It's basically the same thing as saying buy low and sell high, but it is worth repeating because people have the tendency to do the opposite, and they do it over and over again.
How long this fear lasts is a moot point.Let's look at Linn for a minute. The stock is down because some think there will be a dividend cut coming. This puts us in the same position we were in earlier this year. Even if there is a dividend cut, a cut is already priced into the share price. The question becomes will there be one and, if so, how much? My belief is there is presently more upside risk than downside. Whether you buy, sell, or hold right now, you are placing a bet on that outcome.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
This stock could also have 50% upside by Spring. Is your glass half full or half empty?
Sentiment: Strong Buy
My mind has been more occupied with entry points than exit points. The whole market has been going on sale. Remember....Buy when others are fearful.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
I had to buy some more LNCO. This stock just got way too cheap. It may not be the bottom but it sure as heck isn't a top.
I started a position in MHR also. I just think the oil and gas industry will look a lot different in January.
Sentiment: Strong Buy
Actually, I meant to say in the first paragraph that modern Keynesian Theory is significantly different than the original theory of Lord Keynes.
If you keep reading, you will see it is not about Lord Keynes, it is about current claims of "the new Keynesian Theory" which is significantly different than modern Keynesian theory.
Again, just as Jumping sheep failed to point out the errors, you have failed in the same way. If you don't know what is correct, how can you know what is incorrect? Your argument is among the least cogent arguments in the thread. I already quoted Keynes below, but I will quote him again. Keep in mind, the theory of Lord Keynes and modern Keynesian theory have significant differences.
“The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment.”
Jumping, Your criticism holds no water because you didn't identify what was wrong and what it should be.
You have to remember that Keynesian theory has strayed away from what Lord Keynes, himself, thought. Lord Keynes would disagree with the current Keynesian theory touted by the Democrats. He believed in cutting taxes. G W Bush actually pushed to do more of what Keynes suggested when he straightened out the recession he inherited from Clinton because Bush increased government spending, cut taxes, and increased the deficit. I have yet to hear the Democrats call for tax cuts!
Here's how Lord Keynes put it, “The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialization of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment.”
First off, I don't follow any political philosophy when investing money. Instead, I follow the money.
Second, I never told you how to invest, nor do I care how you invest your money.
I voiced a disagreement in what current Keynesian theorist believe, and I said Obama could help the economy by throwing his weight behind exportation of oil.
Last I heard, Washington was spending about $60 billion per year on roads, bridges, and mass transportation.
States also spend on roads, bridges, and mass transportation. I recall reading some years back how NC was borrowing future gas tax revenue to pay for other stuff. It was a no brainer that this would come back and bite them. That's probably why NC has trouble getting infrastructure spending now--they already spent the money on other stuff. BTW, Democrats controlled the Governor's office and the legislature at the time so this cannot be blamed on the Republicans.
The beheadings posted on the internet by ISIS is whipping up the media frenzy.
We already spend more money every year on infrastructure than FDR did. Let's open up oil exports!
Republicans believe in the rule of law. It's the Democrats who have trouble with that. Republicans believe in business regulation, but they don't believe in over-regulation. Regulation takes time and costs money which lowers productivity. That's why a college education costs so much--government keeps adding layer after layer of regulations and compliance costs keep many from going on to higher education. How do the Democrats solve this problem? They raise taxes to pay for the added costs of their own regulation so people can get an education.
The regulation against exporting oil is another example of an outdated and presently unnecessary regulation that is holding back growth.
I was looking at a statement from The Great One when he said "as a keynsian and a business owner I believe in investment in your business I don't believe u can grow a business without spending money in investment."
First off, Keynesians don't believe the small business owner needs to invest in their business. Otherwise, they would pass tax incentives to encourage it. Small business investment is more along the line of Ronald Reagan thinking. Perhaps, Greatone, you are a Reaganite and just don't know it.
Keynesian theory believes more along the line of taking away that money you would invest in your business in new taxes so the government could spend it for you to create the aggregate demand to give a short term boost to the economy. Keynesians believe in increased government borrowing and lowering interest rates because they believe we have too much supply and not enough demand. Those two things, they believe, along with some fairy dust and a few magic words, will cure what ails any economy If there are long term structural problems, it is totally pointless for the government to increase borrowing without addressing them.
What does that have to do with oil? In spite of the long winded speeches Obama gives about how he has improved the economy with Keynesianism, the US has improved in spite of his obstructionist policies. Oil drilling prevailed even though he has tried to slow it down. No, he didn't build the fracking business. These businesses were built in spite of government opposition. However, if he would throw his weight behind the exportation of oil, the cheaper prices would boost our economy even further along with other parts of the global economy. Also, he needs to stop creating more red tape and start creating more incentives for people to start businesses.
Personally, I don't see an increase in distribution this year. After all the problems stemming from last year, I think Linn is just happy they were able to move things around enough to not have to cut the dividend.
I think you will do quite well. Opinion is unhappy because he is waiting for the stock to reach a certain level so he can sell. He will be even more unhappy after he sells and the stock keeps climbing. The incredible dividend is icing on the cake.
Agreed greatone. I am looking around and scaling into some stocks. I am not looking to pick an exact bottom. I am on DRIP with LNCO at an incredible dividend so these price fluctuations don't bother me in that stock. Of course, I am confident we will see increasing pps so I am patient.
I think we all have a couple of those fans. Also, there are those who are extremely angry at the stock for not having the price action they want.
As for the stock, I am quite optimistic as well.