What seems to be missing from the global warming debate is that there is more than one thing responsible for temperature changes. The temperature changes that caused the ice ages are primarily related to the tilt of the earth's axis with respect to its orbit around the sun. And it has been pointed out by scientist that if had it not been for the increase in green house gases caused by man going as far back to the days of slash and burn farming 10k to 15k years ago that we would be might have been entering another ice age today which has been delayed because of this. Granted we have probably created more green house gases than what was required to do this because temperatures are still increasing but one has to keep in mind what the end goal is. The end old is stable temperatures, not lower temperatures. Or else the Europeans and Canadians might be looking for new places to live and the Mexicans would be building fences to keep their northern neighbors from crossing their border. Well, unless they were Hispanic and then they could probably cross, but no one else.
I believe that the world needs to reduce green house gas production. But I think there is a very efficient way to achieve this goal. Just develop a virus that wipes out 90% of the world’s population and the problem is solved. The planet would then be sustainable for another 500 years which might gives us enough time to figure out how to colonize other planets in other solar systems. Or we can continue to go down our current path of runaway population growth in which case we become a desolate planet once all the natural resources and available top soil gets used up. In the end the population size will end up being the same but the difference will be the quality of life. In the latter case it will be dismal. Population reduction by mass starvation, which implies a period of cannibalism, doesn’t sound like the best way to go. But then that is just me. Others may think differently.
I believe that martial law would require an executive order. Obama would never use an executive order without congress' approval would he? Would he do that? Get serious.
Smart oil companies have come to realize that they are not in the oil business long term but rather in the transportable energy business. Because if oil companies were to stay fixated on oil alone they would be waiting for their eventual demise and I don't think that they want that to happen. Their primary goal is to make money. To do that long term they will have to adapt and I think they already see the writing on the wall.
Returns of Volatility ETNs and ETFs
Symbol Descr. Today 1 year ago 2 year ago One year return Two Year Return
ETFs Exchange Traded Funds
VIXY long 27.98 58.85 287.15 -52.5% -90.3%
VIXM long 18.63 27.12 67.18 -31.3% -72.3%
UVXY 2X long 61.01 384.00 15840 -84.1% -99.6%
SVXY short 64.4 45.47 16.43 41.6% 292.0%
VIXM long 18.6 27.12 67.18 -31.4% -72.3
ETNs Exchange Traded Notes
VXX long 41.95 87.88 431 -52.3% -90.3%
XIV short 32.85 23.12 8.23 42.1% 299.1%
VXZ long 15.22 22.08 54.88 -31.1% -72.3%
TVIX 2X long 6.78 43.9 1850 -84.6% -99.6%
ZIV short 39.35 29.7 13.34 32.5% 195.0%
XVZ long 31.93 42.04 56.93 -24% -43.9%
VIIX long 56.62 118.7 600 -52.3% -90.6%
TVIZ 2X long 32.15 72.1 486 #$%$4% -93.4%
CVOL 2X long 3.07 17 189.5 -81.9% -98.4%
VIIZ long 21.16 30.57 71.06 -30.8% -70.2%
IVOP short 37.71 36.87 27.04 23% 39.5%
It is safer to buy long one of the inverse volatility ETFs or ETNs like SVXY when they dip because there is no danger of a margin call. However the profits are not a good. I do both at the same time in different accounts. I short TVIX in a cash account and buy SVXY long in a IRA account. The TVIX short has made me 37% so far and the SVXY long position has made me 23%. Both are good returns but obviously I like the profits from the short TVIX position better. However since I was willing to put 3 times more at risk on the long SVXY position I actually made more in absolute dollar amounts.
There are a lot of inverse volatility ETFs / ETNs. They all make money over time. They are volatile but they over a 1 year period they never lose money. You can even pick your entry point and exit point poorly and make money on these funds.
Never buy long a volatility ETF because they all lose money over time. Only the inverse ETFs make money in the long run.
Never use the chart alone to determine if you want enter a position. If volatility is starting to increase and you don't understand why it is increasing then it is probably wise not to invest because you probably won't understand how long to wait before you enter and then later on when to clover. Though the latter is easier to do because these volatility spikes are shorter than the calm between them except when in the middle of a major correction and then it is a different game with a who new set of rules on choosing your entry which in all honesty I am not sure I would feel confident to take on that challenge myself. It would depend on the conditions at the time.
However when the market is correcting simply because of a minor worrisome development that is not major but is spooking investors none the less, then the risk are more benign and it is a lot easier to pick the entry point because during these times the ^VIX rarely exceeds 30. And if it does not for very long.
What makes this a safe play is the knowledge that the ^VIX always eventually returns back to a low volatility condition so even if you jumped the gun on your entry point you can be assured that it is just a matter of time when your trade will start making money. However you have to make sure you are not greedy. Here is an example of a greedy investor. Someone who shorts TVIX with their entire account trade when the ^VIX exceeds 20 but unfortunately the market conditions are more volatile than your typical correction and the ^VIX goes north of 40. He could get a margin call and have his account wiped out. That is why I never short more than 30% of my account value in this trade. That way I can remain solvent even for a ^VIX excursion as high as 60 without getting a margin call. You need to do your homework and determine what is possible and have contingencies for these black swan events. The greedy investor takes no such contingencies and eventually gets hammered some day.
That is what I did in the last dip. I will do it again on the next dip. There will always be dips. That never changes. What changes is the severity of them. If the dip is very severe and you were not expecting it then the tendency would be to start the position too early. That is why you always buy in stages. In case you jump the gun. It happens. You cannot expect to execute perfectly. So you should not even try. Just average in so that your entry is good enough.
Seriously. We need to keep an open mind on this issue. We need to keep researching alternative fuels that reduce green house gases but we should be making assumptions that we cannot possibly prove either. It might be the case that we need to make sure that we emit a minimum amount of green house gases to compensate for other factors that would be causing the earths temperature to decline had there no green house gas emissions at all. If that is the case then having a bunch of mindless groupies with a political agenda running around saying that we need to reduce green house gases to near nothing isn't going to help scientist get that point across, especially if they feel intimidated into not expressing such views.
If you go visit castles in Europe you will often find them surrounded by forest where they are often hard to see until you are right next to them. Often times in the castle there will be a picture of the castle by some artist who painted it say 500 years ago from some distance away and what you will notice right away is that there are no trees. And that is because in those days people used trees for fire wood so you would have to travel some distance to find it because in populated areas, like around a castle all the trees were cut. This was the state of affairs all though out Europe in those days.
And even when the first settlers came to America, before small pox killed off most of the Indians, these new settlers wrote on how you could easily walk through the forest because much of lower kindling had been cut away and used for fuel. There were numerous camp fires burning most everywhere and this was all adding carbon to the atmosphere. Before small pox there was somewhat of a population explosion going on in the Americas. Some drier areas of the country have not recovered even today from the deforestation that was going on here in the US before Europeans ever discovered the Americas.
Yet in many wetter areas where recovery is more rapid you cannot walk through some forest without a way to cut through the underbrush because we are no longer burning wood as a primary source of fuel. And thus people are no longer going through the forest and thinning it out other than lumber companies and they now are forced to replant the trees they cut by law. This has created an unintended fire hazard because before modern fire control forest used to burn off regularly creating massive amounts of green house gases, something that man prevents from happening today whenever possible because we want to save buildings from burning.
The fact is that we now have more forest coverage in the US than in the past due to farm land going back to forest due to higher productivity per acre. And in many of these areas where there are farms like in the prairie, there were never trees there to begin with.
You hit on one of the subjects that I read about a lot because I consider myself to be an environmentalist however the more I study the more I run across misinformation that is created by people who have politicized the science. This makes it more difficult but not too hard because usually the writings that have been politicizes do not have references to scientific research and if they do have reference it is to some other non scientific work that did not have reference so it doesn't count.
I would say that much of the temperature data related to carbon as a green house gas is accurate. I just think there are too many people out there not looking that the complete picture. They cherry pick there data and leave out what does not support their claims.
Very well put. The difference is that conservatives admit it but the liberals just mimic what their leaders say at the time. It is like when you see a flock of birds in the sky and one turns and they all turn at once. All they need to know is which way their leadership wants them to turn and they go in unison. One glaring exception to this is when Bush invaded Iraq but then the Democrats, who should have opposed him, agreed to support him when it actually mattered which was when they voted on it. But then we just had the world trade center demolished and people were upset about that. It is more difficult to expect people to act rational under such conditions. But nothing like that is going on today so there are no excuses to be made.
There used to be more diversity of opinions among Democrats years ago. But I think they changed because they when more elections when they do exactly what they are told to do. Granted that is true, they do win more elections by doing this but then there is no accountability any more. Their leadership can do whatever they want and no one objects because it is no longer considered acceptable to object. Now everything they do is OK by default. It is basically the ends justifies the means argument. But this isn't true. The ends do not always justify the means because when the process is corrupted then you never know if the end result will be in the best interest of the public over all or more likely to be in the best interest of a few people who have significant influence over elections. Which are the very people telling the flock which way to turn.
That is why you wait for volatility to get high and then invest in it going down. Because it is easier to find the bottom than the top and you want your exit point to be the easiest part of the trade.
Fidelity has a nice feature. You can do a seach by stock symbol and get the all your trade confirmations for that stock. I made no SPWR trades in 2012. You are imagining this.
In 2013 I bought it for $15.35 and sold it later for $19.69 for a gain. Later on in 2013 I bought it for $24.84 and then sold it $20.83 for a loss. Then I gave up on solars.
The account that I owned SPWR in back in 2007 was at TDAmeritrade which I zeroed out when I paid off my house and bought my second home. This account has been sitting at near empty since then and I no longer use it.
After 2003 I have rarely owned a stock for more than a year. I don't have any long term gains anymore. They are all short term.
2005 through 2007 were my most profitable years in all my investing history and I paid a lot of taxes. I was not afraid to put 100% of my money into the market back then but 2008 changed my outlook on the wisdom of that as I recognized that my good fortune in timing the down turn that time was no guarantee that I would do as well in the next down turn to come. I cannot afford to lose that kind money. That is an impossible scenario for me and thus I refuse to expose myself to that level of risk anymore now that I am where I am.
I rode through the 2000 to 2003 down turn and it was that experience that caused me to investigate what causes these large dips to occur and what indicators precede them. I have discussed this at length with investors that are more experienced than I and seemed to understand better than I did. The knowledge I managed to obtain from 2000 to 2008 seemed to help. It seems that these recession related dips are predictable.
However, there is another caveat. In 2006 I started to think a recession was starting and unnecessarily got out for a few months. Now I understand where I went wrong and why I miss calculated it that time. It is a work in progress. And I don't assume that I will be able to do it every time from now on. But I am going to try to and I will be exiting again when I see the conditions that I believe precede a recession. Because all the large dips occur prior to a recession. That is what investors fear the most, so it seems. Everything else is just minor to moderate corrections.
“Long term buy and hold” has not worked for 14 years. I don’t even know if anyone writes books promoting it as a viable investment strategy anymore. If they do they must be very old and set in their ways.
Obviously if he had the intelligence to come to that conclusion that would have been his next thought which would have lead him to disregard any further musings beyond that. It turns out that what you said was the case.
I did get out in December but in stages. I was selling all the stocks over a period of two months because the unemployment numbers were rising and I interpreted this as a sign that a recession was coming. Also certain commodities that go down in price because of lower demand as one enters a recession where on the decline. I also look at shipping numbers and rail car loadings as a predictor of recessions. Everything seemed to imply that a recession was around the corner. And as we all know this is what happened.
In November SPRW started to get highly volatile and there were articles coming out on Seeking Alpha at the time that 2008 solar production capacity would exceed demand and that would cause the solar companies to have to reduce their panel prices. This bothered me at the time because it sounded like this was possible so I started to investigate it to see if this theory had any merit and I decided that it was a creditable theory and decided to believe it. In 2008 solar capacity did exceed demand and the Seeking Alpha prediction did come true.
Now just for those of you who think I am making all this up so I can come off as a timing wizard, I will proceed to pop that bubble. I did get out before the 2008 dip but I was too reluctant to get back in at the bottom because volatility was still very high and I waited much to long until the profits I made were much less than they could have been. So as you can see I am not trying to come off as a timing wizard because I didn't time it very well as one could have. I avoided the losses but I missed out on much of the gains that I could have had and some would claim that I would have not done that much worse had I rode it out. All I can say is that I slept well. That made it all worth it.
And I sold it for over $130 at the end of the year tripling my money and I have not made any serious solar investments sense so what is your point? It wasn't just SPWR, there was STP who I believe is now bankrupt and FSLR as well. After paying copious amounts of taxes I was able to pay off my home with the profits and in so doing eliminate my house payments. Why would I hold onto a stock that was getting ready to tank with the rest of the market as we were entering a recession? You seem to have imagined that I would do something like that. I would never do that. I can hardly remember any of this.
Besides, this is 7 years ago. Are you stalking me? Why would you even care what I have or have not done 7 years ago and how would that help you make a wiser investment today? Do you have copies of my post taped to your walls with lines drawn between them? Should I be contacting the FBI? By all appearances you are acting obsessive.
I dumped everything stock that I owned in either Dec of 2007 or January of 2008 and then I sat on my hands and watched the market meltdown. And of course when I told others what I did everyone thought I was "ludicrous" and made smug comments to that effect. Those people don't talk much about this anymore. But I have no reasons to feel the same way that they must feel after going through that nightmare unnecessarily.
Everyone also said that I was crazy for pulling that much money out of the market and paying off my home. But all my investments were in cash and not having to pay 4.75% interest was better than earning 0.1% interest on cash during the time I was 100% cash. And since I rarely invest more than 50% of my net worth anymore it is still better than earning near zero interest on cash. My house payment used to be $2200 a month. Now I only pay the property taxes and insurance. SPRW was one of the best investments I ever made back then. However, I find the solar market too unpredictable for my liking today.
The CORN ETF is an investment in corn futures. Go read the profile. If you are going to be so obnoxious you could at least make an effort to be right. Its less humiliating that way. By the way, my son is only half white. I guess no one told me that racist only mary inside their own race. You seem to assume a lot. Is every thing you say just something you imagined?
Keep in mind that ETF shares are not like shares of a company so it is not clear to me at all what it means when an ETF share is shorted.