Kenneth J. Gruneisen

Wes Edens' Obama Waterfall

I don't know how much difference anyone's ski vacation makes, but I will figure on hitting the slopes again this season...

This is probably more of a testament to the fact that most asset managers are doing a miserable job and having a difficult time in the current market environment. However, according to the data from my sources, Management of the company owns about 1% of FIG's shares. This is an example of rather unfortunate timing. Their great track record of steady and strong annual earnings growth prior to going public, coming to an abrupt end right after going public, surely must be attributed to bad luck!

Almost Family Reports Healthy Quarter

Having read the above comments, I will acknowledge I am not one to pore over cash flow statements, nor am I an expert on accounting rules. I believe this stock could easily be $30 tomorrow, or $50 tomorrow, but one fact I can point out is that it has traded up more than +122% since my first analysis on it in early June.

Uh Oh, There Goes the Bid in Treasuries

All of us who understand the current financial "problem" realize that the "only way out of it" our leaders can see is to take more of the same poison that got us here in the first place, so that means the US government will go deeper into debt. Other governments will too. As bad as the problem is here, other countries have worse financial problems!

Has mostly dirt-poor China been "socking it away", or are they actually digging a hole while trying to rapidly industrialize? Do they report their national budget and reveal any surplus/deficits? I realize we have an ongoing US/China trade deficit, but that's another issue entirely...

It is my understanding that the sovereign wealth funds of the world that that accumulate US treasuries are in effect buying into the "best of the worst", meaning that ALL world currencies and government bonds are uncertain, ours in the US have just the distinction of being considered the least uncertain. Treasuries yielding such a low percentage (2, 3, or 4%???) are being considered attractive, why? Because even if the investors who buy them in essence get back 90% of their money in the future, it is far better than only getting back 50-60% of their money or less, which is what history showed they'd likely get if they invested in government treasuries in unstable nations that might be paying a significantly higher "yield" on the face of it.

You've Gotta Have Friends: How Bear Stearns Dodged Misvaluation Charges

After a 21+ year career as a licensed stockbroker, I am now thoroughly convinced that we are destined to have "unprecedented&qu... occurrances in the financial markets every several years. The regulators have repeatedly proven themselves (long before I came along) inept at protecting the public from suffering massive investment losses. The regulators show up with temporary fixes and hasty rule changes on short notice (without a period of taking input from the industry and the public) only after a crisis develops - their job is oversee that markets remain "fair and orderly", and they do a miserable job!

Yes, there is plenty of blame to go around. The fingers always point to "greedy Wall Street crooks" as the cause of the "problems" when things start unravelling. During the years of prosperity (on the way up) nobody from the media ever does a story praising the hard-working people on Wall Street for what they are doing.

Isn't it intesting how John Snow (former Treasury secy) , Alan Greenspan (former Fed Chairman), and a bunch of other very knowledgeable, respected, and well-connected people obviously saw long ago that sticking around was not the thing to do. Why decide to resign a very prestigious position? To go out on top, and be out of the public eye (and probably profiting immensely) while the proverbial stink hits the fan!

Tactical Asset Allocation, Part I

I'm new to this forum, so hopefully this is an ideal place to start with a comment.

If one were able to buy MVV or any of the 2X long ETFs on margin they'd in effect be 4X long the index. Correct? So, in the event the investor might time that purchase such that the index subsequently rallies +10% , the investor might be up about +40%. Of course, this assumes the risk that the index might continue falling, and they are on the hook X4 to the ongoing losses that index might continue sustaining. This is not for the risk averse investor, however it seems like it might be a tempting investment tactic for those who are able to handle the risk.

After seeing QLD fall from $83.55 on 8/15/08 (at its 200 DMA resistance) to the $40 area now, the probability of a +10% rally in the coming weeks seems rather good. Anyone?

I originally attempted to post this comment in response to the 7/11/06 article by Greg Newton seekingalpha.com/artic...
which mentioned the then soon to be introduced 2X ETFs linked to the major indices

2x Long the NASDAQ-100 (QLD)
2x Long the S&P 500 (SSO)
2x Long the S&P MidCap (MVV)
2x Long the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DDM)

2x Short the NASDAQ-100 (QID)
2x Short the S&P 500 (SDS)
2x Short the S&P MidCap (MZZ)
2x Short the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DXD)