A SPECIAL FOR THOSE WHO THINK ARBITRAGE IS PRIME MINISTER OF FRANCE

Now Roger L Simon, another out of work writer and financial illiterate is claiming the Financial Times of London as the best paper in the (what? Hollywood Writer set???). He thinks you should follow the advice of another so-called writer (Cathy Johnson???) and read the rag. (Johnson is a writer of "nature", art stuff, and Sierra Club; now she is recommending financial papers) FYI The Financial Times of London is one of the absolute worst. They tout more scams, more outright frauds than any so-called paper I know, and it's my business to know. They may have what passes as clever writing but anyone who uses their "opinions" is going to lose everything they have, eventually. Clever writing in the financial field is like the Armani suited financial criminals who sell scams and tax shelters hoping to dazzle you enough with their exteriors so that you won't investigate their substance. The Wall Street Journal and Investors Business Daily are the ONLY investor's papers, and the WSJ has to be read very carefully. You always have to ask yourself, "why is this company or guy allowing this piece to be printed?" The FTL prints some articles that are OK, but stay away from any financial tips. The FTL is infamous for touting Brit metals scams, cocoa rumors of crop failures claiming Brit colonies on the Ivory Coast have informed them.... (commodity brokers will tout their tips to fuck you good), and their sugar and coffee items are outright false. Don't take any of these rags too seriously. Use market generated information only; trust me, if there is "trouble" in cocoa land all the insiders have already jumped into the market. Simon touting financial papers? He must be out of work. The web is loaded with losers who think arbitrage is prime minister of France and that spyders are the latest Hollywood movie. None of them have series 7 or series 3 licenses or they'd be charged by the CFTC, NFA, NASD, or the SEC. You can check all my back commentary on markets and you can see I have been right since publishing; the only incorrect call I made was I thought the stock rally would top around 9500 instead of 10,000+. My latest call: crude below $31 will happen too. Why? Because I know my shit. BTW an example of the Financial Times "good writing and piss poor info" is contained in the highly touted piece on crude oil which is filled with crap. Worst crap? Left out of their much touted piece on oil is what appears to be an attempt to fix gasoline prices by restraining supply in California. The Shell refinery in Bakersfield which earns roughly $11 million per quarter IN PROFITS is SHUTTING DOWN. They refuse to sell the refinery to competition. Why? Well it takes 2% of the total supply of gasoline off the market and keeps the insane margins of $10 per barrel alive in the rest of the refineries. I repeat, that paper is shit. Emailer Mark C suggested reading this site also, which has more data. There is going to be a lot of new drilling in the Taft/Bakersfield area. My point in this essay is not to evaluate the crude oil biz, but to attack economic bowling score IQs who recommend The Financial Times of London.