Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : High Tolerance Plasticity -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: que seria who wrote (9349)	10/11/2001 11:02:48 AM
From: MetalTrader	Respond to of 23153

current month puts..hmmm...pretty ballsy <s>. I think you got the analogy right. With that in mind, I'd probably blow on them and let em roll. mt

To: que seria who wrote (9349)	10/11/2001 11:07:28 AM
From: Sharp_End_Of_Drill	Respond to of 23153

Que Seria, you are not alone re shorting tech. I shorted VRSN again today at 49, and have hooks in the water for VRSN at 50 and MXIM at 45. Verisign has been very good to me in recent months, with multiple trips to the well. Sharp

To: que seria who wrote (9349)	10/11/2001 11:48:32 AM
From: aerosappy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

QQQ and other puts que seria, RE: <<Am I alone in thinking that buying current month puts on QQQ is a good speculation right now, better odds than craps even if not as much fun?>> Tommaso and others think that I may be headed to bankruptcy, but I agree with your approach to profit from snappers and an eventual return of a bull market. In my trading accounts, I wrote puts (front month, Spring 2002 and '03 + '04 LEAPs) on QQQ, AMAT, BHI, BJS, CPN, DO, GLM, HAL, MIR, NBR, NE and WFT. I used part of the cash proceeds to buy March '02 calls on some of the stocks and '03 & '04 call LEAPs on the Cubes. In my long-term portfolio, over the past 30 days I wrote many calls (e.g., GP, HD, JNJ, JPM, MO, MRK, PG, RD, TECD). This month the call buyers will profit hugely from the calls I sold them.

To: que seria who wrote (9349)	10/11/2001 11:51:59 AM
From: kodiak_bull	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 23153

QS: No, you're not alone, but I think you might be a tad early. Let's take a moment to review the VIX: finance.lycos.com The VIX continues to fall, as you can see, and today's rally took me out of a couple of traders, RBAK and ACTM, fwiw. As for RBAK I couldn't turn down a 4 day 32% return; I've had too many of those turn into 4 month 4% return so I know when it's time to cut the asparagus. Back to the VIX. I believe, given these times and the general uncertainty, that VIX will give us the "run for cover" signal (otherwise known as the "go short") signal a little higher than otherwise, for me that means 27-29, rather than the 23-24 range. I hate to be cynical, but let me just list the things which make me suspicious about where we are: It's October AG & Bob Rubin's Old Tyme Good Tyme's Variety Show Appearances a while ago The new Peter Lynch Commercial The FBI pooh-poohing 3 (Three!!) Anthrax cases The Economy has just taken a 1.25-2 billion$$ direct hit, collateral damage yet to be determined We're now in a full spending stimulation mode, fiscal discipline is gone with the breezes The economy stool now stands on two legs: real estate wealth & consumer spending, both are termite eaten and wobbling badly This rally fueled by Goldman Sachs switching a customer from bonds to stocks?? OSX defying gravity, OPEC inaction, oil prices, inventory fills, dayrates falling and rigs stacking In any event, it strikes me it's not a bad time to convert some trading gains to cash and practice some more patience. It will soon be a good time to reestablish some short positions and try to ride them down for the next, retest leg of the post 9/11 bottom, imho. Kb

To: que seria who wrote (9349)	10/11/2001 12:05:16 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Respond to of 23153

Que seria I think your point about the courts being bogged down with criminal prosecution for drug crimes is absolutely correct. Not only are the federal courts swamped with these cases, the state courts are as well. In addition a huge amount of resources go to stockpiling all of the offenders in jails and prisons. The war on drugs is being won by the prison guards and prison builders, prosecutors and all of the others who make their living in the jail and prison system. I don't know what the answer is to a very real drug problem, but it surely seems the one we have now is ineffective and expensive. Another point you make; "I'd say the rights aren't being infringed, but rather that they aren't "rights" to begin with if judges can permit action contrary to them," is also correct. I don't, however, think this is a bad thing. There are always special situations where the general rule is not applicable because of special circumstances such that applying the general rule will cause more harm than good. Our constitution gave our courts the final say on most issues and provided a constitutional right to a jury trial on some. I think the founding fathers feared the courts much less than the executive and legislative branches. The executive branch wields physical power and the legislative branch answers to the majority. Only the judicial branch has no police or army and only the judicial branch is obligated to protect the rights of the minority from the majority, even when that protection is extremely unpopular. We are getting farther and farther away from those ideals in the judiciary. One reason is that the judiciary is going through one of those phases where it is becoming more common for judges to make political decisions instead of interpreting legislative intent and applying it, ie., see the S/Cts decision in the last election. Yes, pick either the Florida or the U.S. court. They are supposed to "interpret" and apply the law pusrsuant to the intent of the legislators unless the law infringes upon a constitutionally protected right. Only then are they constitutionally allowed to strike out the law or, alternatively, to interpret (rewrite) the legislation in a way which accomplishes as many of the legislative goals as possible WITHOUT violating the constitution. The exception, of course, is that the court can give effect to legislation which infringes upon rights granted in the constitution where that infringement is warranted by a compelling state interest and, in that event, the legislation must be given as narrow effect as possible. The second reason we are getting farther and farther away from a judiciary that truly performs these functions is that many judicial positions are now actually subject to ELECTION. Someone might be able to explain how the last bastion of protection for the minority intersts in this country should be subject to the vote of the majority in order to continue to hold a judicial position (minority meaning not just racial but also other interests that are valid and potentially protected under the constitution but might happen to be in disfavor with the majority such as the right to bear arms or the right to be free from unlawful search and seizure). For me the bottom line is that the courts should be unpopular. That is their job. It is up to them to look deeper than the current common wisdom and to see currents that will carry us not back and forth from fad to fad, but forward on the winds of the opinions of our founders who valued and protected the rights of all men to live freely. The court's reputation has been dangerously damaged by moderators like Limbaugh who have made a living out of ridiculing the courts and court decisions, many of which were misrepresented or taken out of context, and insurance interests who have spent billions of dollars impugning the wisdom of juries in order to justify more laws limiting their exposure and to justify higher and higher rates (while they refused in almost every instance to waive a jury in an injury lawsuit because they know that juries arew not only usually fair, they are more than fair in being conservative in damages). The result is that the one institution that truly does safeguard our system of government and our personal freedoms is under extreme attack, largely because it does it's job and makes unpopular decisions and partly because it has no voice to defend itself from the charges of those who gain politically by attacking it, and this is difficult for me to understand. Take away all those lawyers and limit the power of the court and what do you have? The power goes somewhere else. We should all think about that. Sorry for getting on the soapbox and going on so long but I made a lot of money while typing so why change my luck. g. Ed PS Today's pop quiz. Did anyone read the post from our past associate on the AM that the nasd. dropped in the morning and then began this latest rally. The post was posted on the rig Yahoo board just before this latest run up in the nasd and drop in gold. Our associate was margined, 25% short the nasd., 65% long in gold stocks and 10% long in oils. I'd say that going into margin to be 90% wrong as a short term trading guru might have been a mistake. Of course he may have reversed course later that day and gone short gold, long nasd, and stayed long oils. Any guesses on who it was? Hint, he's one of the "few." gg. Ed

To: que seria who wrote (9349)	10/11/2001 2:24:46 PM
From: energyplay	Respond to of 23153

Re: Current months puts on QQQ - why not buy more time ? Jim Cramer says there are so many puts bought for October that he expects the market to hold up well until at least after expiration. I personally am looking for at least January, and I prefer March expirations. There's a rumour that bin Laden has been capatured : this rumour can persists for a while. There are a lot of shorts, and money on the sideline that can come in. Eventually, the over valuation of the QQQ will cause them to drop - but they could hold up for a few months.