Recent

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

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

mmichaelr 73 posts  |  Last Activity: Jun 29, 2015 3:40 PM Member since: Sep 22, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Jun 29, 2015 3:40 PM Flag

    Simply because any one with real financial knowledge, skills and capital will use the actual futures market__not some amateur gimmick, such as, TBT whence only their traders know what the actual day to day derivative composition is!

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Jun 24, 2015 4:59 PM Flag

    If you do not like TBT as a speculation vehicle__what r u doing visiting this site??

    It is not that TBT is engineered to go to zero. The ETF uses derivatives such as forward swaps and futures contracts. Inherit to those derivatives is time decay which will erode its value if the intrinsic value does not gain relative to time. Just like a put option on TLT (your suggestion) will time erode.

  • Reply to

    BIG NEWS just hit the wires

    by joelsilver29 Jun 8, 2015 10:01 AM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Jun 9, 2015 2:41 PM Flag

    I hold some debentures__yesterday I rcvd a notice for 'Bar Dates For Filing Claims'

  • Reply to

    1987 Like Stock Crash ?

    by dr_klumps May 18, 2015 4:30 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr May 20, 2015 9:57 PM Flag

    ' because there is a lot of rube 'YIELD SEEKERS'

    Actually what is more of a concern 2 me is when u watch CNBC (etc) those guys hv never bn thru an interest up cycle!!

  • Reply to

    1987 Like Stock Crash ?

    by dr_klumps May 18, 2015 4:30 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr May 20, 2015 9:54 PM Flag

    Now usually when I post versus u__I post actual factoids__this time I am going 2 paint a wider brush stroke.
    Excuse me__but this is a very different mkt from 1987. In 87 (going in2 OCT) the FED orchestrated I believe 3-4 rate increases in rather quick succession__and these where at the more meaningfully "Discount Rate"____not the FED Fund(s) rate. If memory serves correct these where 50 basis point measures. Measureable inflation was increasing___but most Importantly (the most accurate measure) 'Purchasing Power Parity' had shifted between the US and trading partners.

    2day is not even the same environment.

    While U have bn wrong for almost 2 years now__I hv bn right (see my 'I am vindicated post).

    We need a correction badly__but again specific sectors look good and those will propel Indexes to new HIs. I expect a rougher than normal summer trading season. We will remove profits on advances from sectors and reinvest in rising money flow and relative strength!!

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr May 18, 2015 2:01 PM Flag

    Are u another ID for dr. chumps__because just like that he/she u post about things u do not understand.
    It is not 2X:

    'The investment seeks daily investment results, before fees and expenses, that correspond to one and one-quarter times the inverse (-1.25x) of the daily price movement of the most recently issued 30-Year U.S. Treasury Bond. The fund invests in derivatives that the adviser believes, in combination, should have similar daily return characteristics as one and one-quarter times the inverse (-1.25x) of the daily movement of the Long Bond. The fund is non-diversified.'

  • Date 12/31/2014
    1 mo 0.03
    3 mo 0.04
    6 mo 0.12
    1 yr 0.25
    2 yr 0.67
    3 yr 1.1
    5 yr 1.65
    7 yr 1.97
    10 yr 2.17
    20 yr 2.47
    30 yr 2.75

    Date 5/1/2015
    1 mo 0
    3 mo 0.01
    6 mo 0.05
    1 yr 0.25
    2 yr 0.6
    3 yr 0.97
    5 yr 1.5
    7 yr 1.87
    10 yr 2.12
    20 yr 2.57
    30 yr 2.82

  • Reply to

    I am vindicated

    by mmichaelr Apr 23, 2015 4:18 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr May 3, 2015 5:26 PM Flag

    If one were to perform the calculation from the FED Funds Futures it shows that after the FEDs mtg this past week the consensus view of traders pushed out their rate hike expectation from August to October.

  • Reply to

    I am vindicated

    by mmichaelr Apr 23, 2015 4:18 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Apr 26, 2015 5:24 PM Flag

    1)
    We started re-deploying cash into certain sectors, select countries and specific floating rate and Hi yield areas on 1/13 and 1/14 (that I mentioned in my early Jan post ‘My first wide brush’). I have been removing coin from certain sectors with every push towards new sectoral HIs thru the late 1st qtr and this early 2nd qtr. The lowest return has been +4.64% in an Industrial sector fund (FCYIX) with the highest 16.52% in an actively managed Emerging Asia fund (FSEAX), +15.24% in actively managed Natural Resource fund (FNARX), +12.86% (IXUS), +12.59% (IEMG) and +12.34% (IEV) index funds.
    Continuing on an Intl/Emerging market theme on 3/10 additional money was deployed +13.70% (IEMG), +9.05 (FICDX), again IEV popping +6.84% with the lower return end being +5.55% (FNMIX) and +5.33% (LEMB) and that is ignoring the income payout. Those last two are nice coin from bond funds.
    Individual issue standouts have been CVRR +34.4% (purch 1/21), NTI +22.7% (purch 1/21), GRH-PRC +24.16% (for those three I perceived no credible reason why the market sold them off with crude) (I may hold these three for income now for years), MSFT +12.14% (purch 1/27) and JCP +23.4% (purch 1/5) on what I perceived to be a double bottom with increasing RSI and money flow. Additionally I have swing traded JCP twice since January and hold a core position from $5.11 and hold 2020 debentures with a paper gain of +11% ignoring the addl income received. I believe JCP is on track to a full recovery (but a volatile road ahead).

  • mmichaelr by mmichaelr Apr 23, 2015 4:18 PM Flag

    I am vindicated 4/23/15
    I have posted a number of times since mid 2013 that this bull would not end until the (last posted this in late fall 2014) Nasdaq and DAX breached their all time HIs. The DAX did on 4/15 and the Nasdaq breached the 3/10/2000 closing HI 2day.

    Also as I have often posted__real education, professional certifications and intelligence will always trump buffoons with made up (lies) education and experience, such as, Dr. Chumps so gloriously presents.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Apr 23, 2015 2:04 PM Flag

    And by the way at current interest rates the present value calculations are not going to entice many retirees to trade that cash valuation as a replacement for an annuity income stream.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Apr 23, 2015 2:00 PM Flag

    ALU US pension plans are currently overfunded

  • This is important because, often times, a rising tide will lift all boats in an industry, as there can be broad trends taking place in a segment that are boosting securities across the board. This is arguably taking place in the REIT-mortgage trust space as it currently has a Zacks Industry Rank of 55 out of more than 250 industries, suggesting it is well-positioned from this perspective, especially when compared to other segments out there.

  • to be crowing about
    Codified IRS regulations for a REIT are defined in Treasury Sections 856, 857 and 859. They define that a REIT "must pay out at least 90% of its annual net taxable income as a dividend to shareholders". Additionally to keep their tax status as a trust they cannot retain earnings. ROC in this case is exactly that earnings__most likely from the sale of portfolio mortgage tranches at a gain.

  • Reply to

    IRA taxes....form 990T?

    by joebigbuck Mar 30, 2015 12:08 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Apr 1, 2015 3:53 PM Flag

    Wow you really do not understand this! The K1 information is dependent upon what your share equates to as a ‘Limited Partner’. In other words it is dependent upon how many units (shares) you own. If you reinvest the distributions (the major reason to hold within an IRA) over time the possibility of breaching the tax exempt limit only increases.
    So if I gave you my line 20V number for NTI and CVRR__ it has no meaningful correlation to yours.

    Roughly calculated it appears that it would require 976 units at yr end to breach the $1000 for NTI in 2014. My CVRR line 20V and the Ordinary Business Income numbers are negative__so it appears CVRR is not a factor. Those numbers reflect the lack of enthusiasm for CVRR equity pricing in the market.

    Now when u used NTIs website and entered ur SS and last name did the system even recognize you. By now you should have rcvd paper K1s. If not this brings up the ? of just how the units are registered.

  • Reply to

    IRA taxes....form 990T?

    by joebigbuck Mar 30, 2015 12:08 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Apr 1, 2015 2:59 PM Flag

    If you want exposure to MLPs what would you then suggest for someone who has most investable assets in tax-deferred accounts?

    I suggested CEFs like JMF and KMF.

  • Reply to

    IRA taxes....form 990T?

    by joebigbuck Mar 30, 2015 12:08 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Mar 30, 2015 2:13 PM Flag

    Tax on UBTI within an IRA is not paid directly by the account owner. The tax actually is owed by the IRA administrator, who must file the tax return and pay any tax for each account. To make sure your account is credited, mail a copy of your K-1 to the client tax reporting department of the company that holds your account. Some custodians charge a hefty fee for processing UBTI taxes. I am aware some brokers (I hear Schwab) will file the 990-T without a charge while others will upcharge for the accounting work.
    Your account can also be liable for taxes in every state in which the MLP does business. Check with your tax adviser, but you don't need to worry unless you're looking to generate tens of thousands of dollars from MLPs inside your IRA.
    1) If an IRA has MLP investments then the IRA may have to pay a yearly tax on the unrelated business taxable income (UBTI) of the MLP.
    2) For each tax-deferred account, the first $1,000 of the combined UBTI is tax exempt. After that, UBTI is taxable as ordinary income. The distributions will be taxed at corporate rates, since it’s the tax-deferred account that’s taxed, not you personally
    3) Any tax due is paid out of the IRA.
    4) The tax is based on the UBTI shown on line 20V of the K-1. For many MLPs this amount is negative. Where a positive amount is shown it is combined with the negative amounts for other MLPs owned in the same IRA.
    5) Since the MLPs with negative UBTI offset the MLPs with positive UBTI getting to +$1,000 of UBTI may not become a concern.
    However, this can be avoided my using CEFs, such as, JMF and KMF. Personally I do not like the exchange traded products.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Mar 27, 2015 4:00 PM Flag

    Bull The so called flame and chumps is herexhear and u most likely r also!
    Apparently the flame etc. had bn either drinking at times or just became confused at which login the he/she used__because the MORON posted repeats of the same info using the various logins. Any body can search the posting histories.

    As for myself I have seldom posted on another REIT board.

    My complaint with u is thru all ur logins you post advice like u actually have a real/respected financial background yet u disregard all ethical standards that a professional would be required to uphold.
    You he/she are proven to be by ur own long term record of posting to be a LIAR, MORON, financial/analytical IDIOT, a LOON and most like a phhhaqqq.

    A far as debating about GM. You have many times posted back and forth to urself either out of sure idiocy boredom, to create controversy or as previously posted (because the MORON posted repeats of the same info using the various logins).

    Now why do u not go away b4 you lead some naïve investor into following ur idiocy for losing assets__with ur ridicoulous posting claims 'guaranteed', 'sure bet', 'crash 100% this date', 'TBT 80 by summer', 10 yr 4.5% by Dec 2014', Santa Claus crash', 'AGNC to $10', 'Valentines Day crash 100% guaranteed', etc., etc., etc., etc. and so on and so on.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Mar 27, 2015 2:18 PM Flag

    LIAR__u have bn here almost every day via your dr chumps ID

  • Reply to

    O

    by dr_klumps Mar 25, 2015 3:23 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Mar 27, 2015 1:31 PM Flag

    Moron if the FED raised the short end for the reasons u r proposing_it would imply nothing about future inflation. The FED would just be being purposely manipulative and the data sets that do indicate inflation pressure would show a negative divergence__hence traders would not bid up rates across the yield curve. You end up with the last thing this economy needs (a flattening of the yield curve).

    Besides that you have been consistently complaining about Central bank manipulations___AND now you want them to do just that. U have become so lost in your paralysis of incorrect analysis it has now warping your views towards the role of Central Banks.

AGNC
18.62+0.10(+0.54%)Jul 2 4:00 PMEDT