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.
Ouch! If Obama can't even get 90%+ of the Clinton supporters, my prediction that he conceeds before midnight will be off by about 2 hours because the west coast won't even count. We won't even have to take into account PST. LOL!
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
Anyone else taking pleasure in watching Goldman Sachs take a nice hit today? LOL!
I hope that Richard Safran has a lot of his retirement in GS. Oh, lighten up, Richard. It'll bounce back like the other stocks you downgraded. Hehehe
Kidding folks. What a bleh day today.
No more scientific than when I called 12k- when the DJI was around 12.5K. For the last several weeks, we would gain a little and lose a lot.
Oil goes up even though supplies are also.
Couple that with my extreme pessimism today and there's my opinion. LOL!
Like always, take it with a grain of salt.
Edit - Not to say there won't be opportunities with pops. But you know that already;)
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
I think we see 10k-
We had relatively good news today but we are tanking. I can't see the news getting any better any time soon, IMO. Anyone know of any market indicators we could expect to be positive on the market? LOL! Maybe in December when we find out it's not as bad as what Goldman Sachs would have us believe with retail spending up.
Even IBM can't break the bear hold. Now that's scary.
One more thought. Airlines are suffering now due to high cost of fuel. BUT, you can still get cheap airline tickets. I saw $99 one way to NY from Atlanta last week which is cheap. Wouldn't the high fuel costs drive people to fly rather than drive for long trips? I wonder if there is a miss here. Thoughts?
How does this make it easier for a gang member to get a gun they can't already get today?
The court's 5-4 ruling strikes down the District of Columbia's 32-year-old ban on handguns as incompatible with gun rights under the Second Amendment. The decision goes further than even the Bush administration wanted, but probably leaves most firearms laws intact.
So if there was a law prohibiting hand guns, yet criminals still had hand guns are we assuming that by lifting the ban, the criminal element will obtain more hand guns than they need? What's the thought process here? The law didn't work, obviously except for against law abiding citizens. So how does this increase the availability of weapons for felons? Felons aren't supposed to be able to buy these anywhere and anyway.
The painful fact is criminals WILL get the tools they need/want regardless of what we write as law. Drugs are illegal WITHOUT exception (errrr... wrong. Some places alow Pot for medical but I digress). Somehow, drugs are still abundant.
Here's the difference between guns and drugs. Law abiding citizens don't want or need drugs, whereas, some law abiding citizens want or need guns. Why would anyone think for a microsecond that a law against one commodity will work when those same type (if not harsher) laws HAVE NOT worked for another?
Therefore, the liberal thought process of banning hand guns is a disservice for the lawful, whereas, banning drugs is not.
I'm not for barring people from forming clubs or organizing but I am for members of said clubs to be responsible for controlling the actions of their clubs.
That being said, if your club is known for committing violent crimes, the club should be forcefully disbanned. Preferably by deadly force. Special police forces paid for by filming and made available on pay-per-view during their exercises.
That would solve a lot of the urban crime. Wipe out a portion of the element, make joining gangs VERY dangerous from the lawful side, confiscate a pelethora of guns, and funded by people sick enough of gang intimidation that they are willing to pay to see gang extermination in action.
You're not serious, are you?
I hope DC enjoys the arming of the street gangs with concealable sidearms.
If I had just landed in the U.S. and you made this statement to me without me knowing any better, I'd have thought that street gangs today did NOT have weapons. LOL!
I'm a fan of "Tru TV" that shows cop shows, chases, etc. The other day, cops were going after two gang members and were shot at by a fully automatic weapon. No one was hurt, thank goodness.
If I'm not mistaken, it's illegal to own a fully auto weapon. And the perp's were felons to boot. I guess the law couldn't stop them. Why would we want the law to stop law abiding citizens from protecting themselves? Geesh.
Exactly. I'd never play an earnings play. Got burned myself with YHOO. Apparently, the demand for both puts and options going into earnings is high thus higher premiums. The day OF earnings = a bunch of traders with current positions hoping for the "greater fools" to jump in. This should be mentioned in the ibox, IMO.
GM downgrade? What about Ford?
Goldman cut its rating on GM to sell from neutral and lowered its price target to $11 from $19, saying deteriorating market fundamentals could exacerbate liquidity concerns.
"We think GM's automotive cash flow burn this year and next is likely to lead it to look to raise capital, which we believe could lead to significant shareholder dilution and/or a cut to the company's dividend," analyst Patrick Archambault said in a note.
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/general-motors-shares-slump-after/story.aspx?guid=%7B8DE90DA3%2D2420%2D4C57%2D94C7%2DE2AE3698285F%7D&siteid=yhoof
Ford has 2.24 Billion shares outstanding! If they need to raise capital, the dilution would be tremendous. Ford has some of the same problems GM has.
Ford is under $5 now. If they needed to raise 1 million bucks, add about 250k shares to the OS.
What's ridiculous is that GM has been dropping for weeks now. Now that it was in the $12's yesterday, THEN they downgrade it so it drops another $2. By the time their readers/investors get done dumping, it will be at the bottom! LOL!
GM's not going anywhere as you said. Stock drop? Obviously. Bottom found? Probably by Tuesday next week and those same people that sold will be buying again.
I'd be impressed if Goldman put out the downgrade BEFORE GM started dropping between May and June:
All they did was tell folks to sell at the bottom.
I hope Goldman downgrades about 5 or 6 other plays. People will start thinking GS is calling wolf. LOL!
BA looking good today but a long way to go. Folks looking for bargains will move the price up, IMO.
And there you go!
http://www.marketwatch.com/News/Story/Story.aspx?guid=%7b57373780-D61B-40F9-81FD-CE63F26A06D4%7d&siteid=yhoof2
Boeing shares look cheap with years of work ahead: analyst
By Christopher Hinton
Last update: 9:18 a.m. EDT June 26, 2008Comments: 3
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Boeing Co. (BA:Boeing Co.
News, chart, profile, more
Last: 69.79+0.15+0.22%
9:49am 06/26/2008
Delayed quote dataAdd to portfolio
Analyst
Create alertInsider
Discuss
Financials
Sponsored by:
BA 69.79, +0.15, +0.2%) shares are now looking cheap ahead of anticipated profit growth into 2012, said Bernstein Research in an investor note Thursday. The Chicago-based aircraft manufacturer has fallen out of favor with many investors on concerns its customers might cancel new plane orders because of a weaker economy. But even if its backlog were slashed by 30%, the company would still have years of work ahead of it, the investment firm said. "Demand for new aircraft remains tight," Bernstein said. "If we see economic weakness in 2011-12, that would be a real point of concern because large quantities of new airplanes would have already been placed in the market." Bernstein reaffirmed its outperform rating on Boeing shares with a $92 price target. Shares on Wednesday closed at $69.64, down 6.9%.
Why? Didn't they say supplies actually rose yesterday?
GM is under $12 now. Bye, bye, lost opportunity! LOL! Not so bent out of shape here though. I pulled over 100% out so can't complain about that. LOL!
When I get back, remind me to ask you what you think the top is for USO! I was going to trade solely IBM but the oil fund looks pretty safe as long as I have some insurance.
Agreed. Why don't they save their PR dollars and just tell the Market that all sectors suck due to high fuel costs in one shot?
That is some kind of power those analysts have, eh? All they have to do is open a position on a stock they plan to downgrade/upgrade and make immediate gains that would run for 2 or 3 days. I believe they could do that without breaking any insider trading laws as well. If nothing else, you have to know that analysts' family members have some kick a$$ equity positions.
Of course it was. The market was advised that I had relinquished my short position on GM yesterday and triggered this catalyst that would have bought me a new car if I had held ONE MORE DAY. LOL!
Posted by: samaelrocks Date: Wednesday, June 25, 2008 3:53:52 PM
In reply to: OptionMonster who wrote msg# 27521 Post # of 27578
All GM puts gone now! What a slope! May drop a bit more but the market may think (rightly so) that GM is making cost cutting strides. I'm not buying calls though so no one needs to be concerned about risking a bounce play.
Glad I didn't buy those calls though. Goldman's actions would have made more sense if I had. What's strange is that I actually made some nice gains on the puts. Shewwww.
My post was about "ownership" based on your marxist statement. You clearly made the assumption that the Walton's kids did NOT own their father's money because of taxes... in keeping up with your battle to increase inheritance tax.
I used the analogy of insurance and a Will (which falls within your debate of inheritance tax) to point out that money can change hands.
I also did so to point out that remarks like your's suggesting that anyone OTHER than family can dictate who's money belongs to whom is a scary one. So as soon as you retract that statement, you DID clearly state that at least Mr. Walton couldn't give his children his money.
So I don't know what you are smoking but unless you can identify your own literal short comings, you should probably keep quiet about the intelligence of those that point them out.
Edit - Oh, did I say "literal short comings?" That was unfair. Because there is no doubt in my mind who you think should control wealth with a statement like the one you posted earlier.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
Oh and it's not their money. It's their daddy's money.
Really? You are suggesting that there is no possible way for money ownership to change hands? LOL!
I just renewed my life insurance with my wife last week. We put each other down as beneficiaries. Then comes our children. Our living will gives everything to our children with my sister as the executor.
In all that, I don't remember giving any assets to the government. But if the law says you have to give a % above x amount of inheritance in the form of taxes to the government, then you can accurately say that the % above x amount of inheritance belongs to the government.
It frightens me when I see people post that something no longer belongs to someone else because said person thinks the government should have it. That's pretty sick.
Argue the tax law and what you think the law should be one way or the other. But don't lie about personal property rights in the U.S. to support higher taxes. If "daddy" gives the money to his kids, that money belongs to his kids. The kids will then decide how to pay the least amount of taxes using shelters or exercising their ability to vote.
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/capital-commerce/2008/4/22/obama-and-even-higher-capital-gains-taxes.html
Obama wants to raise capital gains from 15% to 28%. It looks like he is NOT for equalizing these taxes with that of income taxes which could push that 28% significantly higher.
I don't really care though. Obama has about as good of chance of beating McCain as we have a chance of finding a photograph of Hilary and GW making hay. LOL!
Yes it is! It dropped the PPS of a company that is absorbing government contracts like a sponge because one dude said to sell it. The whole "outlook looks bleak due to higher fuel costs...." B.S. pertains to the whole market. Not just BA!
All GM puts gone now! What a slope! May drop a bit more but the market may think (rightly so) that GM is making cost cutting strides. I'm not buying calls though so no one needs to be concerned about risking a bounce play.
I think BA will surprise me when I get back from vacation. LOL! I didn't marry her because I love her. I married her because I got stuck with her. LOL!
LOL! You can vote 3 ways, this election. Independent, Leaning Right or Completely Wrong.
LOL! It doesn't matter what security now days. In fact, on Friday, the family and I are going on a 2 week vacation to see the wife's side of the family in northern CA. I'll be 99% at cash by end of tomorrow. Why 99%? Because the other 1% is still due to be worthless for a few more days (BA calls). Hopefully, when I get back, I can get back into the groove of things and BA will be running. Have a sell order in for my BA calls at 1.1. Let's see if I can trick god into thinking my trading days are over by not watching the market for 2 weeks and let BA get back over $80. Hehehe
Great opinion on Iraq, GW and a sound fact:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/24/opinion/24brooks.html?_r=4&hp=&oref=slogin&pagewanted=print&oref=slogin
The best quote from the column - "Life is complicated. The reason we have democracy is that no one side is right all the time. The only people who are dangerous are those who can’t admit, even to themselves, that obvious fact."
I learned something recently in my watching/reading about oil. Speculation is the perception of supply/demand like any other stock/commodity. They are two ends of oil as a tradable resource balancing each other out. But it is the speculation end that sets the price.
For example, a year from now, we see demand is dropping due to more companies letting folks work from home, hybrids, hydrogen, etc. And the demand is dropping faster than what was expected. So speculators start selling because they think the trend will continue into the future, thus dropping the price of oil.
At the end of the day, oil companies sell the oil based on whatever price is pinned up on the speculator's bulletin board rather than look at their individual supplies and come up with their own individual price. However, I've yet to hear of an oil company telling the market that oil contracts are too high because we have plenty of supply (which apparently was true today) and should be selling for less. LOL! The opposite occurs daily.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
LOL! They weren't being fired on. They were being stopped from entering another city that had the same problems New Orleans had. I guess we'll never know if the city of Gretna would have experienced the same type of assaults and looting that New Orleans faced if the city officers didn't secure that bridge.
And my guess, the Gretna population is appreciative for it.
Should the focus be about Gretna securing their city? Interesting that you didn't examine the "why." Why would they feel the need to secure their Hurrican inflicted city? I know why and the civilians know why. I think YOU know why. It has more to do with acts of violence the city saw from a few in NO rather than "race." In your argument, you are allowing race to be placed as a crutch to reason out the perception people get from scenes of violence perpetrated by individuals. Unfair? Yes. Fixable? Yes. But that would require "groups" to accept that perceptions will dictate a stereotype. It would also mean that "groups" would have to accept giving up that racial crutch that is brought up so many times as an excuse for non-achievement or a reasoning for violence in our example here. In other words, the blame should be directed back to those few that created the negative perception instead of making up some kind of bigotry inflated boogeyman.
I agree, Ray Naigin really screwed up by having the authority taking peoples' guns. A real tribute to what the liberal euphoria would be if they got their way by removing the right to bear arms:
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32966.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/08/AR2005090802089.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/09/national/nationalspecial/09storm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
I don't remember the authorities firing on anyone trying to leave the city on foot. Do you have a link from a mainstream source on that? Sounds like you're throwing out an inacuracy after reading/seeing that authorites fired upon looters. Kinda like many people think that witches were burned in Salem just because they were in Europe. It's a perception discreptancy you have. Probably because of all the reports of shots fired at the rescuers, helicopters, etc. So, do you have a source for that claim? And even if that were the case, do you believe the order came from Bush or perhaps Mayor Naigin? LOL!
It's funny to me how some folks point out how some "groups" are treated differently leaving out the why. Is it because of race? Can't be because you have all different races of "groups" that may or may not have destructive group mentality/culture. That's the problem with using a "group" identity.
It isn't because they were BLACK that they were shot at by authorities. It wasn't because they were BLACK and trying to leave the city either. Authorities fired back and on INDIVIDUALS whom were either being combative or looting local stores.
I also said most of the rebuilding in the midwest is going to be done with federal dollars. Do you think it isn't? The difference is that it will be going to white people, hence it won't be a hand-out...
This is a silly statement you made. You clearly pointed out the fact that Iowans have higher incomes. The median income in New Orleans tells us that the median income earner doesn't pay taxes, whereas, the Iowan's median income earners do. It's easy to come to the opinion that someone who enjoys federal programs while not paying federal taxes are taking a hand out in comparison to someone who enjoys federal programs while actually helping to fund them are not. You can't fault people who call a federal program a handout for a non-taxpayer and at the same time whine about how different economic groups are treated/act in the time of a crisis being bailed out by the federal government. LOL! It's that whole "group mentality" thing again. It doesn't work on both sides of the argument.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
LOL! Are you saying that Black people need the Federal Government to save them, thus, it was Bush's fault for not realizing that? And you agree that the local goverment of Louisiana was not capable to handle a crisis the way Iowa's was? I wonder what Jesse Jackson would tell Bush if Bush made the statement that the residents of New Orleans need more assistance than those in Iowa? And what does that have to do with businesses NOT being in New Orleans compared to Iowa? What are you saying, that businesses don't like black people?
I see the points you made. However, I'm not sure if you meant to make them. LOL! Because if you threw those stats out in a public school setting side by side, you'd be called a racist. Are you suggesting that areas with a predominately black population needs more help than a white one? Are you for breaking down standardized testing scores based on race also so we can see if there is a discreptancy?
I'm just curious what YOUR limits are on equality and race and how the Federal Government should treat each race differently. That's clearly what you're suggesting in your post, yes?
You were right on the last time. I hope you're right today!
IMO, BA will recover as well. For example, GS talks about the 787 was priced into the stock too much. What about the Airforce contract back up for bid? Their cash? The 100 million in new contracts with the Navy and Airforce over the last two weeks? And a price target of $60? That's crazy. Wish I had the power analysts have.
Edit - And today, we have this:
"KUWAIT, June 25 (Reuters) - Kuwait's Aviation Lease and Finance Company (ALAF.KW: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) (Alafco) agreed to sell eight Boeing 787-9 Dreamliners, with a list price of $1.6 billion, to Saudi Arabian Airlines [SAUD.UL] (Saudia), Alafco said on Wednesday."
Boeing is such a loser company.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
LOL! It DID happen again:
Name me one leader who emerged from the crisis of Hurricane Katrina. Congress has yet to spend a single day evaluating the response to the hurricane, or demanding accountability for the decisions that were made in the crucial hours after the storm. Everyone's hunkering down, fingers crossed, hoping it doesn't happen again. Now, that's just crazy. Storms happen. Deal with it. Make a plan. Figure out what you're going to do the next time.
I'm not one for chain mail but my mother sent this to me from my uncle (edit - he did not write this) who lives in New Orleans. You don't have to look on snopes for it's validity:
"Subject: Iowa VS Louisiana
Have you all noticed that Cedar Rapids is under 10 feet of water. Thousands upon thousands of people are displaced?
Have you noticed that nobody is looting every empty property in sight ?
Have you noticed that nobody is shooting at rescuers?
Have you noticed any victims on TV wondering where the federal
government is to 'take care of them'?
Or, have you noticed victims, who have lost everything, make comments like 'life goes on', 'we'll just need to pick up the pieces and start over', and 'at least we still have our life'.
Maybe Government could help make "victims" of these survivors as well, convince them that they aren't strong enough to take care of themselves, they're not smart enough to survive. Maybe we should subsidize their lives for the next 2+ years, free housing, $2000/month to not work.... Just food for thought
Have you noticed that the media does not make nearly as big a deal of this as they did of Katrina in New Orleans ?
Maybe if they could find an angle that says: "Bush doesn't care about minorities" they would give the kind of coverage they did in New Orleans .
But wait, the water will eventually break through and make its way down river to New Orleans . Then we will see the coverage change. Then it will be a moral tragedy and evidence that Republicans don't care about minorities. Then you will see Obama and Sharpton on the scene. The news will explain why the people are frustrated and that is why they shoot at the rescue helicopters and loot and steal."
That being stated, any anti-Bush types going to give Bush credibility for keeping the midwest flooding off the news? Weather catastrophies start off being a "States Issue." It is not until after the STATE requests that it becomes a federal issue. The only fault Bush had with Katrina is that he had too much faith in Louisiana's state government. He didn't have to with Iowa.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
For those that love pre-election polls. This is from the AP and not thecarpetbagger.com or villagevoice or democraticunderground.com though. LOL!
Posted by: samaelrocks Date: Tuesday, June 24, 2008 11:38:15 AM
In reply to: OptionMonster who wrote msg# 27423 Post # of 27468
Won't happen until I sell... which I don't plan to. It's doing exactly what happened with my IPI play that I lost on.
We have to get BA low enough so that the $85 July calls lose a bid. Give me 2 days of seeing a 100% loss on those and then it should rally hard. LOL!
I guess Boeing didn't make their payment to Goldman Sachs on time.
I didn't realize that this argument was dependent on an expert agreeing with GW. There are varying opinions for both sides. My querry is about why the price of oil is so high and how lifting the moretorium/ban/whatever you want to call it will tell speculators there's enough oil and quit hitting the ask for oil futures contracts driving the price up. However, ONCE AGAIN, watch this and you won't have to worry about holding your breath:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=776847385&play=1
A great and simple explaination on how the allowing of drilling (forget the existing leases that the Federal government won't allow drilling today) in the U.S. will have the psychological effect of convincing speculators that oil is abundant, therefore, the price of oil will fall.
We're on an investment message site for christ's sake. It's a no brainer how to lower the price of oil.
Don't get me wrong. This IS a supply/demand issue. But like most stocks, today's price is based on what you think will happen in the future. Since oil is a necessity, plastering the public with "Moretorium on Drilling" tells speculators that there isn't a chance for increased supply thus hit that ask! You don't have to study past Economics 101 to answer this. Geeze. Note that I didn't even have to chose a political side to come to this conclusion. LOL!
And sadly, this marks my last free post of the day. LOL!
LOL! Let me use my Newsmax, Foxnews, and Newt sources for the answers to your thecarpetbaggerreport, and democraticunderground.com sources.
Do you want answers or do you want the circular argument to continue? Did you listen to the videos that were posted that has a CNBC source and not from the lips of GW or Al Gore?
Without a real standard of the use of sources in any argument, both sides fail. And most of the answers to your questions were answered in those videos.
Hmmmmm... CNBC or thecarpetbaggerreport.com article. Which is more accurate? LOL! Your link is about as reliable as listening to an Al Gore speach on Global Warming outside on an unseasonably cold day without answers to the simple question of who was responsible for the increase in global tempuratures following the ice age. LOL!
That is very short sighted and doesn't even consider the fact that there are investments in alternative NRG's not necessarily via the government (Toyota, Honda, GM, Tesla, electric car clubs, etc). Never mind the fact that increased drilling will have that psychological effect on speculators that there is plenty of oil which would bring the prices down.
And again, why are folks against maximizing oil exploration, drilling, and excavating in the U.S.? If allowed, your article discounts the fact that oil companies would plan to expand operations and that today's capacity/limitations are NOT finite.
Where are these deliberatly idle oil rigs that some left wingers keep telling us about to manipulate the price of oil up? You can't believe that fictitious claim AND believe we don't have the resources available to explore existing U.S. oil leases.
The anti-U.S. drilling crowd needs to get a consistent argument using verifiable facts. LOL!
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
Gosh darn it, when do we get to see some proof from the left leaning crowd that there are rigs and people sitting around NOT drilling just to manipulate the price up and how does that translate to higher revenue/profits? We seem to still be missing that bit of documented info. LOL!
BTW, that first video at around 3 minutes... The guy pretty much stated that speculators set the price for a barrel of oil. I just wish people would stop saying it's a true supply/demand issue keeping the price up. The only supply/demand issue keeping the price up is the psychological view that speculators use to set the price oil companies go by when selling the product. Oil companies don't set the price; they use whatever's pinned up on the futures bulletin board.
Great videos, btw. Thanks!
OM, on oil prices, check this out starting at around 3 minutes:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=776858146&play=1
It's an oil driller that says that the price of oil from day to day is set by speculators via the psychological effect (my paraphrase).
Also, I doubt the Airforce takes all 60 days to decide. IMO, we hear confirmation within the next 2 weeks.
Market isn't doing that bad now.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idCAN2434810520080624?rpc=44
As far as BA and NOC goes, they both may benefit from the BA win on the Airforce contract:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_26/b4090026419336.htm?campaign_id=yhoo
Right now, I'm red in my BA calls but I'm not counting them out. All it will take is for market conditions to get better and BA will follow along. Couple that with the fact that premiums on July BA calls don't exist, buyers may come flocking in most any day for both the stock and options. IMO, of course.
They got an upgrade this AM. Saw that in an article about Defense/Aerospace stocks.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080624/aerospace_opening_glance.html?.v=1
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
Won't happen until I sell... which I don't plan to. It's doing exactly what happened with my IPI play that I lost on.
We have to get BA low enough so that the $85 July calls lose a bid. Give me 2 days of seeing a 100% loss on those and then it should rally hard. LOL!
BA is coming back some too! Not optimistic enough to suggest it may close green though.
_____________________________________________________
As long as we read only that with which we agree, we learn nothing. - Chester Dolan
DOW components turning a shade of green finally.