Bernanke ขึ้นดอกเบี้ยอีกแล้ว

[สุมาอี้]

Bernanke ขึ้นดอกเบี้ยเป็น 4.75% แล้ว

เหลือบไปดู US 10yr bond yield ตอนนี้ 4.78% เท่านั้น

yield curve ตอนนี้แบนสุดๆ  :roll:

ถ้าเดือนหน้ายังคิดจะขึ้นดอกเบี้ยไปอีก เราคงได้เห็น inverted yield curve กัน  :evil:

[hot]

บริษัท ที่มีเงินสดเยอะเยอะน่าจะได้ประโยชน์
หรือเปล่าคับ

[คัดท้าย]

ไม่ทราบเคยเล่น http://www.chaloke.com มั้ยครับ

ลุงโฉลกแกทำนายรูปแบบนี้มานานแล้วว่า ทอง น้ำมันจะขึ้น ให้ขายพันธบัตรทิ้ง ให้หมด ใครถืออยู่ ต้องเขกหัวตัวเองทุกวัน ไม่รู้ลุงแกทำนายได้ยังไงเหมือนกัน

ปล. คนรักทักษิณกรุณาระวังอย่าเข้าไปครับ เขตไฟฟ้าแรงสูง เพราะที่นั่นด่ากันกระจุย เข้าไปเดี๋ยวมึนครับ

[Dech]

ผมก็สงสัยเช่นกันครับ

แต่ไม่เคยได้ทำตามเลย

สงสัยคราวนี้ได้เขกหัวตัวเองแน่

[คัดท้าย]

บัฟเฟต หลังๆ ... ก็ชักเหมือน จิม โรเจอร์ เข้าไปทุกที


http://wallstreetwindow.com/buffett.htm

Investors View Magazine

Swanson Likes Warren Buffett's Big Bet

Summer 2005

Hedge fund manager and newsletter writer Mike Swanson sees a return of the gold bull market by the end of the summer. "I just took some short positions in the dollar today and am going to start to build a long position in gold stocks over the next few weeks. Gold tends to trade opposite to the dollar and the dollar is about to resume its long-term decline," he said.

Swanson, has had an uncanny track record when it comes to gold stocks. In his newsletter, WallStreetWindow, he first recommended that people buy them in the Spring of 2002 when gold was under $300 an ounce. He then sold them in the following summer and told his subscribers to buy them back in April of 2003. Incredibly, he put out a sell recommendation one day before gold peaked in December of 2003. "We had an incredible ride in gold last year too and I made a fortune when I got out," he said. Swanson thinks that gold investors are going to experience similar rewards this year and told his subscribers to buy back in back on the day gold hit 413 on May 31st.

He isn't the only one bullish on precious metals. Billionaire George Soros publicly disclosed that he had built a massive short position against the US dollar. Three months later his former partner, Jim Rogers, recommended that people buy gold to hedge themselves. Greenspan is doing his best to prolong the bubble driving interest rates down, printing money as fast as he can and debasing the currency, he said. Both have subsequently increased their positions.

Then in October of 2003, Warren Buffet, the most famous investor in America, announced that he had bought a basket of foreign currencies to profit from a coming decline in the dollar. Although he didnt disclose the size of his position he called it massive and noted that it was the first time he ever bought a single foreign currency. Over the past 5 years he has bought up more than 25% of the world's silver. Buffett has an uncanny habit of making money in the stock market. In May of 2002 he bought $600 million dollars worth of puts on the S&P 500 that exploded in value when the stock market tanked later that summer.

He is now warning of an impending dollar crisis that could last for years. Our countrys net worth so to speak, is now being transferred abroad at an alarming rate, he said. In effect, he warned, our country has been behaving like an extraordinary rich family that possesses an immense farm. In order to consume 4% more than we produce thats the trade deficit we have day by day, been both selling pieces of the farm and increase the mortgage on what we still own.

According to Mike Swanson, "the accumulation of debt in the United States cannot continue much longer. In the last century the ratio of debt to GDP hovered between 120% and 160%. In 1929 debt rose to 260%. Now the ratio of debt to GDP is at a mad 300% and has been growing over the past year. Something has to give."

Economist Mark Thornton, author of Tariffs, Blockades, and Inflation, agrees. He thinks investors need to pay attention to gold. "There is always a bull market somewhere in the economy. It could be junk bonds, real estate, a particular currency, tech stocks, foreign markets, land, blue chips, or small caps, " he says, "Today we are in a bull market in gold and commodities. Oil and gas are at all-time highs while metals such as silver are up more than 25%."

There are a lot of doubters. Gold, once seen as a safe haven in the inflationary 1970's has fallen out of favor with mainstream investment advisors. CNBC commentator James Cramer likens "gold bugs" to people who believe the world is flat.

Swanson welcomes such skepticism. "Warren Buffet made his billions by buying investments when they are out of favor. You buy low and sell high. When everyone is negative like they are on gold and silver right now then you need to consider buying. I think I'm in good company on this one. I'd rather know that Warren Buffet is in agreement with me than Cramer or Kudlow ," he says.

[คัดท้าย]

http://www.gold-eagle.com/editorials_03 ... 10603.html

Open Letter To the Authorities of the Silver Markets

Dear Neal Wolkoff and Michael Gorham,

Due to the fact that silver is moving upwards in price fast over the past two days, and given the mining strike in Poland, which produces over 30 million ounces of silver a year, I suggest you take some time to review the silver market once again.

I have been following your exchanges with Ted Butler at www.butlerresearch.com, and I have some questions, comments and recommendations.

Michael Gorham wrote in July 26, 2002: "In other words, any short that "oversold" and caused low futures prices would ultimately be forced to either buy silver on the cash market to satisfy his or her delivery obligation or to buy offsetting long futures positions. Either action would tend to raise market prices and rectify any alleged "oversold" condition."

Gorham admits that if a short were to buy futures contracts, it would tend to raise prices. But why does Gorham assert that the sale of futures contracts would not likewise tend to lower prices? As he did when he wrote:

"There is no reason to believe that large short positions in a futures market must necessarily result in too-low prices."

Why is there "no reason"? It is obvious that additional purchases push up the price, and additional sales would push down the price.

Gorham admitted that the large long position of the Hunt brothers was a manipulation of the markets, ostensibly resulting in prices that would be too high, and Gorham took pride that such manipulation (as it was called) was stopped!

I would argue that it is impossible for longs to manipulate markets in free markets because freedom means that anyone is free to buy as much of anything as they wish. That's what freedom means.

However, it should never be legal to allow people to sell what they do not have, because that is the very essence of fraud, and fraud is not to be tolerated wherever justice and free markets are enforced. A short manipulation is dangerous. It will hurt everyone who holds the commodity and who is invested in producing the commodity. Furthermore, a short manipulation ends in a short squeeze or bankruptcy and default by the shorts, the kind of default that regulators, such as you two gentlemen, are supposed to prevent.

Gorham wrote, "Any attempt to hold prices at artificially-low levels would require visible, systematic, and comprehensive efforts to block the ability of users, investors, and dealers to take advantage of too-low prices."

I agree! And there have been visible efforts to block the accumulation of the longs, thus proving that prices are at artificially low levels! Warren Buffet bought 130 million ounces of silver in 1997 and was effectively blocked from the market, blocked from accumulating more. To Warren Buffet, this silver represented less than 1% of the portfolio of his holding company, Berkshire Hathaway. In fact, it is still unknown to this day and remains a topic of discussion in the silver investment community whether Warren Buffet actually received physical bullion for all of the 130 million ounces he attempted to buy!

Gorham wrote, "In fact, for every short position there is a long position, and long position holders may demand delivery against every single contract they hold."

In point of fact, the longs might not be able to receive delivery if the shorts do not have physical silver to back up 100% of their positions. As I said, people are still discussing whether Warren Buffet received full delivery of all 130 million ounces. If the shorts (who are not physical producers) have anything less than 100% of silver to back their short positions, then technically, they are already bankrupt, and realistically, they are manipulating the markets, and Gorham's comments reflect that when he wrote:

"Of course, a short may already own silver and merely deliver it, without entering the market to buy physicals or offsetting futures. But that would mean the trader held both short futures positions and long inventory to begin with, thus exerting no net influence on the market."

Exactly! Gorham admits that there would be no manipulation, or in Gorham's words, "no net influence on the market," when a short has physical silver to deliver into all their short contract obligations.

Thus, the essential question is: Do the shorts have 100% of the physical they need to fulfill their obligations?

Neal Wolkoff wrote on this topic in an email to Ted on September 3, 2002:

"A very substantial percentage of their aggregate short positions are covered by physical holdings. There is no common corporate relationship among the four, and their conduct appears to reflect their respective and individual business needs and market views. In sum, there is no evidence of conspiracy among the four, or other manipulative conduct by any one of them."

This certainly is reassuring. However, what does it mean? What is the meaning of "substantial percentage"? Is this 5% or 10% or 15% or 2% or 50% or 90%? Banks operate on "fractional reserve lending" practices, which are the cause of bank failures. Banks today operate on fractional reserve lending practices holding less than 1% in cash--but they can go to the fed to get more cash when needed. Where will the silver shorts go if they do not have enough silver to back their obligations? How can they buy 350 million ounces of silver to cover paper short positions if existing above ground stocks are only about 150 million ounces? Is "fractional reserve lending" the standard for judging what "substantial" means? Is 2% considered a "substantial percentage" given that it would be 100% greater than normal fractional reserve requirements of 1%? If so, isn't this extremely risky, and won't it lead to a failure of delivery at the COMEX, just as in a bank failure? Isn't it your job, as regulators, to prevent this kind of failure?

The Banks can get away with 1% paper cash reserve requirements because they can go to the Fed and order more paper at any time. But where will the silver shorts go to get silver that they have promised to deliver?

It seems to me that the only way to prevent such delivery failure and market manipulation is to require 100% physical backing of all short positions, which, in Gorham's words, would mean that such short positions would exert "no net influence on the market". Until and unless there is proof that there is such 100% backing for all short contracts, it must be concluded by rational persons that the existing short positions are manipulating the markets, and creating a risk of delivery failure. Given that Gorham's words reflect that position, I assume that a jury would reach the same conclusion.

Since there is no evidence and proof that there is 100% physical backing of short positions, then the current situation is wrong, fraudulent, and must be stopped. It will stop eventually, when the shorts run out of silver. When that happens, will those who have been hurt by such defaults in the market hold you two gentlemen civilly and criminally responsible as guilty parties?

You can avoid such trouble by doing your jobs, and enforcing existing position limit requirements. But even more, you can push for increased regulation to require 100% physical backing for all short positions, and that is my recommendation.



Sincerely,

Jason Hommel
www.goldismoney.com
[email protected]

[คัดท้าย]

BEST OF DAVID MORGAN

February 4, 2003

Does Honest Money influence Mr. Warren Buffett?

Mr. Warren Buffett's father was an advocate of Honest Money. Representative Howard Buffett, father of Wall Street legend Warren Buffett, was too far ahead of his time, so few listened to the concerns and even fewer appreciated his wisdom when he addressed a group of businessmen on May 4, 1948.

Quote..
"Today Congress is constantly besieged by [special interest] groups seeking benefits from the public treasury. Congressmen find it difficult to persuade themselves not to give in to pressure groups. With no bad immediate consequence it becomes expedient to accede to a spending demand. The Treasury is seemingly inexhaustible. Besides the unorganized taxpayers back home may not notice this particular expenditure - and so it goes."

"Because [a politician's] continuance in office depends upon pleasing a majority of the pressure groups," there is a natural propensity for over-spending. Rep. Buffett recognized this reckless tendency to be a political fact of life, with predictable and discouraging results if left uncontrolled. "From 1930-1946 your government went into the red every year and the debt steadily mounted. Various plans have been proposed to reverse this spiral of debt."

Mr. Buffett Actually Cornered the Silver Market before 1997

Mr. Buffet has liked silver for a very long time and this "purchase" was known among a very few precious metals followers.

When Warren Buffett was associated with Solomon Brothers, the #1 trader nearly cornered the silver market by paying 20 cents more per ounce than anyone else. There were several expiring options that were out of the money. Everyone thought that these were expiring worthless, until the holder (Solomon Brothers/Buffett) decided to exercise the options at the strike price they held.

The next step was to simply take delivery of their silver. It should be that simple, especially in a free market. That of course is one of the BIG LIES about the silver market; it is not exactly a free market.

The dealers and Wall Street firms that held most of this silver ran to the U.S. Government and asked for relief from delivering what Solomon and bought and PAID for. Since there was not enough silver available, the rumor was that the government asked to meet with Mr. Buffett in private. Buffett backed down and the government made sure that Solomon did not lose any money. The government was willing to settle this embarrassing situation and pretend that the free market in silver still exists, when in fact is does not.

Buffett goes for the Silver Again

Warren Buffett's most recent silver purchase started in the summer of 1997 and continued for several months. The lowest price on the COMEX during that time frame was around $4.40. The market recognized this in February of 1998 and silver advanced to over $6.50 an ounce. Mr. Buffett took delivery of about 90 million ounces of silver and gave the dealers more time to deliver the rest.

It is my strong opinion that Mr. Buffett leased out the remaining 40 million ounces.

Why do I make this assertion? Because, I have studied the annual report of Berkshire Hathaway which states the following:

"Line item 53. Miscellaneous items. 400,000,000$"

Now it was widely reported that Mr. Buffett bought 129 Million ounces. However, unless you were really alert you might have missed the fact that only 90 million ounces were delivered.

So silver at $4.40 (spot price at the time of the annual report) times 90 Million ounces is about equal to the $400 million dollars reported in the annual report. I think Mr. Buffett leased out the 40 million ounces and wouldn't it be nice if Mr. Buffett asked for his silver to be returned in the middle of 2003, just about the time I see this market beginning a major move to the upside.

Another question we must ask is would Mr. Buffett lease out any of his silver? The first question, is self evident, to be nice to the "dealers" and knowing that Mr. Buffett once was asked to "cool it" in the silver market, why not be very accommodating this time around. He most likely let the dealers off the hook by leasing part of his holdings.

Secondly, Mr. Buffett does not like investments which are static and do not throw off any type of return such as a dividend. This would be added incentive for part of the silver to be leased. Mr. Buffett would earn a return on investment and the "money" would be working to produce income. Finally, by putting some of the silver at risk, it provides a method to relieve pressure that might come in the future.

Let us suppose that at the end of 2003, the silver market is very tight. Some in the financial community might recall that Mr. Buffett bought all that silver. It would be extremely beneficial if Berkshire Hathaway made the public statement that some silver had been leased and was not being returned. This might go a long way in relieving any political pressure that might appear.

My point is Warren Buffett knows as much as anyone about sound money and the potential for silver. He also is aware of the problem that dealers might some day have obtaining the rest of his silver purchase. So we know Buffett has loved silver for a long time, when he did make his purchases he moved the silver outside the jurisdiction of the U.S. for a very good reason. If there is any type of U.S. action taken in the silver market, Berkshire Hathaway's silver is safely stored in London, outside U.S. jurisdiction.

What this means to us is we need to be certain of our core holdings. We need to take delivery of most or all of the silver we hold as a core position. If you have some amount of silver that you trade or speculate with fine, which is not what I am addressing here. Do you need to go as far as moving it outside the jurisdiction of the U.S.? I doubt it, but it does cause one to think.

[คัดท้าย]

http://www.berkshirehathaway.com/news/feb03981.html

BERKSHIRE HATHAWAY INC.

PRESS RELEASE

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE February 3, 1998

Because of recent price movements in the silver market and because Berkshire Hathaway has received inquiries about its ownership of the metal, the company is releasing certain information that it would normally have published next month in its annual report.

The company owns 129,710,000 ounces of silver. Its first purchase was made on July 25, 1997 and its most recent purchase was made on January 12, 1998.

During 1998, Berkshire has accepted delivery of 87,510,000 ounces in accordance with the terms of the purchase contracts and the remaining contracts for 42,200,000 ounces call for delivery at varied dates until March 6, 1998. To date, all deliveries have been made on schedule. If any seller should have trouble making timely delivery, Berkshire is willing to defer delivery for a reasonable period upon payment of a modest fee.

Over 30 years ago, Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, made his first purchase of silver in anticipation of the metal's demonetization by the U.S. Government. Since that time he has followed silver's fundamentals but no entity he manages has owned it. In recent years, widely-published reports have shown that bullion inventories have fallen very materially, because of an excess of user-demand over mine production and reclamation. Therefore, last summer Mr. Buffett and Mr. Munger, Vice Chairman of Berkshire, concluded that equilibrium between supply and demand was only likely to be established by a somewhat higher price.

All metal was purchased for London delivery through a single brokerage firm. No options have been or are held by Berkshire. No purchases have been made that established new highs for the metal and all buying has been after dips. Berkshire has had no knowledge of the actions or positions of any other market participant and today has no such knowledge.

Berkshire has no present plans for purchase or sale of silver. The position at cost comprises less than 2% of the company's investment portfolio.

[คัดท้าย]

ทีนี้มาดูผลงานลุงบัฟมั่ง ว่าลุงบัฟฝีมือเกงกำไรสู้ฝีมือลงทุนได้อะเป่า

http://www.commodex.com/Hot_Story/Buffett.htm

Warren Buffett

Billionaire Warren Buffett expressed concern over stock market exuberance during the fourth quarter of 1998.

[CK]

ลุงโฉลกทำนายได้น่ากลัวมากครับ

ตอนนี้เป็นจริงเกือบทุกอย่างแล้ว

ผมตามอ่านมาตลอด คอมเม้นต์เรื่อง "ฆรืเฟยนพำ"
ก็ต้องอ่านข้ามๆ ไปบ้าง :lovl: