|
Why not just go long YHOO short BABA at some appropriate ratio? Cost to borrow too high or something?
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
My spreadsheet bullshit math after this morning puts YHOO price target at ~$60 if they do things the way they say they are going to do If YHOO gets 35% tax by liquidating BABA, then price target is in the $47.50 range. I'm willing to sit in the stock for a year for potentially 10-40% return. Of course if BABA goes bust it blows everything out of the water. Good news is, if you are buying after this morning, the momentum/growth investors piled out. nollij fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Jan 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
Wow YHOO and BABA down 9-10%. Speaking of down 10%, how do you guys feel about MSFT?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
DNova posted:how do you guys feel about MSFT? long term pretty solid, but not exciting. But in the coming year or so, look into coal. The U.S. institutionalized attack on the industry has nearly destroyed it, in hopes that a new unicorn-based system would fall neatly into place. MIT nerds think that will not be the case http://web.mit.edu/coal/The_Future_of_Coal_Summary_Report.pdf ANR just went down below a buck and is in quantum purchasing levels. COAL: ironically, the fuel of the future
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:long term pretty solid, but not exciting. This looks so tempting, but I'm afraid that coal might not come back for quite some time - like 4-5 years at least. And the existing companies aren't going to be around then...
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:39
|
|
|
Closed out my EA $45/4.30 calls at 9.8. They might go higher, but 100% gainer is pretty swell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Baddog posted:This looks so tempting, but I'm afraid that coal might not come back for quite some time - like 4-5 years at least. And the existing companies aren't going to be around then... true, some of them will probably bite the dust, but disasters like the current situation weed out the poorly managed and the survivors will glean the market share. the coal companies with enough cash to ride this nonsense out (and hopefully prevent de-listing and reverse-splits) will be the survivors
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
Broccoli Cat posted:true, some of them will probably bite the dust, but disasters like the current situation weed out the poorly managed and the survivors will glean the market share. That report was done in 2007. Are their predictions/estimations still relevant, or is there a revision?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 20:16
|
|
|
Noah posted:That report was done in 2007. Are their predictions/estimations still relevant, or is there a revision? nothing yet. I mean, nothing real. I'm sure certain circles would attribute the investor fear to how the country suddenly and magically doesn't need coal any more, but it reminds me of how AKAM was under a buck back in 2002 for no logical reason other than tech had a pox on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
how bout that AMZN!
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
Baddog posted:how bout that AMZN! loving awesome. cheers to anyone riding that
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 14:12
|
|
|
I work for the power industry. Coal plants are closing and closing fast. Most of the ones that aren't closing are being converted to natural gas with coal as a backup/secondary fuel instead of oil. It's your money, but between EPA regulations and where solar and wind will be in 5 years I would avoid the industry. If you have to invest in coal, I'd look for a company that has strong exports since most new coal plants are cropping up outside of the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
I don't understand how one could hold a bullish sentiment on coal. New solar construction is cheaper per MW, coal extraction is getting more expensive in both dollars and public agitation, and residential power generation is seeing a significant uptick over the past two years. It's like taking the idea that oil will eventually bounce back and applying it to another fossil fuel, but the mass demand for coal is intermediated by a power line which can have any arbitrary electrical generator on the other end, while the mass demand for petroleum has roughly 270 million internal combustion engines that would need to be outright replaced or converted buoying it. I think coal consumption in the US has got a terminal illness and will be phased out as maintenance and regulatory costs slowly kill off the plants that don't convert.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
I've seen a recent uptick in interest in Fischer–Tropsch technologies in the petroleum refining sector (basically turning gasified coal into transportation liquid) so there are still untapped potential uses for coal. But I agree, it seems like a loser the near and intermediate future at the minimum, at least in the US.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
Coal is a play on natural gas increasing in cost and oil increasing in cost, so why not just invest in cheap oil and natural gas instead?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
I decided to jump on VISA just long, hoping for a similar Apple run up post-split. In on ATVI calls for 18/feb 27 @ 3.06. I think Hearthstone, holiday buys, and the new expansion sub numbers are gonna beat estimates.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Daedalus Esquire posted:I work for the power industry. Coal plants are closing and closing fast. Most of the ones that aren't closing are being converted to natural gas with coal as a backup/secondary fuel instead of oil. The older plants are closing, perhaps not permanently, the newer ones are staying open, because the Carbon-scrubbing technology isn't theoretically 5+ years away, it already exists. The USA gets roughly 50% of its electricity from coal, about the same as ALL OTHER FUELS COMBINED -which is massive, and impossible to immediately change. add to this a dwindling coal surplus and the thin ice the EPA is on, and you've got potential investor upside the likes of which only comes around a couple times in a lifetime. to hedge with foreign, KOL includes foreign coal and is pretty affordable I'm sticking with the MIT guys...they're MIT guys. EDIT: for those of you deeply entrenched, when I say MIT I don't mean mint corp Broccoli Cat fucked around with this message at 23:51 on Jan 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
What do you guys think about athx? I'm invested seems kind of sketchy though.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Erath posted:What do you guys think about athx? I'm invested seems kind of sketchy though. Genetics grad student here. I actually had the pleasure of attending a talk by Athersys's Chief Scientific Officer some time back which made me contemplate investing in the company, but I ultimately chose not to. My take home thoughts from said talk: First off, they have succeeded in coming up with a way of basically mass-producing multipotent progenitor cells (not quite the totipotent stem cells most people think about when the phrase "stem cells" gets thrown around). These cells seem to have a beneficial immunomodulatory effect that reduces inflammation. They showed a number of results in mice that were compelling, however, as everyone knows having a successful therapy in mice is a long way from having something that works in people. With that said, this product (MultiStem) is their ONLY product. They have no pipeline, it's just trying to see if these cells are good for anything. They were looking at three different clinical conditions to see if their product could be clinically relevant: 1. Ulcerative Colitis -- an autoimmune disease that causes inflammation of the lower colon and rectum leading to ulcers and ultimately increased risk of colon cancer. Multistem did not show any benefit to treat this condition and when this result came out the stock tanked about 50% (red flag) 2. Wound healing -- following a spinal injury, supportive cells called astrocytes form a sort of scar that prevents neuronal regrowth. Presumably, altering the immune response might prevent this from happening. I did not get the feeling that research along these lines was anywhere close to paying off soon. 3. Immunomodulation following heart attack/stroke. While both heart attack and stroke are devastating clinical events, a lot of the lasting damage is done by the immune response following the event rather than the event itself. If MultiStem therapy poses some clinical benefit in these cases, everyone who had a heart attack or stroke could theoretically benefit from this. This is a potentially huge market and their best chance at success as a company. The company is currently valued at about ~100M market cap so if #3 pays off it would easily be worth 10 times that or more. However based on the failure in #1 their therapy may just not work well in humans and the company would have zero value. It's extremely speculative but I hope this was a help in guiding your investing decisions.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Daedalus Esquire posted:I work for the power industry. Coal plants are closing and closing fast. Most of the ones that aren't closing are being converted to natural gas with coal as a backup/secondary fuel instead of oil. I also work in the power industry. Solar will never pick up any significant percentage of the energy production mix. It is not a matter of capacity, but a matter of grid stability. Even in places where solar is widespread (Germany, 6-7%), they have to back up the solar capacity with thermal generation because it is so volatile. This leads them to energy surpluses. You might be able to use solar for peak shaving, but even then you will need the hard baseline sources to back it up in case it fails. How much carbon are you really saving if the boilers are up and running 100% of the time anyway? Everytime I hear about solar being the energy of the future I roll my eyes. It is ridiculously overhyped for 90% of the country and almost entirely dependent on government subsidies, regardless of how cheap China is making them. I read a study from PJM a while ago about wind implementation. They said if we massively invested in wind farms in the midwest plains and offshore the jersey/delaware/MD coast, we might be able to push 30% grid capacity with numerous HVDC transmission lines connecting the two regions. However the grid infrastructure along would cost a half a trillion dollars and there is still no guarantee you would actually get the statistical diversity to decommission other sources.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 00:46
|
|
|
Saint Fu posted:I've seen a recent uptick in interest in Fischer–Tropsch technologies in the petroleum refining sector (basically turning gasified coal into transportation liquid) so there are still untapped potential uses for coal. But I agree, it seems like a loser the near and intermediate future at the minimum, at least in the US. I would think a refiner would prefer to produce syngas from natural gas rather than gasified coal. The big integrated companies own lots of natural gas they'ld be more than happy to be able to convert to something higher valued than power plant feed. They don't own coal reserves. The gas boom is probably why there's a sudden increase in interest in FT technology. But Shell's experience in constructing their Qatar GTL plant is also giving the industry pause in building anymore.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 01:06
|
|
|
A lot of bond etfs are up 3% for the month, impressive. I moved my hsa and small 401k over to that at beginning of month from the other bs options we had (target date 70% weighted in russel 1k wtf?). Better to have piece of mind and when the 10 year isn't below 2% I'll move back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 03:10
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I also work in the power industry. Solar will never pick up any significant percentage of the energy production mix. It is not a matter of capacity, but a matter of grid stability. Even in places where solar is widespread (Germany, 6-7%), they have to back up the solar capacity with thermal generation because it is so volatile. This leads them to energy surpluses. You might be able to use solar for peak shaving, but even then you will need the hard baseline sources to back it up in case it fails. How much carbon are you really saving if the boilers are up and running 100% of the time anyway? Everytime I hear about solar being the energy of the future I roll my eyes. It is ridiculously overhyped for 90% of the country and almost entirely dependent on government subsidies, regardless of how cheap China is making them. You're still ignoring that coal is going down and that generation is rapidly being replaced with natural gas/oil dual fuel systems. Base load problems are currently and should remain being provided by nukes, but the media has ruined the option of replacing and expanding what we have and the future of our current supply is in question. Solar and wind combined with smart metering and a increase in high energy appliances being aware of LBMPs will drastically help with evening load pickup as well, so the marginal costs of generation are going down and it's the more efficient units that are running, most likely cogen plants. Oh and even PJM is shutting killing a ton of generation in Pennsylvania which is mostly coal. it's also a good thing there are tons of investment projects going on for transmission improvements, and that even in the north east where it's cloudy and lovely most of the time, solar panels are economically viable due to the high generation costs that they face. But whatever, it's all pretty speculative and probably depends on your background in the industry where you see things going. I know I see plenty of data on coal plant shut downs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 05:24
|
|
|
bought ANR JAN 15 2016 1.00 C yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 06:19
|
|
|
pr0k posted:bought ANR JAN 15 2016 1.00 C yesterday. history favors the bold, Sir. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 15:21
|
|
|
pr0k posted:bought ANR JAN 15 2016 1.00 C yesterday. If any of those metallurgical coal companies rebound investors are in for massive profits. The risk of course is that the small guys all go bankrupt and the big players like BHP and Rio Tinto will be the last men standing. WLT is dirt cheap, too, but it seems too risky.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
Daedalus Esquire posted:You're still ignoring that coal is going down and that generation is rapidly being replaced with natural gas/oil dual fuel systems. Base load problems are currently and should remain being provided by nukes, but the media has ruined the option of replacing and expanding what we have and the future of our current supply is in question. Solar and wind combined with smart metering and a increase in high energy appliances being aware of LBMPs will drastically help with evening load pickup as well, so the marginal costs of generation are going down and it's the more efficient units that are running, most likely cogen plants. I am by no means a proponent of coal and I agree that nuclear should pick up a lot of baseline capacity. However what I am seeing is coal being decommissioned due to the age and technology of the plants. They can't get new permits for new plants. Natural gas is picking up the slack due to the extremely cheap prices. In addition, overall electricity consumption is either flat or dropping due to conservation efforts began after the 2007 energy shock. Gas turbines also have a quicker startup time, so they can theoretically facilitate a larger percentage of volatile renewables than a thermal steam turbine. However even then only it is only on a peak basis and only with the gas turbines mirroring the capacity. Also, if you look at the growth in solar, a good portion of installed capacity is in solar thermal, not photovoltaic. Smart meters obviously help with controlling some volatility, but it won't get you to the point where distributed solar photovoltaic acts as standalone capacity. To put it in grid analysis terms, solar photovoltaic acts as a temporary reduction in a load bus, not an addition of generator bus.
|
|
#
?
Jan 31, 2015 18:47
|
|
|
Noah posted:I decided to jump on VISA just long, hoping for a similar Apple run up post-split. In on ATVI calls for 18/feb 27 @ 3.06. I think Hearthstone, holiday buys, and the new expansion sub numbers are gonna beat estimates. I agree on ATVI, considering how well the street responded to EA any beat or raise in forecast could send it above 24
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 00:19
|
|
|
http://www.wsj.com/articles/obama-budget-fund-infrastructure-with-tax-on-firms-foreign-earnings-1422802103?mod=WSJ_hp_LEFTTopStories Interesting. quote:In the proposal that will be outlined in Mr. Obama’s fiscal 2016 budget on Monday, companies would be subject to a 14% tax on the up to $2 trillion of overseas earnings they have already accumulated, the official said. The money the new tax generates would be used to expand the Highway Trust Fund’s surface transportation reauthorization from four years to six years, the White House official said. While I am sure Congress will balk at this, proposing a lower permanent tax rate for repatriated earnings is a step in the right direction. I think the conflict will be over the "mandatory" part. The real question is what a mandatory tax on foreign earnings would do to equity valuations for a company which has heavily accumulated foreign cash/asset reserves.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Can someone explain where Yahoo had its most early on success? Yahoo news, mail, or just ads from their search engine?
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:00
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:Can someone explain where Yahoo had its most early on success? Yahoo news, mail, or just ads from their search engine? Yahoo was proto-google. They helped fund a lot of the breakthroughs that allow google/modern search engines to operate.
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:15
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:Can someone explain where Yahoo had its most early on success? Yahoo news, mail, or just ads from their search engine? free mail + ads I don't remember ever using their search engine in the early days
|
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:21
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:Can someone explain where Yahoo had its most early on success? Yahoo news, mail, or just ads from their search engine? Broccoli Cat posted:free mail + ads Yahoo is also very big in a few foreign markets. They're barely holding on to dominance in Japan (~53% in 2013), and have 20%+ in a few other countries. http://returnonnow.com/internet-marketing-resources/2013-search-engine-market-share-by-country/ edit: The Japanese really love a cluttered, ugly internet, it's the weirdest thing. 
Inverse Icarus fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Feb 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 1, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Inverse Icarus posted:Yahoo is also very big in a few foreign markets. They're barely holding on to dominance in Japan (~53% in 2013), and have 20%+ in a few other countries.  
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
They love cluttered everything. Visit Akihabara sometime then watch late-night TV there. Jesus christ.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:14
|
|
|
I suppose it's an adaptation. When I was in Tokyo it started to get to me. It was like the feeling of walking out of Penn Station, except it never ends; you keep walking out more Penn Stations, an infinite loop of endless people. I guess you'd have to embrace the claustrophobia.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 14:21
|
|
|
CSIQ
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:39
|
|
|
Glad I got out at 21.25. FreelanceSocialist fucked around with this message at 16:32 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 15:58
|
|
|
LolitaSama posted:Can someone explain where Yahoo had its most early on success? Yahoo news, mail, or just ads from their search engine? Yahoo was pre-search engine...it was a "directory." You would start there, and there would be categories where you would try to find what you wanted. I have no clue how they earned income (if they did at all), but it was a hot stock in the 90s. All of solar seeing a big bounce today...wrote my first calls in a while against my CSIQ position.
|
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2024 00:42 |
|
|
Arkane posted:Yahoo was pre-search engine...it was a "directory." You would start there, and there would be categories where you would try to find what you wanted. I have no clue how they earned income (if they did at all), but it was a hot stock in the 90s. Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 2, 2015 |
|
#
?
Feb 2, 2015 17:13
|
|
