Tue, Oct 21, 2014, 9:19 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed


% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Frontline Ltd. Message Board

barbershores 381 posts  |  Last Activity: 24 minutes ago Member since: Oct 15, 2005
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • barbershores barbershores 24 minutes ago Flag

    Hi Mr. Dakine,

    Sometimes if I don't make a comment, I don't put in quotation marks.

    Perhaps it's too much to expect people to read the article when they have to cut and paste the link into a browser then change the DOTKOM. It was a lot easier in the old days when links were hypertext, and all you had to do was click on the link and it would take you there.

    Best of luck,


  • barbershores barbershores 48 minutes ago Flag

    Hi Mr. Dakine,

    This is my third attempt to respond to you on this string. My posts keep dissipating into cyberspace. So, I shall keep it short.

    From your post: "I don't think you understood the point I was making. Mr. Shores clearly stated that US retail prices for electricity were at 10.08 cents per kwh."
    I never stated any such thing.

    You have me confused with the author of the article.

    If you don't like the content of a book, don't complain to Amazon. Contact the author.

    You can find him by following the link I provided in the original post of the string.

    Just sayin.

    Best of luck,


  • barbershores barbershores Oct 19, 2014 12:53 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Dakine,

    Boy, you are bringing up ancient history here. When I was a kid, we all loved the Bonzo movies. When someone saw one come on on his black and white small screen TV, he would knock on doors to let us know it was on and we would all pile into his living room. They were great fun and we all loved to think that monkeys can actually act.--------lagofac--------

    Anyway, let me see if I understand your point. Do you propose that Mr. Obama is okay spending money that was supposed to be spent protecting the American people from diseases like ebola, on frivolous local lighting, because a president from the dark ages of American politics was an actor?

    Mr. Obama is looking for more funds to battle ebola. A noble and worthwhile cause.

    But he already had the money but chose to squander it.

    This is an excellent example of what is wrong with the government of America today.

    I don't think you know or understand Ronald Reagan at all.

    Mr. Reagan was a liberal. He was a member of the democrat party for much of his political career.

    But, when the democrat party turned stoutly anti business, he left claiming: "in 1962.[68] In August of that year, Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me"." from wikipedia

    Reagan was truly a liberal republican. I know you don't have a box to slip that into, I hope the realization doesn't cause your head to explode.

    In 1980 the American people were offered two liberals to vote for for president. One a democrat, James Earl "Jimmy" Carter, Jr., and Ronald Wilson Reagan a republican at the time.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,


    lagofac= leaving a great opening for a comeback

  • Money earmarked to defeat infectious diseases is diverted to sidewalks and street lighting.

    Yeah, it's an opinion piece. Sorry


    "In the midst of the Ebola crisis, the Obama administration has no business spending hundreds of millions of dollars for the Centers for Disease Control to fund "non-essential" programs that give grants for things like improving sidewalks and street lighting, Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal writes in an opinion piece for Politico."

    "This fund receives annual mandatory appropriations created by Obamacare, according to Jindal, who notes that despite nearly $3 billion the CDC has received from the fund over the past five years, just 6 percent went toward building epidemiology and lab capacity.

    "Especially given the agency's postwar roots as the Communicable Disease Center, one would think that 'detecting and responding to infectious diseases and other public health threats' warrants a larger funding commitment," Jindal writes.

    He points out that the community transformation grant program received three times as much money as what was appropriated to fight infectious disease.

    While there's certainly a place for the kind of projects funded through the community transformation grant program, they should be funded by states, localities or private charities, according to Jindal.

    "To govern is to choose," he writes. "Unfortunately, this administration seems intent on not choosing, instead trying to insinuate Washington into every nook and cranny of our lives.
    Latest: Do You Support a Travel Ban on West Africa Nations? Vote Here.

    "It's a misguided and dangerous gambit, for two reasons. First, a federal government with nearly $18 trillion in debt has no business spending money on non-essential priorities. Second, a government that attempts to do too much will likely excel at little. "

  • thinkprogressDOTORG/climate/2014/10/16/3580538/germany-renewable-energy-surcharge-drop/

    For the first time ever, German consumers are about to see a drop in the surcharge they pay for renewable energy.
    Germany’s green energy policies include long-term contracts that require feeding renewables like wind and solar into the grid while guaranteeing them above-market rates. The goal is to build out the country’s renewable generation capacity, but the costs of the scheme are passed on to consumers through a surcharge on their electricity bills. It was introduced in 2000, and has risen every year since — including a fivefold jump since 2009 — and currently stands at 6.24 euro cents (7.99 U.S. cents) per kilowatt-hour.
    But Germany’s four major grid operators recently released a joint statement saying that surcharge would fall to 6.17 euro cents (7.8 U.S. cents) in 2015, according to Renewable Energy World. The surcharge is expected to drop again in 2016 to 6.05 euro cents, then tick back up slightly to 6.2 euro cents in 2017.
    As of now, the average German home pays around 220 euros ($281.53) a year to finance the country’s clean energy through the surcharge. That’s left the country’s household power costs the second-highest in the European Union.
    “[The reduced price] shows that we have successfully stopped the cost dynamic of the past years,” said Germany’s Economy Minister Sigmar Gabriel in a statement e-mailed by his ministry. “This will help stabilize power prices for consumers.” Federations representing large swaths of German industry insist, however, that much more needs to be done to bring the costs down, and the surcharge has been a political thorn in the side of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government for years.
    However, support for the country’s green energy policies remains high among the German populace, arguably because the citizens themselves locally own half the country’s renewable capacity — meaning they benefit from the returns on investment even as they pay

  • forbesDOTKOM/sites/jamestaylor/2014/10/17/electricity-prices-soaring-in-top-10-wind-power-states/

    Electricity Prices Soaring In Top Wind Power States

    Electricity prices are soaring in states generating the most wind power, U.S. Energy Information Administration data show. Although U.S. electricity prices rose less than 3 percent from 2008-2013, the 10 states with the highest percentage of wind power generation experienced average electricity price increases of more than 20 percent.

    The wind power industry claims switching from conventional power to wind power will save consumers money and spur the economy. However, data from the top 10 wind power states show just the opposite. From 2008-2013 electricity prices rose an average of 20.7 percent in the top 10 wind power states, which is seven-fold higher than the national electricity price increase of merely 2.8 percent.

    The electricity price increases in states producing the most wind power don’t tell the whole story. Federal and state taxpayer subsidies to wind power producers hide additional costs of wind power. The federal wind power Production Tax Credit (PTC), for example, gave wind power producers 2.3 cents for every kilowatt hour of wind power production last year. With U.S. retail electricity prices at 10.08 cents per kilowatt hour, the PTC allowed wind power producers to hide over 20 percent of wind power costs. This allowed the wind power industry to charge the American people still more money in backdoor tax bills, in addition to the higher retail electricity prices documented above.

  • Reply to

    OT BS How is Europe's cap and trade doing?

    by barbershores Oct 16, 2014 12:49 AM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 16, 2014 8:12 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Stocks,

    I shall take your question literally. Probably a bad idea though. From your post: "Germany just opened up a new COAL fired plant and have started the construction of 23 more Coal fired plants. Why is that?"
    Because they need constant/dependable base power to make up for all the nuclear they shut down.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,


  • Reply to

    OT BS Yet another solar power company in Hawaii

    by barbershores Oct 15, 2014 11:19 PM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 16, 2014 8:04 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Stocks,

    I have a neighbor here in my town in New Hampshire that swears that his solar installation has cut his energy bill by over 50%.

    He is away all Winter to Florida, but the solar panels are used to drive his geothermal heat pump heating system. It runs when the sun shines to 80f then turns on with grid power when/if the temperature gets down to 40f.

    In the summer it runs his air conditioning and other needs.

    In New Hampshire, no power is allowed to enter the grid from home solar or wind for line maintenance safety reasons. So, any excess power is just shunted to ground. He builds up excess energy production credits, which he does not get paid for, but he can use to pay his grid electric bill with it.

    His neighbors, including myself, pay for his pulling from the grid, but we get no benefit from his excess power generation.

    He loves the system. Says everybody should do it.

    Maybe he's right.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,


  • Sure glad we didn't let the democrats suck "us" into this useless pile of manure.


    Europe’s surplus of carbon permits may more than double by 2020, threatening to render the world’s biggest emissions trading system irrelevant for the foreseeable future, according to environmental lobby group Sandbag.

    The glut of allowances in the European Union carbon market, the bloc’s key policy tool to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, may climb to 4.5 billion metric tons in the next six years, from 2.1 billion tons at the end of 2013, the London-based group said in a report. ArcelorMittal, the world’s biggest steelmaker, had the biggest surplus, based on EU data compiled by Sandbag.

    The excess, aggravated by an economic slowdown since 2008, drove the carbon permit price down to levels that undermine the incentive for polluters to cut emissions. EU heads of state and government are meeting next week to discuss a proposal to cut greenhouse gases by 40 percent by 2030 from 1990 levels. The current goal is to cut pollution 20 percent by 2020.

    “Our overriding concern remains the monstrous surplus of allowances continuing to build up in the scheme, blocking the cost-effective path to reduced emissions,” Sandbag said. “Even with the welcome policy changes, the allocation of allowances under the current cap continues to be higher than demand, and the surplus is growing day by day.”

    The permit glut may grow at almost 1 million tons a day over 2013-20, based on assumptions that include falling power consumption, more renewable generation and increased industrial energy efficiency, according to the report. Electricity use is predicted to drop 10 percent this decade as rising power prices spur a switch to more-efficient products, the lobby said.

    Price Slump

    Permits allowing the holder to emit one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere have slumped 80 percent from a peak in 2008.

  • Reply to

    OT BS Yet another solar power company in Hawaii

    by barbershores Oct 15, 2014 11:19 PM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 16, 2014 12:36 AM Flag

    Hi Mr. Dakine,

    From the article: "The goal is to make solar energy available to homeowners at no upfront cost. Customers will instead pay monthly fees for the electricity generated, at a rate about 40 percent lower than average in Hawaii, according to Kina’ole."
    I get what you are saying. But this plan looks different to me than what you are stating and what I had read before.

    The benefit is probably for folks that don't have the cash or the ability to get a loan to install such a system. Instead, they allow patagonia to put in their hardware, then the homeowner gets a reduction of 40% on every kilowatt of power they use from the solar cells.

    It looks to me like it has a lot of potential for low income homeowners.

    If they don't do a plan like this, they just keep going forwards with their existing billing system.

    Adding a bank of solar panels to one's house, whether they pay for it themselves with cash, get a loan, or have it done at the cost of a patagonia, is probably going to add some complexity to a sale.

    With the high electric cost in Hawaii, maybe it is a big plus, especially if the new buyer doesn't have to come up with extra cash to cover the investment. Instead, they just sublet the solar panels.

    Oil prices are falling. So, with time, this should work it's way through the system and consumers in Hawaii should have slightly lower electrical costs anyway since most of the power comes from burning oil. I figure Hawaiian electric oil plants probably run number 5 or 6 bunkers oil. That's cheaper than number 2 heating oil. Probably costs you about 8 cents per kwh with $100/barrel oil. So if oil falls to $75, you will eventually probably save 2 cents.

    I just read on the "State of Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism
    " site that for 2013, 1 out of every 3 private homes already have solar. But solar only makes up 1% or less of power.




  • It won't even slow it down. "Abundant Natural Gas Won't Slow Climate Change, Study Says"


    Cheap and plentiful natural gas isn't quite a bridge to a brighter energy future as claimed and won't slow global warming, a new study projects.

    Abundant natural gas in the United States has been displacing coal, which produces more of the chief global warming gas carbon dioxide.

    But the new international study says an expansion of natural gas use by 2050 would also keep other energy-producing technologies like wind, solar and nuclear, from being used more. And those technologies are even better than natural gas for avoiding global warming.

    Computer simulations show that emissions of heat-trapping gases to make electricity would not decline worldwide and could possibly go up, says the study, released Wednesday by the journal Nature.

    Unconventional techniques such as high-volume hydraulic fracturing and ultra-deep water drilling have increased global supplies of natural gas so much that prices are now expected to remain relatively low for years to come. That makes generating electricity with natural gas cheaper than it otherwise would be, and makes it harder for wind and solar to compete

    Five teams of experts from around the world, using five different sets of computer model simulations, looked at what would happen if natural gas — also known as methane — remains cheap and plentiful and nothing else changes, such as policy mandates. They all came to the same conclusion.

    "It doesn't reduce climate change," said study lead author Haewon McJeon, an economist at the U.S. Department of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

    Two computer models even found that when considering other factors like methane leaks, cheaper natural gas could lead to more trapping of heat by greenhouse gases, the mechanism that drives global warming. Methane traps even more heat

  • businessweekDOTKOM/articles/2014-10-03/patagonia-will-start-paying-for-homeowners-solar-panels-in-hawaii

    Patagonia plans to use state and federal tax credits to invest $13 million in the construction of solar panels on 1,000 homes in Hawaii, turning the eco-conscious retailer into the financial backer of a green electrical utility.

    With the announcement on Wednesday, Patagonia hopes companies across America will follow suit with similar efforts. “Any U.S. public or private company who pays their fair share of taxes can use this strategy to speed up the development of new energy infrastructure,” Rose Marcario, Patagonia’s chief executive, said in an interview. “And they can make money doing it and create jobs.”

    Patagonia is joining forces with a tiny solar-financing company, Kina’ole Capital Partners, as well as a local Hawaiian bank to create a $27 million fund to pay for rooftop installation and upkeep. Starting in Hawaii makes sense because of its abundant sunshine and sky-high electrical rates; Hawaiians currently pay three times the U.S. average for electricity.

    STORY: Why a Chinese Firm’s Solar-Panel Factory in Arizona Failed
    Patagonia’s team will take advantage of credits that reduce the tax liability for purchases of qualifying solar technologies. The goal is to make solar energy available to homeowners at no upfront cost. Customers will instead pay monthly fees for the electricity generated, at a rate about 40 percent lower than average in Hawaii, according to Kina’ole.

    The fund will begin making a profit as soon as it recoups the installation and operational costs. “If the system doesn’t produce power, [customers] don’t pay,” says Andrew Yani, a co-founder of Kina’ole. “So we’re incentivized to make sure it works.”

    The size of each solar panel system will be customized to each homeowner’s needs so as not to overproduce energy. In the event that too much is generated, the power will flow back into the grid and the homeowner will get a credit from her s

  • foolDOTKOM/investing/general/2014/10/15/new-york-saw-875-higher-energy-prices-last-winte-2.aspx

    But what happens if you close nuclear power plants? The easy answer is that other sources have to step up to the plate and make up for the lost power. The hard answer is that natural gas will become even more important than it already is to the northeast's grid. Although that shouldn't be a problem most of the time, the lack of diversity causes notable problems during peak demand periods -- like last winter's so-called polar vortex. Taking nuclear plants offline would reduce New York's power diversity, which would have notable consequences.

    Carbon problems
    The other reason why New York might not want to close its nuclear power plants is carbon dioxide. Whether you believe in global warming or not, there's a huge push to limit greenhouse gas emissions like CO2. And the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) proposed carbon limits, though years away from implementation, clearly show that ignoring the issue isn't an option.

    Unlike power plants burning coal and natural gas, nuclear power plants don't emit greenhouse gases. That's a big plus for nuclear, even though it has an image problem on the safety front. But how big is the CO2 problem?

    According to UBS estimates, closing Indian Point, owned by Entergy (NYSE: ETR ) , would increase the state's carbon emissions by over 25%. Closing three smaller plants (Ginna, Fitzpatrick, and Nine Mile) would increase carbon dioxide emissions by nearly 40%. Why? Because the lost power has to come from somewhere and that would most likely include carbon-based fuels.

  • Now we're talkin. Instead of shipping out LNG or crude oil overseas, build factories to refine and convert those commodities into high value products.


    BISMARCK, N.D., Oct. 15 (UPI) -- North Dakota is the "national powerhouse" when it comes to turning its vast energy resources into value for the state, Gov. Jack Dalrymple said.
    Dalrymple and other high-ranking state officials addressed the Great Plains and Empower North Dakota Energy Conference, highlighting the billions of dollars in investments made in a state at the heart of the shale oil and gas boom.

    "North Dakota is a national powerhouse in energy production and we have taken important steps to convert our energy resources into products of greater value," the governor said.

    Dalrymple said the state has the right policies in place to empower all parts of the energy sector to work together to meet the growing demand for affordable energy.

    Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D., said at the conference the state stands as an example of what can be accomplished with a healthy business climate. It's among the national leaders in terms of economic growth.

    The comments follow an announcement by Badlands NGL, LLC of plans to build a $4 billion processing plants to convert ethane gas taken from shale deposits in the state into polyethylene, which is used in the plastics industry.

    While the state's Bakken oil reserve is one of the premier shale basins in the country, it lacks the infrastructure do utilize natural gas associated with oil deposits. The Badland project will help utilize that gas and represents the largest investment in state history.

  • Looks like maybe 2 1/2 or 3 months is the critical time period.


    DryShips Inc. (DRYS), the drybulk carrier that faces a potential funding shortfall as $700 million of debt comes due in less than two months, is seeking a bank loan after a bond sale fell through over the weekend.

    The shipper would use the loan in addition to sources that include a $350 million financing from ABN Amro Group NV, $100 million available in a credit line from Nordea Bank AB, cash on hand as well as a funding commitment from Chief Executive Officer George Economou, according to two people with knowledge of the company’s plans, who asked not to be identified because the talks are private.

    The conveyer of dry goods such as iron ore, coal and grain pulled the bond offering to pay its convertible note due Dec. 1 after funding costs for speculative-grade borrowers surged to the highest in a year and potential buyers demanded at least 12 percent interest. The financing deal comes after DryShips, which also has tanker and offshore drilling units, said as of June it was negotiating with creditors to get waivers or restructure some of its $6 billion of debt that ran afoul of rules governing loan agreements.

    “It’s a perfect storm of the capital markets being shut and oil going down,” Andrew Casella, an equity analyst at Imperial Capital LLC that cut DryShips’s shares to “underperform” yesterday, said in a telephone interview. “These two things blew up at the same time. And I am shocked they waited this long to refinance.”

    Pulled Offering

    DryShips canceled a $700 million offering of secured notes over the weekend that would have refinanced the convertible after potential investors demanded a sweetened yield, one of the people said. The average yield on speculative-grade bonds rose to 6.54 percent Oct. 10, the highest level in a year, according to Bank of America Merrill

  • Reply to

    Rates up again

    by rami36 Oct 9, 2014 8:35 PM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 15, 2014 1:44 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Stocks,

    I don't see oil cratering as low as you think. If it does, I expect it won't be there for long at all.

    Reason being that OPEC is purposely opening the spigots right now. When oil hits their price target, I expect they will cut back production, and the whole thing will swing up again.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,


  • Reply to

    Rates up again

    by rami36 Oct 9, 2014 8:35 PM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 15, 2014 1:42 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Rami,

    Mr. Dan may be right on this one. Frontline is up over 6% today during a period that while I am writing this, the DOW is down over 440 points.

    Other stocks that look interesting to me are UNG, and PLUG. They aren't up, but aren't caught up in the blood bath of the broad market either. They are supporting better.

    For FRO to be up nicely when the market is in shambles is saying something.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,


  • Reply to

    OT BS Nuclear News

    by barbershores Oct 2, 2014 5:23 PM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 15, 2014 1:22 PM Flag

    Hi Mr. Rott,

    Nice catch in that article.

    The problem with solar and wind power is that in order to maintain power availability, there has to be a grid with a base power production capability large enough to power everything 100% anyway, so power is uninterrupted during periods of no sun or wind. So, solar and wind are near always done on a "total grid" "plus" cost basis.

    With a nuclear based grid, be it fission or fusion, the grid production itself would be carbon free, and as such, carbon free solar and wind produced power would merely be redundant.

    An exception to the lack of need for solar and wind power is for during peak energy demand periods to stave off having to install an additional base power investment increment.

    To get away from carbon generating/releasing base power plants, either cost effective storage combined with wind/solar, or acceptable nuclear base capacity will be required.

    For constant power supply, development will cause either storage to work, or nuclear to work, or we will end up with just some incremental yet not really significant level of wind and solar with continuing high carbon generating base making most of the power. This is "not" part of a successful path to ending global warming.

    The other concept, is to accept non constant power supply. In private settings, or even micro grids, to have people accept living in an environment with non constant power supply. Wells run when the wind is blowing or the sun is shining. Take showers when the hot tank is hot.

    Of all of these choices, a nuclear powered base has the most to offer. Carbon free power available whenever demanded. No expensive redundant systems necessary.

    Just my take.

    Best of luck,


  • Reply to

    OT BS Nuclear News

    by barbershores Oct 2, 2014 5:23 PM
    barbershores barbershores Oct 14, 2014 10:37 PM Flag


    The aim of the overall project, initiated by the US Department of Energy and led by Georgia Institute of Technology, is to design a power plant whose size would be reduced and safety enhanced by breaking with convention and integrating the main heat exchangers inside the secure pressure vessel where the nuclear reactions take place. This innovation gives the design its name: Integral Inherently Safe Light Water Reactor (I2S-LWR).

    Dr Geoff Parks, who is leading the Cambridge team, says: "The fact that we are part of such a pioneering international project not only reflects the UK's enduring reputation in nuclear science and engineering – it also provides a platform for the UK to develop a new suite of relevant, globally marketable skills for the years and decades ahead. If all goes to plan, construction of the first I2S-LWRs could begin in around 10 years, making deployment of nuclear power more practical, more cost-effective and more publicly acceptable worldwide."

    The I2S-LWR, which could also be constructed off-site, module by module, and then quickly assembled on site, would be suitable for deployment worldwide. In this country, it could contribute to a new era of nuclear power that helps the UK meet its carbon reduction targets and energy security objectives; no new nuclear power station has been built here since Sizewell B began generating in 1995. With a power rating of around 1GW, the output from the I2S-LWR would be comparable with Sizewell B's 1.2GW rating, but the station should be significantly less costly in real terms.

    The EPSRC-funded part of the project will help the UK reinvigorate its technical expertise in civil nuclear power and attract a new generation of engineers and scientists to the field. Expertise of this kind will be crucial to securing the UK's nuclear future but has significantly diminished during the 20 year 'nuclear hibernation' where no new nuclear power stations have come

  • barbershores barbershores Oct 14, 2014 8:36 PM Flag

    Apparently, now the courts can force people to go to religious services.

    What happened to the separation of church and state?


    The city of Tulsa, Oklahoma, punished one of its own veteran police commanders for his refusal to attend a Muslim religious service being held at a mosque he said practiced radical Islamic dogma, according to court records. He also "dared" to refuse to order his officers to visit a mosque he alleges has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

    Captain Paul Fields said he was told to participate in what he characterized as a "proselytizing" Islamic worship service and that he must also order the police officers under his command to also attend and participate in the service. As a result he was relieved of his command and was harassed by the Internal Affairs Division (IAD), a group called the "rat squad" by most American cops in a majority of law enforcement agencies.

    "Once some IAD squad begins to investigate you, even if you have an immaculate record as a cop, they dig until they find something that they can point to as being misconduct or corruption," said former police detective Sid Franes, who worked with a former IAD lieutenant in New York. "In Fields' case it appears they were claiming he was prejudiced against Muslims and he wasn't fit to lead police officers," Franes added.

    When Fields took legal action against his police department, it ended up before the federal judges who sat on the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals and the court upheld the punishment of Capt. Fields. In essence the court ruled that the decorated cop should have visited the mosque and brought his officers with him as he was ordered to do by the city's political leaders.

    "Here is another example of lawyers wearing black robes telling Americans what church services they must attend.

1.72+0.07(+4.24%)Oct 21 4:02 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.