Is this science or science fiction? That thought came to mind when I read that traders who were exposed to more testosterone in the womb made six times more money than their low-testosterone-level peers on very volatile trading days. So if you want to breed a trader, expose him to lots of testosterone in the womb. How do you do that? Beats me.

To determine the traders' prenatal testosterone exposure, University of Minnesota researchers measured their "2D:4D ratio" which is the relative lengths of the index and ring fingers on the right hand. Those exposed to higher levels of testosterone in the womb tend to have relatively longer ring fingers.

Based on the 2D:4D measure, researchers who studied the traders' profits over a 20-month period between 2004 and 2007, found that those with the highest in-womb testosterone exposure in the womb earned six times more than those exposed to the least. They also tended to have the longest careers, surviving about three years longer on average.

No joke, does E*Trade Financial (NASDAQ: ETFC) have a purpose? I recently received an offering from E*Trade Financial promoting stock and options trading per transaction of $6.99 to $9.99. It offered 100 free trades to open an account. The problem is that I am already getting free trading from several bank brokerage accounts.

If I was not getting the free trades from my current accounts, there are competitors with better rates anyway. What is E*Trades competitive advantage? If it's not price, or size, or breadth of services, or physical branches or branch locations, how does it intend to distinguish itself? It does not offer in-depth research or anything not readily available elsewhere. In fact, if I was to go by what I received, it offers far less.

I have read many stories that question E*Trade's survival. In the literature that I received soliciting my business, I think it did a very poor job of convincing me it has a purpose for existing. Its beginnings as a web-based company were cool, but now every financial institution is online.

We went months and months without trading curbs being in effect. Now it is almost daily as the new volatility trend is much higher. The New York Stock Exchange itself calls it trading collars and the levels change each quarter. For the third quarter, trading collars go into effect when the Dow Jones Industrial Average is +190 points or -190 points. Here at the NYSE site you can also see how far the market has to move before any trading halts start coming into play.

If you aren't sure what trading curbs are, when the market rises above a threshold program buying can only be done on a down-tick. Conversely, if the market is tanking then program selling can only be done on an uptick. This keeps a little bit of a cap on the stock market and keeps it from getting too out of hand in either direction. That is the theory anyhow.

Now that the down-tick rule has been eliminated as of July short sellers can openly short sell a stock at the bid regardless of a downtick. This has already been blamed a bit on the major down days. Trading curbs are essentially the last buffer outside of market halts.

When that +190 or -190 changes to only a 90 point change, then trading curbs come back off until the 190 pont change is hit again. The gap-ups were so big in some of these stocks that it isn't all that surprising that we have given up some of the post- cut gains from the Fed cutting the discount rate for members.

Jon Ogg is a partner at 24/7 Wall St.; he is the publisher of the 24/7 Wall St. Special Situation Investing Newsletter and does not own securities in the companies he covers.

Warren Buffett or James Cramer, who do we have more faith in? Is that a serious question? Probably not. I have been told that Cramer's TV show has 17 million viewers. I wonder how many people would tune in to hear what Warren Buffett has to say. Indeed, Mr. Buffett might make for very boring television. We have even noticed here at BloggingStocks that when Cramer's name appears in the headline, the stories seem to be more popular. And while Buffett's name certainly attracts attention, it does not seem he is as popular.

Comparing the two noteworthy investment gurus reminds me of the saying: Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Cramer throws out dozens of picks and pans every week. Tracking all his commentary has turned into a web sporting event of sorts. When he changes his mind, I can only guess that those hanging on his every word get dizzy. I suppose that with Cramer, followers might get to eat on some days and on some they don't. I do know he has made some good calls. He has also made some unfortunate ones.