The reason why the stock was halted is because by law information about a company has to be released where everyone gets the information at the same time. My question is who was buying before everyone else heard of the news? They must have gotten the information early and had a unfair advantage over everyone else.
I just hope MSFT acts in bad faith with the supreme court as it did with the lower court.
There are articles on both sides of the argument, depending on the bias of the media (IBD generally digs up evidence supporting the supply/demand theory, while the other liberal media digs up evidence supporting illegal behavior). I read where somebody entering prices in the market decide to see what would happen if they entered $9,999.00 per megawatt (they would have entered a higher number but didn't realize the computer would take a larger number). This was 10 times higher then normal, and the California ISO paid it!! Now tell me, If you saw the price of something suddenly jump 10 times, would you buy it?
I can also buy into power generators taking down generators under the guise of maintenance to take advantage of the situation, and if they did, they should be penalized. I believe prices would have gone up, because of demand. California has had a 24% population increase along with increased appliances in the home over the last 10 years with no new plants. This would have caused prices to go up. Maybe the bottom line is that not only does government meddling mess up the market dynamics, but induces people to try to take advantage of the government officials, who are probably not as business savy.
And oh by the way, there is a lot of 'renewable' energy generators here in California shutting down because they are not getting paid. Our Gray 'Putin' Davis is negotiating contracts with only certain power generators, trying to buy power lines, and leaving the little guy out. All I want to know is where are the environmentalists who demanded 'renewable' energy and blocked new plants!!!
RE:Trading - I love it! However, it takes alot of time and patience to do it well. And then sometimes that is not all it takes! Often times it is just pure luck! I spend alot of time reading, researching, constantly watching world current events and how they might adversely impact a sector, or how an event might enhance a sector. Then it's off to find the best of the best stocks in those sectors for trading. I won't go into detail here, but will tell you that I love it, and I don't want to do anything else. But it does take alot of time and patience and an iron stomach!
Apples vs Oranges - I agree to a point about supply and demand. In fact, I am nearly in total agreement with you, however, the rolling black outs in CA got me started thinking about supply and demand. The result of my thoughts were not pretty, come to find out awhile back that those thoughts were not far off base! I started off buying the supply and demand argument about electricity in CA. But I just could not find any facts to support that. There was no unusally hot weather fronts that came and stayed, there was not a sudden huge population influx to create the "sudden" shortage. I did not like what I was thinking, which was that somewhere the electric supply was being held back, so the prices could be driven up. Sure enough, investigations have resulted in finding that very situation existed! I don't have details, but I recall reading several articles on it! So pardon my distrust at "energy" shortages...and why I don't just buy supply and demand! I live in the Chicago area, and last winter was not any more severe than the previous 5, however our natural gas bills tripled!!!
I concur with you regarding the Government. I also concur with George Bush's opinion that this is a litigation happy society. (Obviously I am not a lawyer!) I just want my tax money spent on something more productive then attacking one of America's strongest companies!
I enjoy your discussion also. It just takes so long to weed through the lousy messages to get to the constructive ones like yours!
Wishing you a good evening!
This is a good discussion - I wish the media would provide such objective viewpoints!!! I also wish these message boards were used by more people like you with constructive comments.
Your argument is a good one (apples vs. oranges). However, I would argue that it depends on the supply and demand of the market. I live in the Bay Area and can personally attest to the "fair and what is excessive" comment. Last year house prices climbed astronomically as the demand easily outstripped supply. I can cite many examples of 'price gouging', but the most memorable is the house that was listed for $1.2M and sold for $2.4M!!! Should the government have stepped in and claimed the price the seller got was excessive? You are right; it was someone choice to pay that price. However, using gas as an example, I have a choice. I could trade in my gas guzzling V8 SUV for a small compact getting 26 miles per gallon vs. 15. This would be the equivalent of reducing the price per gallon to $1.10 from $1.90. Of course, I don't want to do this because I like my SUV for various reasons, including immediate cost of purchasing a new vehicle.
I do agree with OPEC's power to manipulate, however, I have read that the number of refineries producing gas has dropped by 50%, that no new plants have been built in California since the late 80's, that no new gas pipelines have been built for 20 years (it is acknowledged that there is plenty of gas, just not enough pipelines), and that regulations require 15 different formulations of gas. I have been in operations for 15 years and can tell you that the more product mix you have, the more imbalances you have in your inventories, having too little of something and to much of another.
I'm getting winded, so a point I'd like to make is that the government's role should be as a referee. If any company acted illegally to drive up prices, then they should be penalized. But I believe that demand is as big a part of the problem with current price increases as illegal activity.
PS: I am looking into trading as a new career - any comments?
If you read the court decision, this is not great news for MSFT. In fact, they were still found guilty of monopoly practices on several fronts. The punishment may change -- but there will be a punishment -- and it will cost MSFT a lot of money.
MSFT will probably announce prior to the stock reopening that they will seek a settlement with the government. The government will say NO, and MSFT stock will be back down in the mid 60's in short order.
Read it again...
They will NOT be split, yes that means SOMEWHAT guilty like any company is in one way or another.
This is huge and the gov will say yes to any kind of settlement, this is finished.... new adm will not push this any more, it would be a joke ot try.