Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Man, why do you guys hate Crox so much? Speaking as a parent, those are GREAT shoes for kids during the summer. Especially for those camping trips that result in wading into lakes, etc.
LOL!
It's amazing how the continent with the most natural resources has populations across so many countries that can't seem to get it right even once.
I know a Cali Forester that keeps up with Forestry and wildlife world wide. She mentioned the Mountain Gorillas and poaching. Apparently, it's pretty bad. No one wants to pay for their security. She said that we (U.S.) send them used boots and clothes. I think they need more powerful weapons and training.
I think the reason is lack of man power. Couple that with a lack of initiative and you have lenders holding their hands out. After all, they pay good money for lobbyists.
It's a bunch of B.S. The Federal government has NO business in bailing these banks out. At most, GW and Congress should openly suggest that the banks rewrite the terms of the loans so that the irresponsible people who didn't refi will get some relief.
For example, the bank knew that an ARM or creative financing was risky. The borrower knew that either was risky. Both parties went in the agreement. Now they're screwed. Why? Because the bank would rather spend more money in the form of write downs than to help their client out by rewriting the mortgage to more favorable terms.
GW should have pushed on a privatized solution. IMO, the bank lobby's knew the government would come in with the bail out so they said "f the customer and the tax payer."
I wonder how many foreclosures wouldn't happen if the banks took the initiative to simply rewrite the loans on the fly with favorable interest rates regardless of credit? Then how many more foreclosures wouldn't happen if the banks moved current, past due payments to the back of the loan? Now if THAT doesn't fix the mass foreclosures, then forget my post from the beginning. LOL!
Edit - I used to really support GW his first term but I'm so sick of these politicians signing every damned spending bill that comes across their table. For his second term, GW is just a Democrat that happens to love war and tax cuts. You can't have that when you also spend, spend, spend.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
Mastaflash, that is 180 degrees different than your posts about this being a "probable scam."
I guess the market WAS impressed by the ruling. LOL!
Thanks. About time! LOL! IMO, the market is sinking whether folks in the overall market know it or not. IBM should see new highs, though. Hehehe
Acutally, IBM beat the 52wk high today.
IBM beats estimates
Consistent revenue and new accounts
Strategic outsourcing of technical jobs
REAL stock buy backs (they've reduced their OS by a few 100 million over the last 2 years)
Nothing scary about that. They've been beating 52 week highs for years. LOL! Look for $140 before the EOY.
This ain't CSHD and it ain't run by a guy named Rufus. Hehehe
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
I might get some puts against IBM but right now, I have some calls and they are green. Remember, IBM beat estimates the last two times in a row (probably more). You could buy IBM calls right here and as long as they are 2 months from expiration, no matter what it does, they will be green at some point. The puts are harder to play on IBM, IMO.
The only greens I have are my puts with the exception of my IBM calls which are green.
The only red I have is my BA call insurance agains the puts.
IMO, the market will see red for a few days.
Just quit trading penny stocks. In 100 years, I doubt anyone's going to vote enough money for the SEC to dedicate enough manpower to pinky scams to make anyone happy.
Trade at your own risk. And accept that you're on your own. Otherwise, buy some IBM stock. LOL!
Posted by: samaelrocks Date: Thursday, July 24, 2008 10:11:26 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 30401
.APVTL AAPL AUG 160 Puts
Time to pull back. All calls on AAPL are sold.
Darn. That was quick! LOL! Waiting for some calls now.
Interesting. USO (United States Oil) should be a great mover the week before. If there are news rumblings both ways leading up creating some flat trading, the week of the 22nd is the best opportunity for the straddle play. Whichever way it is decided, you could make some nice cash.
I agree that if the Democrats push to keep the ban in place, they are finished. Not that I believe Obama has a chance at the Presidency. What amazes me is how many of the west coast Democrats (more liberalized) think that they are mainstream thinking. I'd be pissed off if I were a Democratic voter and the DNC gave me Obama to vote for. LOL! Or Hiliary for that matter.
Let's see what happens.
Edit - I understand that the restrictions for offshore drilling end on Sept. 30th.
My guess is a straddle play with USO the week of the 22nd will pay off. Ban goes away, supply increases are expected and the price drops. Democrats vote to keep the ban and win, the price goes up. Probably significantly as a lot of new money will either come in or a lot of old money leaves.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
.APVTL AAPL AUG 160 Puts
Time to pull back. All calls on AAPL are sold.
.IBMHE IBM AUG 125 Calls
Go IBM, Go!
Is there a specific date when the ban will be voted on? I need to know what day to open a straddle order on USO options. LOL! Either way, I'll pay for my gas for a year with that one trade. Hehehe
.BAUL BA SEP 60 Puts
Looking great so far today.
I think it's disgusting that these banks have the opportunity to provide good will to their customers, save themselves some losses, and leave the government out of it.
Talk about a missed opportunity.
If I sold something to someone that had a potential big downfall for both my customer and I if not used properly, I would like to think I'd try to find a win/win solution that would save both of us heartache and cash.
Vote Libertarian! LOL!
That's nuts. Why not just pay off the mortgages of all homeowners and piss off renters?
IMO, the banks offered the ARMS. Yes, people bought them and should have refinanced to a conventional loan before the trouble. But the sellers have some responsibility to, IMO.
Let the banks work with their customers and work it out. Since the average foreclosure costs the lender 40k, it would be smarter for the banks to simply refi every one of those loans to conventional terms and be done with it. Maybe even move one or two current/late payments to the end of the loan for some relief. We don't need the government for that crap.
Sure. We can agree on that. Still reading up on that though. I have the right to change my mind on this. LOL!
Interesting that you left out the fact that Bill Clinton signed it (Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000).
GW isn't much better though. He signs every spending bill that crosses his desk.
Actually, you want to fix a whole lotta stuff that's f'd up? Find a majority in congress willing outlaw Lobbying. You'll fix a lot on both sides.
I'll look it up but what's your perspective of the Enron Loophole, how does it keep prices high, and who was responsible?
So we are now back to the initial statement. Why the F should we open up leases to oil companies today when there is a significant backlog, we can get paid more money later, they still have millions of acres that haven’t been drilled yet.
Why not? I understand the supply/demand regarding land. I also understand the speculator's effect of percieved supply/demand of a commodity. U.S. lifts the ban, the price of oil goes down. Now don't you think that would help citizens more than forcing oil companies to wait and pay more for the land? I mean, your idea keeps the price of oil high. I fail to see the point to keeping the ban in place other than some folks not wanting to see an oil rig out in the ocean.
In fact, you could literally lift the ban, oil companies sit on the leases, and speculators would trade the oil contracts down due to the potential of additional supply.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
I'd like to see a map of that. Apparently, a lot of it is deep water locations:
"With prices at $135 dollars a barrel, everyone is trying to pump as much as they can, he said. But fearing oil prices will eventually fall, the industry is leery about making too many investments in the fields it has - many of which are in deepwater areas that can be pricey to develop."
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes
So they're interested in finding more efficient, cheaper ways to get the commodity. If Al Gore found out there was oil on the moon, he'd be pushing to cancel ALL U.S. leases (except for China and Russia) and force Exxon to build an oil export on the moon.
Your argument regarding offering new leases today unless we are excluding foreign companies makes no sense. Are you saying we will offer these leases to only American Companies?
I'd hope so.
Today why even consider offering leases until they have exhausted their existing leases. Why give them more when they haven't drilled from the last two offerings? Oh and why screw the taxpayer by offering these leases now when the value will only go up later.
? Oil companies pay millions for leases today. What are you talking about? LOL!
Oh and who the F said they haven't the means to drill offshore. I haven't. What I said, and maybe you should see if their are drilling rigs available today, is that there is a paucity of drilling rigs available for off shore drilling today.
LOL! I have no idea what you're saying then. You posted there was a shortage of equipment and skilled workers. Now your saying you didn't suggest they haven't the means? Where are you going with this?
http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/23/news/economy/oil_drilling/index.htm?cnn=yes
Interesting, a lot of the current leases are deep water and expensive. They are looking for something less expensive to explore and drill which could help keeping the prices down.
Here's a quote that should put this to rest unless some of these anti-lease democrats are oil experts:
"No one is sitting on leases these days," said Rayola Dougher, senior economic advisor for the American Petroleum Institute. "Those making those assertions don't understand the bidding and leasing process."
From my furnished link, it's clear that oil companies are looking for expansion possibilities, efficient locations, and they do in fact PAY the U.S. government for leases.
Let's say the oil companies are sitting on leases with idle equipment or not. What is so frightening to democrats (mainly) in the U.S. selling these leases to oil companies? What result is most feared by this? I've yet to see an answer to this one.
I wouldn't give up a lease before the end of a contract until I got a new lease elsewhere even if the existing lease was not profitable. At least it's an area to continue exploration even if current finds turned up nothing of significance.
First off they have not drilled on most of the leases. Second there is a shortage of drilling rigs and people with expertise. Third – the oil companies want to tie up as much of those leases as possible sooner rather than later as the prices may only escalate and they want the rights.
The first two points run together. Have not drilled on most of the leases BECAUSE there is a shortage of drilling rigs and people with expertise. However, how could you NOT be for American companies getting the rights to as many leases as possible? Lastly, if you really believe that there is a shortage of equipment (unlikely due to leasing and outsourcing) and expertise (unlikely due to outsourcing/contracting), why would the anti lease folks be worried that the companies will start exploring and pumping off shore?
LOL! That makes no sense. Why, in your opinion, do you think the oil companies want to drill offshore if they haven't the means? Or do you believe they do have the means but are wasting their time? Do you have a link to show the profit potential of existing leases as compared to that off shore that China seems to be betting on off Cuba's coast?
LOL! You argued yourself in a circle that counters itself.
To explore. They aren't buying land. They lease it because of the potential of oil. After the lease, they do exploration. If the exploration turns up nothing or less than promising reserves, they move on and the lease goes away after whatever time was contracted. I'm sure in some cases, the land is bought though. I don't want to blanket statement the issue.
You have to think that it's not in the Oil company's best interest to let equipment sit idle if there were promising reserves available. Even if it meant the increase supplies brought the price of oil down 20 bucks per barrel.
That's easy, Pickstocks:
Lets see Masta play on this and bring some good light to the whole experience. maybe he will realize the lying pos is just snake that needs to be step on and run over.
Rufus doesn't want the faithful to be there because the Hydrogen Bomb Rufus has in store to shake the market will be blinding. And he doesn't want that to happen to the proboarders because he cares so much.
Anyone worried there will be a rush on banks to pull cash out? An economic collapse? Just curious what opinions are out there.
.BAUL BA SEP 60 Puts @ 1.10
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
.VTM V AUG 65 Puts @ 1.45 (paper trading this one)
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
Thanks! now, I won't tell you about my GM and WB puts. LOL! They suck.
Thanks! now, I won't tell you about my GM and WB puts. LOL! They suck.
I understand this guy is wealthy and knows his oil. But his thinking is that of an analyst not looking at the whole picture today:
http://biz.yahoo.com/rb/080722/pickens_oil.html
Pickens sees $300 oil unless U.S. cuts crude imports
Tuesday July 22, 2:27 pm ET
By Timothy Gardner
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - "Oil prices will hit $300 a barrel in 10 years if the United States fails to reduce its dependence on foreign imports, billionaire oil investor T. Boone Pickens told U.S. lawmakers on Tuesday."
Now, I agree we need to cut our dependence on foreign oil. I'm all over that. But I don't believe that will be a reason for $300 per barrel oil. In 10 years? Come on. In 10 years, demand is going to be down pretty big considering new alternative energy cars, new fuel efficient planes, and hopefully more efficient drilling.
Reduce the dependence, yes. $300 oil? Not likely, IMO. Even if it does hit that price 10 years from now, factoring inflation and more fuel efficient auto's, it won't feel as bad as one might think a decade from now.
Nice!
Posted by: samaelrocks Date: Tuesday, July 22, 2008 9:49:50 AM
In reply to: None Post # of 30111
.APVIL AAPL SEP 160 Calls
Couldn't resist. Looking for a quick flip today and may keep 2 contracts a bit longer. Unless it keeps falling, then I'll dump all of them. Let's see what happens.
Reduced the risk by selling 5 contracts from 6.80 to 9.00. Keeping two contracts to see where AAPL will go. I have no Put insurance on this play. I might have to get some at this point as it is currently cheap.
I'm referring to the pacer filing where it had communications between Alana and Rufus. Rufus was trying to get Alana to deposit the 2 Billion dollar treasury checks into CSHD's account. LOL!
The exact phrase from Alana: "During several of these discussions, Harris attempted to raise the issue of settlement."
That tells me that several times (more than once?), Rufus tried to settle.
The only begging I've seen from Rufus is to get the SEC to settle a few pacer doc's ago.
Compare to IBM a few years back. SEC said that IBM was using incorrect accounting procedures. Price tanked from 100 to the high 60's.
Shareholders pissed but guess what IBM did to end the issue? They used attorneys to show the SEC that the accounting principles used were in fact correct.
SEC ends the investigation and gives IBM a thumbs up. Price grows back to over 100 again.
So, who are you angry with? LOL!
After all this time, what makes you think Rufus will do anything different than he has to date?
That is literally insane thinking on your part.