Chesapeake Energy Corporation (NYSE: CHK) implied volatility up on gas price movement and expected fund raising.

CHK is the largest independent and third largest overall producer of natural gas in the U.S. Bloomberg reports Natural Gas Futures are up .88% to 5.63. CHK has a market cap of $15 billion with long-term debt of $8.3 billion. CHK announced on 8/8/07 a $500 million issuance of convertible senior notes (convertible debts increases volatility). CHK filed to sell EUR $525 million in senior notes on 11/27/06. CHK filed to sell $792 million in senior notes on 12/1/06. CHK filed to sell 30 million shares in a secondary on 12/7/06. CHK October option implied volatility of 33 was above its 26-week average of 28 according to Track Data, suggesting larger price risk.

Kimberly-Clark Corporation (NYSE: KMB) implied volatility flat; KMB has low debt to equity ratio.

1.3 billion people, nearly a quarter of the world's population, use KMB brands every day. KMB is recently down 98 cents to $68.42. KMB has a market cap of $29 billion with long term debt of $3 billion. KMB reported 2006 revenue of $16.7 billion. KMB has been frequently mentioned as an LBO candidate in 2006. KMB option implied volatility of 18 was near its 26-week average according to Track Data, suggesting non-directional risks.

Daily options update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.

File this under Julie Roehm: avenger. The PR food fight between Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. (NYSE: WMT) and its former marketing communications chief just got more interesting. I don't know why she picked late Friday afternoon on a get-away-weekend to launch her latest missive but according to the Wall Street Journal, Julie Roehm is alleging that WMT executives violated its ethics policy by accepting discounts on yachts, diamonds and personal gifts from vendors.

To put this into perspective, here's a recap of the rounds so far:

1. Wal-Mart fires Roehm alleging she accepted gifts from an advertising agency that was later chosen to handle WMT's ad account (12/06).
2. Roehm countersues WMT for breach of contract (12/06).
3. In a countersuit, WMT releases salacious details about an alleged affair Roehm had with a subordinate -- Sean Womack -- accusing her of misusing WMT travel funds on business trips with him. The suit cites one e-mail purportedly sent to Womack by Roehm as saying: "I think about us together all of the time. Little moments like watching your face when you kiss me." (3/07).

And today's round goes to Roehm, who alleges that WMT CEO H. Lee Scott, received "preferential prices" on yachts and "a large pink diamond for his wife" through his relationship with Irwin Jacobs. One of Jacobs's companies, Jacobs Trading, has the exclusive right to buy unsold WMT merchandise.

Laundry detergent manufacturers have done it again; doubling the potency of detergent while cutting the bottle size in half. The Wall Street Journal talks about the marketing challenge that Procter & Gamble Co. (NYSE: PG), Unilever (NYSE: UL) and their competitors are about to face. The impetus for this move is not a greener earth or a more useful product, but instead, pressure from retailers like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (NYSE: WMT) to squeeze more product into the same shelf space. You will be able to do just as many loads with half as much detergent, and the price will be the same per bottle. The problem is getting people to realize that and, more importantly, convince them that they aren't somehow getting ripped off.

As the Journal says, "Retailers are pushing the big shrink in detergent bottles because when their shelves are full with smaller bottles, they lose fewer sales to products being out of stock and less employee time is spent replenishing product. Retailers also save on transportation costs because more of the smaller bottles can fit on a truck. Meanwhile, manufacturers, which over the past two years have been hit hard by high oil prices, save on the petroleum-based plastic packaging as well as the costs of shipping to retailers."

Wal-Mart CEO Lee Scott's strategy of promoting the products as green-friendly makes sense, given how in vogue that is right now -- less plastic, less transportation -- it actually is environmentally friendly. But there's still the emotional, less rational problem: How do you convince someone to pay the same amount for 50 ounces as they used to pay for 100? And what's more, why do the retailers and manufacturers get all the benefits?