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.

Strategies & Market Trends : IPPs and Merchant Energy Co.s -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: KyrosL who wrote (893)	1/8/2003 10:32:53 AM
From: Larry S.	Respond to of 3358

Holy Moly Batman, look at DYN's 5 day chart: 139.142.147.22

To: KyrosL who wrote (893)	1/8/2003 10:36:09 AM
From: ItsAllCyclical	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3358

DUK broke above it's 100 dma at 21.15 now. Current 100 dma is around 20.9. Still needs to clear 21.25, but I'm confident it'll happen soon. DUK should bring more institutional money back into the sector. Still light volume though. I think today many DYN longs will take some profits and rotate into RRI, CPN, and MIR. Utilities and gold for 2003. Nice to see both up on a down day in the markets. Have KGC, WHT and MNG in golds.

To: KyrosL who wrote (893)	1/8/2003 11:00:19 AM
From: Dale Baker	Respond to of 3358

The witch hunters were probably better administrators than the idiots running CA these days. WMB breaking out nicely today; chart has a fat gap up to $5 if WMB can break through the August high at 4.30. RRI also having a very nice day. The refi news should pop it over $5 or higher when it comes.

To: KyrosL who wrote (893)	1/8/2003 9:33:28 PM
From: majaman1978	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3358

Kyros or anyone, have you ever looked at the Calpine Capital Trust Preferreds which trade on the pink sheets? What do you think of these?

To: KyrosL who wrote (893)	1/9/2003 3:19:50 AM
From: Raymond Duray	Respond to of 3358

Don't try to overplay your hand. Cal ISO is under a cloud right now for complicity in the deceptions. Very many folks including the CA AG and the PUC take a very different view of the situation than what was presented in that whitewash puff piece you just presented.

To: KyrosL who wrote (893)	1/9/2003 7:11:15 AM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 3358

To think that the IPP industry was almost destroyed because of charges like this, with chief inquisitor the CA attorney general[...] Not surprising, really, to those with the dual blessing of governmental/regulatory skepticism and an understanding of the economics of markets. Excerpted (Sept 24th, 2002): "What we are being told is that the power producers were in a position to do extra business -- they allegedly had all the necessary generating capacity -- but simply refused to do it. We are being told a story which, if applied to restaurants or coffee shops, say, would claim that additional normal-type, well-behaved customers were coming through their doors, ready to order from their menus, and that even though these food-service establishments had the all the necessary means of filling the additional customers' orders, they simply refused to do so -- indeed, they refused to do so out of reasons of greed! It should be obvious to everyone that this is the most utter nonsense. It is never profitable -- and, therefore, never reasonable -- for a business to refuse to do business that is profitable for it to do. To pretend that businessmen and their greed are nonetheless responsible for people not being supplied, and for people therefore suffering deprivation and even death, is to display an ignorance of elementary economic law surpassing the ignorance of physical law on the part of those who claim that broomsticks are means of flight. Probably those who are spreading the nonsense about the power companies have in mind the idea that the power companies somehow conspired to reduce the supply of power in order to raise its price. Even if such a conspiracy existed, which has never been proved and was not even alleged in the recent tales appearing in the press, it could not possibly explain a withholding of supply in the face of a shortage. The shortage exists and endures only because the price is not allowed to go high enough to eliminate it by reducing the quantity demanded to the level of the limited supply available. When it becomes clear that the price will not be allowed to rise any further — and there could be no clearer proof of this than the imminence of brownouts, not to mention blackouts — then no reasonable motive exists for a power company not to sell as much as it profitably can at the prevailing price." Message 18028038 LPS5