<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd">
<channel>
<title>BloggingStocks</title>
<link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com</link>
<description>BloggingStocks</description>

<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.</copyright>
<generator>Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/</generator><item><title><![CDATA[Bush, Congress still seen backing revised energy bill]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/other-issues/" rel="tag">Other Issues</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/f/" rel="tag">Ford Motor (F)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/gm/" rel="tag">General Motors (GM)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/tm/" rel="tag">Toyota Motor Corp. (TM)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/oil/" rel="tag">Oil</a></p>The odds of a 2007 Energy Bill passing the Democratic Party-led U.S. Congress, with President Bush's blessing, "Are still likely," according to a Washington-based, public policy lobbyist with knowledge of the matter.<br /><br />"The bill will need a few revisions, but I'd say it's a 70/30 go, in favor of the bill being signed by the president," the lobbyist told Bloggingstocks Tuesday, on condition he not be identified by name.<br /><br />The lobbyist, who represents primarily Democratic Party-based constituencies, said the the bill's renewable energy component and potential tax increases remain the hangups in the bill.<br /><br /> <strong>Modification likely</strong><br /><br />"More than likely President Bush will get the renewable energy component modified, but the Democrats may gain extra footing with better solar/wind energy credits," he said.<br /><br />The bill current would require utilities to generate more power from renewable energy. Lawmakers from the Southeast U.S. have said they're concerned that utilities in their states will not be able to meet the requirement, <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119674224083012902.html?mod=googlenews_wsj">due to a lack of wind power,</a><em> The Wall Street Journal</em> reported.<br />
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><!--[if !supportEmptyParas]--> <!--[endif]--><o:p></o:p></p><p><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/" rel="bookmark">Continue reading <em>Bush, Congress still seen backing revised energy bill</em></a></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/">Bush, Congress still seen backing revised energy bill</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1054686/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/12/04/bush-congress-still-seen-backing-revised-energy-bill/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>2008 presidential election</category><category>biofuels</category><category>Bush</category><category>CAFE</category><category>cars</category><category>Chrysler</category><category>Congress</category><category>Democrats</category><category>electricity</category><category>energy bill</category><category>environment</category><category>F</category><category>Ford</category><category>gas tax</category><category>General Motors</category><category>GM</category><category>inthenews</category><category>light trucks</category><category>mpg</category><category>natural gas</category><category>President Bush</category><category>presidential election</category><category>renewable energy</category><category>Republicans</category><category>solar energy</category><category>SUVs</category><category>U.S. Congress</category><category>utilities</category><category>voters</category><category>wind power</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Lazzaro]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Tue, 04 Dec 2007 17:01:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Option update 10-3-07: LDK Solar (LDK) implied volatility spikes as LDK sells off 24%]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/option-update-10-3-07-ldk-solar-ldk-implied-volatility-spikes/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/option-update-10-3-07-ldk-solar-ldk-implied-volatility-spikes/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/option-update-10-3-07-ldk-solar-ldk-implied-volatility-spikes/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/options/" rel="tag">Options</a></p><p><a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/ldk-solar-co-ltd/ldk/nys"><img align="right" alt="" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/10/flywall_final_logo_mini.gif" /><strong>LDK Solar</strong></a> (NYSE: <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/ldk-solar-co-ltd/ldk/nys">LDK</a>), a manufacturer of multicrystalline solar wafers, was sold off down $16.65 to $51.65. Piper Jaffray said "We have confirmed that the LDK financial controller recently left the company." LDK October option implied volatility of 133 was above its 12-week average of 69 according to Track Data, suggesting larger risk.</p>
<p><br /><em>Daily options Update is provided by Stock Specialist Paul Foster of theflyonthewall.com.</em></p><p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/option-update-10-3-07-ldk-solar-ldk-implied-volatility-spikes/">Option update 10-3-07: LDK Solar (LDK) implied volatility spikes as LDK sells off 24%</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:36:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/option-update-10-3-07-ldk-solar-ldk-implied-volatility-spikes/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/1004704/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/10/03/option-update-10-3-07-ldk-solar-ldk-implied-volatility-spikes/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Chinese solar panels</category><category>ChineseSolarPanels</category><category>Energy bill</category><category>EnergyBill</category><category>financial controller</category><category>FinancialController</category><category>Momentum investors</category><category>MomentumInvestors</category><category>multicrystalline solar wafers,</category><category>MulticrystallineSolarWafers,</category><category>option implied volatility</category><category>OptionImpliedVolatility</category><category>Piper Jaffray</category><category>PiperJaffray</category><category>solar cells</category><category>solar energy</category><category>SolarCells</category><category>SolarEnergy</category><category>traders</category><category>volatility Spikes</category><category>VolatilitySpikes</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Paul Foster]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 03 Oct 2007 16:36:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[Senate passes diluted energy bill - will Bush veto?]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/senate-passes-diluted-energy-bill-will-bush-veto/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/senate-passes-diluted-energy-bill-will-bush-veto/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/senate-passes-diluted-energy-bill-will-bush-veto/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/politics/" rel="tag">Politics</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/oil/" rel="tag">Oil</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/agriculture/" rel="tag">Agriculture</a></p><img vspace="4" hspace="4" border="0" align="right" src="http://www.blogcdn.com/www.bloggingstocks.com/media/2007/06/modelt.jpg" alt="" />In 1908, a Ford Model-T traveled 25 miles on a gallon of gasoline. In an attempt to return to those halcyon days, the U.S. voted late Thursday night to <a href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/senate-passes-energy-bill-ups-gas/20070621182709990001?cid=403">pass a new energy bill</a> that sets lofty CAFE goals for the American car fleet.<br /><br />Along with mandating a fleet average of 35 mpg by 2020 and energy-efficient appliances and lights, the measure will require the fuel industry to raise ethanol production to 36 billion gallons by 2022. Slightly <a href="http://www.ethanolrfa.org/industry/statistics/#A">less than 5 billion gallons</a> were produced in 2006.<br /><br />The first engine to <a href="http://www.eia.doe.gov/kids/history/timelines/ethanol.html ">use ethanol as a fuel was built in 1826</a>.<br /><br />In recognition of the damage to the nation's grain crop prices that increased ethanol production would wreak if it were based on corn, the measure mandates that most of that increase come from cellulose (think wood pulp).<br /><br />The auto industry, in an embarrassing admission of its continuing inability to forecast consumer demand (if you remember its attitude about the Volkswagen Beetle in the 1960's, you know what I mean), was prepared to filibuster the bill, but the Senate was able to garner enough votes to override. However, the Republicans were able to use this lever to pry out of the bill language that would have taxed the petroleum industry to create a fund a program promoting fuel efficiency. They also were successful in removing a requirement that 15% of the nation's electricity be generated via windmills, solar power and the like.<br /><br />President Bush's approval on the bill is still in question, though, as he opposes many of the measures including one allowing the government to punish companies found guilty of price-gouging. <br /><br />In many arenas, the Republican and Democratic parties have little to distinguish between them, but this bill sharply differentiates their approach to the energy problem. This compromise seems to me seems, a strong vote for more of the same policies that have maintained the status quo for generations.<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/senate-passes-diluted-energy-bill-will-bush-veto/">Senate passes diluted energy bill - will Bush veto?</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:30:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/senate-passes-diluted-energy-bill-will-bush-veto/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/924182/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/senate-passes-diluted-energy-bill-will-bush-veto/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>auto industry</category><category>AutoIndustry</category><category>CAFE</category><category>carmakers</category><category>cellulose ethanol</category><category>CelluloseEthanol</category><category>energy bill</category><category>energy efficiency</category><category>energy policy</category><category>EnergyBill</category><category>EnergyEfficiency</category><category>EnergyPolicy</category><category>ethanol</category><category>ethanol gasoline</category><category>EthanolGasoline</category><category>fleet average</category><category>FleetAverage</category><category>mpg</category><category>petroleum industry</category><category>PetroleumIndustry</category><category>Senate</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Tom Barlow]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:30:00 EST</pubDate></item><item><title><![CDATA[GM and others rally against new fuel efficiency standards]]></title><link>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/gm-and-others-rally-against-new-fuel-efficiency-standards/</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/gm-and-others-rally-against-new-fuel-efficiency-standards/</guid><comments>http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/gm-and-others-rally-against-new-fuel-efficiency-standards/#comments</comments><description><![CDATA[<p>Filed under: <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/products-and-services/" rel="tag">Products and Services</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/law/" rel="tag">Law</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/f/" rel="tag">Ford Motor (F)</a>, <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/category/gm/" rel="tag">General Motors (GM)</a></p>With the <a href="http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/senate-passes-energy-bill-ups-gas/20070621182709990001?cid=403">passage of a new energy bil</a>l that requires a drastic increase in the average fuel efficiency of automobiles sold in the U.S., automakers are feeling a bit steamed right now. Mandating significant increases in gas efficiency for vehicles even within a little more than a decade is an enormous task for automakers. New designs, manufacturing processes and probably a hundred more things become necessary.<br /><br />At the same time, the financial pressure the big three automakers are under make large changes like this hard to swallow. But this doesn't only affect domestic manufacturers ---- all automakers selling vehicles in the U.S. have to conform. The trick is that other automakers like Honda and Toyota started reacting to the market's need for more fuel-efficient cars (and the marketing of them) long before domestic automakers did. Now, those automakers are sitting in a much prettier setting than <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/general-motors-corporation/gm/nys?tabs=quotesandnews">General Motors</a> (NYSE:<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/general-motors-corporation/gm/nys?tabs=quotesandnews">GM</a>) or the <a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/ford-motor-company/f/nys?tabs=quotesandnews">Ford Motor Co</a>.(NYSE:<a href="http://finance.aol.com/quotes/ford-motor-company/f/nys?tabs=quotesandnews">F)</a>. It's estimated that the fuel economy changes mandated for the future will cost GM $40 billion alone. Yikes.<br /><br />The just-passed energy <a href="http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6684226&amp;nav=MXEF">bill required a fuel economy increase of about 40%</a> (to 35 miles per gallon) by 2020 -- just over 12-and-a-half years from now. Is that even technically possible? Most global automakers, who are united on this front (with the curious absence of Nissan), say that this expectation is way out of whack. The bill was passed late last night in the U.S. Senate by a vote of 65-27, and a vote by the U.S. House is probably coming next week. President Bush also added his opinion, stating that Congress must be "realistic" about this kind of legislation, and that he opposes much of it (while still supporting alternative methods like ethanol use).<p style="padding:5px;background:#ddd;border:1px solid #ccc;clear:both;"><a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/gm-and-others-rally-against-new-fuel-efficiency-standards/">GM and others rally against new fuel efficiency standards</a> originally appeared on <a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com">BloggingStocks</a> on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:01:00 EST.  Please see our <a href="http://www.weblogsinc.com/feed-terms/">terms for use of feeds</a>.</p><h6 style="clear: both; padding: 8px 0 0 0; height: 2px; font-size: 1px; border: 0; margin: 0; padding: 0;"></h6><a href=http://www.wboc.com/Global/story.asp?S=6684226&amp;nav=MXEF>Read</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/gm-and-others-rally-against-new-fuel-efficiency-standards/" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent link to this entry">Permalink</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/forward/924112/" title="Send this entry to a friend via email">Email this</a>&nbsp;|&nbsp;<a href="http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/06/22/gm-and-others-rally-against-new-fuel-efficiency-standards/#comments" title="View reader comments on this entry">Comments</a>]]></description><category>Energy Bill</category><category>EnergyBill</category><category>F</category><category>Ford Motor</category><category>FordMotor</category><category>Fuel efficiency</category><category>FuelEfficiency</category><category>General Motors</category><category>GeneralMotors</category><category>GM</category><dc:creator><![CDATA[Brian White]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Fri, 22 Jun 2007 11:01:00 EST</pubDate></item></channel></rss>
