futures trader" chose to put on his graph
had little, or nothing, to do with the changes in the oil prices.

He put them there because they resembled events which had, in the past,
caused blips.

But you also wrote:

When that Chechnyan terrorist died a few weeks back, the price blipped down
a buck, according to the traders in the interview. That's fantasy at work.

So these PBS experts showed how prices may have moved up and down in
reaction to some events, but don't react at all to other similar
events that should, by their reckoning, cause a flunctuation. It
seems they really aren't sure what causes the flunctuations, or at
least can't point to the real cause with any regularity.

It sounds to me like they can't see the forest for the trees. Think
about it, and get back to me on what that might mean.


Are you familiar with the way some individual investors dump half their
mutual funds because just one corporation fires its CEO?


That *may* have happened at some point. How many "individual
investors" share their private portfolio transactions with you, and
their personal reasons for carrying out those transactions? Or is
this something else a PBS expert told you?

The profiteers do not need much of an excuse to raise oil prices. I think we
should
take all the oil executives and line them up against a wall and shoot them.
They
recently opened up a significant pipeline through Turkey to help deliver oil to
the
West, but did we see oil prices go down? It's a one way street for these oil
companies. There is plenty of oil available, but they try their hardest to
convince us
it is in short supply. It's amazing to me that we Americans put up with this
kind of
nonsense. We can't expect any government action, while we have a Texan
president
with big interests in the oil business.

Sherwin D.

NOYB wrote:

But none of this has anything to do with that awful subject...politics.

Right?


If you watch CNBC, you'll learn that oil prices are directly proportional to
the number of Israeli soldiers taken hostage by radical Islamists.

Today's headline:
"Oil Prices fall on rumors Israeli soldiers have been released" (CNBC)

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..... I ran into one a few
months ago who thanked me profusely for telling him to buy Cisco in November
of 1987, and call-protected NY AAA insured munis yielding around 8%.


I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy
some call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they
weren't from NY.

Some things are a no-brainer.

DSK

sherwindu wrote:

The profiteers do not need much of an excuse to raise oil prices. I think we
should
take all the oil executives and line them up against a wall and shoot them.

What, to encourage the others?

They
recently opened up a significant pipeline through Turkey to help deliver oil to
the
West, but did we see oil prices go down? It's a one way street for these oil
companies. There is plenty of oil available, but they try their hardest to
convince us
it is in short supply.

Yeah, all that BS about the Hubbert peak is just libby-rull
psycho-babble, huh? The Earth has enough oil to last
forever, no matter how much we use!


... We can't expect any government action, while we have a Texan
president
with big interests in the oil business.


What do you expect him to do? He already started a war for
cheap oil and colluded with the Saudis (of course, that was
just in the short term for the election).

DSK

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 04:15:01 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"Jack Goff" wrote in message
news
When that Chechnyan terrorist died a few weeks back, the price blipped
down
a buck, according to the traders in the interview. That's fantasy at work.

So these PBS experts showed how prices may have moved up and down in
reaction to some events, but don't react at all to other similar
events that should, by their reckoning, cause a flunctuation. It
seems they really aren't sure what causes the flunctuations, or at
least can't point to the real cause with any regularity.

It sounds to me like they can't see the forest for the trees. Think
about it, and get back to me on what that might mean.

They weren't "PBS experts", and you should try a little harder to hide your
prejudice against a particular news source. They were traders with a company
called Man Associates, one of many similar firms. On another day, it
could've been UBS, Merrill Lynch, or whoever else agreed to an interview.

You mentioned PBS, and you're assuming. It could have been any show
on any network.

You didn't answer the question, however. Another hint: maybe they are
too close to the data. Keep in mind that I'm not saying that stupid,
reactionary price flunctuation don't happen; I realize that they
indeed do.



Are you familiar with the way some individual investors dump half their
mutual funds because just one corporation fires its CEO?


That *may* have happened at some point. How many "individual
investors" share their private portfolio transactions with you, and
their personal reasons for carrying out those transactions? Or is
this something else a PBS expert told you?

I worked for PaineWebber. About 200 clients shared their decisions with me
for a number of years, beginning on October 19th, 1987, which was a very
interesting day to start in that business. I left because 95% of my
customers made financial decisions with their emotions, which does not work,
ever. However, I had a few who could see clearly. I ran into one a few
months ago who thanked me profusely for telling him to buy Cisco in November
of 1987, and call-protected NY AAA insured munis yielding around 8%.

Thanks for asking.


Thanks for answering. It provides insight on your point of view.

Overall, how many clients sat down and told you not only what, but why
to sell, compared to the others that simply told you what to do with
their investments without reasons?

Interesting that one of the people who you thought "could see
clearly", simply listened to you. Did you have any who could see
clearly that didn't follow your advice?

"DSK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
..... I ran into one a few months ago who thanked me profusely for
telling him to buy Cisco in November of 1987, and call-protected NY AAA
insured munis yielding around 8%.


I'd thank you profusely if you could tell me where to buy some
call-protected insured munis yielding 8%, even if they weren't from NY.

Some things are a no-brainer.

DSK


It took immense effort for most customers to buy them, believe it or not.
They were hypnotized by the stock market. Bonds seemed boring. My mother in
law was always reading financial stuff and she insisted that I find her some
of those bonds. Everybody else needed to be educated.

One of our technical analysts, a guy named Ed Kerschner, ran an asset
allocation model that was brilliant. Not asset allocation as it's usually
thought of, adjusting portfolios to match your current goals, but a model
which predicted with uncanny accuracy which assets were more attractive at
the moment in terms of price (stocks, bonds or cash). Early in 1987, his
model began moving toward 90% bonds, 5% stocks and 5% cash, the breakdown in
early October. Few people listened in the time leading up to October 19th.
The model didn't expect every investor to shuffle their portfolio completely
to match his numbers, but it would've been a great idea to do something
rather than nothing.

I was still studying for the series 7 exam in that time period. On October
19th, mid-morning, the branch manager literally ran to my desk, said "You
passed your test- I can't talk now - go hang out with Jack so-and-so & see
if he can use any help talking to clients", and flew back to his office.
Around 5:00 PM, he handed me a bunch of cash, and asked if I'd mind going
out for a couple of bottles of scotch. :-) Learning about margin and risky
options trading in a book is one thing. Seeing real people's accounts turn
to crap (or even negative crap) in 4 hours is much different.