Mon, Dec 29, 2014, 12:29 AM EST - U.S. Markets open in 9 hrs 1 mins

Recent

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

American Capital Agency Corp. Message Board

mmichaelr 129 posts  |  Last Activity: 4 hours ago Member since: Sep 22, 2011
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • mmichaelr mmichaelr 4 hours ago Flag

    Yes and they r from the he/she herehear/flame/dr_chumps__M/B 300+ IDs. They combined offer nothing but 'idiocy analysis' in 90 some % of the postings. Most r never historically factual and always skew to the 'sky is falling idiocy'. The collective postings of the 'he/she herehear/flame/dr_chumps' has only resulted in missing yr_over_yr possibly (still 2 b determined) the greastest of "Index" multiples.

    We hv not even yet begin to experience PE and Cash flow muliple expansion___a health restoring correction is needed. It will hit in the 1st qtr__m/b early 2nd. After that we will be off 2 the races again__but the advance will (US) based become more selected to sectors. That cld be the top__if Asian/S. America/Europe does not pick up the momentun_____I believe they will.

    I hv posted here multiple times that this 'BULL' we not run its course until the Nasdaq and the Dax post new HIs__________I stick with that view!

  • Reply to

    I wish 300 non-merry

    by mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 6:01 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr 9 hours ago Flag

    The Canadian ETF was a preferred equity portfoilo__they closed because it never gained enough traction to bring the assests under management (basically for ETPs number of baskets created and sold). I had to accept their NAV calc at closing. That is the point I am raising about using RSX__the number of baskets yet sold are not that large as of yet to ensure continued sponsorship. That is where CEFs and UITs (besides M/B buying under NAV) offer an advantage.

  • mmichaelr by mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 8:21 PM Flag

    This will be the 1st annv for ur mom passing__raise a toast to her memory__my post just did.

  • Reply to

    JC Penney Should get back into Drugstores !

    by dr_klumps Dec 23, 2014 4:40 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 8:13 PM Flag

    This he/she may hate everybody_____but if u r not one of companion posting IDs that the he/she has created___then check out the multiple years wrong way direction for financial posting.

    He/she posted a 'Santa Claus' mkt crash__yet the Dow and 500 hit new HIs 2 day__well we do hv until lunch time tomorrow for it to happen.

    Merry Xmas to all__and give some of ur profits to a charity!

  • Reply to

    JC Penney Leather Shoes $9.99

    by dr_klumps Dec 23, 2014 4:21 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 8:04 PM Flag

    What they heck are u doing on this board?? Buy JCP 2019/2020 bonds__collect interest and wait to be called or mature at par!!

  • Reply to

    I wish 300 non-merry

    by mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 6:01 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 8:00 PM Flag

    Well I will say this__put Obama and Putin in a ring and unless someone intervenes (Obama will be carried out).

    But generally I can agree with this thinking but due to currency translations and lessor revenue flows from oil sales I feel it is better to approach from corporate debt offerings. That can be hard to obtain. I have been searching portfolio’s of emerging market labeled CEFs and UITs for a measurable exposure to Russian debt. The debt is already under par and a CEF or UIT trading at a discount to NAV cld b a sweet opportunity.

    I am aware of RSX and hv 2 concerns for using it for exposure.
    1) Is the amount of assets under management and average trading volume. While that is contrarian (wise) may be indicative of an opportunity__it is also flag that the ETF sponsors cld close the fund__a shareholder wld be liquidated at the sponsors declared NAV. I had this happen recently with ‘Ishares ‘Canadian Preferred ETF (CNPF)’.

    2) Is that RSX is index sector replicated by approx 16% materials (with Russia I belive this means base metals) and a whopping approx 44% energy__that is of course 60% to two sectors that have little upward pricing pressure. While the distribution yield is nice approx. 3.7% it has only bn paid once per year__so it is not a good candidate for dripping.

    The best approach may be to try and find a spread one can create (long RSX/short maybe a country currency they export to).

  • mmichaelr by mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 6:01 PM Flag

    Christmas's to herhear/flame/DrChumps because that is at least how many posting IDs the buffoon has created.

  • Reply to

    FED says stock market could be cut in half !

    by dr_klumps Dec 23, 2014 3:32 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 23, 2014 5:56 PM Flag

    "I like to be right"????????????????????????????

    Then u must be a very emotionally sad buffoon__but that statement must be all of our Christmas present__it certainly is tyhe biggest 'joke' I have heard all year!

  • Reply to

    FED MAY RAISE RATES SOONER !

    by dr_klumps Dec 15, 2014 3:45 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 18, 2014 8:43 PM Flag

    It is a hard 4 me 2 believe anyone is as brain dead as you__the 'city council of Chicago is proposing/pushing a $13 minimum wage__not $15

    Do u continually post mis-information on purpose or r that phucghing stupid???

  • Reply to

    BULL TRAP?

    by fred357mag2000 Dec 16, 2014 1:29 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 17, 2014 9:08 PM Flag

    The causal relationship is one of over supply vs demand draw. We can see from the relaeses of 'Commodity Trader’s Commitment Report' which entities are buying down and making hedges. If it was not for buying pressure from India and Seatheast Asia countries (obviously stock piling) world crude prices wld b even lower.

    There is little doubt in my thinking that OPEC is currently trying to flush out higher leveraged fracking and maybe even South American entities.

    What is nonsensical is the wide brush for pricing, applied to everything related. The demand draw has not bn decreasing__so if I am correct about over supply/demand draw then why are refiners equities being hit so hard?_____my answer is an overreaction and recaps for institutional funds.

  • "5 successive monthly increases." after referencing an at will statement

    Back to 1971 there hv never bn 5 successive monthly increases. I did not look further back because if you know anything about FED history__until Greenspan the concept of transparency with post FED mtg releases was non existent. One would hv to wait until the actual mtg minutes release to attempt interpretation.

    Besides the last time chumps posted about the FED he totally missed the mark again__I went back into the 1950s and he/shes representation for % increases never happened. This loon just wings posting thoughts out probably after consuming most of a handle of cheap whiskey!

  • Reply to

    FED MAY RAISE RATES SOONER !

    by dr_klumps Dec 15, 2014 3:45 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 15, 2014 5:14 PM Flag

    Their is no causal effect relationship btwn the early 80s and present. The early 80s reflected the political machinations attempts from Central Banks and government fiscal policies (additional taxation for imported oil__wage and price controls) to squish rising inflationary pressures. The oil enviornment was a demand draw vs. a 'Oligopoly' under supply.

    Since oil is a world traded commodity (even more exchanges now than then the 80s) pricing has become more efficient__reducing arbitrage opportunities.

    The causal relationship is one of over supply vs demand draw. We can see from the relaeses of 'Commodity Trader’s Commitment Report' which entities are buying down and making hedges. If it was not for buying pressure from Inida and Seatheast Asia countries (obviously stock piling) world crude prices wld b even lower.

    There is little doubt in my thinking that OPEC is currently trying to flush out higher leveraged fracking and maybe even South American entities.

    What is nonsensical is the wide brush being pricing applied to everything related. If I am correct about over supply/demand draw then why are refiners eqities being hit so hard.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 13, 2014 8:04 PM Flag

    I assume this ID is another from the long list created by hearhere/flame/chumps. I admit I could hv bn clearer in my reply post__not withstanding the he/she attempted to post his/her AGNC trading results as a gain but if they hv totally offset the trades are a now a loser (including time value of money and opportunity cost). The only way he/she has an implied (by he/she) a gain due to taxable adjustments would be limited to the 3k per year capital loss offset.

    So now the he/she is claiming million $$ trades__well if that was true (not) the he/she would be posting about AMT taxes in these posts.
    -----------
    But from the moron’s own post
    “I have $32,000 capital loss carryover from 2013 on my schedule D. This will be brought up to 2014 and taken against any net gains I have for 2014”

    After all those idiot postings claiming 100% guaranteed event__the he/she not only was mostly out of participation in this equity bull and bond market__but was a loser for 2013!!

    Yeah I know Harry Dent and Hussman will hv their day and then claim righteous victory after losing for years.
    -----------
    This he/she posts very loose regarding facts and historical data__and recently again resorted to outright lying.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 13, 2014 6:13 PM Flag

    I essentailly doubled my position. I assume some of thid downside is related to tax loss selling__however, obviously the market believes the preferred may go in2 arrears.

  • mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 10, 2014 5:42 PM Flag

    So let us c__u bought and sold AGNC '6 times' but will pay no capital gains due to capital loss tax offsetting. Tax loss offsetting is still (ridiculously) limited to $3,000 a year. Therefore after six trades requiring 12 brokerage and other SEC exchange fees___u profited by a total of $3,000. Brokerages luv amatuer small traders like urself.

    Now ur idiocy in analysis is even apparent in portfolio money management!!

  • October 13 -15 presented a great entry point for sector portfolio adjustments. Selected sector funds still are positive by 8 to 17% versus those entry dates. The future opportunity I posted about on Nov 1 in ‘Closed End Funds’ related to tax selling is here for investors needing to adjust asset allocations (especially for sectors within index allocations). If one is getting tempted by the sale in selected sectors; CEFs will offer further discounted prices from NAVs.

    For those unfamiliar with obtaining info for CEFs__be leary of the accuracy for generic search engines, such as yayhoo. Barron’s is a good starting point for ferreting candidates and the most accurate NAV pricings will be found with major brokerages, such as, Fidelity and the CEF overwriter/management websites themselves. One should be cognizant of expense ratios (for positioning beyond a short term trade) and interpret discounts relative to historical cycle swings.

    Historically the 1st qtr narrowing of spread btwn NAV to mkt price can be surprisingly opportunistic.

  • Reply to

    Bubble #1: Short Term Treasury Yields

    by dr_klumps Dec 7, 2014 8:40 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 8, 2014 9:40 PM Flag

    A year and a half ago__ur were posting the FED should raise short rates to enable__retirees/savers to increase their income stream___lately u hvposted it as a negative!!

    Again herehear/flame/(and now dr chumps) if u wld take are classes__u might learn the fundamental background to interpret economic/financial and market information!!

  • Reply to

    Bubble #1: Short Term Treasury Yields

    by dr_klumps Dec 7, 2014 8:40 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 8, 2014 8:22 PM Flag

    and that knowledeg has proven to produce___what?? Attempting to shift neophytes asset allocations to follow ur continous posting of mis-information and doom and gloom.

  • Reply to

    OIL CRASH = STOCK CRASH

    by dr_klumps Dec 1, 2014 6:57 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 6, 2014 3:59 PM Flag

    Well you do live in a state with one of the most corrupt and stupid admin officials (and voters to keep relecting )__are they all related you??. But while your state has a sales tax your statement is still as usual incorrect--

    "if Gasoline drops from $5 to $2.50, the Federal, State and Local taxes got HALVED."

    Price per gallon has nothing to do with the Exicse and Distribution taxes__they are based on per gallon (volume)__so arguably economic forces give us a higher volume consumed with lower pricings. The number of people decicing to travel for the most recent holiday increased and auto sales dealerships have already seen a sales shift from their more efficient mileage offerings. Surprising how short term oriented consumer realities are.

    What is not surprising is the analytical thiness of your repeated attempts to understand economic/financial /market machinations.

    After all, any he/she that would have expended so much time (herehear and the flame) to create all those login IDs just to destroy meaningful discourse on this board is beyond any reach of useful intellect!

  • Reply to

    CORN vs OIL !

    by dr_klumps Dec 4, 2014 7:30 PM
    mmichaelr mmichaelr Dec 4, 2014 8:09 PM Flag

    U really make no sense. U consistently complain about so called manipulations but u what to use an ETF 'CORN' as an indicator. 'CORN' is manipulated because their decisions on when to roll that spread of three contracts (that I explained to u) is based more on the disposal of and recreation of share baskets than any set date strategy. The futures market pricings are not manipulated because the front month are cash transactions (actual exchange between parties) and the further months are contractual agreements.

    U are a total fool if u cannot understand how to obtain the 'actual cash' commodities transaction pricings for use in analysis. I told u a correlation matrix btwn the ETF CORN and actual corn price is only 0.73__that means any attempt to use the ETF price for comparative analysis is based on false cause and effect relationships.

    No wonder u rechunk the idiocy of dolts like Harry Dent etc. Basically anybody can create a chart of useless unrelated data and u will 'take it to bank'. Did u ever even attempt to study the basic principles of the 'Scientific Process Methodology'?

AGNC
22.30+0.16(+0.72%)Dec 26 4:00 PMEST

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.