Search This Blog

Saturday, December 12, 2009

Trades - and a word on proofreading

Simmer down.

When I re-read some of my weekday posts I cringe sometimes when I notice a missed word or words spelled incorrectly. I can not proofread during the day. I simply lack time. I am not a full time trader. (It would be nice to work for GS and trade full time, and make a very very nice living for myself.) My day job requires me to manage multiple people and manage multiple issues that can have a very real impact on the output of a multi-billion dollar product. Most of the time, on the weekdays, I write my thoughts or my trades, and publish.

I truly enjoy observing current events, understanding their effects and create a trading strategy around it. Trading is a means of monetizing that desire. (and I have worked very hard to become very good at it) I can not satiate this passion at my day job. This blog is a means to vent that passion.

So basically, I don't have time to care about proofreading while i am doing a 12hr day, trying to understand what is going on in the world, then trade on it. All while I am battling an unfriendly boss, and work-related time-consuming issues.

Alright, enough of me venting. Here is a trade I took on Friday, but did not have time to post about it. (if I did I would have re-read the other post and deleted it, but I will keep it up just because of the comment.)

COST is consolidated, sitting on its 50SMA and fundamentally impressive. I will unload when it gets over bought, but I do like it for the long-term.

A stock I have mentioned before and been trading is NLC. The chart justifies an initial position, but I am waiting for NLC to hit the 38 SMA. If this happens, I will enter a position.


  1. Maybe I should have proofread my comment--it was pretty terse. All I meant to say was that, as written, I couldn't seem to make sense of that post. I read your stuff regularly and I can tell that sometimes it's hurried. Usually, I can get the message and that's all I really care about. That one time, I couldn't so I mentioned it. I'm sorry if it offended--that was not my intent.


  2. no worries dan, the explanation post was a long time coming. I always get called out on it from my brother, friends, seekingalpha (don't know if they still monitor my blog) and others via email or txt. I just never feel the need to explain myself, but that GS post really didn't convey what I wanted and I felt the need to explain. I just wanted to highlight that GS overpaid for the warrants, and the gov made the most from them. (and the conspiracy theorist against GS will probably never acknowledge that fact)

    i also didn't know the comment came from you. (with blogspot I can't tell who comments come from) I know your never looking to offend, ever since the JCOM message board days :)