ExiledInIllinois Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 You'll go 20 miles out of your way (10 out, 10 back) to save $10? So, apparently you aren't exaggerating when you state you don't put much value on your time. I usually don't... All I am saying is that it is worth it. Most of the time, I couple the trip with something else I have to do. Like Thursday, I will fuel up in Indiana after my doctor's appointment. Everything is so wide open here, it doesn't take a heck of a lot of time. If you trailer your boat all the time its no big deal, but if you keep it in a slip you don't really have a choice. We had a guy at a local yacht club have gas delivered to him (he had a true yacht) by some type of tanker. When the club found out he was fined the difference. When I had a place on the water and my own dock I played with the idea of purchasing a portable tank. The people selling gas on the water sure do take advantage though. One would think the yacht club is liable for spillage... I reckon if the EPA (or state EPA) found out, there might be a fine?? I heard somebody say that technically in some parts you aren't even supposed to fill a boat on a trailer... Safety issue?? Careful now. Ethanol has 30% less energy content than oil derived gasoline. So, E85 will have (0.15 gasoline + 0.7*.85) = ~0.75 times the energy of regular, oil-derived gasoline. Energy 'factors' Oil-derived gasoline = 1.0 10% ethanol blend = 0.97 E85 = 0.75 Which means that you have to fill up E85 about 23% more frequently than E10. So at a buck cheaper (assuming regular E10 is ~ $4), you are about breaking even regarding $/mile driven. THANKS... Never knew that... Anyway, both my cars can't take it... And my one car only SHOULD only take plus or above (anti-knocking). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 11, 2011 Share Posted May 11, 2011 I don't think it's a fair comparison to say that a margin change in oil should have the same effect as it had in silver. I would agree that $100 is closer to "a fair price" than $112.... Once again, a change in margin won't shake out futures contracts tied to ETfs. Sure it can. No doubt that ETF investors are generally more long-term investors than futures traders, but without a doubt a lot of hot momentum money goes in and out of ETF's.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 Sure it can. No doubt that ETF investors are generally more long-term investors than futures traders, but without a doubt a lot of hot momentum money goes in and out of ETF's.... Going in and out of ETFs has no impact on the futures contracts that make up its value. REtail investors buy and sell the ETF which is independent of the underlying contracts. Margin has no impact on the number of futures contracts in the USO ETF. In fact, the majority of funds that the ETF raises via its offering is invested in money market instruments and other relatively short treasuries because of margin. The USO fund sells shares based on the total value of the contracts, yet the fund only puts up 6-8% of the capital to meet the margin requirement. Do you really think the movements in commodities, especially oil, in the past week (today!!) are based on fundamentals? I hope everyone continues to use alternatives to driving and filling gas tanks so these mo-fos lose their shirts. Demand is falling; suppliers are cutting production. The Saudis initially increased supply because of Libya, then cut back because no one was buying. Investment flows are distorting futures markets and therefore spot prices. The futures markets now function like casinos, not markets for hedgers. All it would take is for the Fed to raise rates by 25 bps and oil would drop another $15, but they have masters too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 12, 2011 Share Posted May 12, 2011 (edited) Going in and out of ETFs has no impact on the futures contracts that make up its value. REtail investors buy and sell the ETF which is independent of the underlying contracts. Margin has no impact on the number of futures contracts in the USO ETF. In fact, the majority of funds that the ETF raises via its offering is invested in money market instruments and other relatively short treasuries because of margin. The USO fund sells shares based on the total value of the contracts, yet the fund only puts up 6-8% of the capital to meet the margin requirement. Do you really think the movements in commodities, especially oil, in the past week (today!!) are based on fundamentals? I hope everyone continues to use alternatives to driving and filling gas tanks so these mo-fos lose their shirts. Demand is falling; suppliers are cutting production. The Saudis initially increased supply because of Libya, then cut back because no one was buying. Investment flows are distorting futures markets and therefore spot prices. The futures markets now function like casinos, not markets for hedgers. All it would take is for the Fed to raise rates by 25 bps and oil would drop another $15, but they have masters too... Yes it does....I guess you dont know how the USO etf works The United States Oil Fund, LP ("USO") is a U.S. exchange traded security (limited partnership) designed to track the movements of light, sweet crude oil ("West Texas Intermediate"). USO issues units that may be purchased and sold on the NYSE Arca. The investment objective of USO is for the changes in percentage terms of its units' net asset value ("NAV") to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the "NYMEX"), less USO's expenses. The portfolio will consist of listed crude oil futures contracts and other oil related futures, forwards, and swap contracts. USO will also invest in obligations of the United States government with remaining maturities of two years or less and hold cash and cash equivalents to be used to meet its current or potential margin or collateral requirements with respect to its investments in crude oil futures contracts and other oil interests. Money flying out of ETF's directly impact the underlying futures contract. Edited May 12, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Yes it does....I guess you dont know how the USO etf works Money flying out of ETF's directly impact the underlying futures contract. It's obvious someone doesn't know how the USO ETF works... The managers of the fund sell allotments of 100,000 units (the initial offering prices was $50) to big banks and brokerage houses (known as authorized purchasers--APs), who in turn sell these shares to other investors, including retail investors. The managers of USO use the funds raised from the APs to buy futures contracts on oil, but will also buy other oil-related investments--swaps and options. The ETF shares sold by the APs to retail investors trade on NYSE Arca like any secondary market. It is no different than selling a share of stock--I'm selling to another invetor, hence NO impact on futures contracts. The value of the ETF will obviously be related to the NAV of the underlying futures contracts. It may trade above NAV, it may trade below. All of that buying and selling of existing ETF shares has NO impact on the underlying futures! It's the other way around--the changing value of futures prices changes NAV of USO and therefore the ETF price. Now since you claim to have traded futures, I assume you understand that the USO fund only has to put up the margin on the futures investments, not the actual value. This means the majority of the funds raised by USO are invested in treasuries. Only about 10% of USO assets goes to meeting margin, the rest is in treasuries. This is why a change in margin has no impact on futures contracts that make up ETF investments. Read the prospectus. That said, USO will/does sell more allotments when the APs want more shares to sell to retail investors, and USO then buys more futures contracts. It is also possible for an AP to redeem an allotment of 100,000 units, which means the fund will reduce the number of contracts it buys. This happens about as regularly as corporations issue or buy back stock. Otherwise, the existing 45.3 million units outstanding trade just like any other stock. You are wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) It's obvious someone doesn't know how the USO ETF works... The managers of the fund sell allotments of 100,000 units (the initial offering prices was $50) to big banks and brokerage houses (known as authorized purchasers--APs), who in turn sell these shares to other investors, including retail investors. The managers of USO use the funds raised from the APs to buy futures contracts on oil, but will also buy other oil-related investments--swaps and options. The ETF shares sold by the APs to retail investors trade on NYSE Arca like any secondary market. It is no different than selling a share of stock--I'm selling to another invetor, hence NO impact on futures contracts. The value of the ETF will obviously be related to the NAV of the underlying futures contracts. It may trade above NAV, it may trade below. All of that buying and selling of existing ETF shares has NO impact on the underlying futures! It's the other way around--the changing value of futures prices changes NAV of USO and therefore the ETF price. Now since you claim to have traded futures, I assume you understand that the USO fund only has to put up the margin on the futures investments, not the actual value. This means the majority of the funds raised by USO are invested in treasuries. Only about 10% of USO assets goes to meeting margin, the rest is in treasuries. This is why a change in margin has no impact on futures contracts that make up ETF investments. Read the prospectus. That said, USO will/does sell more allotments when the APs want more shares to sell to retail investors, and USO then buys more futures contracts. It is also possible for an AP to redeem an allotment of 100,000 units, which means the fund will reduce the number of contracts it buys. This happens about as regularly as corporations issue or buy back stock. Otherwise, the existing 45.3 million units outstanding trade just like any other stock. You are wrong. No sir... ETF's have a direct impact on futures prices...There is no way to logically dispute this. I for a living have been a futures trader and now currently own a precious metals brokerage that deals with leveraged contracts and I have haveintimate knowledge of how ETF's work and their impact on futures prices.... I can say with all certainty that you are talking out of your ass and have no clue in what you are saying. so spare me the B.S bla bla bla and save it for the shmo's Edited May 13, 2011 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 (edited) No sir... ETF's have a direct impact on futures prices...There is no way to logically dispute this. I for a living have been a futures trader and now currently own a precious metals brokerage that deals with leveraged contracts and I have haveintimate knowledge of how ETF's work and their impact on futures prices.... I can say with all certainty that you are talking out of your ass and have no clue in what you are saying. so spare me the B.S bla bla bla and save it for the shmo's I agree they have a direct impact via the new issues. Everytime the APs want more units to sell, they buy an allotment from USO, which means USO has to buy more contracts. That has been my contention day one. The disagreement I have is that the secondary trades of existing shares on NYSE Arca does not influence futures prices. It's the same as a share of stock. An increase in the value of a company's stock does not change the value of its assets. New issues of stock used to finance more assets does. Read the prospectus shmo. Edited May 14, 2011 by TPS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 Move closer to work. yeah, because that's easy to do in the Washington, DC area. Just go on strike until work gives you a free ride. It's your right. Another dumbass statement. Seriously, "move closer to work", "drive less" not taking into account how people actually get to work or the region they live in. And for someone like Tom who lives in this region to say such dumb things is amazing. Losing credibility day by day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 yeah, because that's easy to do in the Washington, DC area. You mean you're so completely helpless that you can't find a house or apartment in DC closer to where you work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 You mean you're so completely helpless that you can't find a house or apartment in DC closer to where you work? yeah, Tom I am going to pack up my family and move closer to DC into Montgomery County or into DC and pay a **** load more money. That makes sense. HAHAHAHA!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted May 13, 2011 Share Posted May 13, 2011 yeah, Tom I am going to pack up my family and move closer to DC into Montgomery County or into DC and pay a **** load more money. That makes sense. HAHAHAHA!! Stop acting like a politician and spend less money someplace else until fuel prices go down or you earn more money. If you're budget is that tight that you can't absorb a raise in fuel prices you've got no one to blame but yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 14, 2011 Share Posted May 14, 2011 (edited) If you're budget is that tight that you can't absorb a REASONABLE raise in fuel prices you've got no one to blame but yourself. I agree. I corrected your post above. What is a reasonable "rise in fuel prices?" And that was the problem a few years back when fuel prices first went through the roof unreasonably. When fuel prices doubled everything took a back seat... People had to get to work or wherever, or totally fail. Unfortunately, just blaming people doesn't cut it when the rest of the economy tanks. Get real, you can't expect the average budget to have that much leeway in it. Even if the average budget had that leeway in it to better handle rising fuel prices, fuel prices shadow what it can squeeze out. In other words, the game would be the same, just bigger. You know where poeple stopped spending money "somewhere else?" Paying their credit cards. Edited May 14, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 yeah, Tom I am going to pack up my family and move closer to DC into Montgomery County or into DC and pay a **** load more money. That makes sense. HAHAHAHA!! Then stop your !@#$ing whining. It's your choice, why should the rest of us give a ****? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Then stop your !@#$ing whining. It's your choice, why should the rest of us give a ****? Because it really is NOT a viable choice and what he is saying effects so many other aspects of the economy. Yes, we should give a !@#$ing ****! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Because it really is NOT a viable choice and what he is saying effects so many other aspects of the economy. Yes, we should give a !@#$ing ****! Then maybe we should drill everywhere we can and build refineries too. Maybe the market wouldn't get so nervous and maybe there wouldn't be so much speculation if there was a stable supply. What do you think? Or, should the government just subsidize the cost of gasoline? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Then maybe we should drill everywhere we can and build refineries too. Maybe the market wouldn't get so nervous and maybe there wouldn't be so much speculation if there was a stable supply. What do you think? Or, should the government just subsidize the cost of gasoline? I all for the drilling and refining. And heck, we subsidize other stupid ****, at least fuel isn't that stupid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 Because it really is NOT a viable choice and what he is saying effects so many other aspects of the economy. Yes, we should give a !@#$ing ****! Paying to live closer to work. vs. paying to drive farther to work isn't a choice? Here's an idea: howze about you don't interject meaningless **** into other people's exchanges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted May 15, 2011 Share Posted May 15, 2011 yeah, Tom I am going to pack up my family and move closer to DC into Montgomery County or into DC and pay a **** load more money. That makes sense. HAHAHAHA!! Or you could find another job. Nobody is forcing you to live in the DC area, that's your choice Then stop your !@#$ing whining. It's your choice, why should the rest of us give a ****? Because he doesn't have the balls to either adapt or make a decision, so it's obviously somebody else's fault Because it really is NOT a viable choice and what he is saying effects so many other aspects of the economy. Yes, we should give a !@#$ing ****! Yes it is a viable choice. And no we shouldn't give a !@#$ing ****! as you put it The world is always changing. You can either make the decision adapt to the changes or you can sit around pissing and moaning about how unfair life is and blame somebody else Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 (edited) Article out of Michigan: The longer the commute, the larger the paycheck, census figures show "...The question among population experts is whether such communities can continue to grow amid dramatically slower homebuilding on large lots. "I haven't seen any surveys that say people don't want that. They just can't afford it," said Mark Wyckoff, director of Michigan State University's Planning and Zoning Center. He participated several years ago in a survey that asked Michigan residents what gasoline price would cause them to think seriously about not living in the country. The answer then was $4 to $4.50 a gallon. Wyckoff believes it will take even more: "It probably won't happen until you get past $5."..." Edited May 16, 2011 by ExiledInIllinois Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Then stop your !@#$ing whining. It's your choice, why should the rest of us give a ****? Hey moron, I understand that it's a choice and I am not whining. I am stating a freakin' fact that to simply say "drive less", "move closer to work" are not viable ideas. And if you believe that they are... you truly are a dumb ass. Or you could find another job. Nobody is forcing you to live in the DC area, that's your choice Because he doesn't have the balls to either adapt or make a decision, so it's obviously somebody else's fault Yes it is a viable choice. And no we shouldn't give a !@#$ing ****! as you put it The world is always changing. You can either make the decision adapt to the changes or you can sit around pissing and moaning about how unfair life is and blame somebody else Find another job... yes another BRILLIANT idea. Let's see combat the rising gas prices by finding another job. Ok? Not finding the balls to adapt? Seriously, I have been driving my commute now for 8 years, AGAIN since people here are awfully thick. It's not about me adapting or whining or anything like that at all. It all comes down to saying that people should move, or drive less, etc. Are not viable ideas/plans in ALL cases. Understand? If I blame anyone, I will blame your stupidity. So getting back to the crux of this thread... how does this country combat the ever rising gas prices. We all know that drill baby drill, people should drive less, etc., etc. Can only help in certain cases or not at all for about 10 years. Knowing that... does the government investigate the speculators, or follow the lead of ExxonMobil's CEO and find out why the prices are so high since based on supply and demand they should be in the $60-$70 per barrel range. Paying to live closer to work. vs. paying to drive farther to work isn't a choice? Here's an idea: howze about you don't interject meaningless **** into other people's exchanges? Outer counties in the Washington, DC area home prices are dramatically lower than living closer to DC. No one in their right mind will spend $250,000 - $300,000 more for a home just because gas prices are high. Again, moving closer to DC not a viable idea. So in a nutshell, drive and deal with the gas prices HOPING that someone will pull a finger out of their ass a do something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts