Nice post, RRB. I can't understand why anyone but a bear on LINE could give you a red thumb. (I know that I always get a red thumb or two simply because I'm me. Perhaps you have the same fan or two.) Anyway, the Nov. and Feb. CCs could have a salutary impact on LINE's SP. I hope.
Well, I took a meaningless profit just to get out, as I'm not exactly happy about the trading. I expected better this morning. Sometimes side-bets work; sometimes they don't. Meanwhile I have lots of 2016 calls in LINE and a few 2017s. Those are clearly a long-term gamble.
While I hold a large core position in LNCO, I also like to make side bets for short-term-trading fun. However, sometimes it's not such fun at all, especially when the broad market morphs into King Kong and begins tossing whoever he can get his mitts on (particularly the innocent) off of skyscrapers. For an s-t trade I had bought, a few days ago, several K of LNCO and then averaged down, so my overall purchase price was 29.50. Looked good yesterday near day's end, but the big gorilla got to work today. I took a loss at 29.33, thinking to get back in at what I expected would be an end-of-day slide. Later I was back in the trading shares at 29.11 and 29.12. Unfortunately, the broad market ended on a sour note. So will LNCO's 10% dividend act as a sort of safety net now that Linn Energy seems to have escaped the darkness of the DCF forest? Will I have some fun tomorrow or simply feel stupid? . . . Mrs. Kong, for heaven's sake, call your husband home!
The sum of money needed to influence the stock price so far outweighs the comparatively small amount involved in your option scenario that I can't believe that a conspiracy of traders are playing that game. Right now LNCO (29.53 on the bid as I write this) remains oversold and was way oversold when I added earlier to my short-term trade at 29.13. LinnCo is a stock, and stocks do fluctuate for inexplicable reasons because there are so many unknowable reasons (news excepted) behind umpteen individual trades.
MLPs basically spend money (or units) for new assets (and also do some drilling) while non-MLPs basically spend spend money for new drilling, hoping to develop new assets (and also do some asset buying for stock and/or cash). Perhaps partnerships and C-corps are more alike than different. Of course, depletion is another commonality.
The fifth (UBS, I think, gives LINE a Hold). The 5 are:
•WELLS FARGO SEC
Haven't had this for quite a while.
Snarky? Wow! "No surprise" seems quite positive to me. It simply means that there should be no surprise that a company demonstrably getting its act together is receiving upbeat recommendations from a number of brokerages. Moreover, it's not Barron's reporting news but a blogger named Ben Levisohn. And note that he's not a columnist for Barron's nor a reporter. He's simply a blogger, and when you search for Linn Energy on Barron's' home page, the numerous articles about Linn are clearly identified as blogs. Finally, Levisohn is no more Barron's than you or I are Yahoo.
(I don't understand why you're so negative about some encouraging reportage unless you're either short LINE/LNCO or are disinclined to be objective.)
Yet another positive article about Linn, as a number of brokers become bullish about the company . Check out Barron's home page, search for Linn Energy, and see how many successive blogs there have been that are positive about LINE/LNCO. One would almost think that there's a pro-Linn bias at Barron's. . . . Oh, wait! That can't be.
It was okay news, Sandra, but a couple of SA articles felt that Linn got the worse of the deal in the long run but will still benefit. Nevertheless, both writers still like Linn and are referring to this small deal only. Also, I think that those who bought into the deal expected a bigger reaction than occurred and began bailing, which caused others to panic some and sell. I'm in for about 5K of LNCO at 29.51. I think we'll see a recovery as so often has happened in the past. LINE/LNCO have provided a few nice trading opportunities recently, and I hope that this is another one. Anyway, I think it is.
So far Linn is in the process of executing, but I'm not yet ready to declare that they'll remain on that path. And considering Linn's PPS, the market is far less confident than I am. But I think that 2015 will be a rewarding year for longs (barring a general stock-market collapse), as another strategy change would be tantamount to an open declaration that they don't know what they're doing. Even Ellis doesn't want to be in that position.
In light of the income and what you could receive from, say, a CD, I'd say Linn is a homerun (and much more than an understated "nice income play") for the earlier income investors or those who bought in at the current price or less. Investors looking for capital gains shouldn't have chosen a partnership like Linn to begin with.
Go5shawk, I should have also mentioned that your ascribing the phrase "a positive step" to Levisohn's bias (which I think is a stretch even if he said it) was simply a statement by Abhiram Rajendran of Credit Suisse, not Levisohn. This misapprehension (and I am not being accusatory) is what happens when a predisposition (in this case a belief that those associated with Barron's are inevitably biased) interferes with reading objectivity. So now it seems that we're both surprised at each other.
I agree about the uptick rule. I also think that the SEC needs to be much tougher re naked shorting. And, finally, the retail investor not only needs more protection from the unscrupulous but also from the scrupulous. Note how in everyday trading the NASD trading houses can front-run the little guys with prices going out to four decimal places while we're allowed only two. Then there's flash trading and the huge dark market. Lots of rigging against retail investors is legally incorporated into the system. At least, though, the trading in fractions only was curtailed some years back, and that has been a boon to little guys, especially those who trade.
Well, I don't read Barron's so I have no way to determine if or how they're biased. I'm assuming that you mean that they editorially dislike a given company, as opposed to stocks in general, and make sure that articles project that slant. I don't plan to read Barron's, but it would make an interesting study, albeit a complex and lengthy one, starting with a series of objective signifiers. Lord, it would be like one of those bad dreams that I'm back in grad school with my thesis due in three days without my having begun the research. (Dunno why these still pop up when the ones with gunfire disappeared years ago.)
I hadn't known that about the VIX. I do use the CBOE's site calculator to determine fair market value. At the moment they've got the volatility at 24.08% and the value of the call option at 3.995, which is like stating that an $.80 premium over intrinsic value is okay. With 854 days remaining till expiry, I suppose it is okay.