Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: gas prices ??? OT:

Expand Messages
  • Dave Mucha
    ... that is stated perfectly ! government stepped in, fired the head of the company, and like a chicken with it s head cut off, it is now running around in
    Message 1 of 36 , Jun 1, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, x xx <lesleynward@...> wrote:
      >
      > So far, Ford is still in one piece, but it wont last.  Ford will be the last American car manufacturer standing, but will not stand forever.
      >  
      > It used to be said that "what is good for General Motors is good for the nation".  A more apposite bon mot might have been "as GM goes, so goes the nation".


      that is stated perfectly !

      government stepped in, fired the head of the company, and like a chicken with it's head cut off, it is now running around in death spirals.

      perfect analogy for the nation!

      As a Nation, we have seen our gov't do some really stoopid things, expecially in the last 20 years.

      it has violated most of the basic principals of business and we are all the worse for it.

      FORD has an edge that will keep it going for another 20 years or more. The guys running the company are car guys, not business guys. they want to make cars. get that ? make cars ! if you make good cars, people will buy them. if you make a product with a good profit margin, you have nothing. make a good product and one people like, and presto!

      if you have noticed FORD had less than 1/10 as many recalls as Toyota in 06 !

      Dave
      \
    • ckinzer@att.net
      I m just not understanding what you are getting at. I have been trading commodities for over 10 years. If I have an option and it has gone in the money , it
      Message 36 of 36 , Jun 1, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        I'm just not understanding what you are getting at. I have been trading commodities for over 10 years. If I have an option and it has gone "in the money", it will have the same value in that sale as the underlying futures contract effect. That's because if I sold the "in the money" option, the value will be based on the market price at the time of the closing of the sale.

        Chuck K.

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Ken Strauss
        To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 6:12 PM
        Subject: RE: [7x10minilathe] Re: gas prices ??? OT:





        I hate to belabor the point but that is not completely correct. Stock and
        commodity options work the same but it is easier to get stock option data
        unless you have a commodity account. Let us take a real example using IBM
        shares. IBM closed today at $108.37. A $100 call (in the money) has
        bid/offers ranging from $8.60/$8.80 (Jun 09) to $18.70/$19.50 (Jan 11). If
        the share price is still $108.37 on Jan 21, 2011 the option will trade at
        very close to $8.37. Thus, the option does not exactly follow the share
        price; it diminished by more than $10 (~$19 to $8.37) due to the decay of
        its time value.

        I generally agree with your comments and the deeper it is in the money the
        less pronounced the effect. For example, a $40 Jan 11 call for IBM ended the
        day at $67.60/$68.90 and this will be $68.37 at expiry assuming no change in
        the IBM share price.

        > -----Original Message-----
        > From: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com [mailto:7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com]
        > On Behalf Of trainliker
        > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 2:43 PM
        > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        > Subject: [7x10minilathe] Re: gas prices ??? OT:
        >
        > What I wrote is correct in the case where the option has gone "in the
        > money". In that case, it is dollar per dollar. You will end up losing a
        > little, but that loss is capped at an absolutely known amount at that
        > time.
        >
        > And if the futures contract goes in your favor, you will lose the option
        > purchase price when the option goes worthless. It is a sunk cost,
        > actually, anyway.
        >
        > If you get an option with a distant strike price (which affords you less
        > protection) and it never goes "in the money", it is true that it will keep
        > losing its time value and likely expire worthless AND you can also lose on
        > the futures contract.
        >
        > But this only proscribes the maximum amount you might lose. You can buy
        > an option with a strike price right at your contract price and if the
        > contract goes against you the option will immediately hit the strike
        > price. Of course, that option will be more expensive than one with a
        > strike price a bit further away. "Shopping" for options is usually worth
        > the time.
        >
        > I didn't mean to imply that there is a way to have zero risk. There
        > isn't. But you can absolutely cap that risk to a known dollar amount
        > using an offsetting option.
        >
        > Chuck K.
        >
        > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, "Ken Strauss" <ken.strauss@...>
        > wrote:
        > >
        > > What you wrote is generally correct. However, "if the contract goes
        > south,
        > > the option with go north dollar per dollar" is often not true. It
        > depends on
        > > the settlement price for the contract versus the strike for the option.
        > The
        > > gain on the option is typically less than the decrease in the value of
        > the
        > > contract. Also, time to expiry influences the results.
        > >
        > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > From: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        > [mailto:7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com]
        > > > On Behalf Of trainliker
        > > > Sent: Monday, June 01, 2009 1:35 PM
        > > > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        > > > Subject: [7x10minilathe] Re: gas prices ??? OT:
        > > >
        > > > You are mixing apples and oranges in you derivatives comment which
        > seems
        > > > to compare derivatives in the commodity market with the recent Wall
        > Street
        > > > nonsense.
        > > >
        > > > In the commodities market, it does not matter if a commodity goes up,
        > or
        > > > down, or even to zero (although that is pretty much impossible). No
        > > > matter what, there will be an equal number of "winners" and "losers".
        > > >
        > > > If somebody takes out a huge stake and is wrong, they could lose
        > > > everything. But that risk is well known going in.
        > > >
        > > > In the Wall Street case, "products" that weren't really derivatives in
        > the
        > > > commodity sense were "manufactured" such that they could become
        > worthless
        > > > at their core.
        > > >
        > > > In commodities, if you buy an option (derivative) it is has a high
        > > > likelihood of becoming worthless if the commodity goes the wrong way
        > for
        > > > you. But you can't lose anything more than what the option cost since
        > it
        > > > is not leveraged.
        > > >
        > > > In the commodities market, you can certainly have a futures contract
        > for
        > > > one direction and an option in the other as protection. In fact, if
        > you
        > > > buy such options, you can increase your purchases of contracts beyond
        > what
        > > > your margin would normally allow because if the contract goes south,
        > the
        > > > option with go north dollar per dollar. This is not the nature of the
        > > > Wall Street debacle.
        > > >
        > > > Chuck K.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com, x xx <lesleynward@> wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > > Quite right. What is often misunderstood, and quite as often
        > > > misconstrued, is the circumstance that we have created a society
        > (thanx to
        > > > 'Ennery Ford) in which demand for gasoline is VERY inelastic and that
        > > > gasoline therefore is a nacheral-born candidate for taxation.
        > > > >
        > > > > That, however, explains only the high LEVEL of gas prices, because
        > > > taxation rates do not fluctuate in the short term. It is the non-tax
        > > > component of the pump price that fluctuates in step with anticipated
        > > > variations in absolute demand to the annoyance and dismay of the
        > > > innocent. With markets as with hooman beans, the symptoms of one
        > ailment
        > > > will often mask the symptoms of another - more serious - one. I trust
        > > > that everyone did notice that when Wall Street went for a burton the
        > price
        > > > of gasoline CFI you tank dropped immediately!
        > > > >
        > > > > My take on that is simple: "Crude" is rarely bought "over the
        > > > counter". Crude is bought for future delivery and the price to be
        > paid on
        > > > delivery is settled on the basis of the EXPECTATION of what the "over
        > the
        > > > counter" price (the "spot price") might be at that future time
        > provided
        > > > the crick don't rise. But that's not all. The contracts for future
        > > > delivery take on a life of their own as they, themselves, become
        > > > commodities and are traded. The quantity of one fungible commodity
        > (since
        > > > you brought up the matter of fungibility a day or two ago) - fiat
        > money
        > > > obtainable in this case only from the sucker at the pump - that will
        > > > ultimately be involved in the satisfaction of a contract for another
        > > > fungible commodity - "crude" - becomes subject to uncertainty and
        > > > "speculation". To be brief: "Futures" are now the chips in the
        > casino of
        > > > capitalism.
        > > > >
        > > > > But even THAT is not all. The socalled "derivatives" are "side
        > bets" on
        > > > who will win and who will lose in the basic poker game of the
        > "futures".
        > > > It was an infatuation with "derivatives" that put the blocks to Wall
        > > > Street, but obviously, since traders have the opportunity in "free
        > > > markets" for the underlying, tangible, if fungible, commodity, they
        > will,
        > > > when they lose their bets try to recoup their losses from the poor sod
        > who
        > > > is last in line. And that is you and me.
        > > > >
        > > > > But as always, there is NO need for thee and me to be in that game
        > at
        > > > all, any more than there is a compulsion on us to go to any other
        > casino.
        > > > Just don't use gasoline. The alternatives are becoming increasingly
        > > > viable, although I admit, of course, that as those alternatives become
        > > > more popular, casinos will be built around them too. Electric cars
        > are
        > > > now, in fact, viable for most North Americans and Europeans most of
        > the
        > > > time, whatever the popular perception of them may be. Piki-pikis are
        > > > viable for most North Americans and most Europeans most of the time.
        > Not
        > > > as "nice" as an SUV, of course, but what price "nice"-ness? There is
        > no
        > > > doubt in my mind that you and I can reduce our consumption of gasoline
        > > > DRASTICALLY! That doing so will simply cause a shift of the tax
        > > > component of the gasoline price to migrate to some other good with
        > > > inelastic demand is a whole different issue.
        > > > >
        > > > > It'll be interesting to see what the pump price and its composition
        > will
        > > > do now that demand for gasoline will fall as a result of the general
        > > > contraction of purchasing power - and of the need to commute to work -
        > > > that will be the consequence of the dogmatic cleaving unto Free
        > Ennerprize
        > > > that precipitated our present plight :-)
        > > > >
        > > > > Sam
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > From: ckinzer@ <ckinzer@>
        > > > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] gas prices ??? OT:
        > > > > To: 7x10minilathe@yahoogroups.com
        > > > > Received: Sunday, May 31, 2009, 10:28 PM
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > While U.S. companies can tweak prices a bit in their distribution
        > path
        > > > and such, gasoline price fluctuations are almost entirely driven by
        > crude
        > > > oil commodity prices.
        > > > >
        > > > > Here is a link that will, hopefully, put to rest the notion that
        > U.S.
        > > > "big oil" is manipulating prices. "Big oil" simply isn't big enough.
        > > > >
        > > > > http://www.energyto morrow.org/ media/resources/ r_375.pdf
        > > > >
        > > > > At this link you will see that U.S. oil companies aren't even in the
        > top
        > > > 10 size-wise worldwide.
        > > > >
        > > > > Another interesting tidbit is that they control less than 10% of
        > known
        > > > oil reserves.
        > > > >
        > > > > And that they make less than a dime profit for one dollar sale of
        > > > gasoline.
        > > > >
        > > > > To put that in perspective, if the U.S. oil companies chose to
        > operate
        > > > at no profit (which would be illegal and, remember, a big chunk is
        > owned
        > > > by pension plans and retirement accounts) it would only drop the price
        > of
        > > > todays gas by perhaps 25 cents or less. The so-called "obscene"
        > profits
        > > > are only in terms of raw dollars, not percentage. Politicians
        > demogogue
        > > > the issue by talking about the "billions" of profit. But if it is a
        > > > percentage that is generally not more or less than other fairly
        > successful
        > > > businesses, what's wrong with that?
        > > > >
        > > > > There are those in government who want you to keep focused on the
        > > > bogeyman of "big oil". But you had better start worrying about the
        > real
        > > > bogeyman, which is "big government".
        > > > >
        > > > > Chuck K.
        > > > >
        > > > > ----- Original Message -----
        > > > > From: domdra9on@aol. com
        > > > > To: 7x10minilathe@ yahoogroups. com
        > > > > Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2009 9:27 PM
        > > > > Subject: Re: [7x10minilathe] gas prices ??? OT:
        > > > >
        > > > > gas? proces drpped substantially before the 2004 bush election as
        > well.
        > > > If I were to thake a cynical stance, I would be more incluned to say
        > that
        > > > gas companies artificially fdroppped gas prices beforfe an election to
        > try
        > > > to keep thier frinds the republicans in office and prices rising after
        > the
        > > > election is a nateral consequence of that... however .. .what does any
        > of
        > > > this have to do with lathes, which is the only reason I joined this
        > group
        > > > ???
        > > > >
        > > > > -----Original Message-----
        > > > > From: Dave Mucha <dave_mucha@yahoo. com>
        > > > > To: 7x10minilathe@ yahoogroups. com
        > > > > Sent: Sat, 30 May 2009 11:21 pm
        > > > > Subject: [7x10minilathe] gas prices ??? OT:
        > > > >
        > > > > anyone else notice that Obama has raised gasoline prices almost a
        > dollar
        > > > over
        > > > > those low prices Bush gave us ?
        > > > >
        > > > > Is he lining his pockets or are his oil cronies raking in the
        > excesses
        > > > for
        > > > > their political benefit ?
        > > > >
        > > > > This is not the change we expected.
        > > > >
        > > > > I noticed unemployment has been getting worse and worse. funny, but
        > when
        > > > it
        > > > > was around 4% with bush, it was horrible news, now almost double the
        > > > Bush years,
        > > > > we are running at 9.2% for may. Well, we knew that the way to strike
        > at
        > > > the
        > > > > bank accounts of the rich was to take away sales of their products.
        > not
        > > > being
        > > > > able to buy a car will sure show those mean rich dudes the what-for
        > !
        > > > >
        > > > > Dave
        > > > >
        > > > > ------------ --------- --------- ------
        > > > >
        > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > __________________________________________________________
        > > > > Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!
        > > > >
        > > > > http://www.flickr.com/gift/
        > > > >
        > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        > > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > ------------------------------------
        > > >
        > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > ------------------------------------
        >
        > Yahoo! Groups Links
        >
        >
        >




        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.