re: Exxon is in the $63 range ** back on topic

XOM closes at $65.76, down 0.78%.

and VERY good news at the end of the day for Exxon's future:

(Source: Fort Worth Star-Telegram (Fort Worth, Texas))trackingBy Jack Z. Smith, Fort Worth Star-Telegram, Texas

quote:

---

Feb. 17--XTO Energy today reported robust earnings of $537 million, or 92 cents per share, on record revenues of $2.34 billion for the fourth quarter of 2009.

That compared to earnings of $351 million, or 61 cents per share, on revenues of $1.96 billion for the fourth quarter of 2008.

For all of 2009, the Fort Worth-based natural gas and oil producer had record earnings of $2.02 billion, or $3.46 per share, on record revenues of $9.06 billion. That compared to earnings of $1.91 billion, or $3.54 per share, on revenues of $7.7 billion for 2008.

After adjustments for unusual items, fourth-quarter and full-year earnings for 2009 were $542 million and $2.09 billion, respectively, compared to comparable fourth-quarter and full-year earnings for 2008 of $393 million and $1.95 billion, respectively.

XTO, expected to be acquired by Irving-based Exxon Mobil Corp. in the second quarter, also announced today that it had record production equivalent to 2.88 billion cubic feet of natural gas per day for the fourth quarter of 2009, up 9 percent from 2.64 billion cubic feet per day in the fourth quarter of 2008.

For all of 2009, XTO said its gas production averaged a record 2.34 billion cubic feet per day, up 23 percent from 2008, and its oil production averaged a record 66,300 barrels per day, up 18 percent from 2008.

The company said its proved reserves as of Dec. 31 were the equivalent of 14.83 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, a record that represents a 9 percent increase of nearly a trillion cubic feet over proved reserves of 13.86 trillion cubic feet as of year-end 2008. The reserve estimates were made by Miller and Lents, Ltd., independent petroleum engineers, XTO said.

The company's natural gas reserves increased 6 percent to 12.5 trillion cubic feet and, combined with natural gas liquids of 93 million barrels, equaled 88 percent of reserves. Oil reserves increased 10 percent to 294 million barrels.

XTO has been a leader in major U.S. shale-gas plays, including the Barnett Shale of North Texas. That's a primary reason why Exxon Mobil was attracted to XTO, which it plans to buy for about $31 billion in an all-stock transaction, pending approval of XTO shareholders. The deal is valued at about $41 billion when including approximately $10 billion in XTO debt that Exxon would assume.

---

A bollinger band is just an average range in which a stock is likely to trade. The wider the bands the more volatile the security and vice versa. The middle band is just the simple 20-day moving average with the upper being 2 standard deviations above that level and the lower 2 standard deviations below. Once a stock is trading above or below its upper or lower bollinger band, that security is thought to be trading outside of its fair valuation range and prices at either of those two extremes are tremendously hard to sustain.

In fact, one of the things I look for when shorting a stock is to find one trading outside of its upper bollie. If the leadings indicators agree (StochRSI, CCI, Wm%R, Fast STO), then it is likely a good candidate.

Lastly, though it is hard to sustain any price which falls outside of the bollies, it is harder to sustain prices which are ABOVE the upper bollie, as there is a natural downward pressure on every stock anyway.

Here's a good read:

LINK

quote:

---

there is a natural downward pressure on every stock anyway.

---

can you expand on this ?

The Biggest of Big Oil Is Getting Bigger

I haven't done any empirical research on this topic or anything like that. And this would probably be a discussion better suited for the economic philosophers out there as opposed to just a finance guy like myself. But I have come to find in my personal experience that it is always just much easier for price to depreciate than it is for it to appreciate. I believe this is so because appreciation requires financial, physical, and mental input. In turn, that input requires energy, and since energy is a limited resource, it appears to me that naturally there would be a tendency for price to move in the direction that does not require energy (down).

I think this same model can be applied to a number of different scenarios. Take Presidential approval ratings for example. For the President's ratings to improve, he must do something that the people find favorable. They will not improve on their own. For them to decline, he must either do something that the people find unfavorable OR (and this is the kicker) nothing at all. Since it is much easier to do nothing than to do something, it appears that it will always be easier for his ratings to move in the direction that can be effected by nothingness (down). I think that same theorization can also be applied to the financial markets.

I hope this isn't too "out there". This type of economic philosophizing is not my expertise by any means, but I do think it's just natural for stocks to deflate in price.

And there's the pullback.

I apologize for not being clear. I was referring to MVIS.

What percent loss was that?

quote:

---

Just for the record, MVIS bounced off of 2.20 today

---

It broke through that price today. $2.17 earlier today.

following pretty close there huh ?