Fastenal Co. (FAST)

All Comments on FAST

  • commenter
    www.ryanwahl
    strom.com
    Oct 02 12:35 AM
    My Website
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    In regards to CCL I see some trading possibilities and a very long term buy assuming they can manage to market the high end berth capicity comin online. www.ryanwahlstrom.com/... Reply
  • commenter
    bowman711
    Sep 19 03:22 PM
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    Beetle, and there isn't a 'bailout' called tax deductions for corporations? Why not treat both individuals and financial companies the same? Reply
  • commenter
    Kelly
    Lieberman
    Sep 19 01:09 PM
    My Website
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    Makes no sense. They think that they can clear the decks for the financial industry... It may make some money for some traders for the short term...This will not trickle down for the average Joe and that will be what will bring the economy to it's knees. The average Joe is losing their shirts...and the government knows it.
    The govt is shoring up treasuries because if there is a run on in them we are scr*wed... It may happen...     Reply
  • commenter
    beetle
    Sep 19 01:05 PM
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    there is a bailout for stock losses ................its called a tax deduction


    On Sep 19 12:42 PM bowman711 wrote:

    > My question is, why would all the money governments around the world
    > can print encourage prudent lending? I can see how it might encourage
    > reckless lending because the lender can 'bank' on the government
    > to bail him out when the loans go bad. But, how does reckless lending
    > (even if there happen to be some wise loans as well) solve the financial
    > crisis problem?
    >
    > I think most would agree that one learns more, and makes greater
    > improvements to one stock trading, from losing trades than from profitable
    > trades. Where would you be today if the government bailed you out
    > every time you had a losing trade? Would you put the same care and
    > analysis to your trades if you knew a bailout would be there if it
    > went bad?
    >
    > Similarly, how does it really improve the financial condition of
    > these banks and investment banks when they can now count on a bailout
    > for their bad investments? On top of that, there will be essentially
    > the same executives making investment decision now as there were
    > before this 'Mother of all Bailouts.' So, it seems to me we have
    > the same incompetent executives making investment/loan decisions;
    > only now they are assured of a rescue for their losses.
    >
    > What the Government is doing today regarding the 'Mother of all Bailouts'
    > may delay the real improvements needed in the wisom and prudence
    > of the financial executives, but it doesn't address them. It seems
    > to me that it would be far better for the government to cover the
    > losses of million investers (whether directly as a trader, or indirectly,
    > as owner of a mutual fund, pension fund, etc.) and let the reckless
    > executives and ther financial firms they run get what they deserve.
    >
    >
    > It simply does not make sense to me for the Government to cover the
    > recklessness of the wealthiest slice of our society, and let the
    > regular people, voters, take their losses on their own.     Reply
  • commenter
    bowman711
    Sep 19 12:42 PM
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    My question is, why would all the money governments around the world can print encourage prudent lending? I can see how it might encourage reckless lending because the lender can 'bank' on the government to bail him out when the loans go bad. But, how does reckless lending (even if there happen to be some wise loans as well) solve the financial crisis problem?

    I think most would agree that one learns more, and makes greater improvements to one stock trading, from losing trades than from profitable trades. Where would you be today if the government bailed you out every time you had a losing trade? Would you put the same care and analysis to your trades if you knew a bailout would be there if it went bad?

    Similarly, how does it really improve the financial condition of these banks and investment banks when they can now count on a bailout for their bad investments? On top of that, there will be essentially the same executives making investment decision now as there were before this 'Mother of all Bailouts.' So, it seems to me we have the same incompetent executives making investment/loan decisions; only now they are assured of a rescue for their losses.

    What the Government is doing today regarding the 'Mother of all Bailouts' may delay the real improvements needed in the wisom and prudence of the financial executives, but it doesn't address them. It seems to me that it would be far better for the government to cover the losses of million investers (whether directly as a trader, or indirectly, as owner of a mutual fund, pension fund, etc.) and let the reckless executives and ther financial firms they run get what they deserve.

    It simply does not make sense to me for the Government to cover the recklessness of the wealthiest slice of our society, and let the regular people, voters, take their losses on their own.     Reply
  • commenter
    Brandon
    Sep 18 12:46 PM
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    It appears policymakers including the fed are inclined to watch and wait. They will step in when they feel that absolutely have to but otherwise they'll remain on the sidelines.

    In my opinion this almost guarantees a further 20% drop in the S&P from the old lows. The rate of bad news will begin to slow, but with a lack of good news to drive the market, it will slow it's decent before rebounding in a huge way.

    That's the tough part, you shouldn't try and pick a bottom but waiting for a pop is going to cost you huge when the pop has all of this current liquidity behind it. It's tough out there.     Reply
  • commenter
    iThinkBig
    Sep 18 10:09 AM
    My Website
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    Wishful thinking. Recovery will happen when Washington is fixed. That won't happen anytime soon. Reply
  • commenter
    Shiv139
    Sep 18 09:35 AM
    My Website
    Daily Market Outlook: Early Indications Are for a Modest Rebound [view article]
    With the risks to solvency remaining high availability of liquidity does not answer the problems. Banks/institutions have a trust issue - can they trust a counter parties with the potential solvency risks. Central banks cannot eliminate this risk.
    This solvency risk is only going to reduce through confidence building measures. Confidence will return once the insolvents are out of the market and the remaining banks/institutions well capitalized. Capital is required and no Private Capital is forthcoming because the risk is too high. So governments (not central banks) step in.
    I am surprised that the SWF's have not stepped up to the plate. These massive budget surplus nations should have a vested interest in restoring confidence. Without confidence, the $ paper they hold could be significantly impaired in value. If a deficit nation steps up, the action does not necessarily provide a solution as increasing deficits will prove to be inflationary (unless of course the confidence building measure is a success and allows a profitable exit which will reduce the deficit). Since leverage is the issue, I would be far happier seeing budget surplus SWF's take action.
    Active steps are being taken to solve the solvency issues (AIG/FRE/FNM); even BAC acquiring MER is a net positive. And yes, even the bankruptcy of LEH is good news. All of these help bring closure to solvency issues. Since it is early in the days of addressing this solvency issue; expect continued fireworks; but the healing process has begun. This together with liquidity will restore the economy to health. But it will take time. Healing has just begun.
     Reply
  • commenter
    Sidj
    Sep 11 09:52 AM
    The S&P 498? [view article]
    I wouldn't be surprised if they just lower the $5-billion minimum in order to keep the index at 500. That's how the system works, just lower the standards if necessary to get the desired results. Reply
  • commenter
    Ishortyou
    Sep 11 05:56 AM
    The S&P 498? [view article]
    are they going to the pink sheets? Reply
  • commenter
    WeeklyTA
    Sep 11 04:52 AM
    My Website
    The S&P 498? [view article]
    Is there a potential list out there that may replace the 119? Reply
  • commenter
    Ricard
    Sep 11 02:42 AM
    Is it the S&P 500, the S&P 498, or the S&P 381? [view article]
    Well, I think Frannie were removed because they no longer have a viable path to return to the 5 billion mark. Also, there are restrictions on share price, which resulted in the reverse splits of CIEN and JDSU.

    The rules may seem arbitrary, but that is part of the process of using one's judgement. If it was some sort of algorithm, you would see more swaps of the index components, enough so to make it meaningless as a barometer.     Reply
  • commenter
    Did U Think
    The Ponzi
    Scheme
    Would Last?
    Sep 11 12:55 AM
    Is it the S&P 500, the S&P 498, or the S&P 381? [view article]
    Very interesting point. The indices are selectively enforcing their own arbitrary rules. I think the entire finanical sector of the US is one big Ponzi scheme which struts around putting on aires. Its only real claim to fame is that it has a better PR organization than other pump and dump schemes. Reply
  • commenter
    liorio1
    Sep 10 08:09 AM
    Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [view article]
    Clean and crisp news, no nonsense added, that's why I read you every day, great stuff. Thanks.
    Reply
  • commenter
    thomas728
    Sep 10 07:06 AM
    Replacement Candidates for David Merkel's Portfolio: From AA to ZZ [view article]
    Hey guy........where is WaMu ? Every portfolio needs a solid
    financial.

    Mr. Nygren     Reply
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links: