Frage:
Welche Aktien haltet ihr in der momentanen Korrekturphase für:
- stark unterbewertet
- ein Unternehmen mit guten Aussichten
Antwort:
Fast alle...""angepriesenen""...such dir eine aus. 
Empfehlung:
Nicht wegen so etwas einen neuen thread anfangen nur weil man schnelle Antwort will und zu faul zum lesen ist in den anderen threads.
Have a nice day
Eldo
Btw, Ich habe irgendwo gelesen das 5% der gesamten Welt Energie von Minen verbraucht wird.
Lastly, interventional analysis undoubtedly shows that large players have and are intervening in the precious metals markets, as well as oil and other commodities.
This is self-evident from the derivative positions in these markets held by various financial entities, on both the governmental and private level. In our weekly market wrap we presented a table of all these derivative positions: totaling approximately 3 TRILLION DOLLARS
Jetzt braeuchte man viel Cash zum Einkaufen.... 
Die Gelegenheit kommt dieses Jahr nicht mehr wieder.
Edel 
Jim Sinclair hat vollkommen recht wenn man die zusammenfassung sich anschaut,gestern war ein Tag da musste die Staerke und Unschuld der Amerikaner propagiert werden. Es gibt aber jedoch keine Trauerfeiern fuer die unschuldigen die im nahen Osten ermordet wurden.
Seit 9/11 sind die Energiepreise alle stark angezogen, Irak liefert seit dem nur 50% OIl vor dem Angriff, irgendeiner verdient ganz gut mit der Situation seit der Invasion in Afganistan.Es brachte sehr viele Vorteile, alleine fuer die Homeland Security wurden soweit 160 Mrd USD ausgegeben, eine wahre Industrie ist das nun geworden.Es ist ja alles kein Problem wenn man eine Gelddruckmaschine hat und sich keiner darueber aufregt. Die Cabals halten alles noch auf ""its just fine"" bis zur Wahl da bin ich mir sicher, jedoch das ganze ist nur eine Illusion.
Die Medien luegen wie gedruckt und die Herde glaubt es natuerlich.
Die sprechen doch alle mit gespaltener Zuge wuerde ein Indianer sagen.
Jim Kramer sagte sogar das die Nachfrage von Rohstoffen weiter geht und das saemtliche Energieaktien unterbewertet und manipuliert sind.
Egal wo man hinschaut, Uran, Oil, Gas,Kohle, Edelmetalle, alles wurden gestern wieder kraeftig gehaemmert, wer braucht denn das Zeug schon. ....in einer schwachen US/EU WIRTSCHAFT.
Von den andern Laendern wo die Post abgeht, davon redet keiner, die fuellen naehmlich diese Luecke locker wieder auf.
Well, seeing is believing !!.. talk is cheap - money talks and bullshit walks !
Lucky, ist neu fuer mich Japanese Whiskey 
Genau, Linar dort fahrst hin.... immer gelenkig bleiben.
Na, wieder auf Exotenjagd.
Production from Canada's oil sands is growing at a rapid clip. The development has already moved Canada into second place in world oil reserves, and it should be in the top five in world oil production within 10 years.
Motley Fool
Oil Again on Center Stage
Monday September 11, 3:13 pm ET
By Robert Aronen
Oil has been at the center of most world conflicts since the beginning of the 20th century. In The Prize, Daniel Yergin recounts the World War II battle for North Africa. The German army was sweeping east to try to control the Suez Canal and associated oil shipments. Once the Suez Canal was under control, the plan was to continue to the oil fields of Iran. The Germans ended up losing the battle of North Africa because their tactics relied on speed, tanks, and oil. When the oil ran out (ironically in Libya), the German war machine could only retreat.
The attackers of Sept. 11, 2001, were probably not thinking about the history of oil. However, the geopolitical landscape -- dominated by oil -- was established long before that day and created an environment in which extremism could thrive. In the years since the attacks, the war in Iraq, the showdown with Iran, and the thawing of relations with Libya have again brought oil squarely into the center of global conflict.
Fertile ground
People spend their entire careers trying to dissect the seeds of terrorism and the people who engage in it. Without stealing someone's Ph.D. thesis, I think it's safe to say that masses of unemployed young men living in a restrictive society that relies upon oil revenue for social equity (or inequity) might be some fertile ground for extremism. Obviously, there is much more to global terrorism than oil, but I believe there is a link worth exploring.
The majority of the 9/11 attackers were from Saudi Arabia -- the world's largest oil producer and home to the world's largest oil reserves. In a society that should be rich from oil, why would such extreme behavior take root so firmly? In The World Is Flat, Thomas Friedman suggests that cheap oil would force Middle Eastern governments to develop other sectors of their economies, open their markets, and liberate their people. Unfortunately for Mr. Friedman's theory, there were 15 years of cheap oil leading up to Sept. 11. Saudi Arabia was a country with a shrinking government budget providing fewer services to a growing population of unemployed youth. Not the whole story to be sure, but low oil prices certainly may have contributed to the already fertile ground.
At the time of the attack
In the fall of 2001, oil prices were below $20 a barrel. Immediately following the attack, prices dropped to $16 a barrel as recession appeared imminent. Big Oil stocks like ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM - News), Chevron (NYSE: CVX - News), and ConocoPhillips (NYSE: COP - News) held up fairly well right after the attacks, but oil did not find its way into the spotlight for two more years.
Aftermath
In the wake of the attacks, two factors caused oil to become a central part of the story. First, to avert recession, the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to historic lows, causing a consumption boom. Second, the political response to the attacks sent American troops to Iraq -- the country with the fourth-largest oil reserves in the world.
The economic response to the attacks created a huge pool of liquidity in the economy. Americans bought houses in record numbers. The houses were bigger, farther from city centers, and needed to be filled with furnishings. The building boom began to drive prices for basic materials higher. New owners needed new cars to drive longer distances to work and they increasingly chose larger SUVs. American consumption relied on inexpensive imports from China.
The result? By 2004, American oil consumption was increasing at an annual rate of 3.5%, up from a historical average near 1.5%. In China, oil consumption rocketed ahead by 14.7% in 2004, compared with a historical average closer to 6%. These massive demand increases arrived at the end of 17 years of low oil prices. During that time, oil companies used very tight criteria for investment projects, and there was no spare capacity to quickly adjust to the new demand. Prices soared from $20 a barrel in the fall of 2001 to nearly $70 a barrel today.
Beyond supply and demand, the political response to 9/11 has added a serious "fear premium" to oil prices. The war in Iraq -- which has more than 100 billion barrels of oil reserves -- has not fostered stability in the country. Attacks on the oil infrastructure have resulted in oil production remaining lower than pre-war levels, reducing the flow from a country that should be one of the world's leading producers.
Furthermore, there has been renewed agitation between the U.S. and Iran, which is fourth in world oil production and third in world oil reserves. The U.S. has been pushing for a United Nations resolution to stop Iran's nuclear program. Iran says it will keep the oil flowing, as long as it can do what it wants. Every time the two countries exchange words, oil prices head higher.
High oil prices, lack of spare capacity, and geopolitical turmoil have given power to otherwise minor oil players. Nigerian rebels send the price of oil up every time they blow up a pipeline. Hugo Chavez tries to impose his influence wherever he can find a willing audience and has extracted all he can from the foreign oil companies willing to remain. Evo Morales made big headlines by nationalizing Bolivia's gas fields. Terrorists threaten to cut Saudi oil production. Is this the wave of the future?
The good news
Perhaps the most positive political outcome in the aftermath of 9/11 has been the thawing of relations with Libya. Libya renounced weapons of mass destruction and admitted its role in the 1988 Lockerbie bombing, and the environment for developing Libya's oil fields improved dramatically. Marathon Oil (NYSE: MRO - News) and Occidental Petroleum (NYSE: OXY - News) returned to the land where the Germans ran out of gas so many years ago.
High oil prices have also led to accelerated development of energy sources closer to home. Gulf of Mexico deepwater fields are being drilled with rigs from Transocean (NYSE: RIG - News), Global Santa Fe, and Noble. This activity recently led to Chevron uncovering one of the largest oil fields in U.S. history.
Production from Canada's oil sands is growing at a rapid clip. The development has already moved Canada into second place in world oil reserves, and it should be in the top five in world oil production within 10 years.
Finally, high oil prices have improved social services in Saudi Arabia. It seems that the Saudi government understands the need to diversify the economy and provide more opportunity. Hopefully, the fertile ground that bred the attackers of 9/11 will begin to dry up.
What now?
After 2001, there has been little to be excited about in the oil markets. Headlines have suggested that world oil production may be entering irreversible decline, that most of the world reserves are held by countries with links to terrorism, and that the era of cheap oil is over. While there may be some truth to these negative headlines, there is also reason to think we may have turned the corner. With Chevron's big find, the potential for stability in Libya, and rapidly growing production from Canada's oil sands, in a few years, we may just emerge with greater energy security.
Die sind schon Gemein, an Onkel Harry Schultz Geburtstag den PoG zu pruegeln macht ihm bestimmt keine Freude.
@ Vanescent ;)..ja so schauts aus.
What is different, and perplexes me, is that the $USD has gained much strength, and that commodity prices (oils and metals) are falling so quickly
Bei CNBC Herr Hefti von UBS sagte gerade das ist Bullshit das der Bedarf an Energy faellt....
Im Gegenteil !!
So jetzt einen doppelten Whiskey, I call it a day.
Die Shorties kriegen schon was sie verdienen eines Tages.
Gnight
Eldo
321 Editorial Watson:
Let me use an example from the Peak Oil debate. The Athabasca tar sands in Alberta have been estimated at 175 billion barrels of proven reserves. That is second only to mighty Saudi Arabia.
However, Saudi Arabia is producing at 9 million barrels per day and companies in Alberta are only at 1 million barrels per day with a projection to 2 million barrels by 2010.
Why the painfully slow progress in accessing 175 billion barrels?
It is simply because it is harder to get at and harder to refine.
Even with improving technology, they can only go so fast. The same goes for gold in exotic locations, the reserves may look good and the technology may be there, but the technology is only bringing these reserves up at profitable levels, not traditional production levels. The bottom line for any company is profit levels first and production levels second.
Let me point out that I am not decrying technology. Without it, we would not have seen the rise in production levels we have seen in the last century. .
@ Edel
Guter Fight bis jetzt .......
Ein paar wenige die keiner fuer aufmerksam nimmt reden von einer shortage in oil zur zeit.
Viele Lager sind zwar voll aber man macht sich auch hier Sorgen....
Jungs und morgen ist Muttertag !,... die Medien sagens ja.
Mit der IMMO BUBBLE gebe ich dir voll recht Saccard, das gibt noch ein Disaster.
Fannier und Freddy Mac in ""another brick in the wall"".
Ich vermute das man durch Reden von ""Experten"" das eine schwache Wirtschaft dazu fuehrt das Rohstoffe fallen.
Man vergisst einiges der Boom und Asien & India und Arab Laender weiter geht und die Rohstoffe und Hightech brauchen.Dort geht die Post ab und geben denen dann Fiat zurueck.
In Quatar wo 15% der Weltgas Reserven liegen wird alleine pro Jahr 20 Mrd USD investiert. Viele Oil/Gas Firmen sind schon unten.
USA hat seit 9/11 alleine 160 Mrd USD fuer Homeland Security ausgegeben und heute will man schon gar nicht mehr in der US fliegen, man zahlt diese Security aus eigener Tasche mit Airport Tax.
Naja,........die Iran Story heute ....Oil und Gas haelt sich super, es wird bald steigen und Gold auf die Beine helfen IMO.
Egal, die freuen sich nun ueber solche Spotpreise und werden somit das Fiatgeld wieder los. Die machen das still und heimlich, darum stuerzen die Rohstoffe nicht so einfach wie sich manche Trottel vorstellen.
Its all distraction @Planet Media ;)...just show me where
Lottery Nation
By Rich Smith (TMFDitty)
According to a pair of surveys commissioned by the Consumer Federation of America and the Financial Planning Association last year, a sizable portion of the American public is convinced that the best chance of acquiring real wealth is through winning the lottery. An even larger portion of the populace believes they will never amass even $200,000 over their lifetimes.
Balderdash. On both counts.
Myth No. 1: You can win the lottery.
According to the survey of 1,000 adult Americans, 21% agree with the statement that "winning the lottery represents the most practical way [for them personally] to accumulate several hundred thousand dollars." That's great news for lottery operators, but pretty depressing news for our nation, our educational system, and most of all, for the folks who hold this sad notion.
We all know that the chance of winning a lottery is just 1 in 80 million or so -- or we know that in theory. But too many people take the "80 million" as a given, and therefore not worth thinking about. They dream of the "1" and just hope against hope. Problem is, there is no hope.
I mean that quite literally. No hope. None at all.
Consider: On average and over time, for every $1 spent on a lottery ticket, a buyer can expect to receive approximately $0.44 back in "winnings." Now say you're a happy-go-lucky rich guy with $10,000 to blow on the lottery. Say you want to "invest" that money in lottery tickets and keep on "investing" the proceeds of your bets in even more lottery tickets. How long do you think you could keep this game rolling?
Answer: If you buy $10,000 worth of $1 lottery tickets on Day 1, then statistically speaking, you'll have $4,400 left to spend on Day 2. Do that, and by Day 3, you're down to $1,936. Keep going, and by the end of the week, you've got $31.93 left to your name. Five more days and you're all washed up -- just $0.53 in your pocket and too poor to buy another ticket.
Myth No. 2: Dang! Myth No. 1 was my only hope!
The survey's other frightening factoid was that only 26% of individuals surveyed believed they could ever amass $200,000 in savings over the course of their lifetime.
Ready for some irony? In 1996, state-run lotteries consumed $34 billion. That works out to a little more than $130 for every man, woman, and child living in the U.S. at the time, in 1996 dollars. Throw in the effects of inflation, and in 2005 dollars, it's worth $158. Want to guess how much you would have to put away every month in order to end up with $200,000 in your brokerage account at the end of 30 years?
Smart cookie. If you can put as little as $158 per month into a simple S&P 500 index fund, compounding at its historical rate of 10.5% per annum, then 30 years of diligent saving and investing will find you sitting on a little more than $200,000 in savings at the end. (And mind you, this is all in 2005 dollars -- not those inflation-eroded greenbacks they'll be printing in 2035.)
Myth No. 3: Huh? There is a third myth?
Indeed there is. What surprised me almost as much as the misconceptions revealed in the survey results, was the inherent misconception on which the survey was based: that if someone wants to become "rich," $200,000 will do the trick.
Company
Dividend Yield
Annual Return on $200,000
General Motors (NYSE: GM)
3.4%
$6,800
General Electric (NYSE: GE)
2.9%
$5,800
Ford (NYSE: F)
2.4%
$4,800
Kodak (NYSE: EK)
2.4%
$4,800
ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM)
1.8%
$3,600
Worse, the average yield of a portfolio such as the one described above is 2.6% (which would, incidentally, net you only $5,200 per annum). If you go the simple route of investing in an S&P 500 index fund, however, your dividend yield would drop to 1.7%, and a $3,400 annual return.
You can do better
Fortunately, we have a solution that can help you achieve the survey-posers goal of $200,000 much faster than an index fund can. One that can help you surpass it and move toward the $1 million in net wealth that you would actually need to live comfortably in retirement. 
Kein Wunder...... Bla- Bla- Bla.... und schon sinkt der Bedarf an Rohstoffen in 48 Stunden.
Ich glaube das befreundete Zentralbanken dem Goldcartel wieder mal aushelfen, der Beilandskranz fuer den 5.Jahrestag vielleicht.....
Diese Saecke ! 
Trichet: Global Growth Could Slow
Monday September 11, 12:00 pm ET
Trichet: Global Growth Could Slow Slightly, but Will Remain Robust
BASEL, Switzerland (AP) --
European Central Bank President Jean-Claude Trichet said Monday that global economic growth could slow a little next year, but will likely remain robust.
Growth is "likely to continue to be quite dynamic," said Trichet, chairman of the Group of 10 leading industrial nations' central bank governors, who often meet on the sidelines of the Bank for International Settlements' meetings in Basel.
Even if 2007 represents a slowdown from this year's strong growth, he told reporters, "We had the sentiment that the global economy will continue to grow at a robust pace."
Trichet said the risks to global growth are unchanged, but that uncertainties had increased, citing the price of oil and commodities, protectionism and the possibility of increased risk in global financial markets.
He said central bank chiefs found the short life of financial market turbulence earlier this year noteworthy.
"We noted the turbulences we had during the month of May had been surmounted quite rapidly," he said. "We probably have improved the resilience of the system, but there are risks ... There is a risk that at any moment there is a sharp reappreciation of risks."
Trichet said the resilience of economies can be improved with structural reforms and greater flexibility. The credibility of central banks, he said, can help systems weather higher oil prices and some degree of financial turbulence.
Trichet declined to comment on whether global monetary tightening must continue next year, but said, "the solid anchoring of inflation expectations is considered by all of us to be essential." 
Bob ich finde unsere zwei postings nicht mehr
Data updated to Friday 8 September 2006.
There are a couple of interesting points on this graph. The Island Reversal formation in June is a fairly reliable indicator of a change of trend and it worked, at least for the moment. Gold gapped up above $600 and quickly moved to $660 plus at which point those people who had missed out selling the first time around came in saying that this time they were not waiting for $700 and dumped their positions.
The second interesting observation is the strong support line just above $600 which has contained the 3 declines over the past couple of months, a level reached again last Friday, 8 September. The question is whether this level will hold again. If it does hold then there is the potential for gold to move rapidly above $700 in the near future. If this is the case we could label the peak at $674 on 14 July 2006 (Comex) as the peak of wave (i), the first upwave in the new bull leg and the correction to the recent $608 level as wave (ii).
If this support level just above $600 gives way, then we should expect another visit to the lower $500 regions. That would then confirm that the 14 July $674 peak was the end of the B-Wave and that the decline to test the lows above $500+ would complete the C-Wave. That would also complete Major Wave TWO, the biggest correction in the gold market to date.
In some ways another test of the $500+ 25 year base break out level should be expected. This is typical technical action after such a massive upward break. It is what is sometimes referred to as the “Good-bye kiss”. The price touches the breakout level and then takes off. If this happens, any price in the $500-$550 range would provide a great opportunity to add to gold and gold share holdings.
LATE NOTE: The piece above was written during Sunday night New York time. I have just observed that gold has declined in Asian markets early Monday morning to the $596 level. I am not sure how genuine this price is. We need to see what the London and New York markets do, particularly the London Fixes, before jumping to the conclusion that the support level above $600 has given way.
Alf Field
11 September 2006
