|
The Good posted:Anyone else think Nokia (NOK) is extremely enticing at its current price? No. Although the yield is lovely.
|
#
?
Jun 21, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
Christobevii3 posted:They don't make money and their current car isn't selling for crap and the next one isn't going to be out for over a year... Because if a company doesn't make money right out of the gate, they're bound to fail, right? Not like people buy in because they think the company might have a bright future. What sense would that make?!
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 02:14
|
|
|
antishock posted:Because if a company doesn't make money right out of the gate, they're bound to fail, right? Not like people buy in because they think the company might have a bright future. What sense would that make?! Then why do you need to get in on the IPO?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 02:27
|
|
|
Tesla burned through all their investors money, drained out the founders bank account, which is why they are going public. This will happen again and without anyone dumber than the public to sell shares to, the big auto companies will pick at the bones.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 02:50
|
|
|
You are forgetting about all the free alternative energy money Tesla got from the Stimulus free money giveaway. That is enough cash for them to burn through until they can unload enough shares to fund a golden parachute for even the janitors.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 04:22
|
|
|
I really want Tesla to succeed, but I wouldn't bet my own money on it. Foma has it about right.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 04:26
|
|
|
Unless you are an institutional investor who can put yourself at the very front of the line, the shares you buy are likely to be highly overpriced. Assuming your baseless prediction that Tesla WILL succeed at some point in the future, its going to take quite a while for the fundamentals to justify the price you bought it at. Thats gambling not investing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 11:51
|
|
|
Oh look, RIG down 1.4% Pre open. Any one has any thoughts on why ?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 14:19
|
|
|
I have been thinking lately that everyone agrees that the biggest problem facing the global economy is excessive leverage across the board, and although there are sound Keynesian reasons for governments not to fix this right away, I don't think the same applies to companies. I think there might be opportunity in companies that are ahead of the curve and are actively paying down debt, like Qwest and Chiquita are (or were). So, does anyone know of a stock screener that can compare a company's debt/equity ratio to what it was last year?
|
|
#
?
Jun 22, 2010 21:30
|
|
|
For a conservative dividend producer (IE, not crazy like 15%) how does FT look? http://www.cefconnect.com/Details/Summary.aspx?ticker=FT Has about a 7% discount to current NAV and does about 7% on dividend that is paid monthly. Hasnt had a cut in 7 years and has had a slow raise a few times since. It appears to invest in utilities like Southern and has 4 stars ratings on Morningstar. Cant seem to find anything bad about this. Seems like a good candidate for an IRA for a long term DRIP setup.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 00:13
|
|
|
I WANT TO EAT BABBY posted:Then why do you need to get in on the IPO? Because its probably going to be the lowest price. Buy low, sell high.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 01:20
|
|
|
Remember when we couldnt get into Google at $80/share because non of us had hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest? 
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 02:10
|
|
|
IPO= It's probably overpriced, unless we're talking about google.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 02:13
|
|
|
antishock posted:Because its probably going to be the lowest price. Buy low, sell high. What's the basis for your "probably?" It's shiny, I get that. But that doesn't mean they're going to make money. The fact that they're going public right now seemed weird until I learned, oh hey, a major investor needs cash. If you're looking at cars and "buy low, sell high," F is sitting at a P/E of 6 and a .3 P/B. Please convince me that Tesla's initial offering is a better buy than Ford, because it's taking everything I've got to not get into F right now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 03:31
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:Remember when we couldnt get into Google at $80/share because non of us had hundreds of thousands of dollars to invest? Google's IPO was a dutch auction, anyone could invest. I was really impressed with out it was handled. Sadly it most likely cost them a couple billion, it was new, different, and smart. So people didn't understand it and were scared by it. Elite investors were put off because they got put on the same playing field as everyone else
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2010 04:32
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:For a conservative dividend producer (IE, not crazy like 15%) how does FT look? Well since it has fees of about 4.5% a year I would say it is a terrible investment. CEFs are generally bad because of the fees. Discount to NAV doesn't help because the management would never liquidate (putting themselves out of a job). The only thing the discount does is increase your dividends relative to NAV. So 7% x 1.07 =7.45% - 4.5%= 2.95% annually, thats a terrible return for a utilities fund, buy a Vanguard dividend etf,VIG or VYM
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 04:52
|
|
|
Bigntasty posted:Well since it has fees of about 4.5% a year I would say it is a terrible investment. CEFs are generally bad because of the fees. Discount to NAV doesn't help because the management would never liquidate (putting themselves out of a job). The only thing the discount does is increase your dividends relative to NAV. On the Morningstar forum someone mentioned it had a high expense as well and I found the following in a CEF article on the same site quote:The expense reporting issue I hear about the most has to do with interest expense. If a fund chooses to lever its portfolio utilizing debt instruments, it is required by law to include the interest paid in its expense ratio. This can inflate a fund's reported expense ratio to incredibly high proportions. Consider Franklin Universal (FT). This 4-star fund's largest single expense in fiscal 2009 was interest expense. In its annual report, the fund reveals an incredibly high expense ratio of 4.89%. However, 3.62% is related to its leverage, according to our calculations. Because the fund has been reaping a gain from this leverage, one could argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. Strip out the expenses related to the beneficial leverage, and the effective expense ratio is a more reasonable 1.27%. Im still absorbing info so any help is appreciated. So an expense ratio is basically straight off the top of whatever expected return you get? Where did you get the 1.07% number? MrBigglesworth fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Jun 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 05:44
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:On the Morningstar forum someone mentioned it had a high expense as well and I found the following in a CEF article on the same site I think you might be better off buying T or DT T is at 6.5% and DT is at 8.5% edit: I'm thinking I will move my positions away from these Ultra-High Yield Mortgage based stocks to high yield stocks from more... traditional companies. Dr. Jackal fucked around with this message at 17:29 on Jun 24, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 10:39
|
|
|
Yeah AT&T is on my radar, pretty good price and good yield. But my question still stands for an expense cost on CEFs. If I have $100 worth of whatever, and the expense is 3%, but yield is 6% does that simply make the effective yield 3% assuming after a year the price of the CEF hasnt changed? If it goes up you obviously would make money on the increased price of the CEF when you sold. But for long holds to collect the dividends how much does that expense actually interact with the investor?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 16:10
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:Yeah AT&T is on my radar, pretty good price and good yield. The ER is subtracted from the yield of the underlying securities. However, the published yield of the CEF is likely already net of expenses. So 6% is what the CEF is yielding and the 3% ER is for information purposes (i.e. the fund actually got 9% yield due to leveraging and subtracted 3% which includes management fees and interest expenses). The Morningstar quote you provided is correct. The standard procedure of requiring interest expense as part of the ER means you need to dig deeper to find out what the real expense ratio is. If the Morningstar poster's numbers are accurate, then 1.27% is the more accurate number to use when evaluating the ER of this CEF. I do take exception to a technicality in the Morninstar quote: "Because the fund has been reaping a gain from this leverage, one could argue that the benefits outweigh the costs. Strip out the expenses related to the beneficial leverage..." It has nothing to do with benefits and has nothing to do with whether the leverage has improved returns or hindered it. Understanding that the interest expense is related to leverage is one matter, and is all that is important in understanding how the ER breaks down. Whether you want the increased risk of leverage and/or trust the manager's decisions is another matter.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:46
|
|
|
Thanks! That helps clarify it a lot for me!
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2010 17:53
|
|
|
Really you should just look at the filings. Shares 25mil NAV 160 mil Dividends 11.4 mil expenses 4.2 So the CEF will pay you 7% but they are taking 2.5% of the NAV value from you every year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 02:28
|
|
|
Also, look closely at the CEF's policies. The yield needs to be evaluated based on the fund's use of leverage as well as any managed distribution policies it may have. For instance, FT may have a policy of maintaining a stable monthly dividend even when it exceeds the net investment income. They make up for it with a return of capital to prop of the yield. This is not at all uncommon with CEFs. If you don't know how to evaluate a CEF's policies and history closely, then avoid them altogether.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 17:36
|
|
|
From what I can tell, FT hasnt done any ROC according to CEFConnect.com
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:From what I can tell, FT hasnt done any ROC according to CEFConnect.com "Income, Long Gain, Short Gain and ROC breakdowns will only be shown for the past year." Do your due diligence. That's all i'm saying.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2010 22:06
|
|
|
Who do you guys use for online trading? Anything wrong with Zecco for someone interested in only making occasional trades?
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2010 02:01
|
|
|
Came across an interesting article about RIG today. It does a nice job of detailing why things seem not-that-bad in the short-term, but that medium-term prospects are uncertain for them in particular and off shore drillers in general.
|
|
#
?
Jun 28, 2010 03:39
|
|
|
TSLA goes public tomorrow. Anyone putting money up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 04:12
|
|
|
antishock posted:TSLA goes public tomorrow. Anyone putting money up? I'm pretty sure that TSLA will be going for $17 a share in the IPO, which is a little pricier than what was expected. I'm too uncertain about the long term prospects of the company to want in (barriers to entry, limited product line, high production costs,) as I think the IPO is overpriced.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 16:16
|
|
|
taichijedi posted:I'm pretty sure that TSLA will be going for $17 a share in the IPO, which is a little pricier than what was expected. I'm too uncertain about the long term prospects of the company to want in (barriers to entry, limited product line, high production costs,) as I think the IPO is overpriced. rolling near 18 woo
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 18:41
|
|
|
antishock posted:TSLA goes public tomorrow. Anyone putting money up? I bought 1100 shares @ 18.23 this morning. I just made a lot of money btw.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 19:38
|
|
|
Congrats to all of the TSLA bandwagoners! Have a feeling the next 30 minutes won't be so kind.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 20:30
|
|
|
IPOs make no sense at all to me. Why doesn't a company just "issue" a block of shares to itself, list the stock, and sell them on the open market? It seems like this closed system where IPOs are only available to some subset of investors isn't good for anybody except for those investors. But if that's the case why do companies that want to go public routinely play ball?
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 20:42
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Congrats to all of the TSLA bandwagoners! Have a feeling the next 30 minutes won't be so kind. Doh! Completely didn't expect it to leg up again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 21:06
|
|
|
I think TSLA is going to remind people of BX as far as IPOs go. $1 billion for the hope that they can produce a product. Why people continue to buy hope is beyond me when they can buy actual results elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 22:05
|
|
|
Jack posted:I think TSLA is going to remind people of BX as far as IPOs go. $1 billion for the hope that they can produce a product. Why people continue to buy hope is beyond me when they can buy actual results elsewhere. Except Tesla Motors has been producing and selling their Roadster for two years. They also have a four door luxury sedan coming out soon. They don't take huge corporate bonuses. Tesla does not pay a dividend. The company is producing a product that nobody else is producing, and with the same numbers. You are way off on that one.
|
|
#
?
Jun 29, 2010 22:32
|
|
|
poopfart posted:I bought 1100 shares @ 18.23 this morning. I wish I had 20 grand to risk like that. Are you getting out ASAP now that it shot up 40%
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 00:38
|
|
|
The Good posted:I wish I had 20 grand to risk like that. Are you getting out ASAP now that it shot up 40% I am holding half of my position still, I put a sell order right before market close and got the sale out. I will just wait until tomorrow morning to decide my next move, all dependent the stock's momentum and opening price.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 01:02
|
|
|
The Good posted:20 grand That investment "play" money was built up for just this reason.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 01:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 19, 2024 08:44 |
|
|
I'm not sure how much longer the TSLA gravy train will last--I got in at 17.85, and again at 25, and now i'm not sure whether I want in at 30 (when I sell the 17.85 lot). Maybe people are forgetting that this company hasn't actually made money and their only hope (right now) is an $80k roadster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 30, 2010 17:02
|
|