Option volume has ramped up today on KeyCorp (KEY), with activity rising well beyond the usual level on both the call and put side of the tape. Taking a closer look at some of the major block trades on this regional banking issue, it appears that a single spread strategist is responsible for a healthy portion of this option volume.

Specifically, the trader purchased a block of 10,000 June 10 calls for $0.50 each, and simultaneously sold 10,000 June 8 puts for $0.25 each. The result was a net debit of $0.25 per pair of contracts -- which means the speculator can begin collecting profits on those purchased calls if KEY rallies beyond $10.25 by June expiration.

A change is taking place in the world of commodity metals, and that change is now being accelerated by none other than JPMorgan Chase (JPM). News reports are indicating that Chase has purchased up to 50% of all the London Metals Exchange warehoused copper. It is interesting, yes, but what does this mean when viewing the big picture?

It would seem that the intrinsic wisdom of "physically holding" commodity metals is finally being realized. Copper, for all its earthy commonality and utility, holds great sway over the economies of the world. Copper is a near universal necessity in the movement of electricity, water, and a host of pressurized gasses. Without immediately available copper, life as we know it would most probably come to a sudden, screeching halt.

Research in Motion (RIMM) shares closed down Wednesday, under-performing the broader market, which finished near break even. RIMM didn't report any news of its own accord, but investors likely reacted to an ill-received earnings guidance from mobile-phone peer Nokia Corporation (NOK). A large-scale options trader evidently used yesterday's pullback as an opportunity to scoop up some longer-dated call options.

Early yesterday, a block of around 7,000 out-of-the-money January 85 calls hit the tape for $1.45 per contract ($145 apiece), for a total premium of slightly more than $1 million paid. While open interest is already 10,000 at this strike, it appears these calls were bought to open, judging from an increase in implied volatility (and the fact that these options have more than six months until expiration).

Wednesday, the Fed announced that interest rates would remain at zero to 0.25% for at least the next six months.

The Fed statement read as follows: "weak conditions are likely to warrant exceptionally low levels of the federal funds rate for an extended period." The only change in the Fed's policy was a tweak in the amount of corporate debt that the Fed intends to buy.

TheStreet.com's Jim Cramer says the bizarre rules these days make it worth looking at stocks through a different lens.

How much should we care about low-dollar speculation? How much should we care about the incessant trading in CIT (NYSE: CIT) (Cramer's Take) and Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) (Cramer's Take), Alcatel-Lucent (NYSE: ALU) (Cramer's Take), or Vonage (NYSE: VG) (Cramer's Take) and Sprint (NYSE: S) (Cramer's Take)? Or even Citigroup (NYSE: C) (Cramer's Take)?

First, I have to tell you that I worry about it less than I used to. Why? Because when we used to have rules and government officials that were willing to speak the truth about stocks, we wouldn't have these single-digit players out there every day. But without it, how in heck can people not believe that Fannie and Freddie Mac (NYSE: FRE) (Cramer's Take) are the biggest and best bets on a turn in housing?

First of all, let's look at what hedging really is. Take, for example, a farmer who grows corn. He knows that his cost for growing corn is, say, $3.00 per bushel. But he doesn't know what price the price of bushel of corn will be come harvest time. He looks at the September futures contract for corn and sees that the price is $3.30 per bushel.

To guarantee that he will get $3.30 at harvest time, he sells September corn contracts equal to his crop (each corn contract equals 5,000 bushels). When harvest time comes he delivers his corn to the appropriate delivery point designated by the Chicago Board of Trade exchange (CBOT) where the contracts are traded. It should be noted that if the price of the futures contract goes above $3.30 per bushel, the farmer may be called for margin money until he makes delivery, at which time his account is settled out.

Are we fanning the flames or informing the public? Perhaps we are doing both, but I think that sometimes we make matters worse by writing about a dire situation or making it sound more dire than it is just to grab some attention.

In my view, it's fine to have a headline that reads "ABC Bank downgraded by Doui, Cheatum & Howh," yet it may be too provocative to use something like "ABC Bank looks like toast after downgrade, would you risk it?"

Many of our readers have commented lately that we are doing the latter. When we post something edgy, are we promoting debate or just scaring folks?

Its one thing to post "Investors are concerned" and still another to write "Investors can't to the door fast enough."

It seems to me that anyone in a position of leadership or the public eye should be a voice of reason. We should try to write objectively and not sensationalize things.

Unfortunately, the media is often guided by the old adage -- Dog bites man is not a story, man bites dog is.

Add another case study to the controversy over speculators and market manipulation.

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission is investigating whether cotton prices were 'artificially inflated' in early March, The Wall Street Journal reported Wednesday (subscription required). The March 4 price spiked from about 70 cents per pound to an intra-day high of $1.09 and closed at 93.1 cents.

In Wednesday morning trading, cotton rose about four-tenths of one cent to 70.070 cents per pound.

The Journal reported that the price spike in early March was unusual and baffled traders because cotton inventories were at their highest level in four decades, towel and fabric demand was weakened by the housing slump, and global supplies were high.

On the other side of argument, one which argues that market forces set the price, some cotton merchants themselves were trading aggressively; a little-used exchange rule suddenly required merchants to unwind sell orders; and financial investors, including pension and hedge funds, started to enter the market, which generated an eight-fold jump February 19-26 in net buying, The Journal reported, citing CFTC data.

Another day, another oil record.

Oil easily pushed past $145 Thursday morning after traders calculated that the already weak dollar has further to fall after the European Central Bank increased a key interest rate by a quarter point to 4.25%.

Oil rose as much as $2.28 to $145.85 per barrel -- an all-time high -- before easing back slightly to trade at $144.40 at mid-day.

Oil tends to rise when the dollar falls as investors/traders seek to preserve purchasing power of the decreased value of dollar-denominated commodities by bidding their price up. However, it's important to note that the dollar/oil correlation is not perfect: there have been instances in which the dollar fell and oil fell.

With oil at $135 a barrel - up 463% since January 2001, Washington wrings its hands and says there's nothing it can do to lower the price. I think that's nonsense. There are two things that Washington can do today to get the price down: raise interest rates and close the swaps loophole.

What is the role of speculators in the price of oil and other commodities and what should be done to get those prices down? Some argue that oil prices are set by supply and demand. But if that were true, oil would drop because global demand is forecast to grow 1.2 million bbl/day -- and demand in the U.S. is down 300,000 barrels a day -- while global supply is expected to rise 2 million bbl/day.

Perhaps sixty percent of trading volume in oil is due to speculators -- these traders bet on a declining dollar and a rising price of oil. Raising interest rates would help lower the value of the dollar which has lost 70% of its value relative to the Euro since January 2001. Our Fed Funds rate fell from 5.25% to 2% since last August whereas in Europe, their rate is 4% and expected to rise. This difference makes Euros a more attractive currency for investors. So if the U.S. raises interest rates, people will start to buy dollars instead.

I seriously enjoy reading Ina Steiner. She's the editor of AuctionBytes.com. I like her stuff because she's just so damn objective. She simply lays out the facts and lets you come to your own conclusions. I also like Ina because she continuously holds a very bright light directly at eBay (NASDAQ: EBAY).

Recently, Ina opened the floor at the AuctionBytes blog for discussion about the involvement of Meg Whitman in the Mitt Romney campaign. Needless to say, the situation has raised some eyebrows. Personally, I don't care what direction either Meg or Mitt choose to go. Ina's readers, however, had a very dim view of the situation. My question is, has Meg's insurgence into the political realm affected the shareholders of eBay?

Forget for a moment all the ill conceived plans that eBay has tripped over. Ignore the Skype debacle, the eBay China crash, the silencing of Stubhub and the host of other demons that in my opinion the Whitman crew has set loose, buried or denied. Forget for a moment about all that cash flowing into eBay coffers with nothing better accomplished than to outsource customer service and to pay Whitman's salary. Ignore the wolf at the door in the form of Amazon Inc.(NASDAQ: AMZN). Never mind that eBay has lost its shine and reputation and is yet to pay a dividend to its shareholders. I'm talking about presidential politics and corporate wrangling here.

One of my favorite Jim Cramer-isms is "Commandment No. 5" -- Tips are for waiters. Here's what he writes:

You know that the best moves are takeovers and you are convinced that if you can catch one, it will make up for all the bum steers and bad bets you have made. Tips are winning lottery tickets in most people's eyes.

That's the reason I've had to default to a simple analogy, tips are for waiters, to remind myself how stupid tips really are. Does it occur to you, on hearing the tip, that if the person telling you that Nokia is going to buy RIM really knows that's going to happen, the person is an insider and is breaking the law, and you could get in trouble, too? Does it occur to you that if the person isn't an insider, he doesn't know? There simply is no way a tip like that can work. Leave it for the waiter.

That's what investors should be keeping in mind as they watch shares of E*Trade (NASDAQ: ETFC) surge on extraordinarily vague takeover rumors. Shares were up as much as 25% on rumors that Schwab and Ameritrade were interested in buying the beleaguered broker. Where did these rumors come from? Ah, yes. "A source." And who's to say that "the source" isn't some clown holding a ton of E*Trade shares that he needs to get rid of -- for 25% more than they were trading before the rumor?

Everyone knows E*Trade could be in play -- any time a stock tanks that much, there are always going to rumors. But no one really knows what's going on, and buying E*Trade on the rumor is just mindless speculation.

As Doug McIntyre wrote, "E*Trade may be worth over $5, but it could also be worth a lot less."

Oil Update: Oil is now above $90 per barrel. This latest push higher by oil was blamed, for the most part, on tensions between Turkey and Kurdish Workers Party (PKK) rebels seeking Kurdish independence, which threatens to disrupt oil transport in northern Iraq. Crude oil reached new nominal high Friday of $92.22, although in real terms the price is still below oil's inflation-adjusted high of $101.70 set in April 1980 during the Iran hostage crisis.

Here's a snapshot of crude oil market conditions using three analytical frameworks, or measuring sticks, if you will, with a note on several intangibles:

Geopolitical: Add the Turkey/Kurd dispute to Iran (nuclear technology/weapons) and the Iraq War ,to confrontations and military actions that are adding a "war premium" to the price of oil. Depending on the analyst, that war premium has inflated crude oil's price by $10-$25 per barrel. Political unrest in Nigeria and a hawkish stance in Venezuela also items on analysts' radar screens.

Yesterday, comScore released the July market share data for the search engine industry. The results were not pretty for Yahoo Inc (NASDAQ: YHOO), with its share standing at just 23.5% for the month, way behind Google Inc's (NASDAQ: GOOG) 55.2% share of the market. Microsoft Corporation (NASDAQ: MSFT) stood at 12%, IAC/InterActiveCorp's (NASDAQ: IACI) Ask.com at 4.7% and Time Warner Inc (NYSE: TWX) at 4.4%.

While the market share data was being released, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer was telling Bloomberg that Yahoo would be an expensive acquisition. However, Ballmer may be positioning Microsoft to once again approach the No. 2 search engine company. Earlier this year, news reports circulated that Microsoft and Yahoo were in partnership discussions.

By combining its own sites with that of Yahoo's, Microsoft's market share would quickly jump to 36% market share -- not too bad. With the Internet just over ten years old, paying $50 billion for that much market share may be the best money Microsoft can spent. To date, the PC-centric software giant has had a tough time with most of its Internet initiatives. Conversely, Yahoo CEO, Jerry Yang, has to realistically assess its ability to catch up to the Google machine.

At the end of the day, the Silicon Valley-based search company may have to swallow its pride and hook up with the much despised Washington-based software giant. Microsoft would get to utilize its deep bench of software engineers with a powerful and underutilized portal, while Yahoo would get to move away from its foray into the media business and move back to being a technology driven company.

It may be their last chance to survive and thrive in the Internet era before having their lunches completely eaten by Google.

Perhaps it's not exactly normal that one financial company comes out with two contrary predictions, but Apple Inc (NASDAQ: AAPL) is no normal company and neither is the speculation it generates. A little over a week ago, a patent application, filed by Apple back in November, was released detailing a multifunctional handheld device with a mode-sensitive circular touch pad. Whispers of the initial design for an iPhone Nano quickly began to get louder. Therefore, it wasn't exactly shocking when a note, written to clients by JP Morgan analyst Kevin Chang, was published Monday predicting a new iPhone that would be smaller, cheaper, and available sometime in the fourth quarter of this year. Chang said in his note, "We believe [the patent] is a strong sign that Apple could potentially convert every iPod nano in a nano phone." Chang concluded by predicting that release of a cheaper iPhone would generate sales of 30 to 40 million for 2008, a massive increase over Apple's own expectations of sales totaling 10 million for 2008 for the current model.

Predictably, Apple shares hit a new all-time high on Tuesday following Chang's speculation. Tuesday morning's record $134.50 eclipsed a 52-week high of $133.34 that had been the result of massive hype prior to the June 29th release of the iPhone, that had sent Apple share prices up 40% in a few months. Now, Apple has managed to yet again generate a media frenzy with the suggestive patent application. However, as fast as Chang created joyous an-iPhone-in-every-pocket images, a colleague tried to erase them. Fellow analyst Bill Shope, who has covered Apple for JP Morgan since 2003, responded to Chang's note with one of his own on Tuesday. While Shope did not disagree with the inevitable release of cheaper iPhone, Shope declared a near-term launch unlikely, stating that it would be "unusual and highly risky" and predicted that "Apple is likely to keep the iPhone and iPod as distinct business segments for as long as it makes economic sense."

So which analyst's view is gaining support? Both. There are plenty of people who feel that the end of this year is a reasonable time frame for the release of a new iPhone and still more who feel that a merging of the iPhone and iPod is imminent. Gene Munster, of Piper Jaffray, stated in a note to clients "We believe the iPhone reveals much of what the iPod will soon be." Yet, there are also those who, 13 days after the birth of the original iPhone, feel that it is too soon to begin looking for baby iPhone. And, as patent lawyer Jay Sandvos of Bromberg & Sunstein points out, not all patents indicate development: "It makes sense [for Apple] to seek patent protection for every possible aspect of such a device, whether or not Apple actually plans to use it - just to prevent competitors from doing something along these lines." It certainly wouldn't be the first time speculation regarding an Apple patent had been wrong. But who can keep from guessing at what's next? There's something about that little Apple that keeps us hungry for more.