norcaljeff_IHB
New member
BlackVault CM2 said:
Everybody except for the people buying tons of shares at the end of each trading day.
Stock Market Day-Trading Discussion Thread
- Thread starter usctrojanman29_IHB
- Start date
NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
Everybody except for the people buying tons of shares at the end of each trading day.
And that brings up the question... Are they institutional buyers (mutual funds and IBs, like Goldman or MS), or are the buyers ETFs who exercise their options/futures and/or buy shares to make their ETF whole at the end of the day? I didn't check to see if there was a volume spike at the end of the day, but if there was... then I would be wondering just how much of an influence ETFs really have. It's not a conspiracy, but something that has been mentioned before and keeps coming up.
CNBC was saying the mutual fund managers didn't want to get caught without participating in this on-going rally so the late in the day strong buying that has been going on lately seems to support that thesis. Friday's sell off was on the lowest volume of the month so there is still some slight bullishness to what went on in March. No conviction in that selling on Friday. I'm still looking for a big sell off soon though, nothing has changed in the economy or banking system in the past 21 days since this rally started to materialize.
BTW, anyone watch Fast Money? That is my favorite show and I never miss an episode, the guests and the traders on the panel are absolutely fun to watch and I've gotten some great tips from them over the past 3-years. But Thursday night the host of the show, Dylan Ratigan, quit, 5-days before his contract expired. I thought something was up since he was out "sick" most of the past 2 weeks. It's unfortunate because Dylan's ability to communicate and entertain while talking about very complex financial topics was second to none. He could make watching grass grow sound interesting. I'm not sure who will host that show going forward but it will not be the same with him gone. I'm hoping Fox Business News picks him up to start something similar but I believe he's looking for a higher profile type of job.
Melissa Lee is her name. I think she does a good job. I do enjoy the show though no matter who is hosting it.
AIG has to pay GS and any other counter party to the insurance contracts that AIG writes. That is the business that AIG is in. AIG wrote credit default swaps and GS, Deutche Bank, JPM, Barclays, and others are the counter parties to those contracts. If the government gives AIG money, AIG is contractually obligated to pay on those contracts and any others it has written, including bonus contracts. AIG has no choice unlesss it breaks the law. The last time I looked we were still nation of law, or in other words a Constitutional Republic. It is not fraud to fulfill one's contractual obligations. The fraud is the politicians, including Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, et al. using taxpayer debt to bailout AIG in order to pay GS, Barclays, etc.
What the hell do people think AIG is going to do with the money. AIG is an insurance company. DUH!
Where in The Constitution does it say the Federal Government is allowed to or obliged to give taxpayer money to private corporations?
You better believe it. I wasn't going to take the deal othervise. I would have rejected 500 free trades if only equites were involved. I don't trade equites often and they are a small fee compared to options. All 120 are both equity/option trades. I've had issues with them past 10 years (nothing as bad as this), but thats something I learned long time ago, to make sure you get both enabled.
I told them I was going to take my business elsewhere and the only reason I'm here is because of them being reliable not their fee structure. I mean what are they going to do? Not give me the trades and lose 2-3K in fees average per month I've given them lately? Hell this month alone I've given them around 7K, where option contracts made up 98% of that. So yeah...equity trades are useless.
But I suggest you definately negotiate with them. Don't settle for only what they offer.
Of course, the more you trade the more leverage you have too.
Technicals were looking mildly bullish. I am looking at the announcements last week by Citi and GS that they were "profitable" for Jan and Feb. Home sales are up. Home prices are up for the month of Feb. "The bottom is in."
Geithner announces that the banks will get more and more importantly, mark to market is history. The banks have gotten what they wanted so it is back to reality. Obama even threatens GM and Chrysler. And more importantly reality shows that C and GS will have massive losses once again for the Q1 2009.
And it looks like the G20 is going to result in a mess which will do more to destroy confidence.
Everybody except for the people buying tons of shares at the end of each trading day.
graphrix_IHB
New member
norcaljeff said:
And that brings up the question... Are they institutional buyers (mutual funds and IBs, like Goldman or MS), or are the buyers ETFs who exercise their options/futures and/or buy shares to make their ETF whole at the end of the day? I didn't check to see if there was a volume spike at the end of the day, but if there was... then I would be wondering just how much of an influence ETFs really have. It's not a conspiracy, but something that has been mentioned before and keeps coming up.
norcaljeff_IHB
New member
graphrix said:
CNBC was saying the mutual fund managers didn't want to get caught without participating in this on-going rally so the late in the day strong buying that has been going on lately seems to support that thesis. Friday's sell off was on the lowest volume of the month so there is still some slight bullishness to what went on in March. No conviction in that selling on Friday. I'm still looking for a big sell off soon though, nothing has changed in the economy or banking system in the past 21 days since this rally started to materialize.
BTW, anyone watch Fast Money? That is my favorite show and I never miss an episode, the guests and the traders on the panel are absolutely fun to watch and I've gotten some great tips from them over the past 3-years. But Thursday night the host of the show, Dylan Ratigan, quit, 5-days before his contract expired. I thought something was up since he was out "sick" most of the past 2 weeks. It's unfortunate because Dylan's ability to communicate and entertain while talking about very complex financial topics was second to none. He could make watching grass grow sound interesting. I'm not sure who will host that show going forward but it will not be the same with him gone. I'm hoping Fox Business News picks him up to start something similar but I believe he's looking for a higher profile type of job.
blackvault_IHB
New member
Though I dislike strongly most of the CNBC crew, I always liked Dylan personally and his style. I wondered what happened to him as of late...did he quit? long vacation? kicked off? But I guess quit is the answer. You are spot on, he has a great ability to communicate and entertain. It is one of the only show I like on CNBC or rather can tolerate as most of the time they just talk trading vs. try and predict the second coming of JC.
I really hope they find someone else than that semi-annoying asian chic that took his place interim...I forget her name...Perhaps Guy Adami can take over? I dont know...
I really hope they find someone else than that semi-annoying asian chic that took his place interim...I forget her name...Perhaps Guy Adami can take over? I dont know...
qwerty_IHB
New member
BlackVault CM2 said:
Melissa Lee is her name. I think she does a good job. I do enjoy the show though no matter who is hosting it.
awgee_IHB
New member
??? said:
AIG has to pay GS and any other counter party to the insurance contracts that AIG writes. That is the business that AIG is in. AIG wrote credit default swaps and GS, Deutche Bank, JPM, Barclays, and others are the counter parties to those contracts. If the government gives AIG money, AIG is contractually obligated to pay on those contracts and any others it has written, including bonus contracts. AIG has no choice unlesss it breaks the law. The last time I looked we were still nation of law, or in other words a Constitutional Republic. It is not fraud to fulfill one's contractual obligations. The fraud is the politicians, including Obama, Geithner, Bernanke, et al. using taxpayer debt to bailout AIG in order to pay GS, Barclays, etc.
What the hell do people think AIG is going to do with the money. AIG is an insurance company. DUH!
Where in The Constitution does it say the Federal Government is allowed to or obliged to give taxpayer money to private corporations?
graphrix_IHB
New member
The futures market no likey the news on GM and Chrysler.
graphrix_IHB
New member
Marketwatch sucks for links, so here is the article in full.
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Dylan Ratigan, the host of CNBC's "Fast Money," had just stepped out of his apartment in lower Manhattan on Sunday afternoon when a stranger stopped him. Recognizing Ratigan immediately, the man cut short a cell phone conversation and extended his hand.
"Go get 'em!" he told Ratigan, who in turn smiled politely at his new friend, made some small talk and moved on.
"Ever since this started," he told me with a self-deprecating grin, "people think I'm some kind of (bleeping) Che Guevara!"
By "this," Ratigan was referring to the barrage of speculation that he will leave CNBC after five years. His contract with CNBC, a unit of General Electric, will expire on March 31. Many media blogs suggest that he will wind up working for another TV network. Walt Disney's ABC has been mentioned frequently.
For now, Ratigan smiles at the scuttlebutt. "If I don't know yet what I'm going to do," he says, "how can anyone else be so sure?"
Regardless of whether that might sound like a negotiating ploy, Ratigan has always been very ambitious. He once told me that his dream job was to be a late-night talk-show host. See previous column.
There seems little doubt that Ratigan will want to remain in television. CNBC might decide to play hardball and make it difficult for him to join another network right away. It certainly wouldn't want to see one of its celebrities go off to a different TV operation.
Ratigan's star could rise to even greater heights elsewhere -- and he might also bring his fans with him, something that could hurt CNBC's ratings.
CNBC is the No. 1 business-news TV network. But audiences can be fickle. The Fox Business Network (which, like MarketWatch, the publisher of this column, is owned by News Corp.) and Bloomberg Television are intent on pressing CNBC.
The CNBC-Ratigan affair is a fascinating game of high-stakes poker, being played by two very determined parties. And who will blink first? Both sides are trying hard to take the high road, at this point, but TV is a business driven by large egos and big money.
When he talked with me about his prospects, Ratigan used the phrase, "I'm leaving CNBC because ..." several times, indicating that he was headed for the door. Still, I suspect that if CNBC offered to continue the negotiations, he'd listen. It's possible a deal could yet be worked out.
Right now, the network seems to believe that Ratigan is about to depart. When I asked CNBC spokesman Brian Steel if he wanted to offer a comment to this column, he made it sound like Ratigan and the network were on the verge of parting ways.
"We thank him for all of his quality contributions and wish him well," Steel told me by email late on Sunday afternoon.
Ratigan would be the second high-profile CNBC figure to make headlines recently for leaving. It was widely reported that Jonathan Wald, the network's leading news executive, had a contract dispute with the network. Officially, Wald's last day is March 31.
Ratigan declined to discuss his contract in detail and insisted that another deal is not in place. CNBC would miss Ratigan, too, and so might many viewers. He stands out because of his ebullience and great knowledge of the financial markets.
Affection for CNBC
I talked with Ratigan for more than two hours in his apartment on Sunday afternoon, as his puppy scurried about. This was a continuation of an interview I conducted with him a few weeks ago over dinner in Midtown Manhattan.
On Sunday, 36-year-old Ratigan stressed three points:
1) He had and continues to have great affection for CNBC, despite what some blogs say, 2) his goal is to communicate his concern for America's financial mess and, 3) he hasn't already arranged to jump to another TV network.
"I'm leaving CNBC in order to pursue this story with the broadest possible footprint," he said.
He added: "People are going to jump to a conclusion that this is about CNBC. It's not -- it's about me."
Asset
I could see Ratigan ultimately joining one of the morning TV shows. He'd be a big asset. The Wall Street fiasco remains a white-hot story and the networks are scrambling to find journalists who can explain it in a thoughtful but conversational way. Ratigan has excelled as a guest on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.
Ratigan also talked enthusiastically about finishing a children's book about finance, and hopes to write one for grown-ups. When I suggested that he call it "The Intent of Capitalism," a pet saying of his, he nodded.
He might also embark on a series of speaking engagements to spread the gospel of capitalism. His theme? "The value system of capitalism has been corrupted by a small group of bankers, insurance executives and politicians," he said.
Success
I asked Ratigan if he'd ever consider working in politics, say, for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or President Barack Obama.
Ratigan shot back: "I'd do it." Ratigan worked as a reporter, editor and television anchor at Bloomberg's media company, which is where he and I met and worked together for several years.
He talked about CNBC emotionally, pointing out: "It has been an honor and a privilege to sit next to Maria Bartiromo and work with her."
Ratigan made it clear that he has plenty to look forward to.
But when I asked him if he had any regrets, he didn't flinch.
"No," he said firmly. "Not a single one."
MEDIA WEB QUESITON OF THE DAY: What do you like or dislike about Dylan Ratigan?
I saw Dylan on the subway in NYC, and I regret not saying hello, and that I think he is a great anchor on CNBC. I may never get that opportunity again, but he was tired, and (sorry Dylan) looks older in person than he does on TV. I wasn't 100% sure it was him. Anyway, I wish him luck, where ever he lands. as long as it is not Fox.
NEW YORK (MarketWatch) -- Dylan Ratigan, the host of CNBC's "Fast Money," had just stepped out of his apartment in lower Manhattan on Sunday afternoon when a stranger stopped him. Recognizing Ratigan immediately, the man cut short a cell phone conversation and extended his hand.
"Go get 'em!" he told Ratigan, who in turn smiled politely at his new friend, made some small talk and moved on.
"Ever since this started," he told me with a self-deprecating grin, "people think I'm some kind of (bleeping) Che Guevara!"
By "this," Ratigan was referring to the barrage of speculation that he will leave CNBC after five years. His contract with CNBC, a unit of General Electric, will expire on March 31. Many media blogs suggest that he will wind up working for another TV network. Walt Disney's ABC has been mentioned frequently.
For now, Ratigan smiles at the scuttlebutt. "If I don't know yet what I'm going to do," he says, "how can anyone else be so sure?"
Regardless of whether that might sound like a negotiating ploy, Ratigan has always been very ambitious. He once told me that his dream job was to be a late-night talk-show host. See previous column.
There seems little doubt that Ratigan will want to remain in television. CNBC might decide to play hardball and make it difficult for him to join another network right away. It certainly wouldn't want to see one of its celebrities go off to a different TV operation.
Ratigan's star could rise to even greater heights elsewhere -- and he might also bring his fans with him, something that could hurt CNBC's ratings.
CNBC is the No. 1 business-news TV network. But audiences can be fickle. The Fox Business Network (which, like MarketWatch, the publisher of this column, is owned by News Corp.) and Bloomberg Television are intent on pressing CNBC.
The CNBC-Ratigan affair is a fascinating game of high-stakes poker, being played by two very determined parties. And who will blink first? Both sides are trying hard to take the high road, at this point, but TV is a business driven by large egos and big money.
When he talked with me about his prospects, Ratigan used the phrase, "I'm leaving CNBC because ..." several times, indicating that he was headed for the door. Still, I suspect that if CNBC offered to continue the negotiations, he'd listen. It's possible a deal could yet be worked out.
Right now, the network seems to believe that Ratigan is about to depart. When I asked CNBC spokesman Brian Steel if he wanted to offer a comment to this column, he made it sound like Ratigan and the network were on the verge of parting ways.
"We thank him for all of his quality contributions and wish him well," Steel told me by email late on Sunday afternoon.
Ratigan would be the second high-profile CNBC figure to make headlines recently for leaving. It was widely reported that Jonathan Wald, the network's leading news executive, had a contract dispute with the network. Officially, Wald's last day is March 31.
Ratigan declined to discuss his contract in detail and insisted that another deal is not in place. CNBC would miss Ratigan, too, and so might many viewers. He stands out because of his ebullience and great knowledge of the financial markets.
Affection for CNBC
I talked with Ratigan for more than two hours in his apartment on Sunday afternoon, as his puppy scurried about. This was a continuation of an interview I conducted with him a few weeks ago over dinner in Midtown Manhattan.
On Sunday, 36-year-old Ratigan stressed three points:
1) He had and continues to have great affection for CNBC, despite what some blogs say, 2) his goal is to communicate his concern for America's financial mess and, 3) he hasn't already arranged to jump to another TV network.
"I'm leaving CNBC in order to pursue this story with the broadest possible footprint," he said.
He added: "People are going to jump to a conclusion that this is about CNBC. It's not -- it's about me."
Asset
I could see Ratigan ultimately joining one of the morning TV shows. He'd be a big asset. The Wall Street fiasco remains a white-hot story and the networks are scrambling to find journalists who can explain it in a thoughtful but conversational way. Ratigan has excelled as a guest on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" program.
Ratigan also talked enthusiastically about finishing a children's book about finance, and hopes to write one for grown-ups. When I suggested that he call it "The Intent of Capitalism," a pet saying of his, he nodded.
He might also embark on a series of speaking engagements to spread the gospel of capitalism. His theme? "The value system of capitalism has been corrupted by a small group of bankers, insurance executives and politicians," he said.
Success
I asked Ratigan if he'd ever consider working in politics, say, for New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg or President Barack Obama.
Ratigan shot back: "I'd do it." Ratigan worked as a reporter, editor and television anchor at Bloomberg's media company, which is where he and I met and worked together for several years.
He talked about CNBC emotionally, pointing out: "It has been an honor and a privilege to sit next to Maria Bartiromo and work with her."
Ratigan made it clear that he has plenty to look forward to.
But when I asked him if he had any regrets, he didn't flinch.
"No," he said firmly. "Not a single one."
MEDIA WEB QUESITON OF THE DAY: What do you like or dislike about Dylan Ratigan?
I saw Dylan on the subway in NYC, and I regret not saying hello, and that I think he is a great anchor on CNBC. I may never get that opportunity again, but he was tired, and (sorry Dylan) looks older in person than he does on TV. I wasn't 100% sure it was him. Anyway, I wish him luck, where ever he lands. as long as it is not Fox.
usctrojanman29_IHB
New member
Sure looks like it....I picked up 40 SPY $80 puts at the open and sold half of them off for a healthy profit leaving a tiny basis for the remaining 20 puts which I'll ride for a few days. Chrysler is going BK and GM may be as well.awgee said:
graphrix_IHB
New member
Ring ring...
Uh... hello?
Bears?
Yes.
Hi. This is the bulls, time to wake up. We are tired and you and I both know this was just a bear market rally. Can you come back and play now?
GROWL! It's on bulls!
Uh... hello?
Bears?
Yes.
Hi. This is the bulls, time to wake up. We are tired and you and I both know this was just a bear market rally. Can you come back and play now?
GROWL! It's on bulls!
bltserv_IHB
New member
Time to push the DIVE button.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/18724672/
Just think how you would feel if you work or own a GM or Chrysler car Dealer.
This is going to get UGLY for anyone in that business. OUCH. ITS OVER.
The bears are going to get fat today.
http://www.cnbc.com/id/18724672/
Just think how you would feel if you work or own a GM or Chrysler car Dealer.
This is going to get UGLY for anyone in that business. OUCH. ITS OVER.
The bears are going to get fat today.
blackvault_IHB
New member
LOL...I nearly lost it about an hour ago. TD Ameritrade just blew a trade for me big time. They reported a trade for me that was "cancelled" because it was rejected by the market...which was the oddest thing I've ever seen. I called them and was like wtf, what is this...I even overbid for a trade and it said cancelled. So I placed another trade for another strike price, and that one said it was "cancelled" because it was rejected by the market. But when I called the person said they actually went through...
I'm like ok...what the hell is that, you are telling me they actually filled? and on my screen they said cancelled, then after that said they are both "open". Is this a joke? I said reliability is the only reason I'm still with TD Ameritrade not because of your high transaction fees. So I'll have to wait till market close for them to sort out trades and see what went through or not...they offered 30 free trades over 30 days as compensation...I said hell no, and that I have this conversation recorded and my trading desk print screened. I said make it 120 trades over 120 days, and I'll bite.
I expected a counter...but they agreed. The 120 trades are actually worth far more than what I can lose on those trades (considering I often place 100-200 option contract trades which can cost 100-200 dollars per transaction)...so I'm now a very happy camper.
I'm like ok...what the hell is that, you are telling me they actually filled? and on my screen they said cancelled, then after that said they are both "open". Is this a joke? I said reliability is the only reason I'm still with TD Ameritrade not because of your high transaction fees. So I'll have to wait till market close for them to sort out trades and see what went through or not...they offered 30 free trades over 30 days as compensation...I said hell no, and that I have this conversation recorded and my trading desk print screened. I said make it 120 trades over 120 days, and I'll bite.
I expected a counter...but they agreed. The 120 trades are actually worth far more than what I can lose on those trades (considering I often place 100-200 option contract trades which can cost 100-200 dollars per transaction)...so I'm now a very happy camper.
usctrojanman29_IHB
New member
Did you ask them if that meant you're option portion of the trades were also being comped? Because if I remember correctly, when I signed up last year to TD and got the 30 free trades it was only for the $9.99 portion and I still was charged the $.75/contract price.BlackVault CM2 said:
blackvault_IHB
New member
usctrojanman29 said:
You better believe it. I wasn't going to take the deal othervise. I would have rejected 500 free trades if only equites were involved. I don't trade equites often and they are a small fee compared to options. All 120 are both equity/option trades. I've had issues with them past 10 years (nothing as bad as this), but thats something I learned long time ago, to make sure you get both enabled.
I told them I was going to take my business elsewhere and the only reason I'm here is because of them being reliable not their fee structure. I mean what are they going to do? Not give me the trades and lose 2-3K in fees average per month I've given them lately? Hell this month alone I've given them around 7K, where option contracts made up 98% of that. So yeah...equity trades are useless.
But I suggest you definately negotiate with them. Don't settle for only what they offer.
Of course, the more you trade the more leverage you have too.
awgee_IHB
New member
skek said:
Technicals were looking mildly bullish. I am looking at the announcements last week by Citi and GS that they were "profitable" for Jan and Feb. Home sales are up. Home prices are up for the month of Feb. "The bottom is in."
Geithner announces that the banks will get more and more importantly, mark to market is history. The banks have gotten what they wanted so it is back to reality. Obama even threatens GM and Chrysler. And more importantly reality shows that C and GS will have massive losses once again for the Q1 2009.
And it looks like the G20 is going to result in a mess which will do more to destroy confidence.