% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Petróleo Brasileiro S.A. - Petrobras Message Board

  • musketeernumberone musketeernumberone Dec 21, 2009 5:41 PM Flag

    I LOVE this market!

    Today's big movers....

    Tech rules! USD

    Newsmakers rule! BUCY, MOS

    Speculative energy plays rule! WPRT, ARLP (the coal MLP -- it's em fogo, en fuego, on fire!), NEP...

    Brazil is in the dumpster for now... money coming out...

    Seriously, Doc, who cares what Obama knows about economics? Stimulus rules!!!! The trend is your friend and the trend is UP.

    glta... musk

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Money coming out??Better check out VALE,GOL (upside is no joke),PBR will follow soon enough!

      • 1 Reply to narocz21795
      • Here is a chart of the brazil etf EWZ. Note the decline of 10% (from about $80 to about $72) that occurred during December. During this period, PBR declined from $53 to $46 - something over 10%...

        This was money coming out. This was the "funk" you asked about and which I explained above.

        PBR was upgraded over the weekend. Given that it's moved down while the price of oil has gone up, I would not be surprised to see a nice "catch-up" move this week.


    • They key words in your statement is FOR NOW. Buy on these dips as any Brazilian ADR is going skyrocket.

    • many of your plays have to do with the recent surge in U.S. electricity consumption. That it is going up now after going down for two years in a row, a first in U.S. history, is based once more on the notion that all things are well.

      The market is surging because it thinks that is a trend. I think it's a hiccup that will last a few months.

      <Stimulus rules!!!!>

      Racking up America's public debt to create a surge in demand is not a permanent solution. It's like getting a cash advance on one credit card to pay another.

      Winny and I actually agree on this point. Scary.

      As far as chasing charts goes, I would do some of it if there was empiric evidence to do so. Short term trading has nothing to do with fundamentals and is entirely based on sentiment.

      The chart patterns that TA gurus look at though have been analyzed and shown not to work. The evidence that they do is purely anecdotal.

      As Buffett said, if making money is exciting, you are doing it wrong.

      • 1 Reply to docjoe999
      • "Racking up America's public debt to create a surge in demand is not a permanent solution." This is a very limited myopic view of what is happening... what about normal cyclical factors; what about EM/China demand; what about return of confidence in the financial system... these are all part of the recovery story.

        "It's like getting a cash advance on one credit card to pay another." No, it's like someone putting money in my pocket because I'm an equity investor. I don't wish to miss the boat nor do I lament the chance to recover what was lost.

        "As far as chasing charts goes, I would do some of it if there was empiric evidence to do so." I'd call myself a swing trader... my current strategy is to stick with the stock and sectors that work and get rid of the others. I have an account with almost no activity, another with some movement and one I use for "trading"....

        "Short term trading has nothing to do with fundamentals and is entirely based on sentiment." So what, as long as it's working.

        "As Buffett said, if making money is exciting, you are doing it wrong." I don't care about 'exciting', I care about what works. I may have mentioned before that a part of my portfolio was professionally managed by a Lehman Bros subsidiary... At the trough, they created a paper loss of 40%... This was devastating for me. But it served as a wake-up call. Thankfully, I'm recuperating nicely. If I seem "excited", let's just say I'm not shy about sharing my successes... In fairness, I've also been honest about my failures.

        Cheers and Happy Holidays, one and all.

    • LOL, I thought you thought the market sucked?

      As to more stimulus, I doubt it would do much lasting good.

      Just temporary boosts in sentiment that have a bigger long term cost.

      Along with any other budget busting measures and pork they can think of.

      Healthcare, near as I can tell is short on reform and going to cost far more on a service- adjusted basis.

      And any changes made now in order to win support by the medical establishment will be like an anchor for any new admin wanting to implement REAL reform.

      Big Pharma, Docs, Insurance Co's all at the trough at the expense of taxpayers and once the new bill is signed into law, it will be near impossible to reverse course.

      Innovation in healthcare delivery will be all but stifled and cost control will be near impossible once the healthcare unions get tenure at the trough as well.

      Rationing of services will be the only way to cut costs going forward.

      Time to get out of the domestic waters IMO.

      Or stick to things that are a bit insulated from the second wave of bad news that's sure to come.

      Like interest rates on bonds.

      Bernanke going to have to print faster and buy back more bonds unless he's willing to let rates go up.

      And where will the money go if the people selling bonds are scared of an increasing rate environment?

      Where the marginal money goes when bonds are being sold will be key.

      AU/PGM's, materials (for China), energy, and EM's ....and/or go short most US consumer-related stuff is still my current thinking.

      • 1 Reply to winsabokk
      • <Big Pharma, Docs, Insurance Co's all at the trough at the expense of taxpayers and once the new bill is signed into law, it will be near impossible to reverse course.>

        Doctors, again? Jeez, will it ever end?

        I think the greatest negative PR stunt in history has to be how all labor costs are thrown at doctor's feet. I swear people must think RNs, LVNs, Therapists, Medical assistants, technicians, and health care managers work for free.

        The truth is Winny that my wife is a RN, and a starting salary for a RN is roughly double what it was when she first got her degree sixteen years ago. And that's true for all people in health care... except for doctors.

        Starting salary for an internist like myself has roughly stayed the same during that time.

        The grand scheme in the 90s to correct health care costs was capitation. That was the insurance scheme whereby you got paid per month by insurers for each member regardless of the level of service you provided them. There was an incentive to keep people out of the office.

        One day a respiratory therapist shows up as a patient. He has a punctured ear drum, and I give him antibiotic drops. He then calls on a Sunday complaining of pain, and I have seen him just this one time. I respond to the call, and tell him to buy Motrin and let him know that I am not going to give him a narcotic.

        A week later, he shows up in my office with a hand written note condemning me for not adequately treating his pain and for my being rude and tells me he is changing doctors. I ask him how much does he think I made off having him as a patient. He responds, "I don't know. Like $150."

        I laugh and tell him try $12 a month. After overhead, that is $6, and after taxes that is $4 a month. And I ask him if he thinks that I got paid for providing a service on a Sunday for free. He shrugs his shoulders. He doesn't care if I got paid.

        I then make the comment to him that he thinks that I didn't provide the care that you needed, and there is a word for providing needed services without compensation, and that word is communism. I ask him how many times he has provided free service as a respiratory therapist. He doesn't answer.

        And that is one reason I quit: capitalist expectations in a communist system.

        An easy way to cut medical costs are elimination of the red tape. Standardizing billing procedures would save at least 10% of the total health care bill.

        The reason it is not done is because the fear is making the system more efficient would result in over billing. That over billing has not happened in the rest of the world is not relevant.

        The reality is that by making the billing system cumbersome insurers get services provided for free.

        End of life care costs 20% of the Medicare's total budget, and it has been tied up in the ridiculous battle over abortion. So we have Sarah Palin's stupid comments about death panels, and some even more stupid parts of the public who believe her.

        Malpractice costs are laughably predicted to be at only 2%. The reality is closer to 30%.

        One of the stupidest things I have ever seen is Americans are more concerned over their right to sue doctors for screwing up than getting health care.

        That countries have higher quality care, lower costs, and less malpractice is lost on the public. They think their ability to beat a doctor over the head is the best way to get quality, and they don't want any facts presented to them that might change their mind.

        And that's the whole point. It's far easier to demonize doctors then see what it is truly driving up costs. Doctor's pay is like 5 to 10% of the total health care costs. If the public wants to look at who is truly driving up health care costs, they need to look in the mirror. Doctors are tired of being the public's scape goat,and they are quitting in droves.

    • Not "gratuitous" at all. The question is, what was the real motive? The economic benefits of war to gigantic corporations, the actual security of the USA, or some mix? Dwight Eisenhower did not think this was a silly question.

      "They were claimed to be a threat to other countries in the region."

      The absence of such discussion around the Tonkin resolution notwithstanding, it is interesting to wonder if the medicine was not a million times worse for all involved than the disease. What is the interest on a hundred billion dollars after 40 years? Chances are, the very worst investor on this discussion board could probably have turned that cash into free health care for all of us by now... And this does not consider the income and tax revenue from the trade which would have sprung up decades sooner between we "most-favored" trading partners.

      And, the way Fletcher Prouty tells it, the whole crisis in SE Asia was stirred up by the USA. His view should not be instantly rejected since he was highly decorated for his support of such operations and was working in the Kennedy Admin when a lot of this history was developing.

      "since he had restarted his nuke program when the invasion occurred."

      Bull. Prove it. I'll take Scott Ritter's word over yours.
      (This is a pretty good video. I hope you take the time to watch it.)

      "Say something about Fox News for no logical reason"

      Oh. You missed the logic. I'll explain. In order to get 300 million people to approve of a bogus war, you need to lie to them. Most people would be shocked to see the type of crap that was used to justify the Iraq invasion. At least I hope they would be shocked. Maybe they are like you and will defend the lies, the liars, and all the pain, murder and debts that have resulted from them.

    • "I still can't figure out where Fox News comes into this."

      Maybe it was this astute reply from Doc:

      "Ilap, your comments show you are intolerant of other religions and are xenophobic, illogical, and paranoid. IOW, you are the target audience of Fox news."

      To which I would only add that FOX news, besides seeking such a target audience, also probably causes otherwise normal people to gradually become "xenophobic, illogical, and paranoid", ie modern Republicans. (And I think Doc carefully chose the most generous and polite terms he could.)

      "BTW, what's your idea of solid news organizations?"

      UK's London Independent

      Mike Rivero's WRH

      The Daily Show

      The Onion

      The Daily Show

      What Really Happened

      The BBC

    • "Text of Iraq weapons inspector David Kay's report"

      Yes, Dr. Kay is mentioned in this link too. But strangely, Senator Nelson is a more agitated by something else.

      It is apparent this instrument needs more frequent use:

      U.S.C. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 47 § 1001.
      (a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, WHOEVER, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully—
      (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by ANY trick, scheme, or device a material fact;
      (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or
      (3) makes or USES any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

      <And if Iraq did get the bomb, how were they going to deploy it? Federal Express?>

      "I don't know. I said "eventual". In any case a threat directly to the US was never claimed as a justification."

      Are you sure about that last part?

    • WRT seniors and the new healthcare changes:

      <<Yet the political price is hardly neutral. Democrats who misguidedly vote for this monstrosity will face immediate political repercussions.

      The harshest of these backlashes will come from the elderly who will suddenly visit their doctors and be told “no” when they ask for therapies or treatments. The rationing of medical care will start immediately on enactment and, one hopes, the outraged phone calls will start to descend on those whose votes enabled it.

      The first “no” will hit the ten million elderly who now rely on Medicare Advantage to pay for the care Medicare itself does not cover. In a payoff to AARP, Obama gutted this program in his bill, ending over $100 billion in federal premium subsidies. These ten million voters will get the grim news that their premiums are going up and their benefits dropping early in 2010. The goal, of course, is to force them to drop Medicare Advantage and sign up, instead, for Medigap insurance — offered, not coincidentally, by the AARP — which provides less coverage at higher cost.>>

      And last I heard, lots of seniors were cancelling their AARP memberships because it doesn't represent the memberships interests anymore.

      However, I would agree with you that young people will also be affected by this but I'm not sure that they are paying close enough attention or that there will be as much a backlash/ political price to pay as I don't think the change in coverage or mandates and potential for rationing will be as much a factor for the young and healthy....atleast not so much in the early years.

      But make no the extent govt can't keep a lid on increasing costs (and most govts don't have a good record on this) to deliver healthcare, and they can't raise taxes, errr mandates in later years, they will have only one choice and that's rationing for the young as well at some point.

      Here's some poll talk from Rasmussen that sure seems to indicate that there may be political repercussions....just because of the process.

      "Barack Obama’s Approval Index Plunges After Health Care Rammed Through Senate"

    • "intolerant of other religions and are xenophobic, illogical, and paranoid. IOW, you are the target audience of Fox news."


    • View More Messages
4.93-0.19(-3.71%)Nov 27 1:02 PMEST