|
MayakovskyMarmite posted:Maybe it is just confirmation bias, but every time a bunch of new posters show up in this thread talking about how bullish they are on their new investments in Apple or Gold or now Stocks, it is probably a bad idea to buy. It just screams dumb money. Everyone else is making money on this, so I must be able to as well. I'm still laughing at all those posters who were goldbugging it up when the price was $1700-1800 an ounce. Talking about how gold was so safe and can only go up. Careful, you can get probated in this thread for talking that kind of poo poo. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 09:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Report'd (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 12:13
|
|
|
It iArdennes posted:drat, you beat me, yeah Chinese manufacturing news wasn't very good among news from the BOJ/FED, Down 7.3% at the close. 1,500 point range or close to 10% of the overall value. The real story is in the fixed income market where despite the bond buying program yields are blowing through the roof, at least for Japan. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-23/japan-s-bonds-fall-on-fed-comments-as-10-year-yield-rises-to-1-.html
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 14:27
|
|
|
A few key quotes from Elon Musk in a Bloomberg interview. http://www.bloomberg.com/video/tesla-s-musk-on-loan-payoff-financing-mission-a2QNfmtwQe64z~oyEXpVEA.html "Tesla is not looking to be acquired." "Enough capital to not raise any more." "More than enough money to get the Model X done." "Enough free cash flow for the roughly $1b that is needed for its 3rd gen mass market car." "Model S is a compelling car, but too expensive for people." "I'm not going to let anything go, no matter what people offer, until I complete [the mass market electric car]."
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 14:45
|
|
|
MayakovskyMarmite posted:Maybe it is just confirmation bias, but every time a bunch of new posters show up in this thread talking about how bullish they are on their new investments in Apple or Gold or now Stocks, it is probably a bad idea to buy. It just screams dumb money. Everyone else is making money on this, so I must be able to as well. I'm still laughing at all those posters who were goldbugging it up when the price was $1700-1800 an ounce. Talking about how gold was so safe and can only go up. It's pretty funny because APPL is the one trade I have posted about and it's the only trade that hasn't gained like crazy. Should've just sold it and ate the loss to go into Intel back in April. Hah. Does anyone else use Google Finance? The portfolio graphing view is bugged for me. I don't know what's going on but it's showing about 70% of my portfolio value for a period of time, then it shows a ridiculous gain to put it back to its current value. It almost looks like it's my cost basis but it's not exactly right.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 15:26
|
|
|
If it looks like SAC is going to collapse, any point in trying to short any holdings where they hold a large portion of the shares? I've noticed they own 4.3 million shares of EQT versus the average volume of 1.6m. Their position is about 2.5% of the market cap. If Cohen himself is indicted, I am assuming that they would start unwinding their positions.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 18:16
|
|
|
I have a question about buying short China ETFs. I'm considering buying a couple $1000 in ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 25 (FXP). Plan would be to hold and ideally sell on a big spike representing a crash of some kind, maybe with an automatic order type deal. I'm a novice investor so this is much easier than an actual short. Terrible idea? I always heard maintaining a short position was expensive but ETF has pretty normal .95% expense ratio. I'm also confused why I would want ProShares Short FTSE China 25 (YXI), when the ultra one would potentially spike even harder with a larger scale shift? Just more risk I guess? Alternatively I hear ominous things about Japan and ProShares UltraShort MSCI Japan (EWV) gets lower and lower, could enter low. Part of my thought process with this is the "Emerging" chunk in my IRA has been disappointing (VWO) while other stuff kicks rear end.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 18:18
|
|
|
Comb Your Beard posted:I have a question about buying short China ETFs. I'm considering buying a couple $1000 in ProShares UltraShort FTSE China 25 (FXP). Plan would be to hold and ideally sell on a big spike representing a crash of some kind, maybe with an automatic order type deal. I'm a novice investor so this is much easier than an actual short. Terrible idea? One thing to know about overseas ETF's is that they trade off the index and NAV which is open when the US is closed. Getting in and out quickly for a novice investor is difficult when things turn due to timing issues.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 18:45
|
|
|
Rurutia posted:Does anyone else use Google Finance? The portfolio graphing view is bugged for me. I don't know what's going on but it's showing about 70% of my portfolio value for a period of time, then it shows a ridiculous gain to put it back to its current value. It almost looks like it's my cost basis but it's not exactly right. It shows the total value of your whole account. Which makes it pretty useless if you didn't start with your initial investment as "cash" and select "deduct from cash" for all transactions you enter. In other words, when you say "buy 1 SPY," your portfolio value will jump up by $165 because you now have a share of SPY worth that much, and you didn't before. When you sell it at $170, unless you select "add to cash," your portfolio value will jump down by $170 because you no longer have that share - its value just disappeared from your account. However, you WILL still see SPY and that you made 5bux on it (until you delete it from the list). Basically, that graph is not very useful, but google finance is still good at displaying your gains/losses on each individual investment and also summing them up. Why can't they make a graph of relative gain rather than total portfolio value? 
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 20:57
|
|
|
Google Finance has been a lovely product for a while. Like Google Reader I expect it will eventually be shut down; there probably hasn't been dedicated engineers on it for a long long time.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:01
|
|
|
A while ago I tried actually tracking my portfolios in Google Finance and gave up pretty quickly. It's a goofy system with a lot of quirks/bugs and no matter how much effort I put into it the numbers never matched up 100% with my brokerage accounts. I still use it for quickly looking something up, and their stock screener isn't terrible, but it's a really bad tracking tool.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:31
|
|
|
cremnob posted:Google Finance has been a lovely product for a while. Like Google Reader I expect it will eventually be shut down; there probably hasn't been dedicated engineers on it for a long long time. I've been using Google Finance for several years and just in the past year they've made some changes that have made it very slow. They also removed "recent quotes" if you've disabled web history tracking which is a bit frustrating. I bet it won't get shutdown though, the whole point was to provide competition to Yahoo finance and it gets enough views for good ad revenue now.
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 22:40
|
|
|
I've been doing some reading on puts and calls since some goon mentioned them about 30 pages ago and I have a few questions that most goons here could probably answer: A call is basically a contract to buy an option in the future at a set price, right? 1) So the premium is the cost of making the contract or is it some kind of difference charged between the current price of the stock and the actual call price or is it the sum of both? 2) At the maturity date are you forced to purchase the stocks if they are 'at the money', what about if they are 'in the money' or 'out of money'? if so, what happens if you don't have enough cash or securities to pay for them? Regarding puts, as I understood them, they are basically a contract to sell shares at a certain price in the future right? 3) When trying to preserve wealth, why use a trailing stop on your stocks instead of a put? As I understand it you can get gap protection using a put so why use a stop order at all? 4) Same as above, what happens at the maturity date? 5) Can you make puts or calls with any maturity rate and any strike price or do you buy them premade (e.g. a company offers its shares at x price with y maturity date)? 6) When it's the best time to sell calls or puts? close the the maturity rate or far from it? 7) What on earth are fiduciary calls? I have read several definitions and still have no clue Thanks in advance for the answers!
|
|
#
?
May 23, 2013 23:31
|
|
|
Nikkei is in free-fall. Started the day with a 1.6% gain, now down 3.3%. That's a two-day loss of 10%.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 05:49
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Nikkei is in free-fall. Started the day with a 1.6% gain, now down 3.3%. That's a two-day loss of 10%. Check out the chart from last night as well. People saw through the comments and think that the BOJ has no long-term plan in place.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 06:30
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Pertinent chart for today: OK I'm just a novice but can someone explain to me how the above chart isn't total bullshit? What I am looking at, apparently, are two different metrics, tracked along the same timeline but with two different y axes. Each metric's y axis has been selected deliberately to allow the two lines to be mostly superimposed. But there is nothing inherent in either y axis to suggest that particular range should have been chosen. Right? You could just as well extend one y axis or another. For example, instead of showing S&P 500 range from $600 to $1800, you could have shown it from $0 to $1800 and that would have flattened out the line a lot, as well as move it upwards on the chart. Similarly, instead of showing EBITDA from $100 to $260, you could show it from $300 to $1000 and it'd drop down to the bottom and be below the S&P line. You could widen or narrow the scope on either one and the lines would no longer be similar to each other. It seems like the maker of the chart wants us to believe that the S&P tracks EBITDA, but that currently it is overvalued compared to EBITDA. But if you flattened the S&P by widening the range on the y axis, you could easily move its current value so that it's not way above EBITDA at all. What am I missing?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 08:00
|
|
|
A better graph would probably SP500 divided by EBITDA vs time. That would show that SP500/EBITDA is significantly higher than it was before the last crash and avoid any unnecessary graphing confusion.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 08:15
|
|
|
Have there been changes in how EBITDA is calculated during the period in question? I know it stands for earnings before interest, taxes, deductions, and amortizations... if allowable deductions have changed, if interest rates have changed, if tax rates have changed, any or all of those could affect EBITDAs for a broad range of companies across the board. Actually that raises a different question. Is EPS generally based on EBITDA, or the company's earnings after taking those factors into account?
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 08:28
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:My question about short ETF's That sounds like it makes sense. Is there any better way for a novice investor to get some short exposure? Buying puts? I also noticed that country ETF's like Australia, New Zealand, Singapore, Hong Kong seem quite high/possibly unlikely to keep gaining. Maybe I'll stick to my anti-Pacific/Emerging thesis. I just feel like everything I own is up-up-up, there's gotta be some way to mix it up.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 13:36
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK I'm just a novice but can someone explain to me how the above chart isn't total bullshit? Yeah it's a bit arbitrary, and it's from ZeroHedge (who thinks the whole economy is a sham). I think the takeaway point is that S&P tends to exaggerate changes in earnings (which haven't taken violent swings over the past few years). We've seen the S&P rapidly go up without earnings rising at quite the same pace. The underlying thesis is that the Fed is propping up the market with QE.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 14:19
|
|
|
Tiresias MKII posted:I've been doing some reading on puts and calls since some goon mentioned them about 30 pages ago and I have a few questions that most goons here could probably answer: Not an expert but I'll give you what I know from trading them for a few months. quote:A call is basically a contract to buy an option in the future at a set price, right? Yes. Since it requires far less money to buy far more shares, there is a risk premium associated with buying puts or calls. If a January call for a 100 strike price is trading at $1, buying an option for 100 shares at that strike price costs just $100 (whereas the underlying security would cost $10,000 if it were trading at 100). So the potential is there for absolutely gigantic percentage gains which means that the RISK is there for an absolutely gigantic loss for the market maker writing you the option, and you therefore have to pay a premium. There are two components to the risk premium: how far out of the money (or in the money) it is and how far away the expiry is. The length of time incorporates dual risks: changes to the individual company over that period & changes in the stock market at large over that period. The out of the money/in the money element will incorporate the volatility of the underlying stock (for instance, Tesla is super volatile, GE is the opposite of volatile). quote:2) At the maturity date are you forced to purchase the stocks if they are 'at the money', what about if they are 'in the money' or 'out of money'? if so, what happens if you don't have enough cash or securities to pay for them? Yes if they are in the money your options would exercise, if they are at the money your options would exercise, and if they are out of the money, your options would be worthless. If you don't have enough cash/margin, your broker will generally liquidate your position for you sometime after 12pm on expiry day. I believe you can also exercise your option at any point before the expiry day if it is in the money. quote:Regarding puts, as I understood them, they are basically a contract to sell shares at a certain price in the future right? Yeah, they're the reverse of calls. I don't use trailing stops or even really any hedges, so you'd have to ask a non-YOLO investor. Same thing would happen at the maturity date. quote:5) Can you make puts or calls with any maturity rate and any strike price or do you buy them premade (e.g. a company offers its shares at x price with y maturity date)? There are market makers, and pre-determined expiry dates (generally the middle of the month, and always Friday). More active stocks (i.e. AAPL) will have weekly expiries. There are also pre-determined strike prices, usually on round numbers. More active stocks will have more strike prices. quote:6) When it's the best time to sell calls or puts? close the the maturity rate or far from it? Not really a "best" time...it's all a matter of what you are trying to bet on, and why you are trying to bet on it. And options are really just that: bets. quote:7) What on earth are fiduciary calls? I have read several definitions and still have no clue Never heard of it Arkane fucked around with this message at 14:56 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 14:46
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Never heard of it It's a risk-mitigation strategy to ensure you have enough cash on-hand to cover the cost of an exercised option. Basically, when you buy the option you put a sum equal to the present value (at discount rate X) of total strike price into an account (that pays interest rate X). At expiry, the balance of the account should have grown to exactly the amount needed to buy the securities. This really only works with European calls, since there's a defined expiry date which the is the only point at which you can exercise the option. You CAN do it with American Calls, but you have to know in advance when you plan to exercise if not at expiry. Arkane posted:We've seen the S&P rapidly go up without earnings rising at quite the same pace. The underlying thesis is that the Fed is propping up the market with QE. I think the real thesis is that QE and asset purchases are having unintended consequences. Although they're meant to keep borrowing rates low enough that businesses are spurred to invest in activities which grow earnings, earnings are nonetheless fairly flat. Instead, those cheap funds are fueling a bubble in stocks. The Fed isn't particularly interested in how the S&P is doing (i.e. they're not trying to prop it up). Every time Bernanke speaks he chooses his words pretty deliberately to have the opposite effect. bam thwok fucked around with this message at 15:23 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 15:12
|
|
|
Actually the Fed supporting the market through its asset purchases. The hope is that the money from bond sales to the Fed from market participants rotates into stocks. Charts of the S&P and QE play that out. But you are correct about the unintended consequences. We currently sit at a moment where the PE ratio of the S&P 500 stands at roughly 19.29 up from 14.85 a year ago with the Fed pumping almost $1 trillion into the markets through asset purchases. The asset purchases have gone on for four years now and the economy is still in a fragile state. Industrial production and durable goods numbers (ex-aircraft) play that out and the fun part will be when the GDP number jumps up in July to a new calculation method. Some additional info for foreign ETF's. If you want short exposure the best way for a small investor is through short ETF's. What happened in Japan the last two trading days should be a lesson for those investors looking to get overseas ETF exposure. Volatility can play havoc with your positions and larger investors have the advantage of getting out of their positions before you have a chance to sell. Edit: If you look at the daily chart for the Nikkei from Thursday's trading it started off well enough with a rise and then began to crater on the BOJ comments. The flat line is lunch break when the market closes. During that period, stops get triggered and NY managers see the news and selloff. They close their books and take the gains causing a selling stampede when the afternoon session opens. If you are a small investor and trading overseas ETF's be aware of that. evilwaldo fucked around with this message at 17:32 on May 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Facebook currently down 15.5% from spiking up to 29 after last quarter's earnings. Would love to see Facebook below $20...I have a lot of January put options (at 25 and 20 strikes). Facebook Home is a dud, and I'm hard-pressed to figure out how they grow fast enough to justify that PE ratio. Yeah they have Instagram still, but monetization tends to be an incredible turn-off.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:18
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Facebook currently down 15.5% from spiking up to 29 after last quarter's earnings. People are beginning to leave Facebook now due to the drama heading for new, smaller social networks.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 17:19
|
|
|
evilwaldo posted:People are beginning to leave Facebook now due to the drama heading for new, smaller social networks. While they're still firmly entrenched as the leader, people are laughing less at Google+ due to the way it integrates with other Google products.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 18:57
|
|
|
Comb Your Beard posted:
Holding onto an ultra for any long period of time is almost certainly negative expectancy. Because ultras are designed to track daily returns, they re balance daily. Rebalancing is expensive, and you should expect ultras to lose a bit of money every day. These losses are not reflected in the expense ratio.
|
|
#
?
May 24, 2013 23:34
|
|
|
Escher posted:Holding onto an ultra for any long period of time is almost certainly negative expectancy. Because ultras are designed to track daily returns, they re balance daily. Rebalancing is expensive, and you should expect ultras to lose a bit of money every day. These losses are not reflected in the expense ratio. This. Basically if over 2 days. A $100 stock drops by 10% then goes up by 11.1111% (basically 100->90->100). The stock is the exact same place $100. But your ultra which I am assuming is 300%. Does this 100*(1-0.10*3)*(1+0.1111*3). And is now worth 93.3333% of the original value (100->130->93.3). Keep doing this every day and you end up wondering how you lost all your money while the stock is in the same place. It does the same thing if the stock goes up then down btw. Non ultra shorts decay in a similar way basically you are on the wrong side of a stock that moves but stays in the same place. In the above example you gain 10% then lose 11% 100*1.1*(1-.111111)= 97.7 ouch Bigntasty fucked around with this message at 00:33 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
Arkane posted:If it looks like SAC is going to collapse, any point in trying to short any holdings where they hold a large portion of the shares? I've noticed they own 4.3 million shares of EQT versus the average volume of 1.6m. Their position is about 2.5% of the market cap. If Cohen himself is indicted, I am assuming that they would start unwinding their positions. I really don't think SAC will collapse, and even if they did get shut down the unwind period would likely be over a few months to a year.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 00:37
|
|
|
Bigntasty posted:This. Thanks guys, appreciate it, ended up getting JPX (Pacific subtract Japan) and FXP (China). They both recently went up but I will not hold long. It's a small chunk of my portfolio, not too crazy. Now I understand why they are expensive to maintain. If I want to "bet against" stuff in the future should I just try and do puts at a certain price point? Need to get that ability, I have USAA, they seem ok as brokers.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 01:32
|
|
|
dogpower posted:Is anyone else looking into National Bank of Greece? Not anymore! I know you confessed it was a gamble but with this freefall and reverse split you'd need giant balls to put money in at the moment.
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 02:03
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:Not anymore! I know you confessed it was a gamble but with this freefall and reverse split you'd need giant balls to put money in at the moment. Looks like they are having a secondary offering (at 0.55 cents/share) in addition to halting trading for a week?
|
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 02:19
|
|
|
Nevermind; read the article wrong. Acquilae fucked around with this message at 18:40 on May 25, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 25, 2013 18:30
|
|
|
DancingMachine posted:With Microsoft declaring war on used retail game sales, Gamestop seems like a good long-term short. Already down about 8% since yesterday morning, though. Sigh, drat my cowardice. Down another 10% since this post. I did not get in.
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 04:32
|
|
|
I played it short term. edit god drat it I am an idiot. I don't think I can delete that. Well, my tiny positions couldn't be considered bragging, I'm sure. If a mod could delete it great. The point is I have a few GME June 40 puts I bought on the xbox news. pr0k fucked around with this message at 05:19 on May 26, 2013 |
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 05:01
|
|
|
pr0k posted:I played it short term. Solid trade, I'm sure we'll get over it
|
|
#
?
May 26, 2013 15:09
|
|
|
How can I invest in GUCCI? More people are buying it and I feel the asbergers people on wallstreet havn't caught on yet because they don't listen to rap. I dont understand why GUCG has been at 140 dollars forever. Or how to buy PP.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 23:09
|
|
|
Quick question from someone who is really new at this. I am currently trying to build out a portfolio of 6-10 companies within the VSE and I've been pulling Yahoo data into a BI tool so I can model trends. How many of you take this bottom-up approach to stock picking? I understand there is no way it will be as reliable as a top-down approach (where you bid based on news/data somewhat real-time). I would preferably like to bid on micro-trends (1-2 week trends) and am not sure if this is at all viable. The idea would be to run some regressions, find potential relationships, and test against them for a few months on the VSE before playing with real money. Let me know if this is ridiculous and doesn't make any sense.
|
|
#
?
May 27, 2013 23:42
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:While they're still firmly entrenched as the leader, people are laughing less at Google+ due to the way it integrates with other Google products. If you want to get listed on a google map search thou shall get a plus account! I don't have a facebook account but in order to share my google photo ablums I signed up to plus so my wife has control over them too. While I don't think this adds much value to google it definitely entrenches them into my online life, not that they need more entrenching. If they force you to get a plus account to see you tube porn they win the internet.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 15:19
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 17, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Elephanthead posted:While I don't think this adds much value to google it definitely entrenches them into my online life, not that they need more entrenching. I don't know how much user activity is necessary to make their service worth the trouble, but unless it's pretty low then I can't see it paying off. I only signed up out of coercion, which is probably how most of its users came about.
|
|
#
?
May 28, 2013 16:17
|
|