<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" ?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/23352264/device/xml/for/cnbcxslt" ?><!--This is a comment that has been inserted because of the arrogance of IE7 and FireFox 2 developers that have decided that they don't need to honour a xml stylesheet instruction.	Luckily the designers of these browsers use very brittle sniffing techniques that can be overridden by consuming the first 512 bytes of an xml file. This comment provides these essential 512 bytes of crud and destroys the nice simplicity and cleanliness of my Atom feed. This is a comment that has been inserted because of the arrogance of IE7 and FireFox 2 developers that have decided that they don't need to honour a xml stylesheet instruction. Luckily the designers of these browsers use very brittle sniffing techniques that can be overridden by consuming the first 512 bytes of an xml file. This comment provides these essential 512 bytes of crud and destroys the nice simplicity and cleanliness of my Atom feed. This is a comment that has been inserted because of the arrogance of IE7 and FireFox 2 developers that have decided that they don't need to honour a xml stylesheet instruction. Luckily the designers of these browsers use very brittle sniffing techniques that can be overridden by consuming the first 512 bytes of an xml file. This comment provides these essential 512 bytes of crud and destroys the nice simplicity and cleanliness of my Atom feed.--><rss version="2.0" xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata" ><channel><generator>Workbench</generator><title>Options Action Blog</title><link>http://optionsaction.cnbc.com</link><description>"Options Action" features option traders from some of the top firms on Wall Street. Each week, they gather for a fast-paced, half-hour show that focuses on how to increase profits and limit losses using common option techniques.</description><language>en</language><copyright></copyright><webMaster>customercare@support.cnbc.com</webMaster><ttl>60</ttl><item><title>Doubling Down?</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Doubling Down?</metadata:title><description>Are options traders doubling down on Las Vegas Sands ahead of earnings? That appears to be the case with today's action.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">Are options traders doubling down on Las Vegas Sands ahead of earnings? That appears to be the case with today's action.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 19:37 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33538608</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33538608</link></item><item><title>Trade Update</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Trade Update</metadata:title><description>Now for the update on Dan Nathan's trade. Just to recap, he suggested buying the November 190/200 call spread, paying $7.80 for the Nov 190-strike call and collecting $4.20 for selling the Nov 200-strike call, net-net paying a total of $3.60 to win a possible $6.40.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">Now for the update on Dan Nathan's trade. Just to recap, he suggested buying the November 190/200 call spread, paying $7.80 for the Nov 190-strike call and collecting $4.20 for selling the Nov 200-strike call, net-net paying a total of $3.60 to win a possible $6.40.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 17:53 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33399851</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33399851</link></item><item><title>Still Want To Take A Bite?</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Still Want To Take A Bite?</metadata:title><description>I know marketcap is a relatively meaningless stat, but Apple's is truly an astounding figure. With today's surge, the company is worth roughly $178 billion. That's more than Google ($175 billion) and General Electric ($165 billion), the parent company of this fine network.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">I know marketcap is a relatively meaningless stat, but Apple's is truly an astounding figure. With today's surge, the company is worth roughly $178 billion. That's more than Google ($175 billion) and General Electric ($165 billion), the parent company of this fine network.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Tue, 20 Oct 2009 15:56 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33398138</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33398138</link></item><item><title>Making Those Best Directional Bets</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Making Those Best Directional Bets</metadata:title><description>Yankees shmankees - Is there anything better than a good ol' fashion earnings preview with derivatives? From my standpoint, the answer would be a solid no. But just incase you missed part of last week's show, I do want to update the faithful.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_image" style="float:left;padding-right:10px;"><img border="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__COMPANY_IMAGES/A/apple_logo_new_1.htease.jpg"></div><div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">Yankees shmankees - Is there anything better than a good ol' fashion earnings preview with derivatives? From my standpoint, the answer would be a solid no. But just incase you missed part of last week's show, I do want to update the faithful.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Mon, 19 Oct 2009 23:53 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33388071</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33388071</link></item><item><title>Intel Latest</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Intel Latest</metadata:title><description>It's more than a motto; it's a way of life on "Options Action." We like to risk less to possibly make more. And last week, Dan Nathan - chief options strategist at Phoenix Partners Group nailed it with Intel.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_image" style="float:left;padding-right:10px;"><img border="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__EARNINGS/earnings_central_badge.htease.jpg"></div><div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">It's more than a motto; it's a way of life on "Options Action." We like to risk less to possibly make more. And last week, Dan Nathan - chief options strategist at Phoenix Partners Group nailed it with Intel.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2009 16:45 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33311502</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33311502</link></item><item><title>Cost Cutting</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Cost Cutting</metadata:title><description>We say it often on the show: we like to risk less to possibly make more. That's why we typically shun buying options outright, and choose to pair our costs by selling one option to buy another. But occasionally, one of our guys (and gal) senses a bargain, and that's exactly what happened with Dan's strangle on Costco.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_image" style="float:left;padding-right:10px;"><img border="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__COMPANY_IMAGES/A-D/costco_store_front1.htease.jpg"></div><div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">We say it often on the show: we like to risk less to possibly make more. That's why we typically shun buying options outright, and choose to pair our costs by selling one option to buy another. But occasionally, one of our guys (and gal) senses a bargain, and that's exactly what happened with Dan's strangle on Costco.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Wed, 07 Oct 2009 16:14 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33210001</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33210001</link></item><item><title>Exxon's Conundrum</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Exxon's Conundrum</metadata:title><description>If you were a stock holder, would you rather have a buyback, or a dividend? If you own Exxon Mobil, you probably want the latter.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_image" style="float:left;padding-right:10px;"><img border="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/__Story_Inserts/graphics/__ENERGY/_OIL/oil_barrell_money2.htease.jpg"></div><div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">If you were a stock holder, would you rather have a buyback, or a dividend? If you own Exxon Mobil, you probably want the latter.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Thu, 01 Oct 2009 20:01 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33126517</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33126517</link></item><item><title>Options Action Recap</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Options Action Recap</metadata:title><description>If we sound like a broken record, I apologize in advance, but there is a reason we implore our viewers to spend less when using options, and the reason is quite simple: if you spend less, you lose less, and last week's trades offered a great example of that.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_image" style="float:left;padding-right:10px;"><img border="0" vspace="0" hspace="0" src="http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/CNBC/Sections/News_And_Analysis/_Specials/AlternativeInvesting09/_IMAGES/__WEB GFX/Alt_Investing_badge.htease.jpg"></div><div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">If we sound like a broken record, I apologize in advance, but there is a reason we implore our viewers to spend less when using options, and the reason is quite simple: if you spend less, you lose less, and last week's trades offered a great example of that.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:30 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/33095104</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/33095104</link></item><item><title>Options Action Recap</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">Options Action Recap</metadata:title><description>Buying protection is great and good, but truth be told, spending money for protection that ultimately proves worthless is akin to lighting money on fire.</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">Buying protection is great and good, but truth be told, spending money for protection that ultimately proves worthless is akin to lighting money on fire.</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Wed, 23 Sep 2009 20:51 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/32990445</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/32990445</link></item><item><title>83 Redux</title><metadata:title xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata">83 Redux</metadata:title><description>According to Gary Kaminsky, the market has not been this much above its 200-day moving average since May of 1983. "It's just another indication that the fear to "not own" stocks is sometimes as great as the fear to own names for many portfolio managers, especially this time of year," said Kaminsky. "The market is way overbought short-term."</description><metadata:description xmlns:metadata="http://search.cnbc.com/rss/2.0/modules/siteContentMetadata"><![CDATA[<div class="rss_abstract" style="font:Arial 12px;width:100%;float:left;clear:both">According to Gary Kaminsky, the market has not been this much above its 200-day moving average since May of 1983. "It's just another indication that the fear to "not own" stocks is sometimes as great as the fear to own names for many portfolio managers, especially this time of year," said Kaminsky. "The market is way overbought short-term."</div>]]></metadata:description><pubDate>Thu, 17 Sep 2009 19:53 GMT</pubDate><guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.cnbc.com//id/32900313</guid><link>http://www.cnbc.com//id/32900313</link></item></channel></rss>