If you buy a put option, you have to have the stock you want to put.
Not really, you can sell the option on the market just before expiry or you can have your broker sort out the stock side and settle you in cash. It might cost you a small margin but you don't need the capital to purchase the equivalent stock.
I can't find any information on what happens to your put-options if the company goes totally titsup.
I'm not sure what the exact contractual language would be in the put, but essentially you're buying the right to sell stock at a given price (the strike price), even if the stock is worthless, so you would get the the value of the strike price.
If you really want to take a punt, buy some out-of-the money puts, say with a strike price of between $6 and $8 (given that the price today is about $10), and an expiry six months away, or how ever long you think it will take for the shit to hit SCO's fan. They should cost you only cents each. You stand to make money after the SCO share price falls below your strike price less the premium you pay.
So, if you buy some $6 December puts and pay 50 cents (not a real price) you make money once SCO falls below $5.50. If they go out of business you make $5.50 or an %1100 profit. If they don't go below $6 before December you lose your 50 cents. Make sure you buy American style options (not European) then you can cash in at any time before December.
In your description of put options, you're only describing one side of the transaction, and the side that you wouldn't trade if you were bearish on a stock. If you sell a put option, you are in a sense reasonably bullish on the stock - you think it will go up, but not hugely, so you think you will not have to pay out on he put.
If you wanted to do a bearish trade on SCO you would buy a put option, the value of which goes up as the stock goes down. Your risk is only the premium you pay for the option, which is usually a small fraction of the stock price.
Take for example if someone changes tires on a big truck...going from the stock size up to 44" of rolling rubber.
Surley if the data were used in something like a court case, or for any important reason, tiresize and other factors would be considered? Any alyer woorth his/er salt would be on top of this.
No, they don't lose money, but their shareholders do and they can vote the directors and by proxy the mangement of the company in or out. Also employee options are worth less (or nothing) so the employees are unhappy. They also can raise less money on the market if they need capital.
So no-one likes shares prices going down, except short-sellers.
I'm beginning to wonder how much of it is truth and how much of it is envy
I just don't understand this idea. What makes you think people envy the US? It's just pure American arrogance. People suggesting that, for instance, terrorists blow up bits of the US because they're envious just shows how ignorant and parochial they are.
That aside, I do think that the US and EU can and will be allies. I think countries can have disagreements without being directly opposed ideologically. I think in the next couple of decades the EU will just be marking out it's territory, hopefully futre administrations will respect the EU's need to do this, unlike the current one.
I think this is the point of the EU. When large powerful countries like Germany are part of an integrated Europe, they're not going to have political differences that involve invading another part of the EU, since that would be like chopping off your own leg.
I think the more integrated the world is economically and socially, the better off we are (this is the upside to economic globalisation). It's just right now the US just doesn't get it and it going around like the class bully. The other good reason for the EU to exist is to balance out an overly strong US.
backwards governments that shouldn't be in power in the first place
This is 'good for the economy' in the same way that eating a big bag of sugar is good for your body
That's hardly a good analogy. Welfare is consistent but will grow somewhat as unemployment grows. What you are describing actually is more like what central banks do to flatten the business cycle: they reduce interest rates and increase liquidity, giving the economy exactly that sugar rush, then have to do the opposite if the stimulus goes too far.
Again untrue. In fact it does exactly the opposite. By decoupling the decision to consume from the obligation to pay, these schemes explicitly destroy the mechanisms which previously kept cost low and quality high, and have resulted in skyrocketing health care costs.
Right. People get sick just to cash in on the health system. Seeing the doctor too often is much better than not enough. And the last time I looked, places like the US had skyrocketing health costs. Government health systems control health costs because the industry essentially has one customer - the government. The government sets how much it will pay for services and the doctors can like it or go without customers.
Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)
But more importantly, they're a sign of a civilised society.
Are we using the wrong tools (such as C) which do not provide the facilities necessary to write safe software?
Absolutely. People should write in Modula-3: safe, efficient and productive. But that doesn't impress your average hairy-chested programmer who needs to prove how smart he is. For him, programming was meant to be hard and bugs can't be avoided. Both are untrue. They just feel more secure in concrete representations rather than constrained abstract models. They'd rather have control than efficiency becuase they have a psychological need for (total) control.
Most programmers are pathetic, inadequate human beings really.
whether rumbling through a sun-baked desert, steaming tropical jungle or frozen tundra, it?s up to you to deliver a knockout punch to America?s enemies
I've not seen George Bush or his administration in any of those places.
Indeed, RMS is whining his way into irrelevancy. How is going on about GNU/Linux or some subtly of the Ghostscript arrangement actually helping open source?
The economy dipped becuase of the the overwhelming piracy. That's how bad it gotten. Next will come pestilence, famine, floods and your chickens will stop laying. We must stop priacy now to save the world.
Re:Have to side with the GNU folks here.
on
Ghostscript Leaves GNU
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
At what point does a GNU project turn into just an advertisement for commercial software.
Who cares if it is an advert for non-free software? The GPL version is free, you get what you asked for. If you want to take that approach, when is redhat going to stop using Linux and GNU software to promote their business, plastering their name all over it those rotten brstards.
Seesh. Give them some credit for writing it and releasing it as free software.
Well that's how I play it. You don't have too play it like you're a sad geek with no life but practising your UT. For some people (like me) who get lousy pings, there isn't much choice. It doesn't matter how quick you are with a 300ms delay before your shot is registered. You can play defensive or with a bit of strategy to make up for it. It's actually lots of fun frustrating dextrous kiddies who know where all the powerups are (and who cheat) with a bit of stategy. The BR patterns are best for this.
Yes, but only in the "Constructions of the Liberal Media Conspiracy" mode.
Re:This is why Human Interface Design is important
on
Making Change
·
· Score: 1
Exactly, he actually thinks making less change is somehow more efficient, but it's actually not. People work faster with round figures and "rules of thumb" that go with them that make it all very quick. When I get change I can look at the coins in my hand for any reasonable amount and immediately tell how much I've been given (Of course we don't have one cent coins where I live, but miscounting by a few cents is not important). People can make change out of a till without looking.
Anyone serious about coin efficiency would just get rid of one and two cent coins and make tax included in displayed prices.
Slashdot Mirror
If you buy a put option, you have to have the stock you want to put.
Not really, you can sell the option on the market just before expiry or you can have your broker sort out the stock side and settle you in cash. It might cost you a small margin but you don't need the capital to purchase the equivalent stock.
I can't find any information on what happens to your put-options if the company goes totally titsup.
I'm not sure what the exact contractual language would be in the put, but essentially you're buying the right to sell stock at a given price (the strike price), even if the stock is worthless, so you would get the the value of the strike price.
If you really want to take a punt, buy some out-of-the money puts, say with a strike price of between $6 and $8 (given that the price today is about $10), and an expiry six months away, or how ever long you think it will take for the shit to hit SCO's fan. They should cost you only cents each. You stand to make money after the SCO share price falls below your strike price less the premium you pay.
So, if you buy some $6 December puts and pay 50 cents (not a real price) you make money once SCO falls below $5.50. If they go out of business you make $5.50 or an %1100 profit. If they don't go below $6 before December you lose your 50 cents. Make sure you buy American style options (not European) then you can cash in at any time before December.
Disclaimer: IANAS
In your description of put options, you're only describing one side of the transaction, and the side that you wouldn't trade if you were bearish on a stock. If you sell a put option, you are in a sense reasonably bullish on the stock - you think it will go up, but not hugely, so you think you will not have to pay out on he put.
If you wanted to do a bearish trade on SCO you would buy a put option, the value of which goes up as the stock goes down. Your risk is only the premium you pay for the option, which is usually a small fraction of the stock price.
Take for example if someone changes tires on a big truck...going from the stock size up to 44" of rolling rubber.
Surley if the data were used in something like a court case, or for any important reason, tiresize and other factors would be considered? Any alyer woorth his/er salt would be on top of this.
No, they don't lose money, but their shareholders do and they can vote the directors and by proxy the mangement of the company in or out. Also employee options are worth less (or nothing) so the employees are unhappy. They also can raise less money on the market if they need capital.
So no-one likes shares prices going down, except short-sellers.
Actually, he's right. It seems he's the only one who did. For a supposedly smart readership, Slashdot moderators are a pretty humourless bunch.
I don't know about you, but I prefer Apple solvent.
Apple Solvent: Dissolving your freedom, one bit at a time.
I'm beginning to wonder how much of it is truth and how much of it is envy
I just don't understand this idea. What makes you think people envy the US? It's just pure American arrogance. People suggesting that, for instance, terrorists blow up bits of the US because they're envious just shows how ignorant and parochial they are.
That aside, I do think that the US and EU can and will be allies. I think countries can have disagreements without being directly opposed ideologically. I think in the next couple of decades the EU will just be marking out it's territory, hopefully futre administrations will respect the EU's need to do this, unlike the current one.
WWI and WWII were both started by western europe.
I think this is the point of the EU. When large powerful countries like Germany are part of an integrated Europe, they're not going to have political differences that involve invading another part of the EU, since that would be like chopping off your own leg.
I think the more integrated the world is economically and socially, the better off we are (this is the upside to economic globalisation). It's just right now the US just doesn't get it and it going around like the class bully. The other good reason for the EU to exist is to balance out an overly strong US.
backwards governments that shouldn't be in power in the first place
You mean like the Bush administration?
This is 'good for the economy' in the same way that eating a big bag of sugar is good for your body
That's hardly a good analogy. Welfare is consistent but will grow somewhat as unemployment grows. What you are describing actually is more like what central banks do to flatten the business cycle: they reduce interest rates and increase liquidity, giving the economy exactly that sugar rush, then have to do the opposite if the stimulus goes too far.
Again untrue. In fact it does exactly the opposite. By decoupling the decision to consume from the obligation to pay, these schemes explicitly destroy the mechanisms which previously kept cost low and quality high, and have resulted in skyrocketing health care costs.
Right. People get sick just to cash in on the health system. Seeing the doctor too often is much better than not enough. And the last time I looked, places like the US had skyrocketing health costs. Government health systems control health costs because the industry essentially has one customer - the government. The government sets how much it will pay for services and the doctors can like it or go without customers.
Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)
But more importantly, they're a sign of a civilised society.
Hi, I'm just some asshole, and I'd like this to get modded up to a +5 just to continue this amazing trend.
Typical. Do don't give a shit, do you?
If you drink anti-water, do you become thirsty?
You stay thirsty, it will run out of your nose.
Hi! I'm the Orifice Assistant.
Please, no more shitty Microsoft software.
Are we using the wrong tools (such as C) which do not provide the facilities necessary to write safe software?
Absolutely. People should write in Modula-3: safe, efficient and productive. But that doesn't impress your average hairy-chested programmer who needs to prove how smart he is. For him, programming was meant to be hard and bugs can't be avoided. Both are untrue. They just feel more secure in concrete representations rather than constrained abstract models. They'd rather have control than efficiency becuase they have a psychological need for (total) control.
Most programmers are pathetic, inadequate human beings really.
Yeah, "ravish" would be just as good as "rape". Maybe those looks were justified...
whether rumbling through a sun-baked desert, steaming tropical jungle or frozen tundra, it?s up to you to deliver a knockout punch to America?s enemies
I've not seen George Bush or his administration in any of those places.
...for porn. We could watch it from the inside.
Indeed, RMS is whining his way into irrelevancy. How is going on about GNU/Linux or some subtly of the Ghostscript arrangement actually helping open source?
The economy dipped becuase of the the overwhelming piracy. That's how bad it gotten. Next will come pestilence, famine, floods and your chickens will stop laying. We must stop priacy now to save the world.
At what point does a GNU project turn into just an advertisement for commercial software.
Who cares if it is an advert for non-free software? The GPL version is free, you get what you asked for. If you want to take that approach, when is redhat going to stop using Linux and GNU software to promote their business, plastering their name all over it those rotten brstards.
Seesh. Give them some credit for writing it and releasing it as free software.
UT2k3 is not a game for the 'casual' game.
Well that's how I play it. You don't have too play it like you're a sad geek with no life but practising your UT. For some people (like me) who get lousy pings, there isn't much choice. It doesn't matter how quick you are with a 300ms delay before your shot is registered. You can play defensive or with a bit of strategy to make up for it. It's actually lots of fun frustrating dextrous kiddies who know where all the powerups are (and who cheat) with a bit of stategy. The BR patterns are best for this.
Yes, but only in the "Constructions of the Liberal Media Conspiracy" mode.
Exactly, he actually thinks making less change is somehow more efficient, but it's actually not. People work faster with round figures and "rules of thumb" that go with them that make it all very quick. When I get change I can look at the coins in my hand for any reasonable amount and immediately tell how much I've been given (Of course we don't have one cent coins where I live, but miscounting by a few cents is not important). People can make change out of a till without looking.
Anyone serious about coin efficiency would just get rid of one and two cent coins and make tax included in displayed prices.
Women as hypersexualized killers distracts attention from their unequal status
As long as they've got big tits I don't see the harm in it.