Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
  • Options To Boost Your Exxon Mobil Yield  [View article]
    There is a misstatement in one of my sentences above. If the stock were to rise above 85, the buyer of the put would not exercise his right to sell the stock at 85. Therefore, you would not be able to purchase the stock if it is above 85. As was stated, you would, however, get to keep the premium (which in this case was $1580) Bottom line is that when selling a put, your gain is limited to the premium you received, and, of course, you will be forced to buy the stock at the stated price if it is "put" to you. Therefore, above 85, you would give up your original 100 shares but get to keep both call and put premiums. Depending upon how low below 85, however, you could lose substantially more than the premiums you collected.
    Jan 21, 2016. 11:49 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is the mortgage REIT business going out of business?  [View news story]
    You have just made the most intelligent statement I have ever read on
    SA. I thought I was the only person in the world who recognizes the incredible incompetence of the government.
    Jan 20, 2016. 05:18 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Options To Boost Your Exxon Mobil Yield  [View article]
    to Dank,
    Very good explanation! There was a second part to his question, though, which you did not address. He was planning to "sell" a put
    at 85 for which he would receive a hefty premium. He did not put it quite this way but he said that he would "agree to buy 100 shares at 85 for $1,230." He would, therefore, be forced to buy those shares at 85 if the stock was selling below that number. That is the rub if the stock did not perform well and, say, dropped to the low seventies or sixties or worse.
    Jan 19, 2016. 06:38 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Options To Boost Your Exxon Mobil Yield  [View article]
    To eandj09,
    Simply put, if the share price is above 85 at 1/21, you will lose your original shares but keep the $1,580. You will also be able to purchase the new shares at 85. If the share price is below 85, you will keep your shares and the $1,580. However, depending on the share price on 1/21, you may lose far more than the $1,580 in premiums. Say the price is that price, you will be 25 a share behind on your original investment and be forced to buy another 100 shares at 85 when the stock is worth 60. Of course, there are ways to mitigate these losses but with your scenario, you have to hope that the stock stays the same or goes up.
    Jan 19, 2016. 11:46 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Citi: 28 U.S. value names for 2016  [View news story]
    Just wondering....Is it a fact that value stocks outperform in a rising rate
    environment? If so, this is pretty valuable info to consider in selecting potential investments. Does anyone have any references on this?
    Jan 1, 2016. 02:45 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Two Harbors Does It Again  [View article]
    I commend you on your honesty. You seem to go out of your way to
    accept full responsibility for everything you say even to the point of
    not strongly justifying your actions. This is rare and refreshing to me.
    I only wish some of our politicians would behave similarly. Let's face it,
    you would have to be a mind reader to know what different managements
    would do given the same circumstances.
    Dec 17, 2015. 02:02 PM | 11 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel Goes Ex-Dividend This Week: How To Double Your Dividend And Earn Over 15%  [View article]
    I don't disagree that you have to be careful with options because I have
    done both selling calls and puts and it does not always work out the way you would wish. However, on your point of selling covered calls, a spike in the price cannot hurt you (other than that the stock may be taken away from you, which you were aware of in the first place.) It is when the stock continues to go down during the holding period, well below your comfort level, that you run into problems. You may have meant buying puts or simply shorting the stock, in which case, I fully agree.
    Nov 2, 2015. 11:09 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Microsoft At 15-Year High After Earnings Beat  [View article]
    Not a big deal but Microsoft is on a fiscal year so they reported
    1st Quarter results today and not 3rd quarter. (But who cares,
    given the great all around news.)
    Oct 22, 2015. 09:07 PM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • 5 Cautionary Points For Intel Investors  [View article]
    Great comment and right on! Thank you .
    Oct 15, 2015. 08:38 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Getting Constructive On Microsoft  [View article]
    I liked good dividend paying stocks even when I was very young (150 years or so ago.) My reasoning was not that I cared for the dividend much but because I always felt those stocks had a better "floor cushion" than the non dividend payers. My personal experience through the years seems to have backed this up. If I'm looking for high dividends, I simply
    buy preferred stocks. I guess we each have our own stories. Mine has historically been that I did better with common stocks which also paid
    decent dividends.
    Sep 30, 2015. 12:21 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Building A $100,000 High-Yield Income Portfolio From Scratch: Linn Energy Causes Havoc  [View article]
    Yes, Walter, I agree with you. For some reason EVERYONE ignores preferreds. I have been investing in them for years and have done very well with them. Sometimes I ask myself why I even bother with commons.
    I owe my success in the market over many, many years to these wonderful, relatively safe instruments which IMO are a much better choice than bonds for many reasons. Incidentally, they have done extremely well over the past six month period which is being mentioned above. Given their high yields, relative safety, stability and liquidity, the lack of interest in them in the investment community seems uncanny to me.

    Sep 6, 2015. 11:40 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Microsoft: An Extreme Ebb And Flow Example  [View article]
    Agreed! Buying a solid company at a reasonable valuation seems to be the
    answer for us non-traders. If the company continues to perform reasonably well, even if there are a few stumbles along the way, and we reinvest dividends, the stock price will eventually catch up to company performance. We cannot control market prices but we can keep our patient eye on the fundamentals.
    Thank you, Eli, for another good article!
    Sep 3, 2015. 08:53 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel launches new Skylake processors  [View news story]
    In spite of the fact that I have an ipad, smart phone, etc., I, for one, would be absolutely lost without my laptop and desktop! May they continue to make them and improve them because, for me, personal computers are most definitely my preference, where I spend the bulk of my time and get the most enjoyment. I'd be surprised if I were then only one who feels this way.
    Sep 2, 2015. 09:05 AM | 22 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Stifel upgrades Microsoft to Buy, expects solid profit/dividend growth  [View news story]
    Typical of many analysts. They almost always abandon stocks when their
    prices are being battered down but when they are flying high, they join the
    parade. This is unfortunate because we expect them to look beyond the
    emotional tides and give us good, earnest, fundamental reasons for their
    advice based on their solid research.
    Aug 13, 2015. 12:18 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Intel's Inventory Helped Create An EPS 'Beat'  [View article]
    To Author,
    I would like to make one comment but first...yes, it is true that LIFO is
    preferred on the income statement and FIFO on the balance sheet.
    Someone mentioned that Intel in on FIFO and you mentioned that Intel
    inventory....... is in a falling price environment. If both these statements are true, then Intel's ending inventory hurt profits in the quarter to some degree. I say this because, in a period of rising prices, a company on FIFO derives a "false" amount of profit from its ending inventory. In a period of falling prices, the opposite would be true. I am simply stating the accounting facts and have no firsthand knowledge of Intel's inventory procedures or trends in chip inventory prices. LIFO will always give more
    accurate profit results whether prices are rising or falling.
    Jul 18, 2015. 06:30 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment