Seeking Alpha

smartwidowlady

smartwidowlady
Send Message
View as an RSS Feed
View smartwidowlady's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Deepwater Horizon: Does It Spell Doom for Offshore Drilling? [View article]
    Well balanced, cogent, article. Thank you very much!
    May 14, 2010. 01:03 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Wall Street Breakfast: Must-Know News [View article]
    And yet there were two non-hysterical, thinking, senators that flew over the GOM yesterday and both actually said it was not looking as bad as they thought. The television news media has truly blown up this disaster to unbelievable proportions and those - many in this country - who get their information ONLY through the television are truly not getting the entire story.
    May 14, 2010. 12:09 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The BP Oil Spill: Stemming the Tide on Offshore Drilling [View article]
    Sorry, it wasn't from a NO paper. But here is the link, thanks to usr.

    apnews.myway.com//arti...
    May 13, 2010. 11:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The BP Oil Spill: Stemming the Tide on Offshore Drilling [View article]
    I've read one article that indicated from the NO paper, posted by usr on another board, that there are 260 possibilities for failure of the BOP. That absolutely amazes me. I'll try to find the article and repost it for you.
    May 13, 2010. 10:58 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • The BP Oil Spill: Stemming the Tide on Offshore Drilling [View article]
    I'm sure Clive Cussler could write a good novel around those lines. I most certainly hope it isn't true though. Who would be the "bad guys"? The land drillers? The greenies? Most likely wouldn't be another large oil driller because this peripherally focuses on them, too.

    But, I certainly hope that isn't true and so far the little facts we do know don't really hint it is.
    May 13, 2010. 10:10 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We All Should Share the Cost of the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup [View article]
    Until the writer answers, I'll give you mine...even if you don't want it. IF there is an additional tax at the pump, then it should be used ONLY for funding for disasters such as this. Most certainly not as "refunds" for lower income taxpayers. We do our "share" and more with that little problem already. And, it should only be used for disasters having to do with the original cause of the problem. Oil spills. Perhaps a small portion could be used to fund research into alternative energy, but if one opens that door then it one is liable to open other doors having nothing to do with oil spills. Extra money to the government will go the way it usually does...spent on something other than it was meant for.
    May 11, 2010. 01:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We All Should Share the Cost of the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup [View article]
    As I understand it, a hit by a comet also causes global climate change. I really don't think we can do anything about that, either...

    The climate has been changing for millenia. Remember the Ice Age(s)?
    May 11, 2010. 01:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We All Should Share the Cost of the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup [View article]
    And why do you feel Transocean should be involved? They leased the rig to BP. Nothing more.
    May 10, 2010. 04:52 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • NASDAQ's '60%' Rule: Arbitrary and Suspicious [View article]
    AHA, Buzzer! Looks like a few people have been reading what's left of my mind. Of course, as you said above...

    www.marketwatch.com/st...
    May 10, 2010. 04:46 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • NASDAQ's '60%' Rule: Arbitrary and Suspicious [View article]
    THEN, if that be the case, the computers should be stopped in their re-routing. I realize that this will make unbalanced trades, but...far better than some poor Joe being stopped out on a stock which then went back up. I can also so some other even worse scenarios happening. In other words, ALL exchanges should be halted at the given dollar/percentage down.
    May 10, 2010. 12:25 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Automated Orders Don't Provide Protection [View article]
    Amen! It's something I never use, except internally in my own worksheets. That way I have time to think over the decision. Is it the stock itself, or external events causing the drop...
    May 10, 2010. 10:26 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Why We All Should Share the Cost of the Gulf Oil Spill Cleanup [View article]
    As will, most likely many, many years from now, methane hydrate.
    May 9, 2010. 07:23 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • NASDAQ's '60%' Rule: Arbitrary and Suspicious [View article]
    Now, my next question will show my screen name is a dichotomy! What is/are the percentage(s) now that a trading halt will be called? I'm assuming it must be at around 10%. Don't you think that's a bit high? Shouldn't it be more like 5-6%? And if not, please tell me why not. Again, I'm talking about a "breather breaker", giving humans who hopefully can think and have the knowledge and expertise in the market trading to do so, time to get hands on to the problem again, rather than just computers? Would that have stopped the slide sooner, albeit it went up again?

    As you can tell the scars of 1987 are still with me. Further, I'm not sure that I approve of the fact that the exchanges can nullify trades during only a specific time frame in the day. Perhaps the entire day should be called null and void to be more fair to retail investments who had stop-losses on and lost the stock before the time specified for nullification.

    Incidentally, that your for your comments. I enjoy reading others opinions. It makes me think even harder and sometimes I might even change my mind!
    May 9, 2010. 07:13 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • NASDAQ's '60%' Rule: Arbitrary and Suspicious [View article]
    True, but wouldn't the percentage rate have to be a variable, with perhaps a floor? After all, 10% of $10K is a lot less than 10% of $13K.
    Or am I missing something?
    May 9, 2010. 03:05 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • NASDAQ's '60%' Rule: Arbitrary and Suspicious [View article]
    Why can't we go back to the ruling after 10/87 that after a 600 point drop the market stops trading? That would give people time to think, perhaps reprogram their computers, and come to their senses.
    May 9, 2010. 12:34 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
385 Comments
798 Likes