Financial News

[Chisoxfn]

That's going to be a problem since they're not even on the job search radar right now.

 

People post profiles there but nobody recruits from there...it's more like a personal networking site so people can feel important or something, I'm not even sure. I've had a LinkedIn profile for years and never actually searched around the site, and really don't care to do so.

 

Monster and Dice are FAR more popular job search engines. As a matter of fact, I wouldn't even think of using LinkedIn to search for a job...it's the last place I'd go.

Thats not true. I have head-hunters and HR people from other companies emailing probably on average 5 times a month (if not more) asking If I'm interested in appying for all kinds of jobs. And I know friends that have gotten jobs as a result of people reaching out to them (and finding them) via linked in. It seems like a great way to go out and find the candidates you are looking for that have jobs and might not be looking.

[NorthSideSox72]

Thats not true. I have head-hunters and HR people from other companies emailing probably on average 5 times a month (if not more) asking If I'm interested in appying for all kinds of jobs. And I know friends that have gotten jobs as a result of people reaching out to them (and finding them) via linked in. It seems like a great way to go out and find the candidates you are looking for that have jobs and might not be looking.

Though I generally agree with Y2HH on the valuation of LinkedIn, he's definitely wrong about recruiting. People use LinkedIn to find candidates all the time. Heck I have recruiters contacting me at least once a month who found me that way, and all I have up there is a very basic profile with little detail beyond position title, company and timeframe, and what degrees I hold.

 

That said, I think that tends to happen more with professionals who have an established career track, that can be easily gleaned from the information on the site. For a recent college grad, its probably not real helpful.

 

[StrangeSox]

But it has value in job searching beside just looking for job openings.

 

recruiters/staffing firms dig through it I'm sure.

[Y2HH]

recruiters/staffing firms dig through it I'm sure.

 

Which doesn't lead to many jobs. From the sounds of it, if you are on linked in, youll get a million job offers...at least that's what they made it sound like above...only the job market completely sucks right now, so you two must be very marketable. Either that or they're the typical recruitment calls where they want you to take jobs you have no interest in.

 

I've been linked in for years, it's a fine site...it's not better than competing job search sites, either...and it's still not worth what some of you appear to think it is, and if you truly believe it is, then buy it.

[StrangeSox]

Which doesn't lead to many jobs. From the sounds of it, if you are on linked in, youll get a million job offers...at least that's what they made it sound like above...only the job market completely sucks right now, so you two must be very marketable. Either that or they're the typical recruitment calls where they want you to take jobs you have no interest in.

 

I've been linked in for years, it's a fine site...it's not better than competing job search sites, either...and it's still not worth what some of you appear to think it is, and if you truly believe it is, then buy it.

I have no idea or opinion of LinkedIn's worth.

[Y2HH]

I have no idea or opinion of LinkedIn's worth.

 

It's not about having an opinion. It's trading at 88.30, so that's what it's worth. So long as people are willing to pay something in the vicinity of 500+ times earnings for a share of LinkedIn, that's what it's worth...but the floors going to drop out on that one fast enough. It's merely .com IPO euphoria rearing it's head again that caused the run up. When will it come down to earth and be priced what is should be priced at? I don't know. But it will. Every stock eventually comes in line with an average P/E ratio, it's just a matter of when.

 

Googles P/E is 20.

Apples is 16.

Microsofts is 9.

 

Note that those companies, each of them individually, make more profit in a single day than LinkedIn makes in a year (or has EVER made, all years combined in it's existence), yet the street only values them at 9x to 20x earnings. Eventually LinkedIn's street value will come in line with that, as it always does.

 

Oh and even better, the WSJ notes: “The company expects its revenue growth rate to slow and warns that it won’t be profitable in 2011 as it invests in what it calls future growth, such as technology and product development. It also warns that it expects that its results in the future could become more cyclical and seasonal.”

 

...meanwhile, Microsoft, Google and Apple are all making more money than the quarter/year before it...and set their expectations as such.

 

This is complete idiocy that I see happening right now.

[Balta1701]

Complete idiocy? That sound like something we ought to gamble out entire financial system on.

 

(someday, some investment firm will read this post and offer me $7 mil a year.)

[Y2HH]

Complete idiocy? That sound like something we ought to gamble out entire financial system on.

 

(someday, some investment firm will read this post and offer me $7 mil a year.)

 

While I find the humor in this, what's not funny about it is every last one of those pieces of garbage walked away...and walked away with millions.

[Balta1701]

Link

The U.S. futures regulator on Tuesday sued two veteran oil traders and their employers, the Arcadia and Parnon Energy firms, charging they booked $50 million in profits by manipulating oil prices in 2008.

 

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission accused traders at Parnon Energy Inc and Arcadia Energy Suisse SA of carrying out a cross-market trading scheme between January and April of 2008 involving accumulation and sell-off of a substantial position in physical crude oil to manipulate futures prices.

 

 

....

The charges do not seem to be linked to crude's record-breaking spike to almost $150 a barrel in 2008, although the alleged offense occurred during the same time period.

 

The CFTC alleges the pair did at times try to push prices higher by buying up commercial supplies of crude around Cushing. But they also tried to force prices lower, at times dumping crude to depress prices and profit on short positions, according to the CFTC.

 

Their attempt to control the direction of the market worked in January and March 2008, the CFTC said, but failed in April, as prices rose by almost $20 a barrel toward $120 over the course of that month. Prices barely paused from then until they hit more than $147 a barrel in July 2008.

 

The traders executed a manipulative strategy by amassing "a sufficient quantity of physical WTI to be delivered the next month at Cushing to dominate and control WTI supply even though they had no commercial need for crude oil," it said.

 

It said the traders aborted the scheme in April 2008 after learning of the CFTC investigation.

[Balta1701]

Different version from the NYT:

At the same time, they bought millions of barrels of physical crude oil at Cushing, Okla., one of the main delivery sites for West Texas Intermediate, the benchmark for American oil, the suit says. They bought the oil even though they had no commercial need for it, giving the market the impression of a shortage, the complaint says.

 

At one point they had such a dominant position that they owned about 4.6 million barrels of crude oil, estimating that this represented two-thirds of the seven million barrels of excess oil then available at Cushing, according to lawsuits.

 

This type of oil is also the main driver of prices of the futures contracts, and their actions caused futures prices to rise, the authorities say. “They wanted to lull market participants into believing that supply would remain tight,” the agency said. “They knew that as long as the market believed that supply was tight and getting even tighter, there would be upward pressure on the prices of W.T.I. for February delivery relative to March delivery, which was their goal.”

Wait, it takes only 5 million barrels of oil on futures contracts to completely distort the market? Then I take back everything I ever said about speculation being a miniscule factor in price spikes.

[Y2HH]

Different version from the NYT:

Wait, it takes only 5 million barrels of oil on futures contracts to completely distort the market? Then I take back everything I ever said about speculation being a miniscule factor in price spikes.

 

There are many factors contributing to oil prices, such as the value of the dollar, unnecessary fear being spread about production (fact is, the supply has remained constant despite wars), speculation, locking in futures contracts at high prices, etc. Some speculation is good for markets, even necessary, it's when speculation is abused and bastardized which is the problem.

 

What do I mean by bastardized speculation? Speculation is usually used in commodities markets to lock in prices to prevent huge price swings for delivery takers. For example, Hershey company would look at the price of cocoa and determine if the price may rise due to crop yields, and buy a bunch of contracts on speculation that the cost may rise in the future, in this example, they'd have locked in contracts at the current price because they think it's going to cost more soon. This prevents the prices from going up too high in the future because the cocoa industry realizes that a big buyer already locked in plenty of futures and won't need more for a while...it's like a control mechanism. This also works by preventing the prices from falling so low that the sellers cannot make money, as if the prices fall low, the buyers will start locking up contracts, which shortens supply, putting the price back in line where it belongs. This type of speculation keeps the markets stable. The problem comes in when speculators are actively looking to rocket the price by buying up supplies and holding them so when inventories are counted, those contracts are "off the market" and thus inventories will look artificially low. The only reason this works is because the people with these contracts have no intention of taking delivery, all they're looking to do is keep the barrels locked up so when inventories are counted, the barrels they bought "don't exist", which offsets supply and demand. Of course, it's all artificial supply and demand, since we know they not only don't want to take delivery, but in reality, they CANNOT take delivery...where would they store 5M barrels of oil, and what would they do with it if they could?

 

My problem isn't speculation, there is a reason for legit buyers and sellers of commodities to speculate on price. My problem is that people are being allowed to speculate that have ZERO intention of accepting delivery, not only that, but have NO actual use for said commodity other than making money off of it. IMO, if you aren't able to accept delivery of a commodity such as cocoa or oil (food/petroleum), you have no business buying futures. This is bastardized speculation, and downright evil...considering we are talking about food and oil, which affects peoples lives, often in very drastic ways.

[Balta1701]

One Ultra-Large Crude Carrier can hold ~ 2 million barrels of oil.

[NorthSideSox72]

There are many factors contributing to oil prices, such as the value of the dollar, unnecessary fear being spread about production (fact is, the supply has remained constant despite wars), speculation, locking in futures contracts at high prices, etc. Some speculation is good for markets, even necessary, it's when speculation is abused and bastardized which is the problem.

 

What do I mean by bastardized speculation? Speculation is usually used in commodities markets to lock in prices to prevent huge price swings for delivery takers. For example, Hershey company would look at the price of cocoa and determine if the price may rise due to crop yields, and buy a bunch of contracts on speculation that the cost may rise in the future, in this example, they'd have locked in contracts at the current price because they think it's going to cost more soon. This prevents the prices from going up too high in the future because the cocoa industry realizes that a big buyer already locked in plenty of futures and won't need more for a while...it's like a control mechanism. This also works by preventing the prices from falling so low that the sellers cannot make money, as if the prices fall low, the buyers will start locking up contracts, which shortens supply, putting the price back in line where it belongs. This type of speculation keeps the markets stable. The problem comes in when speculators are actively looking to rocket the price by buying up supplies and holding them so when inventories are counted, those contracts are "off the market" and thus inventories will look artificially low. The only reason this works is because the people with these contracts have no intention of taking delivery, all they're looking to do is keep the barrels locked up so when inventories are counted, the barrels they bought "don't exist", which offsets supply and demand. Of course, it's all artificial supply and demand, since we know they not only don't want to take delivery, but in reality, they CANNOT take delivery...where would they store 5M barrels of oil, and what would they do with it if they could?

 

My problem isn't speculation, there is a reason for legit buyers and sellers of commodities to speculate on price. My problem is that people are being allowed to speculate that have ZERO intention of accepting delivery, not only that, but have NO actual use for said commodity other than making money off of it. IMO, if you aren't able to accept delivery of a commodity such as cocoa or oil (food/petroleum), you have no business buying futures. This is bastardized speculation, and downright evil...considering we are talking about food and oil, which affects peoples lives, often in very drastic ways.

The problem with your last graf is, if you eliminate all people from the market that aren't directly selling or buying the commodity - which is to say, remove all market making and cross hedging - the market loses massive amounts of liquidity, and prices will actually become MORE erratic and LESS connected to the value of the product. It seems counterintuitive, but its a reality of those markets. So you shouldn't really do that - you should instead look for the true abusers, like the ones in the case Balta cited.

 

[Heads22]

Was recommended at work today to look into Series I bonds. Anyone use these?

[southsider2k5]

Was recommended at work today to look into Series I bonds. Anyone use these?

 

What for exactly?

[Balta1701]

We're back into "Crap" and "Clearly going up rather than down" territory.

 

In the week ending May 21, the advance figure for seasonally adjusted initial claims was 424,000, an increase of 10,000 from the previous week's revised figure of 414,000. The 4-week moving average was 438,500, a decrease of 1,750 from the previous week's revised average of 440,250.

[Balta1701]

When oil prices hit a record $147 a barrel in July 2008, the Bush administration leaned on Saudi Arabia to pump more crude in hopes that a flood of new crude would drive the price down. The Saudis complied, but not before warning that oil already was plentiful and that Wall Street speculation, not a shortage of oil, was driving up prices.

 

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al Naimi even told U.S. Ambassador Ford Fraker that the kingdom would have difficulty finding customers for the additional crude, according to an account laid out in a confidential State Department cable dated Sept. 28, 2008,

 

"Saudi Arabia can't just put crude out on the market," the cable quotes Naimi as saying. Instead, Naimi suggested, "speculators bore significant responsibility for the sharp increase in oil prices in the last few years," according to the cable.

 

Read more: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2011/05/25/1147...l#ixzz1NVfw1RPS

[StrangeSox]

Study finds members of Congress consistently outperform the market

Four university researchers examined 16,000 common stock transactions made by approximately 300 House representatives from 1985 to 2001, and found what they call "significant positive abnormal returns," with portfolios based on congressional trades beating the market by about 6 percent annually. ... A study of senators by the same team of researchers five years ago found members of the higher chamber even better at beating the market -- outperforming it by about 10 percent, an amount the academics said was "both economically large and statistically significant."

 

Dems outperform Republicans significantly, but some Democrats have been trying to change the rules so there's less possibility of this happening.

 

[southsider2k5]

Study finds members of Congress consistently outperform the market

 

 

Dems outperform Republicans significantly, but some Democrats have been trying to change the rules so there's less possibility of this happening.

 

This would get me thrown into jail in all likelihood. For people in the industry, we have to be able to prove that we aren't breaking securities laws governing material non-public information. It doesn't surprise me that they outperform, as usually if you are going to be getting that far in life, you have to be a pretty sharp person, but at the same time, I doubt the rate of out performance is realistic. You should read the SEC/FINRA/SRO rules on the burden of information.

[StrangeSox]

You should read the SEC/FINRA/SRO rules on the burden of information.

Sounds like a page-turner!

 

 

[southsider2k5]

Sounds like a page-turner!

 

Me at work dealing with exactly these regulations --->

[StrangeSox]

Me at work dealing with exactly these regulations --->

 

I am not a stranger to boring CFR or code book reading.

[Heads22]

What for exactly?

 

Just as a way to grow money.

[StrangeSox]

Home prices hit new lows.

 

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/money_co/2...double-dip.html

[southsider2k5]

Just as a way to grow money.

 

I think those might be a 10k minimum.