Michael Fitzsimmons

Comment Stream

Michael Fitzsimmons picture
174
Profile Articles (46)
Comment Stream
Filter comments by:
Highest rated Latest comments
Or filter by symbol:
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      barnburner: actually, vanguard is "precious metals AND mining" because i like steel almost as much as oil. so, i like the VGPMX (up over 20% so far this year) because i get exposure to gold, silver, platinum etc. etc along with the mining. also, they view coal as mining too, and some coal stock are really jamming. i hate friggin coal...refuse to buy the individual coal stocks...so, i guess this is my way fooling myself into having some coal. i fear the longer the US keeps from adopting a sane energy policy, the more coal will be a necessity - and the more mercury gets dumped in all my trout fishing waters :(
      Jun 03 13:32 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      One more thing: the Fed cannot raise interest rates to fight inflation like Paul Volker did. This is because the US consumer is in debt up to his and her's eyeballs: credit card debt and upside down in their home and auto loans, with little or no savings to back it up. Therefore, the US dollar will continue to slide and, you guessed it, push oil prices up more in the US on a comparable basis, than country's with more sound monetary policies.
      Jun 03 11:39 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      mkreisal: i suppose it is possible they have information about a potential solution to the energy crisis that no one else (or at least not me) knows about. that said - why don't they come out with it? i mean berkshire's stock is down for the year and surely it is being negatively affected by the recessionary US economy and housing markets - after all, the are exposed to the consumer with their paint, bricks, and carpeting investments. Besides, I have heard Charlie Munger speak out about the difficulty of oil supply keeping up with worldwide oil demand. However, I have a simpler reason for believing they don't hold "secret" information: I believe Buffet has great love for his country and has immense integrity. If Buffet had secret information that could prevent the pain that the US citizens are feeling due to high energy prices, it would be an uncommonly unpatriotic move for him not to come public with it. Don't buy it.

      Pangaea: it IS different: oil prices have doubled in the last year, and are up 6x over the last 10 years. meanwhile, the supply "cushion" that existed the last time we had an energy crisis (1970's) not longer exists. Therefore, it is different. Not to mention that fact that oil traded at a record $134 recently, the US treasury is for all intents and purposes bankrupt while simultaneously fighting two undeclared wars and giving tax breaks to the uber-wealthy. Man, if that's not different than the 1970's, I don't know what else to tell ya.
      Jun 03 11:37 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • StatoilHydro: Bullish on Exploration
      good action! two additional strengths of STO: a good alternative for Europe to Russian nat gas; country is not hampered (like so many US global integrated oil companies) by the politics of its homeland. STO is beginning to get contracts and agreements with oil producers and exporters that used to go to US firms. good call on STO.
      Jun 03 10:36 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      cheeks: your coment about the super rich is interesting, because that assumes the currency the super rich hold is worth something. if civilizations fall, it won't matter how much paper money, or perhaps even gold, one has accumulated if the basics of food and transportation are not available. that is why i have contacted the foundations of bill gates, warren buffet, the google guys, the templeton foundation, all of whom have these great charitable projects which will all FAIL if the realities of oil are not addressed first. they have all ignored me, and i wasn't asking for money! i was asking them to use their influence with government and media to truthfully deal with the realities of oil supply/demand, to stop the denial, and to adopt sound energy policies to protect the US from the "oil fallout". all i can do is try.

      KenC: yes, i see countries that export oil as being "strong" and countries that import oil being "weak". the US being amongst the weakest as we are not only the biggest user, but the biggest importer. we are exposed bigtime. yet, the politicians and media are for all intents and purposes appear oblivious to what is about to happen.

      barnburner: i have no problem with the strict oil and natural gas ETF's - i am just more comfortable with owning energy companies just like i would rather own gold producers. i keep thinking that if you can find companies in both these markets that can increase production, you get the price appreciation and the growth in net income. i think, in the coming years, there will be big jumps, followed by consolidation (like now in oil) and times when the straight ETFs won't do much. that said, long term, i agree with your point. i just haven't gone overboard myself in that direction - but you have me thinking about it some. thx.

      xander: i agree we should be drilling. i think congress and environmentalist (which i consider myself to be actually) we be re-thinking US exploration policies when gasoline hits $10 which it will in the next few years. bad news: it takes some years to bring alot of these resources online - meanwhile, steel, pipe, compressors, turbines, etc. etc. are all going up in prices....

      wobatus: with all due respect, i think the big danger not only to your personal finances but to civilization is to believe oil WON'T keep going up forever. sure, we'll have some consolidations, but long term, you've got big powerful countries all bidding after the same pool of oil resources. huge supply increases simply have not come online, nor, do i think they will - at least not in the volume to offset demand and depletion rates. big problem. world in denial. hey, i should write a song: "World in Denial". perhaps with a reggae beat - it wouldn't be taken seriously anyway. i can't even get the WSJ to publish my energy policy article :(


      Jun 02 12:31 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      sam: a couple more eye-opening books: "the oil factor" by stephen leeb. published in 2004 this book now reads more like a history book as every prediction he made wrt oil and the US economy, housing, and US dollar have come true. if anything, more so than he predicted. After that, read "the coming economic colapse - how you can thrive when oil is costs $200 a barrel", again by stephen leeb. in it, he recalls the history of easter island, where they cut down trees to build monuments to their leaders. they continued to do so until all the trees were cut down. then no wildlife, soil erosion, and the easter island civilization was no more.

      galew: i would not be so sure. we had a bigtime recession in the 1970's and oil & oil service stocks powered higher. it will be that times 10 this decade, IMHO.

      philips: exactly.

      pursley: the more i think of it, the more the debate about peak oil is irrelevant. the bottom line is this: oil is today over $120/barrel and doubled in a year. quadrupled (or more) in the past 10. the US dollar is weakening and inflation is rising. regardles of the peak oil debate, the question is, what should the US do about it and how should one invest. so, do you disagree with my investment advice? do you think the US should not adopt a comprehensive energy policy? saying there is plenty of oil out there as the price zooms ahead and is having a very substantial economic impact on the US is, imho, quite irrelevant even if you were to be correct.
      Jun 01 14:03 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Compared with Canada, U.S. Economy Looks OK
      Canada's economy may have contracted, but the combination of the following:
      1) better monetary policy
      2) energy resources
      3) gold and mining industries
      are superior to the US's. Long term, I suspect Canada's currency to outperform the US dollar. They are not sending $650 billion out of the country every year to purchase oil, and they don't have insane tax and spend policies piling up fiscal deficits. Sure the US is a major trading partner, so, from that aspect their economy can suffer some. That said, China and the Middle East have discovered the riches of Canada and over time Canada will be another Austrailia, if it isn't already.
      Jun 01 10:40 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      great comments guys & gals! i love to see it. as usual, i must participate in the to-n-fro:

      pursely: i thought we declared a truce for 5 years? meanwhile, after reading the WSJ article on page A8 last week, please explain to me while the oil exporter's production is dropping while oil has quadrupled - this is political?

      oldgoldbug: yes, bush wanted to go into iraq no matter if the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were saudi (the saudis already supposedly "like" us). it was either iran or iraq - iraq was easier to manufacture reasons for, not to mention if the US goes into iran and the straits of hormuz are shut, oil doubles or more even from $126/barrel. i think bush and his buddies were even shocked by their inability to keep iraqi oil flowing and the geopolitical risk premium point on oil due to their actions. that said, i suppose their thinking is that it's easier to steal iraqi oil than to adopt a comprehensive energy policy.

      scott: agree oil affects europe too, but they are much farther ahead in terms of france's nuclear and germany & spain's wind. however, when it comes to currrencies, i'd put my bet on brazil, russia, and even the middle eastern currencies if they get off the dollar peg, which they will have to unless they want to enjoy the inflation that goes with that. massive amounts of money is (and will continue to) flow to oil and gas producers from the importing countries. US's biggest trade deficit component is $650 billion/year for oil. can't say that is a scenario for a strong dollar. not to mention, the US can't fight inflation by raising interest rates because of the massive debt load of its non-saving citizens. therefore, US dollar weak, oil high, inflation high. thus, the portfolio i recommended.

      sharpPA: agree. you must have worked the oil fields of western NY and PA with my grandpa, who managed to stay independent in spite of rockefeller's lock on railroad transportation of penny crude oil.

      flylines: my field is (was?) electrical engineering with an eye toward systems architecture for wireless. what is "magical" about the past 8 years is this:
      - US currency devalued over 50% (!)
      - huge US fiscal deficits and an insane tax policy in time of "war"
      - largest growth of the government in 8 year period in history
      - takeover of publicly traded investment house by the Fed (Bear)
      - lowering of interest rates when inflation is rising
      all this by a "conservative&quo... republican. these are facts. there is nothing "conservative&quo... about these policies. they are the most RADICAL policies certainly in my lifetime.
      you wanted examples of 25-30% gainers over the last 5 years, well, they are pretty much the recommended picks, so check them out.
      you want to talk about stability of government?
      you talk about stability like the US is and will be: what is so stable about a government that imports 65% of its oil and prints money like there is no tommorow. ever here of the weimer republic in germany? sure we have military superiority, but look how we use it: unilaterally while dissing our old allies? just like the little schoolboy, security is measured by the number of friends you have. we don't have any left. agree with your food comment, add a pond for fish and a mineral bag to attrack deer. thanks for your review - very thorough! and yes, plz send feedback on my energy policy. i have two late additions to it: 60 mph top speed limit; 4 day work week.

      blah blah: good username selection for you.

      papagiki: i have no problem with ETF's and hold some myself. that said, i absolutely love my positions in Vanguard Energy and Fidelity Select's Nat Gas & Energy Services. there performance over the last 5 year is probably close to 8-10x the S&P500. can't beat that with a stick man.

      phil: demand for oil goes down? only in the case of a depressiona nd we're all hosed anyhow. so, not in my lifetime.

      richjoy: i have invested for close to 30 years. i used to be a fan of diversification. peak oil has changed that for reasons i explained. i am still a big fan of diversification: within the energy and precious metals sectors! ;)

      jjsason: "There are a lot of *people* who are not going to let the OPEC cartel rig oil prices along with the commodity futures exchanges." what, are the people gonna take over all the oil rigs in all oil producing nations? get real.

      yetiv: well said! pursley and i have supposedly called a truce, but feel free to go after him yourself wrt depletion rates, which he appears to be in a state of denial.

      ann: hi, i love it when the ladies participate. with respect to my strategy being "all for me", it's hard for me to watch the government rape the treasury and devalue my currency (and therefore my net worth) by 50% and stand by and watch without taking action. wrt money flowing into oil and pushing the price up, this is a good thing! high priced oil might be the one thing that gets the US off it's butt an adopt a comprehensive energy policy based on transitioning OFF of oil. i think we are on the same page here. have you read my energy policy?
      seekingalpha.com/artic...
      would appreciate your feedback plz. wrt 5%, it would be more on the order of 20-25%.

      paulk: i like the railroads and ag too, that said, to me they are still peak oil plays.

      richjoy: plz be more specific on my "blather".

      philips49: is your first name conoco? :)

      kat: i used to be against nuclear too. problem now is we have ignored oil and energy policy for so long, we simply have no choice but nuclear. i take coal generation off the table because, forgetting the CO2, it is simply destroying our water table, our lakes, streams, river, and fish with mercury poisining. and yes, i know the half-life of mercury. agree we need massive wind and solar, and agreed the government must get involved due to the sheer magnitude of the energy void which is coming. thx for your comments.

      freefall: the picture is atop mt. conejos, 13,172 ft, san juan wilderness colorado. great day hike. not a 14'er, but will give you a good work out. besides, the cutthroat in tobacco lake, which you will pass on the way to the peak, are *huge*.

      peark2k: from the article in the WSJ the other day on the US military's oil consumption, i figured out that the US military uses 1.5 days of total worldwide oil production per year.

      pursely: very patriotic of you to buy the hummer. you're the best friend russia and the middle east has.

      gr8ideas: good luck with the S&P500 and bonds in the coming years. i'll check back with you in 5 years and see if you are keeping up with inflation and the falling US dollar. wrt gold, please check out the 1970's action on gold, and compare to the action on gold the last few years - see any simliarities? now, after the 70's gold dropped along with oil when the saudis turned on the "spigot". i maintain there is no "spigot" any more, and the rise of oil will be as far into the future as you can see.

      hackensack: again, plz read the previously referred to article in the WSJ and tell me why so many oil exporter's production is down while oil prices have gone up 4x? what kind of "politics" is that?

      blah blah: again, no substance and your username was very well chosen.

      Kezorm: oil, oil services, and gold creamed the S&P500 in the 1970's. high oil prices and rising inflation will do the same now. in fact, if the S&P didn't have the energy related companies in it, the outperformance would even be more exceptional.

      lksseven: there is no guessing with respect to worldwide oil production and worldwide oil demand. politically unhinged? please read my bullets up above about what has happened financially during bush's administration and defend them. republican ideology seems to accept non-republican policy and blinded you to the truth of finances just as it did to the truth about iraq. you njever heard me say bush is manipulating the entire global economy - please point to those words in my article. you cannot. if you are going to debate me, at least debate ME, not yourself and your own words or interpretations of what you think i said.

      zack: who is suggesting two energy stocks? did you not see the entire list of recommendations?
      Jun 01 10:35 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • An Energy Policy That Makes Sense, Revisited
      User: yes, i agree with lowering the speed limit - i think 60 is a good limit. this was a pretty bad omission on my part and i will add it to the next revision of the energy policy (work in progress, although seeking alpha may be losing their patience with it...). also, a 4 day work week is a good idea. i have seen some very surprising estimates in gasoline consumption savings by just these two steps alone!
      May 30 18:29 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      CLH: Your constructive comments are appreciated - thanks for taking the time to write something substantial - and good luck in the S&P500.

      Ozarker: that cracked me up.

      cynical: ur on the right track...it's not being cynical when the facts line up.

      pursley: i won't debate you any more - we agreed after my last paper to simply check back in 5 years to see who was right. that said, the dollar is down about 50% since bush took office, yet oil is up over 6x - it ain't all about the dollar...it is supply/demand. not sure why supply/demand works for all other commodities but not oil. part of the denial process i suppose.

      FoxV: excellent rebuttal! :)

      bluesmoke: i'm flattered and would be glad to do the job for free! because i DO love my country and boy do we need somewhere there who acknowledges peak oil....otherwise, i fear we are toast.

      User: good point. if we dont get an energy policy to deal rationally with peak oil, i can envision a scenario where the US gov takes over the big oil companies claiming "national security". i have oftened wondered if this is not the real reason why the US gov is ignoring peak oil and a rational energy policy to deal with it. once they control the oil, the have ultimate control over the population.

      GMiki: that's right - non-peakers always talk about the new oil discoveries, but they never factor in the worldwide depletion rates of the current fields, currently depleting at the rate of about 4.5 million barrels/day. not to mention that the number of new elephant fields discovered since 1960's has slowed down dramatically, i.e. roughly less than 10 during that entire time.

      enviro: i hear you wrt to the majors. that said, it seems a bit unwise in an era of peak oil not to hold a company that can produce 4 million barrels a day (XOM). i like ConocoPhillips as much for their nat gas exposure and Lukoil as i do for their oil production capability. plus, i Mulva is the best CEO in the business. and, i agree with you about XOM stock buybacks...they should be rewarding their shareholders with increased dividends! they have the lowest yield of the majors, by far, yet the best balance sheet, cash flow, and net income. i would much rather the rutkus at the shareholder's meeting be about the buybacks vs dividends than most of the poop that was discussed there.

      scholastic: well, peak oil has happened many times in many places: continental US, prudoe bay, north sea, mexico's cantrell, etc. etc. the energy crisis of the 1970's was a political crisis (an embargo due to US Israeli policy). what we have now is a true supply/demand crisis due to increased consumption in china, india, russia, and the middle east at the same time production is beginning to top it. sure, we mights see a few million more barrels come online, and some of the top execs (Mulva at CEO) think we could perhaps top at 100 million BPD. that said, the EIA and DOE energy estimates are predicting demand will hit 135 million BPD. that is a huge huge disconnect. the US is the most exposed country in the world to peak oil: we use 20% of the world's oil (5% of the population) and import 65% of that. that is why i am so adamant about the US adopting a comprehensive energy policy to deal with it. time is quickly passing by and the last 8 years have been a complete waste.
























      May 30 12:14 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      For those peak oil non-believers (yes, there still are some), I refer you to yesterday's (5/29/08) article on page A8 of the WSJ (yes, even the Wall Street Journal is coming around! fantastic) titled:
      "Oil Exporters Are Unable to Keep Up With Demand"
      In particular, check out the production numbers of many countries are going DOWN as the oil price has skyrocketed. We'll see $200/barrel oil by 2010.
      May 30 10:16 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Is Crude Oil a 'Bubble' Ready to Burst?
      PEAK OIL is a reality, and reading Stephen Leeb's 2004 book "The Oil Factor" is now like reading a history book - almost every single prediction he made has come true, including housing market and Fed policy. If one wants to understand the oil "bubble" simply read the article on page A8 of yesterday's (5/29/08) Wall Street Journal titled: "Oil Exporters Are Unable to Keep Up with Demand" and check out the production data given. I was actually shocked the WSJ printed such an article, but they (unlike CNBC and most other US media) are beginning the change the normal US "peak oil denial" stance.

      Meanwhile, the *only* hope for the US economy is adoption of a comprehensive energy policy:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...
      May 30 08:59 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • In Light of Peak Oil, Financial Diversification Is a Bad Idea
      The author apologizes: 21% above should be 16%: 6% energy + 10% commodities.
      May 30 08:53 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • Smells Good: The Case for Natural Gas
      sliman: that's a good question, but long term, i favor the stocks.
      thinking/pedriven: i like APC and Petrohawk too!
      paultaut: not familiar with PGH, sorry. i will have a look later today.
      Pacha: while i agree that both parties are responsible for a lack of an energy policy, in the article i was referring to recent fiscal policies: the Bush administration's huge fiscal deficits (he inherited a surplus), the lack of oversight on the ratings agencies fraudulent AAA rating of sub-prime debt, the Federal Reserve cutting interest rates in the face of huge inflation (inflation numbers which are fraudulently massaged by our government), and the Fed taking over a private investment firm like Bear Stearns, are all factors in the greater than 50% (!) devaluation of the US dollar during Bush's 8 years. this of course, has a direct impact on the price of oil, it being priced the world over in US dollars. for a country that uses 25% of the world's oil and imports 60% of that, it's a disastrous policy. yet, still, we have no comprehensive nergy policy! as i have said before, the Bush administration's fiscal policies have caused the world's reserve currency to swith: from the US dollar, to a barrel of oil. it's a disaster. there is nothing "conservative&quo... about the Bush administration - they are the most RADICAL government in the history of the US. our standard of living will never be the same IMHO.

      May 29 09:55 am |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article
    • America's Energy Policy: Coming to Terms with Reality
      The problem is American doesn't HAVE an energy policy.
      Here is a good start:

      seekingalpha.com/artic...

      We better get on the stick very soon or are currency, stock & bond markets, and economy are going to be hosed.
      May 28 18:50 pm |Rating: 0 0 |Link to Comment |View article

Michael Fitzsimmons is a Top 100 Commentor

  • 303 Comments, 62 , 24
  • Total Comment Stream rating - = 38