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.
SRS train leaving??...
http://i39.tinypic.com/4fu92d.gif
OK, got it, nevermind:
http://www.pinksheets.com/edgar/GetFilingHtml?FilingID=6304533
What's the deal with Dec 29th? This is already on pinks, isn't it? Correct me if I'm wrong..
time to go short on REITs...
SRS just crossed to the other side, on one leg.. second one should follow sometime soon IMO
upper resistance is at 62, and I don't expect it to cross it today. Possibly in next 3-5 days...
Keep SRS on radar.
CPE could be breaking out 2.52 x 2.53
I sold too soon yesterday at 1.70 only to watch it go to 2.20 few minutes later... shesh!
CPE - second day of a technical bounce and I believe we will have one more day before CPE changes trend and start heading south.
Current resistance level is at 2.01 - 2.10, and will rise today towards 2.60 at the close, IMO
Upper resistance is at 2.76 and rising. Projected upper resistance at the close today ~3.50, IMO
JMO. Good luck!
CPE running... 1.59
CPE 1.53, wants to break through
CPE 1.48, due for a bounce to $3 soon imo
watch CPE, now at 1.48, due to bounce soon
CPE inching up slowly. $3 before Friday IMO
greetings all. in CPE at 1.30. hope it bounces today/tomorrow.
GM - resistance at 4.70. If it breaks 4.70 before EOD ... watch out tomorrow.. Could run to 6-7 IMO in next couple of days
CPE ask 2.63. it will retreat at ~2.70 IMO though
CPE 2.56
CPE technically could hit $3 today
Citi Gets Bullish Nod From Former Bear
http://biz.yahoo.com/ts/081121/10449491.html?.v=1
Citi Gets Bullish Nod From Former Bear
Friday November 21, 1:13 pm ET
ByMarek Fuchs, Special to TheStreet.com
It is The Business Press Maven's manifest destiny to make fun of Wall Street analyst doublespeak and of how the business media, in need of quotes, take the chuckleheads seriously.
But what happens when an analyst puts his reputation on the line and makes a gutsy bullish call on a troubled company during a profoundly bad day? And what if that analyst was, a year ago, one of the biggest bears around on the same company?
You'd figure it would at least be mentioned in the business media's coverage. Or maybe not.
Yesterday, Ladenburg Thalmann's Dick Cove came out in support of Citigroup, an interesting enough call on its own, made even more interesting by his bearish history on the stock.
Reuters did cover Bove's bullish call yesterday, but it made no mention of the fact that a year ago, while other analysts and investors were misguidedly singing Citi's praises, Bove was courageously bearish.
This article from the Associated Press about Citigroup's miserable day yesterday, during which the stock plunged below $5, didn't mention Bove at all, even though he's more interesting -- and qualified -- than the analysts who do show up in the piece.
Yesterday Bove did something few analysts ever do: He took a counterintuitive stand. He said there was no reason Citigroup should fail. He spoke about its sufficient cash flow, its ability to roll over its liabilities, its positive net interest income and how it would take a depression "every bit as large and long as the 1930s debacle to shake this company's viability." Added Bove: "The current decline in the stock price is reflecting a series of fears. ... I would be a buyer of the stock."
Amid wretchedness and panic (as during splendidness and elation), counterintuitive stands are what make you money, but Bove's stand is notable also for what preceded it, when Bove was often Citigoup's lone skeptic. In an October 2007 L.A. Times piece, he rightly spoke out against Citi's it's-our-last-write-off canard:
"One skeptic was analyst Richard Bove of Punk, Ziegel & Co., who had downgraded Citigroup in July. Bove contended that the evaporation of the markets for securities carved out of sub-prime mortgages and takeover loans -- areas of huge growth for big banks this decade - would continue to depress the banks' earnings.
"Bove compared Prince to former Citi CEO John S. Reed, who in 1987 added a then-staggering $3 billion to the bank's reserves against losses in developing nations and declared the problem solved. Reed called it `the write-offs to end all write-offs,' Bove recalled.
"But in 1991, Reed, forced to set aside additional funds for losses in Latin America, eliminated the bank's dividend, Bove said.
"Like Reed, Prince may have an imperfect vision of the future, Bove said. `It's not just a write-off we're talking about here; it's a change in the structure of the market.'"
Earlier in 2007, Citigroup had staged an April massacre, announcing a cut of 17,000, and many had applauded. But Bove stuck to his bearish guns:
"'There's nothing new in anything new that was said in this meeting today,' said Dick Bove, an analyst with Punk, Ziegel & Co. `Citigroup has already been delayering management and optimizing technology under CEO Charles Prince. It's merely a continuation of existing programs, which in my view is not good.'"
Bove was an outspoken critic of Citigroup for more than just its financial circumstances. In a May 2007 New York Times story called "Citigroup Works Both Sides of Distiller Deal," Bove took the company to task for a potential conflict of interest, something Wall Street analysts, traditionally no strangers to conflict of interest, rarely do:
"Still, some outsiders were surprised by Citigroup's dual role. `I think it's unusual and the potential for conflict is extremely high,' said Richard X. Bove, analyst with Punk, Ziegel, an independent research firm. `How does the seller know he's getting the best price possible, and how does the buyer know he's getting the best financing deal possible?'
"Citigroup could face problems down the road if, for example, the whiskey company's assets have not been accurately represented, Mr. Bove said, leaving Citigroup open for lawsuits. United Spirits is a publicly traded company."
This is not to say that Bove will be right with yesterday's contrarian bullish report or that all his past calls were perfect. But considering his contrarian bearish past on the same company, the savvy investor should take note. And the business media, who give plenty of undue credit to analysts, should give some where it's actually due.
----------------------------
At the time of publication, Fuchs had no positions in any of the stocks mentioned in this column.
Marek Fuchs was a stockbroker for Shearson Lehman Brothers and a money manager before becoming a journalist who wrote The New York Times' "County Lines" column for six years. He also did back-up beat coverage of The New York Knicks for the paper's Sports section for two seasons and covered other professional and collegiate sports. He has contributed frequently to many of the Times' other sections, including National, Metro, Escapes, Style, Real Estate, Arts & Leisure, Travel, Money & Business, Circuits and the Op-Ed Page. For his "Business Press Maven? column on how business and finance are covered by the media, Fuchs was named best business journalist critic in the nation by the Talking Biz website at The University of North Carolina School of Journalism and Mass Communication. Fuchs is a frequent speaker on the business media, in venues ranging from National Public Radio to the annual conference of the Society of American Business Editors and Writers. Fuchs appreciates your feedback; click here to send him an email.
seems as ABK is moving unison with oil.. Oil shoots up - so is ABK. Oil takes a step back - ABK follows second later... hm.. IMO we are done with oil run for today, it should take a breath now. Damn, looks like oil might be rebound here.. I might load up DXO and keep it for few days or weeks...
in DUG 41.15
predicting close at 27.25-28.00.. just my 3 cents.
Oil in a Week (Decision to Cut Output & OPEC)
Walid Khadduri
Al-Hayat - 27/10/08/
http://english.daralhayat.com/business/10-2008/Article-20081027-3e34c4c8-c0a8-10ed-011c-4d165d73bb57/story.html
The decision to reschedule OPEC's extraordinary ministerial meeting from November 18 to October 24 was the toughest for the organization these days. The date signaled for markets that OPEC does not believe there is an urgent need that justifies holding an immediate extraordinary meeting at a time when prices are falling on a daily basis.
The extraordinary meeting was held just days before the American presidential elections and in concurrence with a major financial crisis hitting American and international markets. This places OPEC's decision under the microscope and presents it as an opportunity for politicians and pundits in industrial nations who wish to talk about the lack of cooperation on the side of oil-producing nations with the difficult resolutions made by industrial countries to stabilize the financial system. Criticism of OPEC is likely to increase as a result of the decision by the ministerial meeting to cut output, especially at this phase when industrial nations consider falling oil prices to be the only positive indicator of possible global economic stability following the US subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing massive losses.
What exactly does OPEC's decision to cut output mean?
OPEC has long adopted a policy of balancing demand and supply in international oil markets. Since a significant drop has been noted in demand over the past few months, the organization wanted to ensure the equilibrium by cutting supply in a manner that corresponds with the decline in demand. The problem is that there is a variation in the figures and forecasts about the decline in demand published by the International Energy Agency and OPEC. In fact, the published numbers vary from one country to another within OPEC itself.
Naturally, there are those who point to the rapid decline of prices since August. Just as the price increase in the first half of 2008 was rapid and spectacular, so seems to be the case of decline now. If this means anything, it implies that the oil pricing system decided in free markets in New York and London on the basis of future prices of oil while severely lacking transparency as a result of speculations and monopolies, requires numerous reforms and control systems like the rest of the international money system or else there will be no end for this vicious cycle of rapidly rising prices followed by a rapid bust.
Some of the tough questions discussed by the ministerial meeting were: how deep should be the output cut? What is the objective of the cut? Is it to balance demand and supply, to cut falling prices, to attempt to stabilize prices within the range of $70 to $90, or returning them to $100 and above as demanded by Iran and Venezuela, even if such a proposal enjoyed no support from any other states?
It is noted that there exists an oil cycle of approximately ten years for the meltdown of prices in the recent past, even when causes varied in each case. The collapse of prices in 1986 was caused by the increasing supply from outside OPEC whereas the second collapse in 1998 was caused by the Asian economic crisis and the decline in demand there at a time when OPEC increased output (the Jakarta resolution of 1997). The current price meltdown, on the other hand, is caused by the decline in demand as a result of the rapid and massive increase in prices during the first two half of the year in addition to the declining demand as a result of the global financial crisis and the lack of confidence in the proposed economic solutions.
The question here is: how does OPEC evaluate the current global economic crisis. Should it focus on its ability to inject trillions of dollars to stop the global financial meltdown, especially as it appears that the upward and downward fluctuations in the markets over the past few days seem to fall within treatable levels, or should it consider this a historic meltdown and deal with it accordingly?
The problem facing OPEC right now lies in the fact that two basic factors are pushing prices downwards: the first is the consumer response to cut demand as a result of high prices in recent months; the second is the declining rates of oil spending and consumption as a result of the global financial crisis. These factors require that OPEC cut supplies to establish balance between demand and supply, but doubts lurk about the ability of the organization to end the trend of falling prices with a single resolution in such a gloomy economic environment.
I think it rather drops due to post-seasonal correction, as it does every year. Sometime in December-January-February - it should rebound sharply (based on looking at the oil price data /trends from past years.) We will be near 100's soon IMO.
I don't believe that current financial turmoil will significantly reduce world's oil consumption in coming years to warrant keep oil prices from rising. If oil is indeed peaking.. just watch out. It might be a wild ride up from here. Just my uneducated guess.
Oil in a Week (Decision to Cut Output & OPEC)
Walid Khadduri
Al-Hayat - 27/10/08/
http://english.daralhayat.com/business/10-2008/Article-20081027-3e34c4c8-c0a8-10ed-011c-4d165d73bb57/story.html
The decision to reschedule OPEC's extraordinary ministerial meeting from November 18 to October 24 was the toughest for the organization these days. The date signaled for markets that OPEC does not believe there is an urgent need that justifies holding an immediate extraordinary meeting at a time when prices are falling on a daily basis.
The extraordinary meeting was held just days before the American presidential elections and in concurrence with a major financial crisis hitting American and international markets. This places OPEC's decision under the microscope and presents it as an opportunity for politicians and pundits in industrial nations who wish to talk about the lack of cooperation on the side of oil-producing nations with the difficult resolutions made by industrial countries to stabilize the financial system. Criticism of OPEC is likely to increase as a result of the decision by the ministerial meeting to cut output, especially at this phase when industrial nations consider falling oil prices to be the only positive indicator of possible global economic stability following the US subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing massive losses.
What exactly does OPEC's decision to cut output mean?
OPEC has long adopted a policy of balancing demand and supply in international oil markets. Since a significant drop has been noted in demand over the past few months, the organization wanted to ensure the equilibrium by cutting supply in a manner that corresponds with the decline in demand. The problem is that there is a variation in the figures and forecasts about the decline in demand published by the International Energy Agency and OPEC. In fact, the published numbers vary from one country to another within OPEC itself.
Naturally, there are those who point to the rapid decline of prices since August. Just as the price increase in the first half of 2008 was rapid and spectacular, so seems to be the case of decline now. If this means anything, it implies that the oil pricing system decided in free markets in New York and London on the basis of future prices of oil while severely lacking transparency as a result of speculations and monopolies, requires numerous reforms and control systems like the rest of the international money system or else there will be no end for this vicious cycle of rapidly rising prices followed by a rapid bust.
Some of the tough questions discussed by the ministerial meeting were: how deep should be the output cut? What is the objective of the cut? Is it to balance demand and supply, to cut falling prices, to attempt to stabilize prices within the range of $70 to $90, or returning them to $100 and above as demanded by Iran and Venezuela, even if such a proposal enjoyed no support from any other states?
It is noted that there exists an oil cycle of approximately ten years for the meltdown of prices in the recent past, even when causes varied in each case. The collapse of prices in 1986 was caused by the increasing supply from outside OPEC whereas the second collapse in 1998 was caused by the Asian economic crisis and the decline in demand there at a time when OPEC increased output (the Jakarta resolution of 1997). The current price meltdown, on the other hand, is caused by the decline in demand as a result of the rapid and massive increase in prices during the first two half of the year in addition to the declining demand as a result of the global financial crisis and the lack of confidence in the proposed economic solutions.
The question here is: how does OPEC evaluate the current global economic crisis. Should it focus on its ability to inject trillions of dollars to stop the global financial meltdown, especially as it appears that the upward and downward fluctuations in the markets over the past few days seem to fall within treatable levels, or should it consider this a historic meltdown and deal with it accordingly?
The problem facing OPEC right now lies in the fact that two basic factors are pushing prices downwards: the first is the consumer response to cut demand as a result of high prices in recent months; the second is the declining rates of oil spending and consumption as a result of the global financial crisis. These factors require that OPEC cut supplies to establish balance between demand and supply, but doubts lurk about the ability of the organization to end the trend of falling prices with a single resolution in such a gloomy economic environment.
Oil in a Week (Decision to Cut Output & OPEC)
Walid Khadduri
Al-Hayat - 27/10/08/
http://english.daralhayat.com/business/10-2008/Article-20081027-3e34c4c8-c0a8-10ed-011c-4d165d73bb57/story.html
The decision to reschedule OPEC's extraordinary ministerial meeting from November 18 to October 24 was the toughest for the organization these days. The date signaled for markets that OPEC does not believe there is an urgent need that justifies holding an immediate extraordinary meeting at a time when prices are falling on a daily basis.
The extraordinary meeting was held just days before the American presidential elections and in concurrence with a major financial crisis hitting American and international markets. This places OPEC's decision under the microscope and presents it as an opportunity for politicians and pundits in industrial nations who wish to talk about the lack of cooperation on the side of oil-producing nations with the difficult resolutions made by industrial countries to stabilize the financial system. Criticism of OPEC is likely to increase as a result of the decision by the ministerial meeting to cut output, especially at this phase when industrial nations consider falling oil prices to be the only positive indicator of possible global economic stability following the US subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing massive losses.
What exactly does OPEC's decision to cut output mean?
OPEC has long adopted a policy of balancing demand and supply in international oil markets. Since a significant drop has been noted in demand over the past few months, the organization wanted to ensure the equilibrium by cutting supply in a manner that corresponds with the decline in demand. The problem is that there is a variation in the figures and forecasts about the decline in demand published by the International Energy Agency and OPEC. In fact, the published numbers vary from one country to another within OPEC itself.
Naturally, there are those who point to the rapid decline of prices since August. Just as the price increase in the first half of 2008 was rapid and spectacular, so seems to be the case of decline now. If this means anything, it implies that the oil pricing system decided in free markets in New York and London on the basis of future prices of oil while severely lacking transparency as a result of speculations and monopolies, requires numerous reforms and control systems like the rest of the international money system or else there will be no end for this vicious cycle of rapidly rising prices followed by a rapid bust.
Some of the tough questions discussed by the ministerial meeting were: how deep should be the output cut? What is the objective of the cut? Is it to balance demand and supply, to cut falling prices, to attempt to stabilize prices within the range of $70 to $90, or returning them to $100 and above as demanded by Iran and Venezuela, even if such a proposal enjoyed no support from any other states?
It is noted that there exists an oil cycle of approximately ten years for the meltdown of prices in the recent past, even when causes varied in each case. The collapse of prices in 1986 was caused by the increasing supply from outside OPEC whereas the second collapse in 1998 was caused by the Asian economic crisis and the decline in demand there at a time when OPEC increased output (the Jakarta resolution of 1997). The current price meltdown, on the other hand, is caused by the decline in demand as a result of the rapid and massive increase in prices during the first two half of the year in addition to the declining demand as a result of the global financial crisis and the lack of confidence in the proposed economic solutions.
The question here is: how does OPEC evaluate the current global economic crisis. Should it focus on its ability to inject trillions of dollars to stop the global financial meltdown, especially as it appears that the upward and downward fluctuations in the markets over the past few days seem to fall within treatable levels, or should it consider this a historic meltdown and deal with it accordingly?
The problem facing OPEC right now lies in the fact that two basic factors are pushing prices downwards: the first is the consumer response to cut demand as a result of high prices in recent months; the second is the declining rates of oil spending and consumption as a result of the global financial crisis. These factors require that OPEC cut supplies to establish balance between demand and supply, but doubts lurk about the ability of the organization to end the trend of falling prices with a single resolution in such a gloomy economic environment.
Oil in a Week (Decision to Cut Output & OPEC)
Walid Khadduri
Al-Hayat - 27/10/08/
http://english.daralhayat.com/business/10-2008/Article-20081027-3e34c4c8-c0a8-10ed-011c-4d165d73bb57/story.html
The decision to reschedule OPEC's extraordinary ministerial meeting from November 18 to October 24 was the toughest for the organization these days. The date signaled for markets that OPEC does not believe there is an urgent need that justifies holding an immediate extraordinary meeting at a time when prices are falling on a daily basis.
The extraordinary meeting was held just days before the American presidential elections and in concurrence with a major financial crisis hitting American and international markets. This places OPEC's decision under the microscope and presents it as an opportunity for politicians and pundits in industrial nations who wish to talk about the lack of cooperation on the side of oil-producing nations with the difficult resolutions made by industrial countries to stabilize the financial system. Criticism of OPEC is likely to increase as a result of the decision by the ministerial meeting to cut output, especially at this phase when industrial nations consider falling oil prices to be the only positive indicator of possible global economic stability following the US subprime mortgage crisis and the ensuing massive losses.
What exactly does OPEC's decision to cut output mean?
OPEC has long adopted a policy of balancing demand and supply in international oil markets. Since a significant drop has been noted in demand over the past few months, the organization wanted to ensure the equilibrium by cutting supply in a manner that corresponds with the decline in demand. The problem is that there is a variation in the figures and forecasts about the decline in demand published by the International Energy Agency and OPEC. In fact, the published numbers vary from one country to another within OPEC itself.
Naturally, there are those who point to the rapid decline of prices since August. Just as the price increase in the first half of 2008 was rapid and spectacular, so seems to be the case of decline now. If this means anything, it implies that the oil pricing system decided in free markets in New York and London on the basis of future prices of oil while severely lacking transparency as a result of speculations and monopolies, requires numerous reforms and control systems like the rest of the international money system or else there will be no end for this vicious cycle of rapidly rising prices followed by a rapid bust.
Some of the tough questions discussed by the ministerial meeting were: how deep should be the output cut? What is the objective of the cut? Is it to balance demand and supply, to cut falling prices, to attempt to stabilize prices within the range of $70 to $90, or returning them to $100 and above as demanded by Iran and Venezuela, even if such a proposal enjoyed no support from any other states?
It is noted that there exists an oil cycle of approximately ten years for the meltdown of prices in the recent past, even when causes varied in each case. The collapse of prices in 1986 was caused by the increasing supply from outside OPEC whereas the second collapse in 1998 was caused by the Asian economic crisis and the decline in demand there at a time when OPEC increased output (the Jakarta resolution of 1997). The current price meltdown, on the other hand, is caused by the decline in demand as a result of the rapid and massive increase in prices during the first two half of the year in addition to the declining demand as a result of the global financial crisis and the lack of confidence in the proposed economic solutions.
The question here is: how does OPEC evaluate the current global economic crisis. Should it focus on its ability to inject trillions of dollars to stop the global financial meltdown, especially as it appears that the upward and downward fluctuations in the markets over the past few days seem to fall within treatable levels, or should it consider this a historic meltdown and deal with it accordingly?
The problem facing OPEC right now lies in the fact that two basic factors are pushing prices downwards: the first is the consumer response to cut demand as a result of high prices in recent months; the second is the declining rates of oil spending and consumption as a result of the global financial crisis. These factors require that OPEC cut supplies to establish balance between demand and supply, but doubts lurk about the ability of the organization to end the trend of falling prices with a single resolution in such a gloomy economic environment.
SSCC 1.38 ... waiting for 1.40-1.50s
in SSCC 1.29, looking 1.40+
sold SSCC 1.44 this goes higher IMO
SSCC 1.29!
bought SSCC at 1.17, this will bounce to 1.40s IMO beforee EOD tomorrow
bought SSCC at 1.17, this will bounce to 1.40s IMO beforee EOD tomorrow
.06s today? YES!
opened at 2.35 premarket
ended at 2.15 - 2.20 afterhours..
Frankfurt price however indicates at what level we will open IMO. If it's down 15% in Frankfurt at the time when US opens, US opening price will be 15% down usually. It is a strong indication of the market sentiment towards the stock, and ongoing trend, even if in the european markets. Of course after the bell rings in NY, all sorts of unexpected things might happen... and trend might reverse.
Keeping fingers crossed!