BP, British Petroleum

Have not even looked at this one for a while. The former CEO’s comments yesterday reminded me. Last time, on July 16th I opined that the stock should not trade below $34 and that a reasonable target would be about $47. We got to $44, give or take, and I would sell here and just watch what happens next. This stock could be in a new bull market but unfortunately the action from the lows looks a lot more corrective than impulsive. Here is the chart.

BP nov 2010

Apart from the less than promising EW pattern, the RSI and MACD are turning down.

See also May 27th blog!

TLT, US 20-year Treasury.

TLT Nov 2010

Another conundrum? Greenspan did not understand why the long bond did not react as he had anticipated. Bernanke may be sharing that sentiment right now. Despite QE2 and 600 bln of treasury (or other stuff) purchases interest rates in the longer end have actually gone up and quite a bit. The price went from 110 to 94 or somewhere around, there which is pretty close to a full % in terms of yield! We are now back in the range of the past 8 years, say between 100 and 80 and could, if my head & shoulder depiction has any validity, go as low as  60. That would be a surprise!

UUU , POT

UUU NOV 14 2010 POT Nov !$ 2010

We recommended selling UUU at $5.25, it reached $5.30. Also we loudly recommended selling POT at $160 well before it had reached that level. Both these stocks have (stylized) patterns that are indicative (possible) of a longer term top. They are A-B-C s from the lows, clearly corrective at least so far. Both are predicated on the  notion that China is going to eat a lot more and a lot better and generate a lot more electricity the nuclear way to satisfy its needs. RBC’s, if I am correctly informed, analyst has opined that POT should target $170 within the year and others have similar targets and some are even higher. Of course the American CEO of the company has already made it abundantly clear that the stock should barrel through $240 no problem. Time will tell but I am just a little agnostic about this one. Looking at the bigchart it seems to me entirely possible and plausible that the $240 or so high WAS the bubble high.Here is the chart.

POT BIGCHART 2010

The “corrective” a-b-c that we had up from the lows may well be just the middle intermission so to speak, of a much larger bear pattern that could have a second leg down ( even after we reach $170). In an environment that has been politically poisoned it may just be that no one else is willing to play ball and that Billiton’s price was correct to begin with. In Saskatchewan  they forgot how important it is to make hay while the sun shines.

With regard to uranium I have no idea why it might be peaking here, if that is what it is doing. One interesting possibility might be that we (and the Chinese) are soon going to convert to thorium as a fuel instead of uranium. It has the disadvantage that you cannot make bombs with it (which obviously has secretly been behind the desire to have these plants) but it is available in abundance all over the world, burns up completely so no waste problems, and is easier to control ( no 3-mile island or Chernobels).

Why we still have a problem.

 

From J Maulding’s latest letter.gov. borrowing needs IMF

 

"There may be a conflict here between the interests of the financial world and the interests of politicians… We can’t constantly explain to our voters that taxpayers have to be on the hook for certain risks rather than those who make a lot of money taking those risks."

Angela Merkel, Chancellor of Germany.

The problem is not that we do not know what it is, it is simple that we do not wish to face the music. We just had a G20 with zero results, not even the usual platitudes. Our own Harper walks around like a know-it-all just because Canada got lucky for a change, but otherwise looks a little spaced out with his toupé , or whatever it is , on his head.The idea to limit exports to a certain fraction of GDP was dead on arrival, if not a lot sooner. On the other hand, income distribution, rather the lack of it, is a huge problem that will not be addressed as long as misguided economists continue to believe in the “pure” model of capitalism and “growth” as a condition  sine qua non, conveniently ignoring the fact that the USofA had its best economic times when marginal tax rates were near 90%! The US is contemplating cutting government jobs by 10%, fooling around with the tax-deductability of mortgage payments , cutting defense spending and a whole host of other things that are not that much different from what the Brits are contemplating. In Canada the department of Indian affaires, or whatever it is called , has upped its staff by about 40% since 1995, with no results whatsoever to show for it. Same thing with the OLG, our Ontario Lottery Corp. ,they now have a more than a hundred employees making over $100,000., this as a result of tenure where everybody automatically earns more provided they do not get off their behinds. Yet none of these overpaid civil servants were even remotely aware how their own employees gamed the game and pocketed north of , allegedly, $220mln or so in winnings. What do these people do will be the question!

What really troubles me is that few people seem to understand why if , during your lifetime, you spend the first 20/25 years getting educated and the last 20/25 years in retirement and only the middle 30/40 years working, the model is supposed to work. It requires constant returns of 20%, or contributions of 30% of income or other such draconian measures that nobody is prepared to do. Unless, of course, you opt to become a civil servant. That , now, seems to be coming to an end.