Hi Mr. Grumpy,
I wonder what the test is? The test to determine whether or not someone is doing so poorly that they should be allowed to emigrate to the US? Say, the bottom 10% economically? Would that mean that 10% of the 7.3 billion people on the planet should be allowed to come to the US? Another 700 million people or so? What about the next tier up? The poor guy at the 89.99999th percentile. The guy that just missed out on the US sending a 747 for him and his family to fly him to the US to put he and his family on welfare in the US. Must hurt terribly to be passed over because he made too much money.
Lets see here, 17 million in profit, and another 14.5 million taken as depreciation expense. For a cash flow of about 31.5 million. FRO has 95 million in cash, and only a tiny bit is restricted for SFL or whatever. Another 122 million in other current assets. Probably stock holdings mostly. Spot rates still way above break even, and the next quarter, 4th, is already well over half in the bag at high rates.
Historically JF likes to pay out high dividend streams. He has stated that he wants to return to that. This quarter, next, the one after? It doesn't really matter now does it? lol
So long as spot rates stay up, this dog "can" hunt.
When/if Iran releases their fleet and oil, things can turn pretty quick though. I don't think the mainstream has caught onto the potential impact on the tanker market when Iran's fleet becomes unencumbered. 2nd qtr maybe?
Keep your eyes on the spot rates.
Best of luck,
The latest election went to the democrats. At least the governorship. Does this indicate things are swinging back towards the democrats?
Democratic state representative John Bel Edwards beat Senator David Vitter yesterday to become Louisiana's next governor. The outcome was predicted by the polls, but still counts as fairly surprising given the drubbing Democrats have taken in state politics, especially in the South.
No, not his 11,000 square foot, 5.2 million dollar mansion which could hold about 30. His tiny 700 square foot apartment.
Boy, did I screw up by not going long FRO Friday. Mr. Rami posting again after a long absence is a sure sign I missed out. Apparently Mr. Rami loaded up his account short of FRO shares at $2.85 Friday's low. So, this must be the bottom going into the announcement. Now he comes on to brag about his next great short entry into FRO. Sigh!
I might get one more shot at it Monday.
We shall see.
In this world, there are those that would make themselves even uglier, so they could win the prize.
Harare (AFP) - A 42-year-old unemployed man was crowned Zimbabwe's ugliest man at a pub pageant in Harare -- but the contest turned ugly when the runner-up accused judges of bias.
Maison Sere, who was missing several teeth and dressed in torn overalls, beat off five other contestants for the $500 Mr Ugly prize -- a large sum in a country facing massive unemploment.
"I want to thank God for winning this title, last time I came fourth. I just want to thank the judges for recognising me as the winner," Sere told journalists during a night of festivities Friday attended by 200 revellers.
But William Masvinu, a three-time Mr Ugly winner who walked off with a $100 second prize this year, cried foul.
"The judges were not fair, the organisers must look for new judges to start the contest afresh. I did not lose today," Masvinu said.
Show organiser David Machowa said he created the pageant in 2012 to celebrate "beauty in ugliness".
"The show last night was very successful, and I still have plans to host Mr Ugly world," he said.
" 'Is it justified to demand that Muslims condemn terrorism?' Now that might sound a little radical. The reason I say that is this.
Condoning the killing of civilians is, to me, about the most monstrous thing you can to do. And to be suspected of doing something so monstrous, simply because of your faith, seems very unfair. Now when you look at the majority of terrorist attacks in the United States, according to the FBI, the majority of domestic terror attacks are actually committed by white, male Christians."
"Now that's just the facts. When those things occur, we don't suspect other people who share their faith and ethnicity of condoning them. We assume that these things outrage them just as much as they do anyone else. And we have to afford this same assumption of innocence to Muslims."
"She's absolutely right. This ritual, in which Muslim leaders and regular Muslims alike are expected to repeatedly denounce terrorism, is bigoted. (Will McCants, a scholar of jihadist ideology at Brookings, thinks it might also be counterproductive.) It implies that every Muslim is under suspicion of being sympathetic to terrorism unless he or she explicitly says otherwise. The implication is also that any crime committed by a Muslim is the responsibility of all Muslims simply by virtue of their shared religion.
What we're asking for isn't really a denunciation, it's an apology: an apology for Islam and for Muslims. This sort of thinking — blaming an entire group for the actions of a few individuals, assuming the worst about a person just because of their identity — is the very definition of bigotry."
"What is the one thing that Mogahed thought Trump should read or do to better understand Islam?
Mogahed's answer, I thought, was pretty perfect: "I don't want him to understand Islam. I want him to understand the constitution.""
Further to our earlier conversation regarding Kentucky.
"It is one of the central political puzzles of our time: Parts of the country that depend on the safety-net programs supported by Democrats are increasingly voting for Republicans who favor shredding that net."
"In eastern Kentucky and other former Democratic bastions that have swung Republican in the past several decades, the people who most rely on the safety-net programs secured by Democrats are, by and large, not voting against their own interests by electing Republicans. Rather, they are not voting, period. They have, as voting data, surveys and my own reporting suggest, become profoundly disconnected from the political process."
"The people in these communities who are voting Republican in larger proportions are those who are a notch or two up the economic ladder — the sheriff’s deputy, the teacher, the highway worker, the motel clerk, the gas station owner and the coal miner. And their growing allegiance to the Republicans is, in part, a reaction against what they perceive, among those below them on the economic ladder, as a growing dependency on the safety net, the most visible manifestation of downward mobility in their declining towns."
"She landed a steady job at a nearby dialysis center and remarried. But this didn’t make her a lasting supporter of safety-net programs like those that helped her. Instead, Dougherty had become a staunch opponent of them. She was reacting, she said, against the sense of entitlement she saw on display at the dialysis center. The federal government has for years covered kidney dialysis treatment in outpatient centers through Medicare, regardless of patients’ age, partly on the logic that treatment allows people with kidney disease to remain productive. But, Dougherty said, only a small fraction of the 54 people getting dialysis at her center had regular jobs."
Thirty-nine oil tankers are waiting near Galveston, Texas, up from 30 in May, according to vessel-tracking data compiled by Bloomberg.
“There’s been concern about excess supply in the market for a while now and that’s been strengthened by the IEA report,” Lynch said.
WTI fell 7.7 percent in the report week on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Futures dropped 2.6 percent to $40.67 a barrel on Tuesday, the lowest close since Aug. 26. Prices touched $40.06 on Monday, the least since Aug. 27.
Oil inventories surged because of increased global production, the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said on Nov. 12. U.S. crude supplies rose to 487 million barrels as of Nov. 6, the highest for this time of year since 1930, the Energy Information Administration reported last week.
Hi Mr. Tanno,
When the spread is a penny, if there is plenty of volume waiting in the wings, I usually put in a limit buy order a penny higher than the ask. It's funny how often my broker gets me the bid, or bid plus half a penny. It appears instantaneous. A box pops up saying it is filled before my finger is off the enter key. Sometimes 10% of the order goes off at the ask, and the rest goes at the bid or bid plus half a penny. So, I usually end up with some strange fraction. lol
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Grumpy,
In response to your post: "Don't know that we'll see our preferred buy-in price."
So, how does one manage that?
1. Buy in when one feels very greedy/anxious to get in risking getting in too early?
2. Make multiple buys on the way down to make sure one gets a position?
3. Wait for penetration of major support, and take a chance on missing out on a trade?
I tend to prefer #3. Mostly because it keeps me "out" of the market longer.
If it doesn't get to my buy point, I know there will always be another trade.
Best of luck,
Not quite 2 weeks left until the scheduled announcement.
Would love to see a pull back to the 200dsma around 2.73 in the next coupla days.
It looks like it is setting up like it did for the May 29th announcement.
If so, one would want to exit the trade "before" the announcement.
My take from a trader's perspective.
Best of luck,
HI Mr. Rogere,
From your post: " throw around when you say that those with a liberal psyche have some sort of fundamental intellectual limitation"
I am not making a statement that this is true. Nor am I saying that organically there is some intellectual limitation. What I am doing, is looking at all of the times I have seen this tendency and am attempting to understand it. It is nothing more than a theory. That is why I ended with "maybe I am just wrong". Perhaps it is something else occurring here. Since yourself, and other liberals on this board seem to believe that it is perfectly appropriate to make generalizations which are clearly untrue in a very personal manner, I have chosen to address this personality defect from a deductive reasoning perspective.
What I have witnessed is a disruption in what I consider a normal logical flow regarding a problem or situation. A pause or stop in the logical progression before any actual end is reached. This is the "limitation" I was speaking of. People I consider liberals, seem to just stop very early in the logical progression of thinking regarding a problem. It appears to be that all they are looking for is the minimal amount of information necessary to make the broadest moral judgment. Then they appear to stop thinking. They just fling an epithet, misquote, and/or then defer to whomever they consider a higher authority or defer to whatever ideology they believe consistent with the topic. Often this is coupled with some verbiage insinuating that the other is mean or of low moral character. Often This is the pattern I keep seeing. It doesn't always completely fill every element, but some combination tends to be used.
It is almost as if the liberal is looking merely for the point that some discrete emotion is released. Once they receive this internal feedback, they stop the progression of logical thinking, and insult.
Or, maybe it's something e
Hi Mr. Rogere,
From your post: "you blame Obama for everything"
Mr. Obama was not responsible for getting us into the Iraq or the Afghanistan wars. These land squarely on the shoulders of Mr. Bush.
Mr. Obama was not responsible for getting us into our current and extended financial mess. That was caused by the shortsightedness of previous ideologues the poster child for which is one Barney Frank.
Mr. Obama was not responsible for the gulf oil spill. This I blame on oil companies using lax operational standards.
Mr. Obama was not responsible for Ms. Clinton's e-mail fiasco. I I place this squarely on the shoulders of a naive and incompetent secretary of state placed in that position for political expediency.
Mr. Obama was not responsible for Benghazi. I blame this on lax operational standards within the state department.
Mr. Obama was not responsible for "countless Americans having been groped, molested and harassed by the TSA,". George Walker Bush caused this fiasco.
So, there is a handful of things I do not blame Mr. Obama for. So, your statement: "you blame Obama for everything", is clearly wrong. But/so, of course you are once again wrong.
When you talk about others, you usually resort to generalities and hyperbole. So, you are pretty near always wrong when you talk about others.
I find it odd that a person of your age maturity, though informed of this personality defect multiple time, has not been able to stop and learn from their own mistakes.
More and more I sense this is probably some fundamental intellectual limitation which is required of a liberal psyche. Where one realizes, perhaps at a subliminal level, that they are incapable of understanding the world they live in, so they defer to an ideology or whomever they believe to be a higher authority, and just resort to throwing epithets at those they do not agree with.
Or, maybe I'm just wrong.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Buzz,
In answer to your question: ---I would prefer Arabia over Venezuela.--- Why?"
The Arabian government does not hate America. It is true that the extremist Muslim faction within the country does, but the government and most of the people do not. The Venezeuelan government "does" hate America and states so publicly at every opportunity. I can't tell if the Venezuelan public buys into the hostile government rhetoric.
The Arabian economy is in much better shape than Venezuela. So, from that perspective is much more stable. True they are growing their debt in the current oil glut but not nearly to the extent of Venezuela.
The Arabian government appears to be solid. They have effectively bribed everybody, legally, so the entrenched family control appears to remain strong. While Venezuela may be headed for some sort of revolution. The socialists/communists have screwed the economy over so badly that every day the people see the potential push back from an uprising as not that much more punishing than everyday life.
Though coming from the center of an area of Muslim extremism, the Arabians come across as being sensible. The Venezuelan government, not so much.
I would prefer producing it ourselves, importing from Canada, or maybe even Mexico, but I much prefer not buying from Venezuela.
The supply potential from the duplicated Keystone pipeline in the full XL design, would allow us to reject Venezuelan oil. Let them ship to China. It would require a longer tanker voyage and would about neutralize the negative impact to the tanker sector of a fully functioning XL. So, this would not impact FRO's profitability.
My take anyway.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Rogere,
From your post: " But if Obama is responsible for a 2 buck a gallon price on gas" I doubt many right wingers are willing to admit it Let it go up to 4 bucks and then it becomes his fault.
Uhuh. Because, Mr. Obama will "not" be responsible for the price of gasoline to drop to 2 dollars per gallon. That is not his goal. His goal is something more like 8 dollars per gallon gasoline. That was and is his policy.
But, he doesn't have that much control over it. He shut down drilling on federal lands pretty effectively, but so much drilling occurred on private lands, that his actions were pretty insignificant.
After the fact he has opened some drilling up in disputed federal areas, but this all happened after the fact once he realized he didn't have any control over gasoline prices. So, he's attempting to make it look like he should deserve some of the credit. But, it's not that his policies dropped gasoline prices, his policies were to raise prices. But, he didn't want to end up looking like he has no control. Due to his policies being counter to the will of the average American citizen, his shoving of agenda lost the democrat party both the house and the senate. When he tries to do things by presidential edict, the republicans are beating him in the courts. So, his only play to look like he has any control whatsoever is to perform marginal changes counter to his own policy after the fact.
It's really really sad to watch a president go from having true communistic power, as when the democrat party leadership crammed Obamacare down the throats of Americans, to being the totally toothless tiger Mr. Obama has become. All he can do is thrash about. Talk about a lame duck president. We have not seen such a change since the Clinton's tried to cram their agenda down the throats of Americans.
Just my take.
Best of luck,
Hi Mr. Rogere,
Yep, you nailed it. We would be better off not buying any oil from Mexico. Right now, we have the need for that oil compromising our politicians to allow these lawbreakers from flooding into our country.
But, most all that oil comes in by pipeline. So, the infrastructure causes a high level of commitment to continuing it. Plus, the world is glutted with oil, so Mexico would have trouble finding other buyers. So, for the short term, we don't have to kowtow to Mexico so much as we have.
Of course, Mr. Obama not understanding any of this, will continue to do what he thinks is best for the world, and ignore what is best for the arrogant American middle and lower classes.
From much reading about the XL expansion, near as I can tell, coupled with Canada's ability to ramp up, would provide an additional 800,000 barrels per day of oil to come to the states than is coming in now from Canada.
That is just about equal to the amount we are importing from Venezuela.
So, if that project were completed, it would allow us to tell Venezuela to just #$%$/ssip off. Go sell your arrogant socialist oil someplace else. If the Venezuelan government hates US so much, they can find another market for their oil, and we could stop sending them the 9 million dollars a year in foreign aid we have been sending them as well.
Would America be better off buying more oil from Canada, and ending purchasing oil from Venezuela?
Best of luck,
SCTY shares closed today at $25.07. Down trend just keeps going. It did not support in the congestion area 28 to 32 like many were hoping. 25 is now down 71% from the old high of about 88 in February 2014. Not that much farther to go to hit the 90% drop expected.
I expect many are buying on the way down. Where is Mr. Rami? This is an equity he could make a lot of money on. He likes to short stocks in a down trend. His problem is that he gets so committed to his negative philosophy that he can't see when the down trend ends.
He could make a lot of money before this pos/sop bottoms out and eats up all his profits like FRO did. lol
Best of luck,
HI Mr. Moron,
From your post: "Politicians had absolutely nothing to do with the lower oil prices"
Perhaps your assertion is true. But, those on the far left have a different way of looking at whom is responsible depending on the party holding the executive post, and whether or not they consider this issue beneficial or not.
It works like this,
When the president is republican:
and the issue is beneficial, the president was in no way responsible. It was caused by outside influences. Most likely from the actions of the previous democrat leader.
When the issue is detrimental, it is completely the fault of the president.
If the president happens to be a democrat,
and the issue is beneficial, the president is always responsible.
and when the issue is detrimental, in no way is it ever the fault of the president. It was caused purely by outside influences, usually the republicans.
I have been reading this board for a long long time. And have found these rules to be absolute.
Hope that helps in your future analyses.
Best of luck,