Ohio State Virginia Tech primed for seasonopening rematch

Then-redshirt freshman quarterback J.T. Barrett (16) carries the ball during a game Sept. 6 at Ohio Stadium. OSU lost 35-21. Credit: Lantern File Photo.Last season’s 35-21 Virginia Tech victory over eventual national champion Ohio State stood as 2014’s biggest upset, and now the two squads are set to meet up again exactly a year and a day later.The Buckeyes and Hokies met in Columbus last season for a Week Two matchup. An inexperienced redshirt freshman quarterback J.T. Barrett struggled to the tune of 9-of-29 passing with three interceptions, and he was sacked seven times by a relentless Virginia Tech rush.Although the scene is shifting from Columbus to Blacksburg, Virginia, safety Tyvis Powell said last year’s game is something that will be fresh on the players’ minds Monday night.“It is definitely set up this year for us to have a lot of motivation and a lot of excitement because of what happened to us last year,” the redshirt junior said. “We’ve got a chance to try to get back at them, try to get them to feel the same way, so it’s definitely set up for us to have an advantage on the excitement side.”Virginia Tech’s Lane Stadium, which has a capacity of 66,233, has never hosted a top-ranked team before. Hokies coach Frank Beamer said he has used the magnitude of the game to try to inspire his players, as he knows how devastating the Buckeyes can be.“We have probably the best football team that’s ever played in Lane Stadium coming in here this coming week,” Beamer said during a Wednesday teleconference. “Talented, well-coached, No. 1, ran the table last year, got a lot of guys back, so we understand the challenge, we understand that games like this don’t come very often.“It’s been my experience over the years that playing a team like this helps you as far as the focus for the game. We’ve got smart guys around here, they turn the tape on and they understand that we’ve got to play a great football game to have a chance to win this thing.”OSU senior defensive lineman Tommy Schutt said he expects a nearly unmatched atmosphere at Lane Stadium on Monday, but that is something he and OSU coach Urban Meyer — who has not lost a road game in his three years with the Buckeyes — thrive on.“Personally I love away games,” Schutt said. “I love walking into a place where people don’t necessarily like you and boo you when you walk into the stadium. I think that’s fun, and it really adds adrenaline and excitement for the game, and it definitely puts a chip on your shoulder.”Depth perceptionWhen OSU’s depth chart was released on Tuesday, the word “or” appeared at five different starting spots:Quarterback: Barrett or redshirt junior Cardale JonesWide receiver: Redshirt sophomore James Clark, redshirt freshman Johnny Dixon or redshirt freshman Terry McLaurin (opposite redshirt junior Michael Thomas)H-back: Redshirt senior Braxton Miller or sophomore Curtis SamuelDefensive end: Redshirt freshman Sam Hubbard or sophomore Jalyn Holmes (opposite redshirt sophomore Tyquan Lewis)Kicker: Redshirt senior Jack Willoughby or sophomore Sean NuernbergerDebuts and returnsMonday’s game stands to be the OSU debut of Hubbard, McLaurin, Willoughby and redshirt freshman wide receiver Parris Campbell.Additionally, Miller, who started 36 games at quarterback for the Buckeyes from 2011-2013 and was a two-time Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year, is set to play a prominent role at his new H-back position. The Huber Heights, Ohio, product is also listed with Samuel as the team’s punt returner.Willoughby, a transfer from Duke who is slotted in as the kickoff specialist, could see a role as a long-yardage field-goal kicker, with Nuernberger, who converted just five of 10 field goal attempts from 40 yards or more last year, handling shorter kicks.Meyer said on Monday that Campbell and McLaurin will be on the field with the special teams, as well.Filling inOn July 30, the team announced redshirt senior wide receiver Corey Smith, redshirt sophomore H-back Jalin Marshall, junior H-back Dontre Wilson and junior defensive end Joey Bosa were suspended for the opener at Virginia Tech due to violations of athletic department policies.The biggest loss is Bosa, a unanimous 2014 Associated Press All-American who piled up 13.5 sacks last year. Smith, Marshall and Wilson also take a hit on an already-thin offense that lost two of its top three receivers from a year ago to the NFL and lost another — sophomore Noah Brown — for the season last week with a broken leg.Hubbard and Holmes should split time picking up the slack for Bosa, while Clark, Dixon, McLaurin, Campbell and redshirt senior Jeff Greene will likely get snaps at wide receiver.Greene — who had one catch last season for 13 yards — represents the lone player among those filling in — plus Miller — who has pulled in a single reception for the Scarlet and Gray.Remember them?Virginia Tech then-redshirt junior quarterback Michael Brewer (12) attempts a throw during a game Sept. 6 at Ohio Stadium. Credit: Lantern File Photo.Quarterback Michael Brewer, who completed 23 of 36 passes for 199 yards and a pair of scores against OSU last year, will be back under center for his redshirt senior season. Senior safety Donovan Riley, whose 63-yard pick-six interception of Barrett in the game’s final minute sealed the win for the Hokies, who once again will be lined up in coverage across from the OSU quarterback — whoever that may be.Redshirt seniors Dadi Nicolas and Derek Di Nardo — who each sacked Barrett twice in last year’s game — as well as All-ACC cornerback Kendall Fuller, also will be out there again for the Hokies. Fuller should play a big role on Monday, as Beamer plans to match him up one-on-one with Thomas for the entirety of the contest.What’s next?After the season-opening meeting with Virginia Tech, the Buckeyes are scheduled to host Hawaii five days later in their home opener. Kickoff for the matchup with the Hokies is set for 8 p.m., with the game against Hawaii scheduled for 3:30 p.m. read more

Read More →

MackaySteven injury not severe – McInnes

first_imgAberdeen manager Derek McInnes has confirmed that the injury suffered by Gary Mackay-Steven is not severe after a clash of heads with Dedryck Boyata.The winger was stretched off during Aberdeen Scottish Cup final loss to Celtic on Sunday, but his manager revealed he has suffered no major damage.“I saw his family down at the dugout and there was an obvious concern there,” McInnes said, according to The National. “I was told he was unconscious and there was an urgency to get medics onto the park.”“Thankfully he’s sitting up in hospital, getting his tests down and it will be hopefully a straightforward concussion. Obviously, he misses the next game but I’m gutted for Gary because he was so looking forward to the opportunity to shine and has been in good form for us.”ABERDEEN, SCOTLAND - MAY 04: Manager of Celtic Neil Lennon celebrates as his side secured the Ladbrokes Scottish Premiership title after the Ladbrokes Scottish Premiership match between Aberdeen and Celtic at Pittodrie Stadium on May 04, 2019 in Aberdeen, Scotland. (Photo by Ian MacNicol/Getty Images)Lennon praises Celtic’s fan support Manuel R. Medina – May 5, 2019 According to the team manager, the way the supporters behave this season helped the team achieve an eighth consecutive title.Meanwhile, McInnes also admitted he is unhappy with match referee Andrew Dallas, following his decision to award Celtic a penalty kick.“The penalty decision didn’t do us any real harm, but it wasn’t a penalty in the first place,” he said.“It was clearly outside the box. If we didn’t have a goalie like Joe Lewis it would have been 2-0 and far more difficult.”“I also felt there was another yellow card challenge from Ryan Christie when Dom Ball breaks. The ref said he played the ball when he clearly didn’t. You need a lot of things to go for you in a final and it might sound churlish but a couple of decisions were really harsh on my team today.”“I love Ryan Christie, but it was another yellow card and the referee was in a brilliant position to see that and I don’t understand how he can say he played the ball.”last_img read more

Read More →

Uranium Energy Corp NYSE MKT UEC is pleased to

first_img Uranium Energy Corp. (NYSE MKT: UEC) is pleased to announce that the final authorization has been granted for production at its Goliad ISR Project in South Texas.  As announced in previous press releases, the Company received all of the required authorizations from the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, including an Aquifer Exemption which has now been granted concurrence from EPA Region 6. Amir Adnani, President and CEO, stated, “We are very pleased to have received this final authorization for initiating production at Goliad. Our geological and engineering teams have worked diligently toward achieving this major milestone and are to be truly commended. We are grateful to the EPA for its thorough reviews and for issuing this final concurrence. The Company’s near-term plan is to complete construction at the first production area at Goliad and to greatly increase the throughput of uranium at our centralized Hobson processing plant.” Please contact Investor Relations with questions or to request additional information, [email protected] It was pretty much the same story in silver, with the big difference being that the high tick came at the 8:20 a.m. EDT Comex open…and that price was recorded by Kitco as $20.16 spot.  There was a secondary high at gold’s 10:35 a.m. EDT high tick…and after that the silver price traded more or less sideways into the 5:15 p.m. close of electronic trading. Silver closed at $20.01 spot…up 9 cents from Monday.  Gross volume up quite a bit from Monday at 32,500 contracts. (Click on image to enlarge) Yesterday, at the 1:30 p.m. close of Comex trading, was the cut-off for this Friday’s Commitment of Traders Report…and I am expecting some deterioration in both metals because of the rallies off the lows during the last reporting period. Not much happened in Far East trading on their Wednesday…and both gold and silver began to develop negative biases beginning around 1:00 p.m. Hong Kong Time.  This has continued into the first couple of hours of trading in London as well.  Gold volume is pretty light…and mostly of the HFT variety.  The dollar index, which had been up about 16 basis points, is now back to unchanged as I hit the ‘send’ button on today’s column at 3:05 a.m. EDT. Yesterday was just another day off the calendar, as Ted Butler is wont to say from time to time, with JPMorgan et al keeping a firm hand on precious metal prices once again. See you here tomorrow. Sponsor Advertisement (Click on image to enlarge) The CME’s Daily Delivery Report showed that zero gold and a very decent 141 silver contracts were posted for delivery on Thursday within the Comex-approved depositories.  This time Goldman Sachs showed up as a short/issuer of note with 84 contracts…followed closely [but not surprisingly] by JPMorgan Chase with 57 contracts out of its client account.  Of course it was JPMorgan Chase as the big long/stopper, with 132 contracts…6 for its client account and…drum roll please…126 contracts for its in-house [proprietary] trading account.  I wonder if JPM’s clients in the silver futures market will ever complain about being royally screwed…without being kissed at the same time?  Just asking.  The link to yesterday’s Issuers and Stoppers Report is here. There was a small withdrawal from GLD yesterday.  This time an authorized participant removed 48,331 troy ounces.  It was different over at SLV, as another 771,804 troy ounces were deposited.  Month-to-date…GLD has had withdrawals totalling 10.27 million ounces…and SLV has added 9.75 million troy ounces. The U.S. Mint had another sales report yesterday.  They sold 3,500 troy ounces of gold eagles…500 one-ounce 24K gold buffaloes…and 226,000 silver eagles.  There was an obvious data entry error in the silver eagle sales…one too many zeros…which will certainly be corrected today sometime, but I think that silver eagles sales number I reported, is correct.  If not, I’ll make amends in tomorrow’s missive. Over at the Comex-approved depositories, they reported receiving a chunky 1,209,885 troy ounces of silver on Monday…and only shipped 15,809 troy ounces of the stuff out the door.  The link to that activity is here. In gold at these same depositories, they received 1,999 troy ounces.  The link to that ‘action’ is here. I have the usual number of stories for a mid-week column…and there are several gold news items that fall into the absolute must read/listen category…so if you’re short on time…and want to concentrate on the ‘vital few’…that’s where I would focus my attention first if I were you. First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. Then you win.  And then they go back to ignoring you, saying that everybody knew that stuff all along! …what Gandhi might have said if he had joined GATA I wouldn’t read much into yesterday’s price action in any of the precious metals.  However, despite the low volume, there was obviously a willing seller lurking about around 10:35 a.m. EDT yesterday…particularly in gold, where it looked like it was about to take another run at the $1,300 spot price mark.  Silver actually closed above the $20 spot price mark by a penny…but as you already know, that situation wasn’t allowed to exist for long. As you can tell from the two chart below, the lines in the sand…at least for the moment…are $1,300 in gold and $20 in silver.  This situation has existed since the beginning of the last week of June. Here’s the New York Spot [Bid] Silver chart that shows the New York price action on its own, so you can see it in more detail. The silver stocks did just about as well…and Nick Laird’s Intraday Silver Sentiment Index closed up 4.31%.last_img read more

Read More →

Are you frightened of highfrequency trading HFT

first_imgAre you frightened of high-frequency trading (HFT)? Are you concerned about what it might do to your stock portfolio? If so, you may have been exposed to Michael Lewis over the past few months. It’s been hard not to be, especially if you watch financial shows on TV or read the financial press. He’s been everywhere, giving interviews and promoting his blockbuster new book, Flash Boys: A Wall Street Revolt. But is he right? Lewis’ premise: the advent of HFT means that stock markets are now “rigged for the benefit of insiders,” as the book’s jacket flap notes inform us. And if that’s not frightening enough, it goes on to state, “The light that Lewis shines into the darkest corners of the financial world may not be good for your blood pressure, because if you have any contact with the market, even a retirement account, this story is happening to you.” That’s great copy, isn’t it? Any good publisher understands that the easiest way to get people’s attention is to scare the crap out of them. Notions of shadowy conspiracies also work. And who wouldn’t want to know what’s going on in those darkest corners of the financial world? Problem is, we’re already aware of what’s been happening in Wall Street’s figurative back rooms. We’ve been exposed to many of the big banks’ secrets, such as that many of them profited enormously from the crash of ‘08 by making huge bets against the very junk mortgage securities they were simultaneously promoting to their clients. Compared to that level of darkness, high-frequency trading is a sunny day in June. But Michael Lewis delves into some important issues. Central among them is a pair of questions. Are the markets “rigged?” And if so, should we be concerned? I would answer yes and yes, but not for the reasons Lewis advances in his book. The New Normal Maybe someone without access to media of any kind might still believe that markets aren’t rigged, but the rest of us know that they are. The interest rate market, for example, is completely rigged by definition, since our central bank manipulates the cost of money at its whim. With gold, the market is small enough that traders with sufficiently deep pockets, like the biggest banks, can push prices up or down to their hearts’ content. With stocks, prices are sometimes rigged openly, such as when Washington prohibited short sales during the meltdown… and sometimes more subtly, as when the Fed buoys prices by pushing trillions in funny money into the system. The giant investment banks employ any number of shady tricks, such as arranging large transactions inside their “dark pools”—where buyers and sellers can connect directly and not affect the public stock price by going through an exchange. And there are always the market makers. As middlemen, their job is to provide liquidity, which they do by rigging the bid/ask spread (in such a way as to ensure profits for themselves, of course). They’ve been known to widen those spreads unjustifiably, and no one ever says, “Hey, wait a minute…”. These are all concerns, sure, but they aren’t what Lewis writes about. His focus is on high-frequency traders, what they do, and why it’s so evil. One of the bothersome things about the book is that Lewis presents his research with a “Wow, look at this mind-boggling secret I just uncovered” approach. And TV’s talking heads have largely gone along with him, expressing their shock. But we’ve known all about HFT for a long time. In fact, I wrote an article for Casey Extraordinary Technology that explained it 2.5 years ago, and since then both Alex Daley and I have expanded on the subject in this space. Let’s be clear: no one completely understands what HFT is doing to the markets. While a human high-frequency trader may have a general idea of what his algorithm is up to—though even that is in question as advanced forms of artificial intelligence (AI) are now used to let the computer dynamically make up new rules regarding how to trade—that doesn’t mean he knows the net effect of its actions. With thousands of systems battling against each other, making millions of trades, it quickly becomes obvious that people are on the outside looking in—pretty ignorant of what these arrays of supercomputers are cooking up on their own at any given moment. We don’t have any tech more powerful than an off-the-shelf Apple or PC computer. But just as HFT’s algos search for anomalies, so do we. We merely call them by a different name—undiscovered opportunities—and we find them the old-fashioned way. Through tough, exhaustive and impartial research. Our profit window also differs; it’s measured in months, not microseconds. We’re pretty good at this. Check out our track record, and if you like what you see, take us for a risk-free 3-month spin. When HFT comprises the bulk of all market trading—as it does today, as shown by the image above—this introduces an element of risk that wasn’t there before, true enough. It could blow up in some utterly unpredictable way. But for the most part, HFT simply does what market participants have always done, albeit way faster—and in a manner that hovers over the border of illegality. It may even cross that line. The health of the stock market depends on the maintenance of liquidity and the promise that when anyone wants to buy or sell an equity, he or she will be able to, at around a price that’s been publicly quoted and is reasonably close to the one the broker provides or that appears on the computer monitor. (For some basics on how this works, the SEC has provided a brief primer.) The actual final price depends on what the bid/ask spread is at the moment of execution. What’s in a Ping? Many HFT algorithms seek to control bid/ask spreads by “pinging.” This means using an algorithm to scour the entire market, placing huge numbers of orders at light speed and immediately withdrawing them. This continues until the algo gets a hit that lets it buy and quickly sell a stock over the course of a few milliseconds, skimming a tiny profit off the transaction, typically a penny per share or even less. An insignificant amount for that one deal, but when they accrete over the course of a day in which millions of such trades might be made, it adds up. And each trader’s profitability has zero correlation with how any stock or the overall market performed. All that matters is that their algos were better than the next guy’s. Thus HFT traders are not, strictly speaking, traders at all. Their pings are not real orders, but rather a way of divining information about the intentions of real investors in the next 20 microseconds. At the end of the day, the HFT guys own no shares whatsoever—they just count their money. Also strictly speaking, pinging is illegal. No one is supposed to place buy or sell orders that they have no intention of honoring, reasonably enough. Prior to HFT, this wasn’t a problem, because it was difficult to withdraw an electronic order before it was executed. Now it’s easy if you have the right tools. And it’s impossible for regulators to effectively police activities that happen countless millions of times every trading day without the rules they enforce being changed from the top. Market participants are also supposed to be protected by the SEC’s National Best Bid and Offer regulation (NBBO), which states that a broker must secure for his client the best available ask price when buying securities, and the best available bid price when selling them. But the HFT’s superfast market connections allow him to step in front of the retail customer and pilfer the best bids or asks before that customer can get to them. They do it through another potentially illegal practice: front-running. Technically, the government forbids anyone from having access to information that isn’t simultaneously available to everyone. If, for example, I were the only trader who knew that you were about to sell 100 shares of XYZ at a given offer price and I knew that before all of my competitors, it would give me an advantage in finding a buyer and setting a price favorable to me. That’s called front-running; it’s deemed by the authorities to be unfair; and in an attempt to control it, the government requires any changes in a stock’s price to be universally posted immediately (outside of dark pool transactions, but that’s another story). Yet front-running is precisely what HF traders routinely do. And because of latencies within the system—measured in microseconds but nevertheless exploitable—it can’t be prevented. The prime example of this is something dubbed “slow market arbitrage.” It generates more profit for HF traders than all of their many other strategies combined. Slow market arbitrage takes advantage of the proliferation of exchanges that has happened in recent years. Gone are the days when the stock market consisted of the NYSE, NASDAQ, and AMEX. Now, there are a slew of new ones, such as BATS and Direct Edge. Most were created more or less just to service HFT, and thus they handle enormous numbers of “transactions,” more than 99% of which are never executed. And to accommodate their HFT friends, they will sometimes route large incoming orders to favored customers microseconds ahead of the rest of the pack. In addition, they invented a bunch of new order types that go way beyond market and limit orders—with peculiar, uninformative names like Post-Only and Hide Not Slide. These are so exotic that most ordinary brokers don’t even understand them, much less have the ability to execute them. But what they have in common is that they aren’t truly vehicles for trading. They exist only to help HFT participants secure a fleeting market advantage. Among the orders that are consummated, however, are the slow market arbitrages. It works like this: a high frequency trader’s computers can see a price change on one exchange, and in the few microseconds it takes for that change to be reflected everywhere, they’re able to pick off shares on another exchange that hasn’t yet reacted, profiting from the difference. These are just a few examples of what makes HFT tick. The actual market is far more complex. Yet in a way, it’s also more simple: HFT is now the price-discovery mechanism in US equity markets. That’s just reality. In fact, it can be argued (and is, by proponents) that HFT has birthed the fairest, most efficient, and smoothest-running market in history. The cost we incur to get that system is the penny a share collected at the HFT tollbooth. So, Is It Rigged? Whether this is a creative use of technology or merely a form of market rigging is not debatable to Michael Lewis. “The stock market at bottom was rigged,” he asserts. “The icon of global capitalism was a fraud.” But before jumping to that conclusion, here are some key questions worth asking: How is what HFT does fundamentally different from the commissions taken by market makers—or retail brokers, for that matter? Because it’s “cheating”? And should government barge in and drop the hammer on HFT, as it seems likely to do at some point? How much havoc will that cause? The thing that probably bothers people most about HFT is that it’s opaque. You not only don’t know what’s going on in there, you can’t know. Only the artificial intelligence knows for sure, and it’s talking too fast for a human to follow. Moreover, when you have these thousands of supercomputers interacting with each other without operator guidance, then of course there’s always the possibility that one of them will make a particular move that sets off a cascade of automated events. With potentially catastrophic consequences. But what are the chances of that? Well, consider this: Market disasters generally result from risk that exceeds supportable levels. The collapse of ‘08 was triggered by the trading and re-trading of mortgage-backed securities that couldn’t be accurately valued. With each trade, the risk was magnified some more, until it finally overwhelmed the system. Or take the dot-com crash, which came about because the price of revenue-free startup companies was bid so high that the risk of continuing to hold them blew way past the probability of selling to the next sucker in line. HFT, on the other hand, is about the exact opposite—mitigating risk. It captures profit by engineering trades that depend on zero volatility. In order to be successful, it must ensure that a stock price doesn’t stray beyond the limits it sets. Most HF trades don’t move the posted ticker price of an equity at all; everything happens within a bid/ask spread that changes so fast it’s imperceptible to anything or anyone outside of the host computers. As a market stabilizer, proponents say, HFT has become indispensable. They point to the infamous Flash Crash of ‘10, which took the Dow down nearly 1,000 points in 20 minutes.center_img The trigger for that was a simple human error. HFT quickly re-priced securities and stair-stepped them back up to their proper levels, it is argued, thereby reversing the crash before it could spin entirely out of control. Michael Lewis is very focused on the dark side of HFT, and he stirs that pot for all he’s worth (he wants to sell books, after all). But when he reaches the conclusion of his story and confronts why HFT is bad, he finds he doesn’t have much to say. First he cites instability, but doesn’t give the counterargument any space. Then he goes off on a goofy rant about how these people are wasting their lives. And finally, he gives us this: The money collected by HF traders is “a tax on investment, paid for by the economy; and the more that productive enterprise must pay for capital, the less productive enterprise there will be.” Do you know what that even means? I’m not sure I do. But I think it’s wrong. When a company first sells its shares to the market to raise capital, it sets a price with buyers offline. HF traders only step in when those buyers want to resell their shares and get out—and in that case, like any other, those buyers are probably happy to have 300% more liquidity because of HF traders occupying most of the market. That’s what allows those stocks to trade in seconds instead of minutes or hours. HFT and Your Bank Account The more personal issue is how HFT affects the individual investor. Does it matter? Should you care about it? My answer is: don’t bother. If someone is skimming a penny from each share you trade, you’re not even going to notice. Besides, if you know roughly what you want to buy or sell your shares for, you can protect yourself from any of these intermediaries just by placing a limit order that locks in your maximum buy or minimum sell price. It’s the only kind I ever use. Simple as that, enemy neutralized. Is any adversary so easily thwarted really worth worrying about to begin with? The truth is that we at Casey Extraordinary Technology are not so very different from HFT. No, this is not what our Vermont HQ looks like:last_img read more

Read More →