Search results

Selling covered calls isn't investment "protection" Married puts could be considered "protection", but not CCs - it's a common mistake promulgated by all those "sell covered calls and make a fortune" frauds that popped up during the bubble

Exactly correct - but it's a point so many covered call writers don't seem to understand. Loads of CC guys lost their shorts during the post-bubble slide.

Fed by trillions of dollars improperly accounted for and/or overstated in order to give the appearance of profits where in many cases none existed at all - so as to artificially inflate the "greatest stock market ever" - look back at all the supposed revenue/earnings that companies have now...

Didn't happen to be Citibank was it?? I've had similar problems with the part of Citibank's call center that's been outsourced to India. Three for three times I've had to have had to be switched to someone in a US call center in order to find someone who could handle a simple transaction...

That's what the buggy whip makers and the manual cotton pickers all said. Not many of them around anymore though (although some of the buggy whip makers probably did seque into providing equipment for the growing Dominatrix industry :) )

You think that's bad - try opening a keyboard at a police, fire, or transit dispatching center - 5 points of crumbs, bits of chicken, dirt, dust, hair (presumably from their heads, but I'm not sure), dried soup, bugs (attracted by the food), etc. - pretty disgusting

Just curious, but why do you think it's "much less so"?? Isn't it still going out at something like 90 times earnings? Basically one source of revenue from one real product/service (a couple of things they're toying with that even they're not clear on how they could be turned into revenue)...

What a bunch of crap - it's nothing but a damn L2 display with integrated ECN order books. It's turned into a game of who can file a patent first on something people already use. This is like the joker in Chicago who got a patent on a web browser functionality that was in the damn W3C...

The Patent Office is getting more and more out of control - they're authorizing patents without knowing enough about the areas the patents cover. Some of the claims in the TT patent sound broad enough to even cover standard L2 displays which have been around forever.

Try this link http://ichart.yahoo.com/table.csv?s=^SPX&a=00&b=3&c=1950&d=07&e=7&f=2004&g=d&ignore=.csv Should download a Comma Separated Values format file with SPX daily data from 1950 to present.

Not around here

And if you added 10 units after each loss it would be that much better :) Think about it, you already know that your small population sample is win biased - so OF COURSE if you up your ante after a loss, eventually it'll work out favorably. BUT, you only have a universe of 91 such trades...

Apparently in your case, seeing is believing - but seeing isn't necessarily understanding. The official synopsis of the documentary says it was all faked and/or contrived and/or footage taken out of context as an example of how the media can distort things - i.e., that it was NOT real...

Harry - do you even bother to thoroughly read the stuff you post?? They're saying that the documentary was a tongue in cheek attempt to show how they "might" have faked footage of some key historical event like the moon landing - NOT that they DID. It's intended to make people aware that...

Check some of the more recent posts - seems harry was easily sucked into believing this BS because he's so willing to believe almost any conspiracy theory (no matter how ludicrous), even one's that are put on as a joke to show how easy it could be to fool people. Even after he was told it was...

Oh, I see - you ass-u-me that newspapers seeking headlines as inciting (not insightful) as possible to sell papers are (1) always the final authority on a subject and (2) never make mistakes or spin the issue That explains a lot.

You don't seem to understand how the Supreme Court works or what its responsibilities are. You just want what you want regardless of whether it's consistent with the SC's mandate. The court is (1) under no obligation to rule on a case that is improperly brought to it (as this one was) and...

A supposition on your part is far from a fact. Do they want to deal with the issue? Some justices seem to have wanted to voice an opinion given the side comments (although you probably wouldn't have liked their opinions), but the vote was 8-0 to dismiss because the case was improperly...

You can argue that they ducked the issue all you want. However, the fact is that the real message the Supreme Court sent was to the lower courts (especially the overly aggressive and much overturned 9th Circuit) that instead of seeking to immediately jump in and forward their own activist...

Now, now - don't argue with harry - afterall, he reads New Scientist (and apparently believe anything he reads) :)