Author Topic: Financial news and stock markets.  (Read 15598 times)

November 01, 2016, 08:56 AM
Reply #230
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
Last week I called an investor to ask him advice. He told me that he bought some UCITS based on the global gold mining equity market. Indeed, he believes that graphically, there could be a further rise in gold prices. If we look at the graphic below, we can see a first target at 1530$. What's more, the election of Donald in the US could set off uncertainties and prompt investors to buy gold too.



This is why I bought some physical gold (humbert may notice there seems to be a typo: A "l" seems to be missing in the sentence "in god we trust)

Thus, I advise you to buy shares such as Goldcorp and Newmont mining Ltd in order to cover your assets and diversify your basket.

November 14, 2016, 07:36 AM
Reply #231
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
Today, I'm going to give you a brief overview of the stock markets.

If there was one thing financial markets commentators were confident about heading into the presidential election, it was that if Donald J. Trump pulled off an upset win, it would create a classic panic reaction: a drop in stocks and other risky assets and a rally in bonds and other safe-haven assets.
The opposite has happened since Mr. Trump’s victory Tuesday. The Standard & Poor’s 500 index is up nearly 4 percent this week. The bond market has sold off, sending interest rates higher. Measures of volatility have fallen.

But when all the positive and negative effects of the Trump agenda are tallied up, the net result is that investors, today at least, are betting the positives will prove more substantial.

That doesn’t mean that the relatively sunny prediction implied by the first couple of days of trading activity will necessarily prove correct over time. Markets are particularly bad at pricing in seismic events that are hard to predict with confidence.

For example, in 2007, a global credit crisis began in August, and there were signals everywhere that it could ultimately prove disruptive to the global financial system. Yet the stock market actually peaked two months later. The deepest recession in modern times began in December of that year, and stocks ultimately plummeted.

In other words, if the Trump administration is going to be economically disastrous, the markets would not necessarily reflect that today.


But this euphoria may not last long given the worsening economic conditions throughout the world.
In my opinion you should be cautious, and a bearish correction could be imminent (I precise I didn't buy inverse ETF trackers)
This morning, the European markets were going up, but they are now flat. Stock markets could move downwards again.



my recommendation:

November 30, 2016, 08:44 AM
Reply #232
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
Well, I'm going to make a suggestion today.
I find that the s&p 500 is very high, above 2200 points.


That's why I advise buying some inverse ETF trackers. The risk/reward appears to be good.
If you want to invest in $, then the SDS is probably the best product (link here: http://www.boursorama.com/bourse/trackers/etf.phtml?symbole=1ySDS)
This fund seeks two times (2x) leveraged inverse exposure to the index, charging 89 bps in fees. It is also relatively popular and liquid having amassed $1.4 billion in AUM and 8.1 million in average daily volume.

As for me I bought some DSP5 today, at 71.5 euros. (Link: http://www.boursorama.com/bourse/trackers/risque_etf.phtml?symbole=1rTDSP5)

December 04, 2016, 04:14 PM
Reply #233
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
Today, Italians were voting and its seems that Exit polls show 'No' vote ahead by clear margin as markets and Renzi brace for the worst.
Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi cast his vote earlier, after pledging to quit if he loses the referendum.


The dax30 futures for tomorrow morning plunged at 11pm when early results from the first exit polls of the Italian referendum suggested that voters may be backing "No".

December 05, 2016, 06:03 AM
Reply #234
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
Yesterday evening, I deleted a few movies in the good movies topic. However, there are still a few interesting movies that you can download.


Today, I'm going to give you a quick insight of the financial markets.
Markets in Europe recovered slightly after earlier losses on Monday following the announcement from Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi that he intended to resign after a defeat in a key referendum.
The pan-European Stoxx 600 was up by about 1 percent after opening in the red.
A few weeks ago, I talked about Vergnet. It was climbing by 30% this morning, reaching 1.35 euros. I sold my position at 1.20 euros and made a tidy profit (Fortunately, I had sold my previous position bought at 1.23 euros just before its profit warning - and bought again several times between 1.04 and 1.10. Below 1 euro, I must admit that I had a significant virtual loss).



As far as Wall Street is concerned, I'd say that a new era of increasing uncertainty is blowing.
In Los Angeles, some people are taking to the streets to demonstrate against Trump.



I was thinking about a Christmas present for Maher or for the regular users of the forum, some good chocolate, or something else (usmangujjar or vasudev for example).
If you can't afford some chocolate for Christmas, send me your address, maybe someone will deliver some gifts.
« Last Edit: December 05, 2016, 01:59 PM by scarface »

December 06, 2016, 07:40 PM
Reply #235
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2568
  • Gender: Male
Allan J. Lichman, a professor of history who correctedly predicted the outcome of every American election since 1984 and predicted a Trump victory 8 months ago, is now predicting that in all likelihood Trump will be impreached. I suppose time will tell.

January 08, 2017, 07:36 AM
Reply #236
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
Today, I’m going to hold an exceptional conference about the end of oil. This conference is part of the topic about finance because of the future consequences on the economy.


The rapprochement between Exxon and the Kremlin is a symptom of the physical limits to growth.
According to the International Energy Agency and HSBC, it is necessary that the prices of the barrel go up, and quickly, if not the peak oil is likely to be imminent.
But can oil prices rise quickly?

Donald Trump claimed to appoint at the head of the American diplomacy the boss of the oil giant Exxon, Rex Tillerson. It’s not sure that the Senate validated this appointment, while the CIA and the NSA claimed that Vladimir Putin, a key partner of Exxon, managed to influence the US presidential campaign in favor of Trump.

"Tillerson Rex", by TOad


This choice of the new American president, whatever happens, is symptomatic of the question discussed here: are we fighting against the physical limits to economic growth?
The Kremlin as well as Exxon have their backs to the wall facing this issue, and consider each other as emergency exits.



Exxon first. The growth of the American firm is eaten from the inside by the physical limits of its oil fields.
Exxon's oil production has declined slowly but steadily over the past ten years, although in the meantime the biggest oil firm has doubled its productive investments.

Doubling the fertilizer for a crop that decreases: there is a problem in the soil.
Exxon's crude oil extractions were 2,221 million barrels per day (Mb / d) in the third quarter of 2016, down 17% from a historical peak of 2.681 million barrels a day in 2006.


Since 2015, the fall in oil prices has caused the investments of Exxon - as in the entire crude industry - to collapse, which does not bode well for the future production.
The roots of evil are deeper than the fall in prices. From 2011, when the barrel was worth more than $ 100 (compared to about $ 58 today), the billions spent to sustain production have continuously increased the free cash flow of 'Exxon

2011 is the date when Rex Tillerson imposed a sensational and perilous change on Exxon, partnering with Vladimir Putin. The goal is to develop - with hundreds of billions of potential investments over the next few decades - the two ultimate major targets on Earth for the petroleum industry, of which the real potential remains unknown: the Russian Arctic and the oil shale of Western Siberia.



Russia now. Russian oil production was maintained despite the fall in oil prices (to the surprise of all observers). But the conventional oil fields of Western Siberia are old and many are depleted. The total production of Russian oil is doomed to a long decline, repeated for several years the International Energy Agency, which insists in its latest annual report that “neither the future potential of the Arctic nor the Russian resources In shale oil are enough to compensate for the decline".

The Kremlin has an urgent and massive need for foreign capital and expertise, whose access remains hampered by the sanctions imposed by the Obama administration following the Ukrainian crisis.



The International Energy Agency (IEA), in the politically correct language of its latest annual report published in November, is insisting on certain points more openly than ever. Here are some of the most significant warnings:

- more than 50% of the world's oil fields have reached their production peaks, and will decline in the future;

- investments in the development of hydrocarbon production are expected to fall to 450 billion dollars in 2016, against a record amount of more than 700 billion before the prices fell;

- the annual discoveries are at their lowest level in 70 years;

- by 2025, a lack of 16 million barrels per day is expected, the equivalent of the production of Saudi Arabia and Iran, to fill the gap between the expected level of output and the decline in current production (94,5 Mb/d in 2015);

- this gap can be filled by new resources, provided that the investments quickly rise to more than 700 billion $, their record before the fall in oil prices (hypothesis of the "New Policies Scenario", see below) ;



More alarmist, the bank HSBC (which had already shown its concern about peak oil), highlighted the following facts in a September report entitled "Will the decline of mature fields lead to the next oil crisis? "

- at least 64% of world production is declining;

- by 2040 it will be necessary to develop more than 40 Mb/d of new resources (nearly half of the world production, or the equivalent of four Saudi Arabia) only to maintain the production at its Current level;

- small oil fields generally decline 2 times faster than large ones, and the world production of crude oil is increasingly dependent on small fields;

- "significant improvements in the production and efficiency of drilling in response to falling prices have masked the underlying decline rates experienced by many companies, but the degree to which these improvements can continue is becoming limited ".

It is necessary that the prices of the barrel go up, and quickly, in order to boost investments, otherwise the peak oil is likely to be imminent, warned the IEA and HSBC.

IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol has been reiterating (for the last two years) that his main fear is that "investments may collapse, which could have major implications for security of supply in the years to come ".

An observation confirmed since September by eminent industry actors such as Saudi energy minister Khalid al-Falih ("If we do not plan enough investment, the world will pay a huge price in the form of shortages of oil "), or Total's CEO, Patrick Pouyanné (" if we do not invest enough ... In 2020, the offer will be insufficient ").

But can the prices of the barrel go up quickly enough?

Despite the cuts in production that OPEC members and several other producing countries, notably Russia, have committed to implement in the coming months, no major source of analysis anticipates a return of the crude oil at around $ 100 a barrel, the level that prevailed when investment was at its highest.

On the demand side, the evolution of the world economic situation leaves little room for anticipating a sharp increase in the prices of the barrel.

"Globalization" seems to be slowing down, despite historically low interest rates, judging by the evolution of international trade:


The growth of world trade is historically closely linked to overall economic growth.

By far the main engine of this global growth, China's economy, highly dependent on its exports, is particularly threatened by the slowdown in international trade.

Chinese President Xi Jinping is ready to abandon the minimum target of 6.5% annual growth so far sanctified by Beijing, according to an indiscretion reported by the Bloomberg agency. At stake: concerns about the development of the Chinese debt, and an international environment made more uncertain by the election of Donald Trump to the US presidency.

The level of indebtedness of Chinese companies alone reached 171% of China's GDP in 2015, according to Standard & Poor's, twice as much as in the United States and Europe. While before the 2008 crisis, China needed a dollar of debt to generate a dollar of GDP, the ratio is now six dollars of debt to one dollar of GDP, reports Morgan Stanley!

Former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund and professor at Harvard, Kenneth Rogoff warned in a forum translated and published by Les Echos in early December:

    "Current markets are obsessed with the question of how far the US Federal Reserve will raise interest rates in the next twelve months. They seem to lack long-term vision. The real concern should be on this other issue: Will it be able to lower rates in the next major recession? Given its difficulty in ensuring that its base rate will exceed 2% next year, there will be very little room for maneuver to make cuts in the event of a recession. (...) There may not be enough time before the next deep recession to lay the foundation for an effective policy of negative interest rates or to set a higher inflation target. But this is no excuse for not starting to examine these options closely. "

In other words, the growth potential of the global economy could be too low to sustain global oil production, our prime source of energy. This hypothesis, which seems to appear on the one hand, is a result of too low a rise in the incomes of the middle classes and on the other hand an excessive increase in the various costs induced by the necessarily increasing complexity of our technical societies.

The coming months are going to be instructive: "May you live in interesting times" ...







January 12, 2017, 07:39 PM
Reply #237
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2568
  • Gender: Male
Let's hope that as you say oil starts to become scarce and the price begins to climb. It's the only way alternative sources of energy will become viable. That will not happen as long as the price of oil is on the floor.

January 16, 2017, 02:40 PM
Reply #238
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 1526
  • Gender: Male
tonight, I'm going to answer the people of the forum, like shadow.97, who are probably wondering what my prognosis are in the current context.

Well, I’ve already been right several times. Those who bought some EDF, -22% in one year (http://www.boursorama.com/cours.phtml?symbole=1rPEDF) know it: I told you to stay away from this stock one year ago:
http://www.nomaher.com/forum/index.php?topic=3226.msg26271#msg26271

Now, what can I say? Well, I’m still advising you to stay away from the stock markets (I already said that a few days ago). Indeed, I think that 2017 is going to be a turning point: arrival of Trump, implementation of the Brexit, steep rise in oil prices.

Actually, the pro-growth policies likely to be enacted in the first half of 2017 by Trump, including corporate and personal tax cuts, increased spending on infrastructure and defense, and deregulation, may help to boost economic growth in 2017 and increase the economy’s potential growth rate (while changing the mix of growth drivers). But this is already taken into accounty by the markets?
However, they may also lead to some of the “overs” that tend to emerge at the end of expansions (overconfidence, overborrowing, overspending), naturally accelerating the economic cycle and bringing a recession sooner than otherwise might have been the case.

As far as oil is concerned, forecasts from the IEA suggest that oil prices will continue to rise gradually because the supply surplus is nearly gone and may soon be replaced by a supply shortfall. Given the huge number of exploration projects that have been trimmed back or canceled, discovery rates have fallen off a cliff. We can probably anticipate an actual oil supply crunch once demand exceeds the ability of OPEC spare capacity and American shale oil production to offset it, which could occur in 2017. A steep rise in oil price would inevitably trigger another recession.

If I had to give you my scenario for this year, well, taking into account the level of the stock markets, I’m expecting a 20% correction. And I think I’m rather optimistic.






For the new users of the forum, some goodies:
Zion++ Fuchsia : https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4NsBhRUPihXUnRBYUhtVFNwZkk
The latest version of Flash AIO: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4NsBhRUPihXeGlEV2V1RE9YeUE
« Last Edit: January 16, 2017, 02:44 PM by scarface »