Lockheed Martin Corp. (LMT)

All Comments on LMT

  • commenter
    Sep 18 02:08 AM
    Panic on Wall Street - Fast Money Recap (9/17/08) [view article]
    I cannot agree more with the preceding comment. If one looks at "indicators"... picture a ROOM full of banks, the fed opens the necronomicon, and every bank says "not a chance in hell". That ought to tell every investor, citizen and unborn that there is an unspeakable monster yet to bust the guts out of the dollar like the first movie Alien. Wait and see, volume is accelerating exponentially -- all we need is someone to pull the trigger and equities worldwide are history! I called DOW at 8500 back in April, but this sucker wouldn't surprise me to end up around 6k in light of acceleration... Reply
  • commenter
    Sep 18 12:21 AM
    Panic on Wall Street - Fast Money Recap (9/17/08) [view article]
    The markets are in such turmoil the average investor can really get hurt by making a wrong move right now. I'm certain there are opportunities but in my opinion wait a few months and see how this all works out. As the excesses get "marked-to-market... there will be more information as we do not know what is yet to be marked, how much, from who or from where. Waiting a few weeks or months at this junction might be the best idea you can have. Keep your money in short term and medium term CD's for awhile is the best strategy. Frantically trying to second guess where some of the instruments recommended by the above piece could be a mistake...Marvin the Maven Reply
  • commenter
    Sep 13 08:59 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    BWLD is the only HOT think going in the restuarant business, they got downgraded so that someone can get in cheap, hold on til the shorts get squezed in October! Reply
  • commenter
    Sep 10 09:09 PM
    Sanmina-SCI: A Bargain at Current Prices [view article]
    wow, you were definitely right on this one. Reply
  • commenter
    Sep 07 09:55 PM
    Defense Spending and the Presidential Election [view article]
    The British won nearly every battle in OUR war of independence, but in the end they had to leave.

    We lost in Vietnam because we were on the wrong side from the beginning. In 1946, after fighting the Japanese in WW2, the Vietnamese declared their independence, in a document modeled on our own. We decided to support the French, who had been on their backs under Nazi rule for 4 years, retaking control of their colonies in Indochina. It took the Vietnamese 29 years to defeat the colonialists, first the French (we paid 90% of their costs; they just had to supply the bodies) and then the Americans. Not our finest hour. Not something we should repeat.

    The American public finally pulled the plug on a stupid and wasteful war that had always been based on lies (e.g., the Tonkin Gulf incident). We would never have "won" that war. The Vietnamese would have fought until we left, however long that took. We certainly did enough damage to both countries.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Sep 07 12:03 PM
    My Website
    Defense Spending and the Presidential Election [view article]
    As a V/N vet, I can add a little bit of perspective-hopefully useful and as objective as this report is. WE won almost every battle, but lost the one re. the civilian 'stomach for war'. It was our first full scale operation against guerillas under the radar. Just as the intelligence ops were separate and competitive on 9/11, and since has become more homogenized-we are much better at CAS or close air support. Whenever and wherever there are ground soldiers, e.g. Afghanistan's rugged terrain -ideal guerilla topography-we have helicopter gunships, A-10 Wart hogs, and the side firing , night flying, C-130 ordinance platforms all standing by, hovering, and ready to spray fire on any one foolish enough to identify his location by his own muzzle flash. We recently even chased a group into Pakistan and obliterated them, much to the ire of Pakistan. The point being, if any of you watched both conventions, as i did, heard the 'this is not the time for young lawyers on training wheels" facetious remarks in St.Paul-please take note that our enemy is regrouping in Pakistan, and will certainly be profoundly encouraged by Obama's election. While the terminally idealistic like to think that appeasement, negotiation, diplomacy, & sanctions, all sound so very plausible-the simple fact remains that our enemy still thinks of us, Obama included, as "The Great Satan"...they have no intention of negotiating with Satan.
    In a word, we truly have lost the will to fight. And why not? With our iPods in our ears, our advancement to Boardwalk foremost in our minds, and busy painting our faces to attend the NFL game? We 'can't be bothered with the messy business of being at war'. As much as we would all like to close our eyes and 'cause it to disappear from view'...it ain't boys and girls! It just ain't. Nice try. I'm happy that you've found the moral high ground. Our enemy does not see you as standing on moral high ground...they see the egregious, unbridled greed that dragged the economy down the primrose path to the abyss we are 'enjoying now' - so we could all indulge our sopohmoric lusts for lots of 'stuff'. They see pornography and gambling on every corner, and the biggest customer for illicit drugs in the world...they feel a 'need' to destroy us.
    Thus I adjure everyone to focus on the final words of McCain's convention address...."Stand up and fight...stand up and fight...stand up and fight". Put it down, and step away from your iPods. We are at war. Remind yourselves that the dollar of 1965, when homes could be bought for $18K, is worth a dime today. Viewed from that perspective, this war is cheap. Remembering that more men were shot dead in a matter of hours at the Battle of the Bulge in WWII...this casualty rate is phenomenally low. Gird your trembling loins, and stand up and fight. OR...you could run home to mamaobama. "Protect me Daddy"...clue...h... ain't gonna protect you from anything. He's only one man. A young, idealistic, but inexperienced young man who stutters, and has a hard time finishing a sentience. he won't be able to finish anything.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 30 10:28 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    sorry for the double post Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 30 10:27 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    I have a question. Does anyone know if there is a higher interest rate on the loan for a short sale if the price of the stock goes higher than the price that you sold it at? Thanks Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 30 10:24 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    I have a question. Does anyone know if there is a higher interest rate on the loan for a short sale if the price of a stock goes higher than the amount of money invested? Thanks. Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 30 12:24 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    I have been doing this for 35 years and have never hear the term "long interest" what are you talking about? Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 29 04:49 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    STILL CONFUSED! CAN YOU JUST SAY IT IN SIMPLE TERMS..

    THANKS
    Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 29 02:47 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    Sorry last sentence should be:
    The long interest is the float. High short % presumably increases buying interest above normal trading volumes.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 29 02:44 PM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    Shorted stocks supposedly are borrowed from longs via the longs' brokers and sold. (I say supposedly because naked shorting has become quite the fashion but I will let more sophisticated traders tell us how that works.) The short speculator or arbitrager has cash and owes the long the stock. Should the stock go down, the short purchases it on the open market and returns the stock to the long. The difference is the profit. Should the stock go up, the short must repurchase at a loss and replace. Thus the % of the stock float sold short shows you how much potential pent-up buying exists in a given security. If the shorts are wrong about a stock, their buying tacked on to normal buying can result in excessive movements to the upside.
    Thus the float is the long interest plus the short covering potential.
    Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 29 12:44 PM
    25 Undervalued Stocks [view article]
    I wonder which stocks in the list are the cringe-ful ones? Reply
  • commenter
    Aug 29 11:20 AM
    Stocks with the Highest Short Interest [view article]
    I second the previous comment. Reply