Time to make money with PBR: OIL BITCHES

Are you sure this information is accurate?

If I'm not mistaken, the only thing that's certain at this point is that they'll reduce the monthly amount by $10b in January but I don't recall reading anything about a commitment to reduce it by $5b each month after that.

I should have actually looked back at the sources before I left that answer above. The right figure is $10B every month, not $5B.


So while I did make a mistake on the actual dollar figure, I was right in saying that they will be tapering on a monthly basis.
 


I should have actually looked back at the sources before I left that answer above. The right figure is $10B every month, not $5B.

So while I did make a mistake on the actual dollar figure, I was right in saying that they will be tapering on a monthly basis.

Hmm, that's very weird man.

I think it's just that author's interpretation, I don't think there's an official statement that says "per month" because a $10b reduction each month would be very aggressive and I think the markets would have reacted a lot more violently if they would have indeed said they'd reduce the amount by $10 each month.

On the one hand, the author of the article you linked to does indeed say:

The policy-setting Federal Open Market Committee voted to start gradually reducing its $85-billion-a- month bond purchase program known as quantitative easing by $10 billion a month beginning in January.

But again, I think it's just his interpretation because in the same article, I noticed this:

“Unsurprisingly, the statement indicated that if things continue to unfold as expected, additional reductions are forthcoming,” Greenhaus said.

That's more in line with what actually happened IMO.

I mean think about it. If the $10b/month figure were accurate, this would practically mean that as of September, they'd stop buying MBS and Treasuries altogether.
 
Hmm, that's very weird man.

I think it's just that author's interpretation, I don't think there's an official statement that says "per month" because a $10b reduction each month would be very aggressive and I think the markets would have reacted a lot more violently if they would have indeed said they'd reduce the amount by $10 each month.

On the one hand, the author of the article you linked to does indeed say:



But again, I think it's just his interpretation because in the same article, I noticed this:



That's more in line with what actually happened IMO.

I mean think about it. If the $10b/month figure were accurate, this would practically mean that as of September, they'd stop buying MBS and Treasuries altogether.

I see what you are saying, but on a bloomberg article, I am reading the following:

The Federal Open Market Committee said in a statement it will slow buying “in further measured steps at future meetings” if the economy improves as forecast. The Fed may taper its buying by about $10 billion per gathering, Bernanke said at a press conference in Washington on Dec. 18.
So at every monthly meeting, tapering would occur, and the estimate is about $10b per meeting.

Then again, they continue using words of uncertainty such as "may" because they want to let the markets know that nothing is set in stone. If they feel that the economy isn't improving at the pace they first believed it would, they would stop the tapering again and decide to resume at a further date. We really have gotten to the stage of the boy who cried wolf.
 
I see what you are saying, but on a bloomberg article, I am reading the following:

So at every monthly meeting, tapering would occur, and the estimate is about $10b per meeting.

Then again, they continue using words of uncertainty such as "may" because they want to let the markets know that nothing is set in stone. If they feel that the economy isn't improving at the pace they first believed it would, they would stop the tapering again and decide to resume at a further date. We really have gotten to the stage of the boy who cried wolf.

Yep but future taper decisions will be data-dependent because as you pointed out, words like "may" have been used and I for one would be very surprised if they'd reduce the amount by $10 each month and therefore no longer be buyers of MBS and Treasuries as of September.

Here is the entire statement, I highlighted the parts that are relevant to our discussion:

For immediate release

Information received since the Federal Open Market Committee met in October indicates that economic activity is expanding at a moderate pace. Labor market conditions have shown further improvement; the unemployment rate has declined but remains elevated. Household spending and business fixed investment advanced, while the recovery in the housing sector slowed somewhat in recent months. Fiscal policy is restraining economic growth, although the extent of restraint may be diminishing. Inflation has been running below the Committee’s longer-run objective, but longer-term inflation expectations have remained stable.

Consistent with its statutory mandate, the Committee seeks to foster maximum employment and price stability. The Committee expects that, with appropriate policy accommodation, economic growth will pick up from its recent pace and the unemployment rate will gradually decline toward levels the Committee judges consistent with its dual mandate. The Committee sees the risks to the outlook for the economy and the labor market as having become more nearly balanced. The Committee recognizes that inflation persistently below its 2 percent objective could pose risks to economic performance, and it is monitoring inflation developments carefully for evidence that inflation will move back toward its objective over the medium term.

Taking into account the extent of federal fiscal retrenchment since the inception of its current asset purchase program, the Committee sees the improvement in economic activity and labor market conditions over that period as consistent with growing underlying strength in the broader economy. In light of the cumulative progress toward maximum employment and the improvement in the outlook for labor market conditions, the Committee decided to modestly reduce the pace of its asset purchases. Beginning in January, the Committee will add to its holdings of agency mortgage-backed securities at a pace of $35 billion per month rather than $40 billion per month, and will add to its holdings of longer-term Treasury securities at a pace of $40 billion per month rather than $45 billion per month. The Committee is maintaining its existing policy of reinvesting principal payments from its holdings of agency debt and agency mortgage-backed securities in agency mortgage-backed securities and of rolling over maturing Treasury securities at auction. The Committee’s sizable and still-increasing holdings of longer-term securities should maintain downward pressure on longer-term interest rates, support mortgage markets, and help to make broader financial conditions more accommodative, which in turn should promote a stronger economic recovery and help to ensure that inflation, over time, is at the rate most consistent with the Committee’s dual mandate.

The Committee will closely monitor incoming information on economic and financial developments in coming months and will continue its purchases of Treasury and agency mortgage-backed securities, and employ its other policy tools as appropriate, until the outlook for the labor market has improved substantially in a context of price stability. If incoming information broadly supports the Committee’s expectation of ongoing improvement in labor market conditions and inflation moving back toward its longer-run objective, the Committee will likely reduce the pace of asset purchases in further measured steps at future meetings. However, asset purchases are not on a preset course, and the Committee’s decisions about their pace will remain contingent on the Committee’s outlook for the labor market and inflation as well as its assessment of the likely efficacy and costs of such purchases.

To support continued progress toward maximum employment and price stability, the Committee today reaffirmed its view that a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy will remain appropriate for a considerable time after the asset purchase program ends and the economic recovery strengthens. The Committee also reaffirmed its expectation that the current exceptionally low target range for the federal funds rate of 0 to 1/4 percent will be appropriate at least as long as the unemployment rate remains above 6-1/2 percent, inflation between one and two years ahead is projected to be no more than a half percentage point above the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal, and longer-term inflation expectations continue to be well anchored. In determining how long to maintain a highly accommodative stance of monetary policy, the Committee will also consider other information, including additional measures of labor market conditions, indicators of inflation pressures and inflation expectations, and readings on financial developments. The Committee now anticipates, based on its assessment of these factors, that it likely will be appropriate to maintain the current target range for the federal funds rate well past the time that the unemployment rate declines below 6-1/2 percent, especially if projected inflation continues to run below the Committee’s 2 percent longer-run goal. When the Committee decides to begin to remove policy accommodation, it will take a balanced approach consistent with its longer-run goals of maximum employment and inflation of 2 percent.

Voting for the FOMC monetary policy action were: Ben S. Bernanke, Chairman; William C. Dudley, Vice Chairman; James Bullard; Charles L. Evans; Esther L. George; Jerome H. Powell; Jeremy C. Stein; Daniel K. Tarullo; and Janet L. Yellen. Voting against the action was Eric S. Rosengren, who believes that, with the unemployment rate still elevated and the inflation rate well below the federal funds rate target, changes in the purchase program are premature until incoming data more clearly indicate that economic growth is likely to be sustained above its potential rate.

So at this point, the only thing we know for sure is that in January, they will reduce their asset purchases from $40b to $35b for MBS and from $45b to $40b for Treasuries.
 
charlie.simm could you please make your ugly sig 2-3x bigger?

tJxazzl.png
 
We caught some pain today, but it happens. Timing is extremely crucial in option trading, so I am glad I chose next week's expiration as opposed to this week's expiration.

The market as a whole was slaughtered today. S&P pulled back as low as 1.5% today, and finished down 1% at close.

This is how the daily chart currently looks for PBR:

zmBnG6G.png


As much as it did pull a little below our support level of $13.32, we need to look at the daily finish, which puts it at $13.32. So we closed today at EXACTLY the support level. What does that mean? There is still a possibility here of a rebound since the support was defended by day's end. There are still 6 more trading days ahead of us for more action.
 
What is impressive was the resilience withnessed in Facebook today. While the technology sector pulled back heavily, Facebook on the otherhand climbed 0.11%. I jumped into that position on Monday, and am currently up 1% on common shares - not much but it is something I suppose.

Now...I do regret not initiating a trade in GLD since I pointed out the opportunity on Monday. During that time GLD was trading in the lows $115.XX, I mentioned how we are right back at the support level once again and that we should get back into the same exact trade from last week. Well I didn't. What did happen on the otherhand was that GLD went up to $116.10 on Tuesday, and then today it popped another 1.62% to finish off at $118.00. I basically left easy money on the table by not playing the position over again. At this point, there is no reason to initiate a trade since we are too far from the support, and too far from a resistance level. If GLD can get close enough to $121.85, we can then revisit a trade for it.

YpVqI12.png
 
Martin, how about an update? It looks like it closed at $13.16 today. Don't bail on us now even if it doesn't go according to plan. It's a good lesson for us that are thinking of giving this a try, you can't always hit it big. As long as your winning more than your losing, that's the main thing.
 
Martin, how about an update? It looks like it closed at $13.16 today. Don't bail on us now even if it doesn't go according to plan. It's a good lesson for us that are thinking of giving this a try, you can't always hit it big. As long as your winning more than your losing, that's the main thing.

I wouldn't worry just yet. it's only a few percent from 13.5 . I myself went long gold futures on his last thread and made a quick $600
 
Martin, how about an update? It looks like it closed at $13.16 today. Don't bail on us now even if it doesn't go according to plan. It's a good lesson for us that are thinking of giving this a try, you can't always hit it big. As long as your winning more than your losing, that's the main thing.

Hah, I wouldn't bail because of a bad trade. One bad trade doesn't make a trader bad, nor does a single successful trade make a trader good.

I was away the past couple days upstate snowboarding. Banged my head twice yesterday, and suffering from a bad headache and whiplash today.

Having said that, PBR did take a tumble, and it is concerning. I did grab a bunch of common shares last Friday, and I am in the green on those. The option trade is currently quite a bit into the red, but there are still four days left in the trade.

Fortunately my right calls on Facebook and Gold in this thread help cushion the damage. :)

Jumped into FB when it was at $54.15 last week, and it is currently at $57.20..which is a 5%+ rise since my entry. GLD is up 3.5% or so since I mentioned the opportunity in it.


I wouldn't worry just yet. it's only a few percent from 13.5 . I myself went long gold futures on his last thread and made a quick $600

Nice! The maintenance margin on Gold futures is a bitch though.
 
What I am interested in doing is taking $100k and throwing it into GLD call options. Something along the lines of a $122/$123 strike. This would be a vertical call spread. The expiration date would be in June 2014. A close above $123 by June would yield a 115% return after commissions.

Right now GLD is trading at $119, so for it to move above $123 is simply a 3% rise. Not much to ask for in a 6 month period, the only concern is whether or not it can stay there by expiration.
 
Two questions:

1. Wouldn't you lose money with the second leg when the price goes over $123? What I mean is it would be perfect if the price would be at 122.9, right?

2. What do you think of CFDs?
 
Thanks for pointing this stock out. I like the 12.87 price and am going to pick up a round lot.
 
Not sure why you guys like PBR so much, been in a downtrend for a few years now...

Other than not wanting to buy high, and sell low these were some of the factors in my decision to jump on board.


near historical low
dividend
low P/E
reasonable beta (its pushing it though)
profitable company
oil sector

The only thing I don't like is their debt. This company is leveraged as fuck. I will hold this much longer than Mcgruin will, so time will be on my side. When you see oil go up so will this stock. And when oil goes up the debt situation wont look so bad.

If there is one thing I know is over the long term oil always goes up. I have been burned on energy stocks before, but energy and mining sectors have also produced ridiculous gains when the markets shift. If it goes bad maybe it goes to $8 to $10, if it goes up maybe it goes to $15 to $25. The upside is far greater than the down. But then again what the fuck do I know? Ill probably lose money on this :)