GlobalSpeculation.com » Uncategorized

Yellow Media $YLO

Glen Bradford — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:23:41 +0000

I’ve said it before. I’ll say it again. The time is right. The iron is hot.

I am certain that uncertainty will work for me.

Action	Quantity	Symbol	Unit Price	Principal Amount
Bought	600	YLWNF	$1.8953	$1,137.18

These are the shares you want to buy. Series 1 Preferred. If you can trade on the TSX, it is YLO-A or YLO.PR.A or some variation of that.

Best of luck, except I don’t believe in luck.

ShareThis

I find assurance in the insolvency of the Global Banking System

Glen Bradford — Tue, 07 Feb 2012 16:08:33 +0000

I was just thinking about how nervous I was that the global banking system is insolvent. This means, consequentially that there are two outcomes:

1. The end of global banking and a collapse back to some crap standard that basically is a standard that is proven to fail over time, aka the gold standard

2. Banks and governments and rich people effectively keep bailing each other out and occasionally let the biggest liars fail to lend to everyone else’s credibility. The credibility of the system is tied to everyone’s individual understanding that there is some level of fairness to it. Fact is, there isn’t. Fact is, I don’t care if it is fair or not and neither should you.

So, because all of the banks are insolvent, I understand all of the doom boom and gloomers, but I don’t think that they understand the incentives behind those who make and drive the decisiosn that guide what actually happens. Power to decide is a function of your wealth and your ability to persuade others which is a function of the rules that you lead them to believe that are fair.

The banking system will not collapse but we are in for some turbulence. Trading is going to be awesome, I love the volatility. Also, inflation is low at present because of all of the jobs that are being “lost” due to automation. If they were framed a little different, “Forced into early retirement” — the attitude that we’d all have would be a little better but that’s effectively what is happening here with social programs etc. You can earn a better retirement if you want to work, but you can effectively do nothing and continue to exist this way.

Cheers to insolvency!

ShareThis

“plutonomy”, an economy “powered by the wealthy”

Glen Bradford — Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:25:54 +0000

from: http://whataboutmarx.blogspot.com/2012/01/citigroup-tells-it-like-it-is.html

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 4, 2012

Citigroup tells it like it is

Income inequality is one of the hottest topics right now – and with good reason, as it has reached record heights, and is continuing to grow.

Citigroup, one of the world’s largest financial institutions, wrote an excellent report on the subject back in 2005, which can be downloaded in two parts hereand here. Even though it was written six years ago, it offers a much better insight as to how the world trully works, instead of all the usual delusions about “democracy”. No wonder Citigroup is constantly trying to disappear its “Plutonomy Report” which was leaked (it was never supposed to be published).

In a nutshell, Citigroup describes the currect structure of our society as a “plutonomy”, an economy “powered by the wealthy”. But it also has some really interesting points to make about the rest of us, the “non-rich” people.

Here are some excerpts from Citigroup’s report:

“The World is dividing into two blocs – the Plutonomy and the rest. The U.S.,UK, and Canada are the key Plutonomies - economies powered by the wealthy.
[...]
“We should at this point make clear that we have no view on whether plutonomies aregood or bad, our analysis here is based on the facts, not what we want society to look like.”
…
In a plutonomy there is no such animal as “the U.S. consumer” or “the UK consumer”, or indeed the “Russian consumer”. There are rich consumers, few in number, but disproportionate in the gigantic slice of income and consumption they take.There are the rest, the “non-rich”, the multitudinous many, but only accounting for surprisingly small bites of the national pie.”
[...]
the top 1% of households in the U.S., (about 1 million households) accounted for about 20% of overall U.S. income in 2000, slightly smaller than the share of income of the bottom 60% of households puttogether. That’s about 1 million households compared with 60 million households, both with similar slices of the income pie! Clearly, the analysis of the top 1% of U.S. households is paramount. The usual analysis of the “average” U.S. consumer is flawedfrom the start. To continue with the U.S., the top 1% of households also account for 33% of net worth, greater than the bottom 90% of households put together. It gets better(or worse, depending on your political stripe) - the top 1% of households account for40% of financial net worth, more than the bottom 95% of households put together.“

The report even mentions the first signs of a crisis, which where becoming increasingly clear back in 2006, when Citigroup sent out this report to its wealthiest clients. However, Citigroup advices its clients “not to worry”, because…we live in a “plutonomy”, and the rich are in control. So even if a crisis does occur, they have the economic and political power to deal with it. And, unfortunatelly for us, Citigroup’s analysis was spot-on, as Citigroup managed to receive billions of dollars from the US government, along with most of the other major banks. And these bailouts never seem to end, as workers, small-time businessmen, and even entire countries can’t possibly repay all of their loans and mortgages, as they become poorer and poorer. This makes the banks insolvent, and they need trillions of dollars to cover their losses. But, just like Citigroup predicted, their huge economic and political power allows them to act like blacks holes “sucking in all the available recources”, leaving no recources for the rest of us. No wonder they are ofter descrided as “zombies”, or “vampires”, etc.):

Most “Global Imbalances” (high current account deficits and low savings rates, highconsumer debt levels in the Anglo-Saxon world, etc) that continue to (unprofitably) pre-occupy the world’s intelligentsia look a lot less threatening when examined through the prism of plutonomy. The risk premium on equities that might derive from the dyspeptic “global imbalance” school is unwarranted - the earth is not going to be shaken off itsaxis, and sucked into the cosmos by these “imbalances”. The earth is being held up by the muscular arms of its entrepreneur-plutocrats, like it, or not.“

Here’s another prediction by the analysts of Citigroup: The rich will continue to get richer

“We think the rich are likely to get even wealthier in the coming years.
[...]
These“content” providers, the tech whizzes who own the pipes and distribution, the lawyers and bankers who intermediate globalization and productivity, the CEOs who lead the charge inconverting globalization and technology to increase the profit share of the economy at the expense of labor, all contribute to plutonomy. Indeed, David Gordon and Ian Dew-Becker ofthe NBER demonstrate that the top 10%, particularly the top 1% of the US – the plutonomists in our parlance – have benefited disproportionately from the recent productivity surge in the US. ( See “Where did the Productivity Growth Go? Inflation Dynamics and the Distribution of Income”, NBER Working Paper 11842, December 2005).”

Are there any dangers for this “plutonomy”? Yes, there are, and Citigroup seems to be aware of the fact that the poor can only take “so much” (as Machiavelli famously described “When neither their property nor honour is touched, the majority of men live content”, but what happens when lose both of these things?)

“Plutonomy, we suspect is elastic. Concentration of wealth and spending in the hands ofa few, probably has its limits. What might cause the elastic to snap back? We can see a number of potential challenges to plutonomy.The first, and probably most potent, is through a labor backlash. Outsourcing,offshoring or insourcing of cheap labor is done to undercut current labor costs.” [...]

We saved the best for last however, as Citigroup accurately describes the main reason why the capitalists are able to keep the lower classes “under control”: It’s the illusion that “everyone can join in”, and become a member of the plutocracy himself. Why fight them, when you can become one of them and live the rest of your life as a wealthy and powerful individual?

However, wealth and power have become so concentrated, that more and more workers are realizing that they will never become a part of the upper class – in fact, they will never become a part of the middle class either (because the “middle class” is a “luxury” that western countries cannot afford anymore, as they have to compete against the likes of China, India, etc.). This is why more and more workers will have to fight back against the capitalists, instead of trying to become like them. This is a process that has already started (protests are becoming a wide-spread phenomenon, although we obviously have a long way to go before the working class actually is ready to seize power fot itself). Here’s Citigroup’s take on it:

Perhaps one reason that societies allow plutonomy, is because enough of the electorate believe they have a chance of becoming a Pluto-participant. Why kill it off, if you can join it? In a sense this is the embodiment of the “American dream”. But if voters feel they cannot participate, they are more likely to divide up the wealth pie, rather than aspire to being truly rich.

Could the plutonomies die because the dream is dead, because enough of society doesnot believe they can participate? The answer is of course yes. But we suspect this is athreat more clearly felt during recessions, and periods of falling wealth, than when average citizens feel that they are better off. There are signs around the world that society is unhappy with plutonomy – judging by how tight electoral races are. But as yet, there seems little political fight being born out on this battleground.

Our overall conclusion is that a backlash against plutonomy is probable at some point. However, that point is not now. So long as economies continue to grow, and enough of the electorates feel that they are benefiting and getting rich in absolute terms, even if they are less well off in relative terms, there is little threat to Plutonomy in the U.S., UK,etc.

POSTED BY CIAOANT1 AT 1:32 PM

ShareThis

Yellow Media $YLO (My favorite company) Closes down Can Pages

Glen Bradford — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 14:22:40 +0000

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/yellow-media-to-close-canpages-division/article2321873/?utm_medium=Feeds%3A%20RSS%2FAtom&utm_source=Home&utm_content=2321873

yep. That’s what’s new. Still my largest position by a mile. The price is retarded.

ShareThis

$DHT Looks like it bottomed

Glen Bradford — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 17:08:38 +0000

woot, worth $3.

http://beta.fool.com/bradford86/2012/01/27/pick-your-price-target-54/1343/

ShareThis

Emailing MMT with Congressman Joe Donnelly

Glen Bradford — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 19:35:21 +0000

Mr. Donnelly,

Thanks for the reply. Everything you say is pragmatic. As such, I offer you additional insight into the situation. In my opinion, there is perceived to be a problem where no such problem exists.

It must be terrible to face such opposition that derives their stance before the debates even begin! How absolutely dreadful. My advice is as follows, and is a hard road and likely is not very popular. There is presently a huge movement to hate on the rich. Fact is, the rich pay far more taxes than the poor and there are lots of entitlement payments. Also note that I am OK with the tax code and also believe that taxes could be cut on the middle class by 50% (anyone who makes less than $50K) — these would be met with enormous enthusiasm.

Subsidies exist for a reason, that reason being that people have found a way to manipulate the system to their advantage via lobbying.

If I was in your shoes, I would strike out to find and identify all of those who oppose me and challenge everyone individually to a debate on live television to express how they could choose their position before the debate or even glossing over the document. If they don’t show, it would not make you look foolish to sit on live television for a minute and briefly express your concern, name them by name, and inquire to the voting public why they voted for this candidate who clearly is more focused on gaming the system than defending the rights of americans.

Look, for the most part, things work enormously well over at congress. I prefer that most of the time people can’t decide on anything. Usually when decisions are made, a lot of porkbarrel legislation is rolled in. I don’t plan on running in the interim, but if I do decide to run, I would shoot from the hip and lead with no regrets decisions. I would not hide behind untruths and would admit my faults.

Keep doing your best. You’re doing a pretty damn good job, sir. Shipping jobs overseas is now a function of the largest currency war of our lifetimes, of which I am an active participant and am profiting enormously. China cheats the system and so does Germany. The USA, by running a deficit is keeping things reasonably fair. I expect us to cheat for as long as everyone else cheats.

Fraud is a necessary part of the system these days, it’s either that or we all work 75% of what we do today and have more vacations. Since it is the opinion of everyone in charge that we need to work the hell out of everyone, less they have time to think about things and actually vote on important issues, might as well keep running that deficit.

Cheers!

Do Not Lose,

Glen Bradford

CEO ARM Holdings LLC

www.glenbradford.com

www.armholdingsllc.com

None of the above is intended as investment advice. I can’t guarantee the information I gathered is from an accurate source. I may buy or sell any stock or security without prior notice.

Disclaimer: http://www.glenbradford.com/disclaimer.php

From: Congressman Joe Donnelly [mailto:Joe.Donnelly]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 2:15 PM
To: globalspeculation
Subject: Responding to your message

January 26, 2012

Dear Mr. Bradford,

Thank you for taking the time to contact me about the debt limit. I value your views, and your input helps me to better represent the people of Indiana’s Second District in Congress.

The debt limit debate this past year was contentious and unnecessarily suspenseful primarily because too many people in Washington had drawn lines in the sand before the debate even began. The reality is that compromise and bipartisanship are always going to be required when the issue is as important as the fiscal future of our country. With so many people locked into positions at the outset, it was very difficult for Congress to arrive at a workable solution to the problem.

We did, however, finally arrive at a fiscally responsible plan that drew support from both parties. The plan raised the debt ceiling, but also cut spending by an amount greater than the authorized increase in debt. The bill will reduce future government spending by almost $1 trillion over the next ten years by placing strict spending caps on future budgets. Those cuts will be achieved without affecting Social Security recipients, Medicare beneficiaries, veterans, or those on Medicaid.

This legislation is far from perfect. I would have preferred that any increase in the debt limit be accompanied by common-sense solutions such as closing tax loopholes for companies that ship jobs overseas and ending tax breaks for big oil companies. Yet the possibility of defaulting on our nation’s obligations, potentially causing catastrophic harm to our already fragile economy, was not an option for me.

You sent me to Congress to seek bipartisan solutions to bipartisan problems. I remain dedicated to working with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to safeguard America’s fiscal future.

Thank you again for contacting me about this important issue. Please do not hesitate to write, call or email me again if I can ever be of assistance. Also, if you would like to receive regular updates on my actions on your behalf in Congress, sign up for my e-newsletter, The Donnelly Dispatch, at http://donnelly.house.gov/contact/email-updates.shtml.

Sincerely,

Joe Donnelly

Member of Congress

ShareThis

My Personal Evolution: The Investor dies; Trader is Born

Glen Bradford — Thu, 26 Jan 2012 17:40:21 +0000

Yeah, pretty much that. I’ve come to the conclusion that buying and holding doesn’t really make all that much sense. The fastest way to appreciate your capital is to:

1. Identify mispricings in the market with catalysts that will return the security to it’s range of intrinsic valuation.

2. Open a position in the security and prepare for the position to move against you (set cash aside for future movements against you)

3. Make a market in the security, relative to its volatility, difference between price and intrinsic valuation, and personal risk tolerance.

4. Buy and sell profitably on a daily basis as you lower your cost basis for the position as well as taking some off the table when things go in your favor and putting up to a certain amount back on the table when things go against you.

5. Hello profits! Wow! There is so much money out there in trading, I had no idea.

I cannot wait to see this system build up in size. Pick your limits and constraints and try to target low price, high volatility stocks that you think are undervalued. dividends help even more! Dividends add to the volatility as your algo’s tend to buy after the dividend kicks off and the stop drops proportionally. over time it works its way out and it’s just more free money

So there you have it. instead of looking to own businesses, now my objective is to treat business ownership like a business. Trading is a business that throws off daily estimatable cash flows given my risk levels in the market (dollars invested). over time, trading is actually less risky than buying and holding and it actually has more upside in my opinion if you do it right.

The better you get, the more money you’ll have and the more able you are to trade and set additional parameters that add market liquidity and line your pockets with various currencies.

At present, I am trading in London, Canada, and USA.

This is all part of my minimization of future regrets philosophy.

ShareThis

$LEE

Glen Bradford — Tue, 24 Jan 2012 18:44:03 +0000

Lee Enterprises is pretty much doing exactly what I figured they would be doing. They’re worth $3+

http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71253037

http://lee.net/newsreleases/pdf/Lee%20NR%20Refinancing%20012312.pdf

They made 38 cents this last quarter for a stock trading at $1.10. Not bad?

http://lee.net/newsreleases/pdf/LEE%20Q1%202012%20Earnings%20011712.pdf

http://lee.net/newsreleases/pdf/Letter%20012312.pdf

http://seekingalpha.com/article/312778-lee-enterprises-should-top-2-within-180-days

That’s all for now,

Glen Bradford

PS, if you miss the first moves, it’s not that big of a deal, I admit that most of the time you can’t be 100% in the company that is moving that day. That’s why I diversify across undervalued companies and then rebalance according to my expectations every now and again. Right now, Lee has some serious room to run but I am scale trading all the way up, squeezing those pennies and nickels out of the volatility.

I am presently looking to figure out how to trade YELL on the london exchange because by volatility alone I believe 2% a day can be extracted from the stock, so that is exciting.

Glen

ShareThis