19709's Comments RSS Syndication from SeekingAlpha.com http://seekingalpha.comuser/19294/comments http://seekingalpha.com/article/171850-10-dividend-stocks-for-enterprising-investors?source=feed#comment-764040 764040

On Nov 07 05:01 PM April May wrote:

> OK, I understand taking profits in anticipation of a market correction,
> but what can you do with stocks that are still below your purchase
> price? I hold many that are still 30-40% in the red, yet they pay
> decent dividends. Would you all advise to sell now, take the loss,
> and give up the dividends? How would you know they will lose more--perhaps
> they've already bottomed out?]]> Tue, 17 Nov 2009 13:46:02 -0500

On Nov 07 05:01 PM April May wrote:

> OK, I understand taking profits in anticipation of a market correction,
> but what can you do with stocks that are still below your purchase
> price? I hold many that are still 30-40% in the red, yet they pay
> decent dividends. Would you all advise to sell now, take the loss,
> and give up the dividends? How would you know they will lose more--perhaps
> they've already bottomed out?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/171549-charlie-gasparino-another-crash-has-to-happen-again?source=feed#comment-762566 762566

On Nov 07 12:35 PM User 401928 wrote:

> Forgetting ALL Politics and All People that you want to blame ......
> my question is very simple ....
>
> Why is nobody talking about the date 4/15/2010, yes tax time. For
> the past year all CD's, saving accounts and all other saving concepts
> have about a 1% to 3% interest rate, and if the information is correct,
> over 30% is in these type of saving for the 50 year old and older.
> In the past these folks paid taxes on their accounts that earned
> 5% to 9%. That will be a huge hit to the US Gov. in the collection
> dollars, a BIG DROP.
>
> Now the 2nd part. in 2009 the IRA folks did not have to
Mandatory
> Distribution, those dollars will stay in the accounts and no taxes
> paid on these dollars ... that will be the SECOND big hit to the
> tax collector. All in all I feel the US. Gov. will be short about
> ? %( my guess will as good as anyone else) in the dollars needed
> to run the country. And nobody is talking about it ... WHY]]> Mon, 16 Nov 2009 15:12:28 -0500

On Nov 07 12:35 PM User 401928 wrote:

> Forgetting ALL Politics and All People that you want to blame ......
> my question is very simple ....
>
> Why is nobody talking about the date 4/15/2010, yes tax time. For
> the past year all CD's, saving accounts and all other saving concepts
> have about a 1% to 3% interest rate, and if the information is correct,
> over 30% is in these type of saving for the 50 year old and older.
> In the past these folks paid taxes on their accounts that earned
> 5% to 9%. That will be a huge hit to the US Gov. in the collection
> dollars, a BIG DROP.
>
> Now the 2nd part. in 2009 the IRA folks did not have to
Mandatory
> Distribution, those dollars will stay in the accounts and no taxes
> paid on these dollars ... that will be the SECOND big hit to the
> tax collector. All in all I feel the US. Gov. will be short about
> ? %( my guess will as good as anyone else) in the dollars needed
> to run the country. And nobody is talking about it ... WHY]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170851-earnings-season-the-car-is-shiny-but-look-under-the-hood?source=feed#comment-759051 759051

On Nov 13 02:00 PM 19709 wrote:

> I believe what bobbobwhite was trying to point out is that the recovery
> will come in a series of legs up.]]> Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:02:59 -0500

On Nov 13 02:00 PM 19709 wrote:

> I believe what bobbobwhite was trying to point out is that the recovery
> will come in a series of legs up.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/170851-earnings-season-the-car-is-shiny-but-look-under-the-hood?source=feed#comment-759044 759044

On Nov 04 11:55 AM bobbobwhite wrote:

> Yeah, it is so deceptive to use "50% up" like it means something
> way more than it is. Remember, that 50% pop was on a greatly reduced
> figure(and no certainty that it will last). A $100 stock falling
> to $10 is a 90% drop, but a $5 pop up on that same $10 stock is up
> 50%. Wow! ......Not. Don't be like fund managers and try to make
> that 50% pop "seem" to be worth more than half of the initial 90%
> drop. Never was, never will be. Huge difference.]]> Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:00:06 -0500

On Nov 04 11:55 AM bobbobwhite wrote:

> Yeah, it is so deceptive to use "50% up" like it means something
> way more than it is. Remember, that 50% pop was on a greatly reduced
> figure(and no certainty that it will last). A $100 stock falling
> to $10 is a 90% drop, but a $5 pop up on that same $10 stock is up
> 50%. Wow! ......Not. Don't be like fund managers and try to make
> that 50% pop "seem" to be worth more than half of the initial 90%
> drop. Never was, never will be. Huge difference.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/161607-50-four-day-september-expiration-option-ideas?source=feed#comment-689097 689097

On Sep 15 09:42 PM S2009 wrote:

> The table is incomplete, no price at the time of publication or no
> bid/ask for options. So if you do not see this table exactly at the
> moment of publication (which is not shown, is it Sep 2009 or Jan
> 2007 - nobody knows) it is basically useless.]]> Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:03:48 -0400

On Sep 15 09:42 PM S2009 wrote:

> The table is incomplete, no price at the time of publication or no
> bid/ask for options. So if you do not see this table exactly at the
> moment of publication (which is not shown, is it Sep 2009 or Jan
> 2007 - nobody knows) it is basically useless.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158173-4-dividend-stocks-to-hedge-against-social-security-failure?source=feed#comment-656782 656782
*The author is expecting to live off the dividends, not any appreciation in the stock.
*If the dividend is great, the stock will not lose all value. Why? Because investors will buy the stock in order to realize the dividend yield which will stabilize the stock's price if not cause it to appreciate.
*Dividend growth implies growth in earnings. Companies are in fact increasing dividends despite this recessionary period.



On Aug 26 02:29 PM TonyP4 wrote:

> This is the common misconception to buy high-paying dividend stocks.
>
>
> * return = price appreciation + dividend
> If the price appreciation is good, just sell the stock and use part
> of the gain as income.
>
> * For the same equation, it will not help you when the dividend is
> great but the stock loses all the value.
>
> * Dividend growth normally implies stock appreciation. But, not in
> the current phase of a market cycle (market bottom).]]> Tue, 01 Sep 2009 13:51:21 -0400
*The author is expecting to live off the dividends, not any appreciation in the stock.
*If the dividend is great, the stock will not lose all value. Why? Because investors will buy the stock in order to realize the dividend yield which will stabilize the stock's price if not cause it to appreciate.
*Dividend growth implies growth in earnings. Companies are in fact increasing dividends despite this recessionary period.



On Aug 26 02:29 PM TonyP4 wrote:

> This is the common misconception to buy high-paying dividend stocks.
>
>
> * return = price appreciation + dividend
> If the price appreciation is good, just sell the stock and use part
> of the gain as income.
>
> * For the same equation, it will not help you when the dividend is
> great but the stock loses all the value.
>
> * Dividend growth normally implies stock appreciation. But, not in
> the current phase of a market cycle (market bottom).]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158173-4-dividend-stocks-to-hedge-against-social-security-failure?source=feed#comment-655186 655186

On Aug 26 08:51 AM whisperonthewind wrote:

> I agree that we need to supplement Social Security, whether it's
> with a personal IRA/401k or dividends. I began with a Roth, preferring
> not to have to pay additional taxes at distribution time, except
> on the interest, but my general portfolio (outside the Roth) was
> doing so much better that I've since concentrated on that. I aim
> for stocks with dividends (although not exclusively) and I aim for
> 5% or better. My goal is to have the dividends available in the future
> to use as that supplement, and to save the base stocks for my family
> to inherit and hopefully use for the same purpose. I think of it
> as my own personal social security.
>
> Although I initially bought stocks emotionally, I no longer listen
> to the advice by public analysts - now it's for the yield, and 2
> to 3% is not nearly enough for me. I had a lot of oil stocks last
> year, and watched the price of gasoline go up without caring. My
> fuel efficient car helped there, and my dividends more than covered
> the higher costs, even while increasing my stock base. I now have
> a few more financials, and although their dividends are not up to
> my standards, their base value has tripled and the dividends will
> come back. The oil stocks are still covering my fuel costs (and then
> some), and are also still increasing my base.
>
> On the sidelines, but still evident, are the tanker stocks (waiting
> for the next push) and housing stocks (also starting to come back),
> and the utility stocks (holding their own).
>
> With luck, I will get enough in the dividends to supplement my income
> and cover the additional taxes from the income. And if I'm really
> lucky, I won't care if Social Security is there or not.]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:08:26 -0400

On Aug 26 08:51 AM whisperonthewind wrote:

> I agree that we need to supplement Social Security, whether it's
> with a personal IRA/401k or dividends. I began with a Roth, preferring
> not to have to pay additional taxes at distribution time, except
> on the interest, but my general portfolio (outside the Roth) was
> doing so much better that I've since concentrated on that. I aim
> for stocks with dividends (although not exclusively) and I aim for
> 5% or better. My goal is to have the dividends available in the future
> to use as that supplement, and to save the base stocks for my family
> to inherit and hopefully use for the same purpose. I think of it
> as my own personal social security.
>
> Although I initially bought stocks emotionally, I no longer listen
> to the advice by public analysts - now it's for the yield, and 2
> to 3% is not nearly enough for me. I had a lot of oil stocks last
> year, and watched the price of gasoline go up without caring. My
> fuel efficient car helped there, and my dividends more than covered
> the higher costs, even while increasing my stock base. I now have
> a few more financials, and although their dividends are not up to
> my standards, their base value has tripled and the dividends will
> come back. The oil stocks are still covering my fuel costs (and then
> some), and are also still increasing my base.
>
> On the sidelines, but still evident, are the tanker stocks (waiting
> for the next push) and housing stocks (also starting to come back),
> and the utility stocks (holding their own).
>
> With luck, I will get enough in the dividends to supplement my income
> and cover the additional taxes from the income. And if I'm really
> lucky, I won't care if Social Security is there or not.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158173-4-dividend-stocks-to-hedge-against-social-security-failure?source=feed#comment-655173 655173

On Aug 26 08:08 AM Oldguy67 wrote:

> The average person(family) can not accumulate
> enough funds to support themselves in a long
> retirement based on a 2 or 3% return.
>
> If you only get 3% return on a million dollars you will
> only generate $30,000.00 anual income. That is a
> less than average income for 2 people much less
> if it has to support more people.
>
> The fact these stocks consistantly raise their dividends
> is meaningless when they pay out such a low percent
> of the base investment.]]> Mon, 31 Aug 2009 15:00:44 -0400

On Aug 26 08:08 AM Oldguy67 wrote:

> The average person(family) can not accumulate
> enough funds to support themselves in a long
> retirement based on a 2 or 3% return.
>
> If you only get 3% return on a million dollars you will
> only generate $30,000.00 anual income. That is a
> less than average income for 2 people much less
> if it has to support more people.
>
> The fact these stocks consistantly raise their dividends
> is meaningless when they pay out such a low percent
> of the base investment.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157732-colonial-bank-failure-highlights-the-problem?source=feed#comment-649357 649357

On Aug 24 09:17 AM Angry Banker wrote:

> Another predictable rant by Mr. Nielson based on over-simplified
> comparisons of asset markdowns after completely separate deals and
> under completely separate circumstances. I thought SA was supposed
> to be a site where investment theses were discussed. I guess Jeff
> is suggesting shorting Citi? Wait, of course that's always been his
> position, hasn't it? When I suggested in my June 24th article that
> Citi was too important to fail and thus a good long term investment
> opportunity, the ranters came out in full force against the company
> (as usual). The stock was trading around $3.00 then. Now it's over
> $4.75. Good thing I didn't follow Jeff's views on Citi's prospects
> at that time.... should I listen now?]]> Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:43:15 -0400

On Aug 24 09:17 AM Angry Banker wrote:

> Another predictable rant by Mr. Nielson based on over-simplified
> comparisons of asset markdowns after completely separate deals and
> under completely separate circumstances. I thought SA was supposed
> to be a site where investment theses were discussed. I guess Jeff
> is suggesting shorting Citi? Wait, of course that's always been his
> position, hasn't it? When I suggested in my June 24th article that
> Citi was too important to fail and thus a good long term investment
> opportunity, the ranters came out in full force against the company
> (as usual). The stock was trading around $3.00 then. Now it's over
> $4.75. Good thing I didn't follow Jeff's views on Citi's prospects
> at that time.... should I listen now?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/157698-the-disconnect-between-oil-and-natural-gas-prices?source=feed#comment-647435 647435

On Aug 23 09:25 AM dirtyharry wrote:

> One way to get into natural gas in through the ETF trading under
> UNG. However, this is not a perfect substitute for the underlying
> commodity. As the author as stated, when prices will normalize is
> unknown, but when a commodity gets close to its cost of production,
> it tends to stop falling because production ceases to add more inventory.
>
>
> Because of the unknown time frame, one of the best ways to play natural
> gas with with covered calls: Going long (buying) UNG, and then selling
> slightly OTM (out of the money) calls to collect a premium.]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:58:53 -0400

On Aug 23 09:25 AM dirtyharry wrote:

> One way to get into natural gas in through the ETF trading under
> UNG. However, this is not a perfect substitute for the underlying
> commodity. As the author as stated, when prices will normalize is
> unknown, but when a commodity gets close to its cost of production,
> it tends to stop falling because production ceases to add more inventory.
>
>
> Because of the unknown time frame, one of the best ways to play natural
> gas with with covered calls: Going long (buying) UNG, and then selling
> slightly OTM (out of the money) calls to collect a premium.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/158359-banking-on-banks-detailed-option-strangle-strategy?source=feed#comment-647425 647425

On Aug 26 08:15 AM apppro wrote:

> These types of trades & trading are actually what is 'STRANGLING'
> our markets and society as a whole. All this options trading has
> turned into a ponzi gambling scheme that will crash our system and
> adds NOTHING now. They say it adds liquidity - BS! If anything all
> that money being thrown about on ultra short term trades is NOT being
> invested on long-term basis.. it actually takes money OUT of the
> pool and contributes NOTHING to our economy - ever.
>
> We need to figure out a way to stop all this insanity and not come
> up with new methods on how to make it worse. I am still convinced
> that the best way is to TAX these trades as if they were gambling
> wins somewhere around 50%. That'll stop it, and even if it doesn't
> it will help pay for the mess all these trader's/traitor's insanity
> cause.]]> Wed, 26 Aug 2009 11:53:24 -0400

On Aug 26 08:15 AM apppro wrote:

> These types of trades & trading are actually what is 'STRANGLING'
> our markets and society as a whole. All this options trading has
> turned into a ponzi gambling scheme that will crash our system and
> adds NOTHING now. They say it adds liquidity - BS! If anything all
> that money being thrown about on ultra short term trades is NOT being
> invested on long-term basis.. it actually takes money OUT of the
> pool and contributes NOTHING to our economy - ever.
>
> We need to figure out a way to stop all this insanity and not come
> up with new methods on how to make it worse. I am still convinced
> that the best way is to TAX these trades as if they were gambling
> wins somewhere around 50%. That'll stop it, and even if it doesn't
> it will help pay for the mess all these trader's/traitor's insanity
> cause.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155351-two-citigroup-income-generating-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-628398 628398

On Aug 12 07:44 PM Ricard wrote:

> One clarification, when he writes his covered calls, instead of being
> 'forced to cover' he is instead forced to eat the losses garnered
> through holding C. Like I already mentioned, for a stock this volatile,
> losses over 11 days can easily get into the high teens, if not 30-40%,
> without any news, or any rhyme or reason causing the swings in price.
> So, he keeps his 6% premium and loses the farm. This will probably
> happen 50% of the time if he chooses to 'annualize'.
>
> The odds are not in favor of making the trade Marco suggests, unless
> you have a crystal ball that can predict daily/weekly movements of
> any stock. I'm sorry, but mine broke last week, so I'm using LEAPs
> instead, and buying calls, not writing them.]]> Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:23:26 -0400

On Aug 12 07:44 PM Ricard wrote:

> One clarification, when he writes his covered calls, instead of being
> 'forced to cover' he is instead forced to eat the losses garnered
> through holding C. Like I already mentioned, for a stock this volatile,
> losses over 11 days can easily get into the high teens, if not 30-40%,
> without any news, or any rhyme or reason causing the swings in price.
> So, he keeps his 6% premium and loses the farm. This will probably
> happen 50% of the time if he chooses to 'annualize'.
>
> The odds are not in favor of making the trade Marco suggests, unless
> you have a crystal ball that can predict daily/weekly movements of
> any stock. I'm sorry, but mine broke last week, so I'm using LEAPs
> instead, and buying calls, not writing them.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155351-two-citigroup-income-generating-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-627171 627171 seekingalpha.com/artic...
. . . your own article in which you state the reasons for the "not faint of heart" to trade options on C.




On Aug 12 11:02 AM Ricard wrote:

> That high volatility kills his strategies as well. High volatility
> equates to fat premiums, but you STILL must be correct in direction
> if you use either of Marco's strategies. For a 5% gain, his strategies
> are far too risky for the infinitesimal returns he is suggesting
> you accept.]]> Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:13:42 -0400 seekingalpha.com/artic...
. . . your own article in which you state the reasons for the "not faint of heart" to trade options on C.




On Aug 12 11:02 AM Ricard wrote:

> That high volatility kills his strategies as well. High volatility
> equates to fat premiums, but you STILL must be correct in direction
> if you use either of Marco's strategies. For a 5% gain, his strategies
> are far too risky for the infinitesimal returns he is suggesting
> you accept.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155351-two-citigroup-income-generating-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-627158 627158

On Aug 12 11:02 AM Ricard wrote:

> That high volatility kills his strategies as well. High volatility
> equates to fat premiums, but you STILL must be correct in direction
> if you use either of Marco's strategies. For a 5% gain, his strategies
> are far too risky for the infinitesimal returns he is suggesting
> you accept.]]> Wed, 12 Aug 2009 15:04:03 -0400

On Aug 12 11:02 AM Ricard wrote:

> That high volatility kills his strategies as well. High volatility
> equates to fat premiums, but you STILL must be correct in direction
> if you use either of Marco's strategies. For a 5% gain, his strategies
> are far too risky for the infinitesimal returns he is suggesting
> you accept.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155351-two-citigroup-income-generating-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-626587 626587

On Aug 11 08:53 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> if citi has been left in the dust compared to the others, there is
> probably a reason.....]]> Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:45:17 -0400

On Aug 11 08:53 AM john s. gordon wrote:

> if citi has been left in the dust compared to the others, there is
> probably a reason.....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155351-two-citigroup-income-generating-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-626571 626571

On Aug 11 08:53 AM jamo59 wrote:

> calvin has it spot on correctly~~
> thanks for expanding on it thoroughly......
>
> On Aug 11 08:49 AM jamo59 wrote:]]> Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:40:16 -0400

On Aug 11 08:53 AM jamo59 wrote:

> calvin has it spot on correctly~~
> thanks for expanding on it thoroughly......
>
> On Aug 11 08:49 AM jamo59 wrote:]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/155351-two-citigroup-income-generating-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-626560 626560

On Aug 11 08:49 AM jamo59 wrote:

> agree with acttang...rather amateurish........if you want those buy/write
> returns, do it with dozens of much more enticing stks.....]]> Wed, 12 Aug 2009 10:37:11 -0400

On Aug 11 08:49 AM jamo59 wrote:

> agree with acttang...rather amateurish........if you want those buy/write
> returns, do it with dozens of much more enticing stks.....]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154016-buffett-s-betrayal?source=feed#comment-625562 625562

On Aug 07 08:30 AM Dave Shafer wrote:

> Sven, point taken on using life insurance for estate planning. Show
> me the facts on how much life insurance Buffett's companies sell?
> How much market share in life insurance do they have?]]> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 17:05:51 -0400

On Aug 07 08:30 AM Dave Shafer wrote:

> Sven, point taken on using life insurance for estate planning. Show
> me the facts on how much life insurance Buffett's companies sell?
> How much market share in life insurance do they have?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154016-buffett-s-betrayal?source=feed#comment-625558 625558

On Aug 06 07:53 PM effiiciency wrote:

> Tongue-in-cheek, was Babe Ruth a great athlete?]]> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:57:48 -0400

On Aug 06 07:53 PM effiiciency wrote:

> Tongue-in-cheek, was Babe Ruth a great athlete?]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/154016-buffett-s-betrayal?source=feed#comment-625535 625535

On Aug 05 10:11 PM PenName Dave wrote:

> You're all haters.
>
> If you don't like and admire Warren Buffet, who would you put ahead
> of him in terms of integrity, principles and humility?
>
> I don't think any other business leader comes close.]]> Tue, 11 Aug 2009 16:35:54 -0400

On Aug 05 10:11 PM PenName Dave wrote:

> You're all haters.
>
> If you don't like and admire Warren Buffet, who would you put ahead
> of him in terms of integrity, principles and humility?
>
> I don't think any other business leader comes close.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/148380-why-leveraged-etfs-are-bound-to-deteriorate?source=feed#comment-595286 595286

On Jul 15 08:58 PM mwfall wrote:

> THE AUTHOR IS 100% WRONG. HIS ARTICLE IS WORTHLESS AND HE'S A MATH
> DUNCE.
>
> HERE'S HIS MISTAKE:
>
> take the triple levereged one.
> when it goes from 100 to 70 the percentage loss is calculated by
> dividing 30 into 100 equals 30% (he was right on that one)
> when it goes from 70 to 100 the percentage gain is calculated by
> dividing 30 into 70 equals 42.85% gain !!]]> Mon, 20 Jul 2009 13:06:10 -0400

On Jul 15 08:58 PM mwfall wrote:

> THE AUTHOR IS 100% WRONG. HIS ARTICLE IS WORTHLESS AND HE'S A MATH
> DUNCE.
>
> HERE'S HIS MISTAKE:
>
> take the triple levereged one.
> when it goes from 100 to 70 the percentage loss is calculated by
> dividing 30 into 100 equals 30% (he was right on that one)
> when it goes from 70 to 100 the percentage gain is calculated by
> dividing 30 into 70 equals 42.85% gain !!]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145928-why-the-dow-is-headed-to-6000?source=feed#comment-573378 573378

On Jul 01 05:06 PM WarrenTeeSmith wrote:

> Very interesting article. I am very much encouraged by all of the
> followers, who are at least as negative towards the market as the
> writer of the article. I have no idea where the market will be six
> months or a year from now. I could almost care less, if the market
> as a whole declines another 1,000 or 2,000 points. I am fairly certain,
> that the next 6,000 point move on the Dow, or the next six hundred
> point move on the S & P, will be up and not down. In the mean
> time, I will continue to buy good companies with good management,
> and hold them for the longer term. I will enjoy didvidend yields,
> far in excess of what a 5 year treasury is yielding. Maybe in 5 or
> 10 years I will look back and say you folks were right, I could have
> waited for the market to drop another 1,000-2,000 points or so. And
> if it does, I will step in and scoop up a whole bunch more. I personally,
> have never been great at predicting market direction over the short
> term. Finding great companies, with good balance sheets, and good
> management, at an attractive price....those are things I have been
> able to do well, and has paid me on average, about 13% a year, compounded
> over the last forty years. So, I'm not going to fret about a few
> thousand points at this stage of the game. It's when the writer of
> this article, and his followers, starts turning bullish, and starts
> calling for 20,000 on the Dow, that I might take pause, and allow
> some of you nice folks to buy some shares from me.
>
> ]]> Fri, 03 Jul 2009 14:48:29 -0400

On Jul 01 05:06 PM WarrenTeeSmith wrote:

> Very interesting article. I am very much encouraged by all of the
> followers, who are at least as negative towards the market as the
> writer of the article. I have no idea where the market will be six
> months or a year from now. I could almost care less, if the market
> as a whole declines another 1,000 or 2,000 points. I am fairly certain,
> that the next 6,000 point move on the Dow, or the next six hundred
> point move on the S & P, will be up and not down. In the mean
> time, I will continue to buy good companies with good management,
> and hold them for the longer term. I will enjoy didvidend yields,
> far in excess of what a 5 year treasury is yielding. Maybe in 5 or
> 10 years I will look back and say you folks were right, I could have
> waited for the market to drop another 1,000-2,000 points or so. And
> if it does, I will step in and scoop up a whole bunch more. I personally,
> have never been great at predicting market direction over the short
> term. Finding great companies, with good balance sheets, and good
> management, at an attractive price....those are things I have been
> able to do well, and has paid me on average, about 13% a year, compounded
> over the last forty years. So, I'm not going to fret about a few
> thousand points at this stage of the game. It's when the writer of
> this article, and his followers, starts turning bullish, and starts
> calling for 20,000 on the Dow, that I might take pause, and allow
> some of you nice folks to buy some shares from me.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145070-don-t-let-the-banks-break-you-hedge-yourself-with-these-15-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-568639 568639

On Jun 24 12:51 PM kjangelo wrote:

> selling covered calls is a good income strategy when the stocks stay
> the same or go down slightly , however it weeds out all your winning
> stocks and potentially leaves you with the losers. Also it leaves
> you with very little downside protection.]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:59:54 -0400

On Jun 24 12:51 PM kjangelo wrote:

> selling covered calls is a good income strategy when the stocks stay
> the same or go down slightly , however it weeds out all your winning
> stocks and potentially leaves you with the losers. Also it leaves
> you with very little downside protection.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145070-don-t-let-the-banks-break-you-hedge-yourself-with-these-15-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-568632 568632

On Jun 24 10:31 AM LanceLink wrote:

> Bernie --
>
> Here are the problems with this, and other articles that Marco writes:
>
>
> First, he bases his "return" on the possibility that the stock will
> be assigned. This is just based upon the hope that the stock will
> rise to the higher strike price. Basing your returns "if assigned"
> is a shaky strategy.
>
> Second, he keeps listing a column of numbers that he says is the
> "current probability" that the stock will reach that strike price.
> He does not explain the basis for that calculation in this article,
> nor has he ever explained it (I've checked his blog, it's not there
> either). Yes, Marco, I understand that there may be some extrapolation
> you can make from the option price and the volatility, etc. about
> the chances that a stock may reach a certain price, but it's all
> just hope.
>
> Writing calls is a solid strategy for income, but articles like this
> are not particularly useful.
>
> Write ATM for maximum return and protection.]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:57:34 -0400

On Jun 24 10:31 AM LanceLink wrote:

> Bernie --
>
> Here are the problems with this, and other articles that Marco writes:
>
>
> First, he bases his "return" on the possibility that the stock will
> be assigned. This is just based upon the hope that the stock will
> rise to the higher strike price. Basing your returns "if assigned"
> is a shaky strategy.
>
> Second, he keeps listing a column of numbers that he says is the
> "current probability" that the stock will reach that strike price.
> He does not explain the basis for that calculation in this article,
> nor has he ever explained it (I've checked his blog, it's not there
> either). Yes, Marco, I understand that there may be some extrapolation
> you can make from the option price and the volatility, etc. about
> the chances that a stock may reach a certain price, but it's all
> just hope.
>
> Writing calls is a solid strategy for income, but articles like this
> are not particularly useful.
>
> Write ATM for maximum return and protection.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/145070-don-t-let-the-banks-break-you-hedge-yourself-with-these-15-option-strategies?source=feed#comment-568628 568628

On Jun 24 06:54 AM apppro wrote:

> Don't let these guys fool you either. Options may work, but not for
> 98% of us. Actually we're all suffering this added volitility just
> so a few option traders can make a couple of extra $.
> Stop the insanity! Even as Warren Buffett said the other day:
> "Make it simple!"]]> Tue, 30 Jun 2009 12:55:11 -0400

On Jun 24 06:54 AM apppro wrote:

> Don't let these guys fool you either. Options may work, but not for
> 98% of us. Actually we're all suffering this added volitility just
> so a few option traders can make a couple of extra $.
> Stop the insanity! Even as Warren Buffett said the other day:
> "Make it simple!"]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/131253-jos-a-bank-defying-all-odds-executing-well?source=feed#comment-479256 479256

On Apr 17 10:23 AM Gravity404 wrote:

> Fedamentals or technicals do not indicate how low quality a company's
> products / services are. Once everyone in the world visits a store
> and buys one of thier suits, there will be no more sales. These guys
> have the worst products in the industry. Not to mentioned their constant
> 50% off sale. If you go this rout, at least look at MW. They have
> poor quality products too, but they have superior service to JOSB.
>
> ]]> Mon, 27 Apr 2009 11:54:28 -0400

On Apr 17 10:23 AM Gravity404 wrote:

> Fedamentals or technicals do not indicate how low quality a company's
> products / services are. Once everyone in the world visits a store
> and buys one of thier suits, there will be no more sales. These guys
> have the worst products in the industry. Not to mentioned their constant
> 50% off sale. If you go this rout, at least look at MW. They have
> poor quality products too, but they have superior service to JOSB.
>
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/129524-obama-wants-a-better-plan-here-s-one-bite-the-bullet?source=feed#comment-457762 457762

On Apr 06 10:15 AM Pat Collins wrote:

> One really good thing about being a Blogger or Critic of Obama and
> government is that you don't have to be right. Obama does!!
>
> In one year, no one will remember what kind of cockeyed statements
> you made, but Obama has to bear the bureden of his decisions for
> all of history.
>
> We have plenty of critics but not many people linging up with workable
> answers. Biting the Bullet is what happened with Lehman Bros. If
> Citi, B of A, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, ING, AIG, et al go bust,
> we won't be able to buy a bullet!!!
> ]]> Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:54:15 -0400

On Apr 06 10:15 AM Pat Collins wrote:

> One really good thing about being a Blogger or Critic of Obama and
> government is that you don't have to be right. Obama does!!
>
> In one year, no one will remember what kind of cockeyed statements
> you made, but Obama has to bear the bureden of his decisions for
> all of history.
>
> We have plenty of critics but not many people linging up with workable
> answers. Biting the Bullet is what happened with Lehman Bros. If
> Citi, B of A, JP Morgan, Goldman Sachs, ING, AIG, et al go bust,
> we won't be able to buy a bullet!!!
> ]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/128324-ten-cars-detroit-should-copy?source=feed#comment-451095 451095

On Mar 30 02:28 PM kdo wrote:

> You fail to grasp the problems at GM, Ford, Chrysler by simply stating
> the need to copy successful cars. They have a non-competitive cost
> structure, which forced them to attempt to compete on higher margin
> (ie: bigger) cars. GM has -$60 billion of shareholder equity. There
> are far more problems than just simply the fact that their small
> cars aren't competitive. The problem is they never will, unless they
> are fundamentally restructured.]]> Fri, 03 Apr 2009 14:37:54 -0400

On Mar 30 02:28 PM kdo wrote:

> You fail to grasp the problems at GM, Ford, Chrysler by simply stating
> the need to copy successful cars. They have a non-competitive cost
> structure, which forced them to attempt to compete on higher margin
> (ie: bigger) cars. GM has -$60 billion of shareholder equity. There
> are far more problems than just simply the fact that their small
> cars aren't competitive. The problem is they never will, unless they
> are fundamentally restructured.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127097-can-selling-options-make-you-a-better-trader?source=feed#comment-442665 442665

On Mar 22 09:47 AM andyn1 wrote:

> "Sell options" is a dangerous advice.
> It has been equated to picking pennies in front of a steam roller.
>
> You might get "good returns" for months but 1 single wrong trade
> will not only wipe out all of your profits but much of your capital
> too.
>
> Hence the risk is NOT worth the reward, especially in these high
> volatile markets.
>
> Stick to directional long trades like long term debit spreads based
> on the trend of the markets.]]> Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:51:18 -0400

On Mar 22 09:47 AM andyn1 wrote:

> "Sell options" is a dangerous advice.
> It has been equated to picking pennies in front of a steam roller.
>
> You might get "good returns" for months but 1 single wrong trade
> will not only wipe out all of your profits but much of your capital
> too.
>
> Hence the risk is NOT worth the reward, especially in these high
> volatile markets.
>
> Stick to directional long trades like long term debit spreads based
> on the trend of the markets.]]> http://seekingalpha.com/article/127018-aig-mindboggling-lawsuit-against-countrywide?source=feed#comment-442661 442661

On Mar 20 01:07 PM Dirk McCoy wrote:

> Bankruptcy doesn't mean that employees don't get paid- it means shareholders
> and then debtors lose, but operations generally continue- including
> bonuses if management feels they are necessary to keep employees
> on board or motivated.
>
> This is typical government- incompetent and capricious- and their
> best intentions only serve to undermine confidence in private property
> rights and investment- the core strengths of our economic system.
> They should have limited these bonuses last fall or earlier this
> spring, taxing after the fact is a populist gimmick designed to play
> to the same masses that have lost sight of what made America great-
> private property rights, rule of law, and the confidence in those
> to invest, creating competition that yielded world-leading productivity.]]> Fri, 27 Mar 2009 13:44:47 -0400

On Mar 20 01:07 PM Dirk McCoy wrote:

> Bankruptcy doesn't mean that employees don't get paid- it means shareholders
> and then debtors lose, but operations generally continue- including
> bonuses if management feels they are necessary to keep employees
> on board or motivated.
>
> This is typical government- incompetent and capricious- and their
> best intentions only serve to undermine confidence in private property
> rights and investment- the core strengths of our economic system.
> They should have limited these bonuses last fall or earlier this
> spring, taxing after the fact is a populist gimmick designed to play
> to the same masses that have lost sight of what made America great-
> private property rights, rule of law, and the confidence in those
> to invest, creating competition that yielded world-leading productivity.]]>