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.
K24, you say "authors" when there was only a single writer involved who regularly received his info. (such as it was) from Hedgeye. Had he said anything libelous or even slanderous, then Linn could have sued, but that didn't happen because his language skirted the limits. So should Barron's have censored him because he had it in for the company we own units of and he liked the dramatically juicy concoctions he received (and attributed to) Hedgeye? If you think so, then what about Ben Levisohn, whose postitive reportage today was the third in a row that cited good things about Linn? Should he also be censored in case a Barron's editor didn't like Linn? Or if, hypothetically, I were short? Now I don't want to be an apologist for Barron's, but it certainly isn't the evil rag that people who were hurt by one columnist's opinion claim it to be.
Barron's, by the way, didn't spur the SEC inquiry. That was initiated by a Hedgeye complaint re the accounting of puts, which, despite my self-interest, I found to be a reasonable concern. (Other matters I considered specious.) Was the SEC manipulated by Hedgeye? Certainly! Was the inquiry an investigation? Not at all. So how did a mere inquiry become an issue? Linn revealed it, although it was under no obligation to do so, because SEC inquiries are not uncommon and are simply requests for clarification. To Hedgeye's delight that was Linn shooting itself in the foot. So who should have censored Linn?
I read some naively silly comments about Barron's recently as a few posters regard the publication as monolithic. But it's mainly columnists, an upscale word for bloggers. So some have bullish and bearish opinions about a number of stocks and financial issues. And a few are in the pocket of a stock touter or two. And there also non-articles which are falsely ascribed to Barron's as if they're editiorial comment when, as with the last two that are positive about Linn/LinnCo, they're simply brief summaries of analysts' recommendations (quite positive) from Raymond James and Credit Suisse respectively. These two investment houses have nothing to do with Barron's. A reporter simply cited their recommendations. (I suppose I shouldn't be annoyed by mindless posts. It's a character flaw I guess.)
Linn behaved nicely today and we'll be going to a restaurant tonight, probably Il Fornaio in Irvine, which is a lovely place. I think that the trading buy right now is LNCO, which is more than a buck below Linn, while I think it's most comfortable at a $.60 or $.70 gap. So over the coming days LNCO may have two things going for it : (1) being pulled along by a rising LINE and (2) motion toward a narrower gap. I placed my bet at 30.03 on avg.
I believe the gap between the twins should be about $.60 or $.70, not over a dollar as it is at this moment. Because I also think that LINE is starting a rise (rebound?) into the high 31s or possibly the low 32s in anticipation of the Q3 CC, LNCO seems to be a nice short-term trading buy now at around $30.
For a quick trade I bought at 30.75 and again at 30.90 yesterday. Sold at 31.18 today. LINE should eke its way higher over the coming weeks in anticipation of Q3 earnings as an indication of whether Q2 was a harbinger of better things to come.
I thought that today's trading showed some nice strength for Linn. A number of shares were shaken out on the downturn and then there was a slow but solid recovery on decent volume that kept finding buyers for the sellers. My guess is that LINE displays continued pep tomorrow, beginning with an upside opening. LINE is certainly due for a rebound toward 32. (Let's hope I'm not eating crow for Thursday's lunch.)
I have no idea how these options prices relate to large-money swaps, but here's a sample at the time of this posting (10:45 AM EDT):
It's interesting to note, I think, that Linn Energy options expiring Jan. of 2017 are now available. The bid/ask spreads are absurd, so I took a shot at $3.50 for the 28 strike, which is currently around a $.55 premium over intrinsic value. It took a little while, but I got the buy. Seems pretty reasonable in light of expiry being over two years away, especially if Linn executes its current avowed strategy and doesn't wake up one morning with a whole new idea.
Straw man, YP. My concern was relevance, not freedom of choice. Presumably you believe that one should leave the country for wanting a dedicated message board to remain on subject?! Don't you think that's extreme?
But, John, political talk radio is virtually a conservative bastion of tens of millions of listeners, while the audience size of the TV media you decry is not only considerably smaller but commands much less listener time. It all evens up, I believe, and ultimately doesn't make much difference, as those who preach are preaching to the choir anyway.
My concern is that this board should be about Linn Energy and issues that do or might impact the company. Those who lack the self-discipline to stick to the appropriate topic should seek out other venues for their choleric attacks. There are enough boards that provide outlets for anger and hate. I dislike seeing this one corrupted when I have such a large investment in Linn/LinnCo. It drives away posters who do have something to contribute despite the presence of an Ignore button. Even those who politically boil would benefit.
I find that the hate-fueled political spewing on this board is both irrelevant and appalling. It's even worse than several years ago when there were two or three posters who cluttered the board with incessant rage. Currently my Ignore list keeps expanding. You'd think that the internet wasn't replete with political forums, including sites for tantrums and spittle-spraying venting. Sheesh!