Hello, Fool! | Login | Signup | My Fool
Aug 29, 2008 9:35 PM ET | Site Changes | Help
The Company is a provider of equipment and services used for the drilling, evaluation, completion, production and intervention of oil and natural gas wells.
View All Commentary (WFT)
Recs
wcwhiner (99.75) Submitted: 3/21/07 4:49 PM : Start Price: $22.45 WFT Score: -80.57
Reload after a loss. See canned "accuracy" rant at http://caps.fool.com/Blogs/ViewPost.aspx?bpid=4381&t=01001607032191429882I still see energy as vulnerable, so I have started closing and reentering energy-patch names. Short energy has been one of my worst ideas this last half-year, but I can't get away from the idea that a growth slowdown (especially in the US) has to affect the rest of the world and hence crimp margins. So far, so bad, but I'm sticking with the trade until I see global economic production turning up again.
Report this Post Replies: 5 | Reply
Oops! There appears to be a problem with your comment. Check to see if there's something you left out.
metoo105 (99.67) Submitted: 5/02/07 11:04 PM
Recs: 0 | Rec This
Interesting. Glad to see that you taking the trouble to spit into the wind. I already agree with at least part of what you said. And so now you've got me thinking through some of my settled ideas and opinions again. Thanks.
Report this Post Reply
wcwhiner (99.75) Submitted: 5/09/07 4:22 PM
A loser is a loser is a loser. Still, energy prices (especially cracks, but headline prices as well) strike me as unsustainable unless production growth is in the process of reaccelerating. It could be happening, but I don't think so. We'll see, soon enough.
bluedome (61.53) Submitted: 4/23/08 4:22 PM
I don't get your logic here. Energy prices will only come down if demand decreases (unlikely with China) orproduction increases, the opposite of what you appear to be saying.
bunnynose4 (< 20) Submitted: 6/30/08 10:06 PM
The trend is your friend. ;) We need oil no matter how the economy is doing and in order to do that, we need companies who supply the equipment. Weatherford is a good company with a pretty good track record as well as sound management. This is one I have "real life" money in. Don't fight it. LOL!!!!
agchris02 (93.82) Submitted: 7/29/08 4:51 PM
I've emailed CAPS about this, but there is a VERY simple solution, divided into two parts, everyone should campaign for this:Part 1:Accuracy counts more on positions held longer. Sure seven days is nice, but if I'm picking a stock to gain 15% over the next year, and I'm right, why do I get less than the idiot who reloads a stock 100 times over the same year, capturing more "accuracy" but in real life being eaten on transaction fees and lost gains? This is a simple formula fix.Part 2: Kill reloadersVERY SIMPLE FIX -- if you "reload/repurchase" a stock within a set time frame (I'd suggest a minimum of 30 days), then it does not count toward your accuracy. This is remarkably simple and ingenious. It would completely eliminate reloading, particularly on the short side of things. Suggested formula:If you reload a long position, it only counts toward your accuracy again if you waited 30 days before rerating the stockIf you reload a short position, it only counts toward your accuracy if you waited 60 days before rerating the stock.Genius, and fixes the problem -- email CAPS :)