|
Tautologicus posted:Stock price means a lot especially since many funds won't purchase them if they're under a certain price..you should know that. That contributes to volatility or lack of. Also I already made my actual point and should not in any way be construed as "advice"..lol. How can a "normal big move" be two different percentages? By definition, one is a smaller move and the other is a bigger move.
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Bagarthach posted:How can a "normal big move" be two different percentages? By definition, one is a smaller move and the other is a bigger move. Because lower priced stocks are more volatile than higher priced stocks overall
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
quote:If you buy 1000 dollars of a 25 dollar stock and it goes up a dollar (a normal big move), you make 40 dollars. It's awesome that your name is Tautologicus because you've just posted a worthless tautology; you're taking it as your premise that lower valued stocks are more volatile, and using that to argue that they're more volatile. And yeah, there is a correlation between volatility and price (though not as strong a one as I think you imagine); this is because listing practices mean that price is often effectively a bit of information about a company's history. However, this information is wiped out by splits/reverse-splits, and also doesn't separate out recent performance from performance long ago - so instead of trying to divine volatility by looking at price, a rational investor with access to normal data would just look at volatility directly. A very high or low share price might prompt you to look at other things when evaluating a stock for the first time (how did this come to be at $400 or $1.10?), but it shouldn't be a real factor in your normal decision making. jmzero fucked around with this message at 18:10 on May 6, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Because lower priced stocks are more volatile than higher priced stocks overall
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Alright fair enough. For some reason something is still telling me that it makes more sense to look more at lower priced risky stocks than higher priced risky stocks if you have a very small account and are trying to grow it come what may but if you all say that isn't so, then whatever.Saint Fu posted:That's because low priced stocks generally have a lower market cap and small caps generally are more volatile. It has nothing to do with the nominal price of a single stock which is just an arbitrary percentage of the total market cap.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
Arkane posted:I've read the Cohen thing, but haven't found anything to substantiate its accuracy. Plus, look at how much Tyson Point72 owns, it is tiny. Look at the short interest in PPC and SAMF, it is huge. I've read that the chicken trade is popular, which is to buy in down cycles and sell in up cycles. To me this this reasons as much more likely, and indeed the building up of short interest over time in both names would seem to back that up. Why TSN isn't shorted is probably due to the company not being a pure chicken play anymore after acquisitions. Cheers dude, this is a great starting point to do some homework, thank you
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:10
|
|
|
nebby posted:Chicken is the new coal Took a small position in SAFM. Do Americans really eat 84 pounds per capita of chicken a year?  That seems like a lot.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:12
|
|
|
bushes posted:Coal is the new Corn. Chickens powered by Coal. 84 pounds seems conservative. 1.6 pounds a week of chicken? Even the cheapest of fast food places you'll get at least 4oz of chicken a meal. Not to mention people who prep 2-3 pounds of chicken on a sunday and divide it up over the week.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
I'll admit I contribute to that statistic quite a bit - but I doubt I am a customer of SAFM (even indirectly). That Tulane PDF is a good read. Thanks for that.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
Pretty funny post on AAPL's stocktwit feed.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
All that chart is missing is an even higher high and its perfect. Old pic though
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 21:19
|
|
|
There needs to be a version with only declines and the note saying "not gonna be the guy in that graph picture"  as the price dwindles to nothing and doesn't recover.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Alright fair enough. For some reason something is still telling me that it makes more sense to look more at lower priced risky stocks than higher priced risky stocks if you have a very small account and are trying to grow it come what may but if you all say that isn't so, then whatever. The very obvious reason is that you can get all of your $1000 or whatever invested. In other words, if you buy a stock that trades at $101 a share, you can only buy nine shares, with $91 in cash left over. Whereas if you buy a stock that trades at $11 a share, you can buy 90 shares for $990 dollars and only have ten dollars left in cash. (This granularity concern also factors in if the investor wants to ease in or out of a position gradually.) The secondary concern goes back to something you took as a premise: that the $1000 investor is assumed to be seeking high volatility, in order to make a quick buck (or lose all the bucks quickly). I think this is a faulty premise. The $1000 investor might be: -looking to supplement their cash and retirement savings with a small stake in higher-risk individual stock investments. In this case, they might seek a risk profile only modestly more risky than their (hopefully well-diversified, low-cost passively-managed) mutual funds in their retirement account. The lowest-volatility sure-thing blue chip might be exactly the ticket. -looking to learn about how to trade stocks, before risking any more than a small amount of money. In this case, they might have dabbled with paper trading, but they want to see how they handle the psychology of trading when there's real actual money on the line. This investor might seek high or low volatility, or both, or something in between, or may ignore volatility and pay attention to other factors when deciding what to buy. In either of these cases, the investor can seek high- or low-volatility stocks sold at any price point, as long as one share costs less than the maximum amount they're willing to invest in that stock. (E.g., no Berkshire Hathaway for the small investor).
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The very obvious reason is that you can get all of your $1000 or whatever invested. In other words, if you buy a stock that trades at $101 a share, you can only buy nine shares, with $91 in cash left over. Whereas if you buy a stock that trades at $11 a share, you can buy 90 shares for $990 dollars and only have ten dollars left in cash. (This granularity concern also factors in if the investor wants to ease in or out of a position gradually.) I didn't assume the 1000 dollar investor was seeking volatility. I said they ought to and I didn't totally mean it. Anyway I agree with the rest of your post, never disagreed. For the thread: I have 10k now to do something with, with 40-60k coming behind it, but I don't want to trade it myself right now, don't think I am good enough to try with the real bucks. I'm thinking either USAA aggressive mutual fund or one of Motif's starter funds. Any other ideas? I'm after "growth of capital" above all else. I don't need it for anything else, all my other bases are covered.
|
|
#
?
May 6, 2015 23:24
|
|
|
just buy some low-expense ETFs that track broad stock indexes until you want to get more speculative
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:23
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:Stock price means a lot especially since many funds won't purchase them if they're under a certain price..you should know that. That contributes to volatility or lack of. Also I already made my actual point and should not in any way be construed as "advice"..lol. You spent a lot of words to say - if a stock goes up 10% you make more than if it goes up 4% Think of it in terms of chickens. If you have 100x 1lb chickens or 10x 10lb chickens, you have 100lb of chickens. To make this chicken apology bulletproof, assume you're making mc nuggets so the whole chicken is just getting thrown in a chicken grinder. Chicken meat quality not an issue in this chicken analogy. It's pure weight of chicken. You have 100lb of chicken paste. You have the same chicken equity no matter how many chickens you ground up into chicken paste.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:27
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The $1000 investor might be:
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Dude, he paid to work in a human HFT arcade, he's got this.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:You spent a lot of words to say - if a stock goes up 10% you make more than if it goes up 4% I never said they weren't the same weight and what I was saying about volatility doesn't fit into your analogy. ohgodwhat posted:Dude, he paid to work in a human HFT arcade, he's got this. Right in the feels..yea don't do that. It was a good way to learn about some aspects of the stock market up close and personal though. Even better would be a real trading job. I dont think i ever tried to pretend it was a legitimate enterprise. My self esteem is not tied to my time there lol the worst thing is fucked around with this message at 06:15 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:09
|
|
|
After like 6 months of trading 1k w/ robinhood I'm down 160. I was up about the same amount at one point. DON'T DO IT!!!!!!!! Although I must say, I was just straight up gambling and doing stupid poo poo, and a loss of 160 is like 2 hours in Vegas. So it's actually pretty great.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:11
|
|
|
Arkane posted:Yeah so I think SAFM, Sanderson Farms, is undervalued on its potential range of earnings outcomes. This looks very interesting, thanks. I'm having a hard time understanding how such a solid and conservatively built company could be so deeply shorted.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
Tautologicus posted:I never said they weren't the same weight and what I was saying about volatility doesn't fit into your analogy. Explain why a $500M company would move 4% vs. 10% in price, depending on the number of shares in existence? So if, say, a company beats earnings, and they provide guidance that says annual revenue growth will increase from 15% to 25%, why would a company with 100M shares trading at $5 a share increase more in price than an equivalent company with 25M shares trading at $20 a share? Tautologicus posted:More shares able to buy=more leverage from small accounts..try doubling up buying 50 or even 25 dollar stocks on a 1000 dollar account. Also the higher the stock price the less volatile in general. HTH What the gently caress does this even mean? Please parse this out as to why a multiple hundred million dollar company will move in value more depending on how many slices of pie you cut it into. Explain this moon logic. Tautologicus posted:If you buy 1000 dollars of a 25 dollar stock and it goes up a dollar (a normal big move), you make 40 dollars. What the gently caress does this even mean? You're just making up dollar amounts to prove your point 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:Explain why a $500M company would move 4% vs. 10% in price, depending on the number of shares in existence? So if, say, a company beats earnings, and they provide guidance that says annual revenue growth will increase from 15% to 25%, why would a company with 100M shares trading at $5 a share increase more in price than an equivalent company with 25M shares trading at $20 a share? The two companies in your example are the same, yes.. But if you have a 1000 dollar trading account and want to throw it all at something speculative, isn't there a difference between how big ticket stocks like FB or CMG move per day versus small-cap stocks? And how many small-cap stocks have 500 dollar share prices. No it doesn't make sense to refer to price as any kind of indication of value, but my point was always that for the pikers among us, those who are sometimes (often poorly) trying to make a big play with a little account, sticking with more volatile small-cap stocks seems more relevant, and those stocks tend to have lower share prices. 8 shares of a stock that hardly moves, or 800 shares of a stock that can go 15% in a day? That's all I'm saying. The higher the market cap is, the more stable the price is generally...but yes i get that it doesn't help at all to refer to stock price as a measure of anything on its own. All I'm saying is there is at least some distinction between a "penny stock" and one that is not. And if the SEC uses stock price to classify a stock as a penny stock or not (5 dollars or less), what's to stop me from making the cutoff at 10 dollars a share instead?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 07:23
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:The very obvious reason is that you can get all of your $1000 or whatever invested. In other words, if you buy a stock that trades at $101 a share, you can only buy nine shares, with $91 in cash left over. Whereas if you buy a stock that trades at $11 a share, you can buy 90 shares for $990 dollars and only have ten dollars left in cash. (This granularity concern also factors in if the investor wants to ease in or out of a position gradually.) The Stock Trading Megathread: Lose all the bucks quickly
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
but guys if i buy a stock trading at a penny I only need it to go up one penny to double my money!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 08:10
|
|
|
What's a good way to examine one's own aversion/acceptance of risk? ADSK is back down to what I paid for it last May. I'm not comfortable with losing too much of my principal on it, but I'm thinking it's worth riding out. Is it basically go with your gut in terms of how much risk you're willing to take, or is there some kind of quantification I should be looking at?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 13:43
|
|
|
On the bright side it looks like seadrill will provide an affordable entry point here today for its eventual rise to $20. oh please god i hope
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 14:42
|
|
|
MJP posted:What's a good way to examine one's own aversion/acceptance of risk? ADSK is back down to what I paid for it last May. I'm not comfortable with losing too much of my principal on it, but I'm thinking it's worth riding out. You might enjoy reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. As for your investment in autodesk, how long are you looking to hold? How much of your liquid networth is invested in this one stock? Will you need the money any time in the near future? What was your thesis when you bought the stock a year ago and has it changed at all since then (would you buy it again at this price?). My biggest losses have come from gambling short term, putting more than 10% of my liquid networth in one company, gambling with money I knew I'd need in the coming months, and not having done my homework or developed a thesis in the first place. If you're too leveraged or under a time crunch or just have no clue why you invested in a company, then you're going to feel nervous about your money. If you do all of these things, you're going to lose sleep. fruition fucked around with this message at 16:27 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 15:27
|
|
|
fruition posted:You might enjoy reading "Thinking Fast and Slow" by Daniel Kahneman. It's something like 1% of my total liquid net worth. Around $1k and change. It's probably super inconsequential but I want to make sure I don't panic-sell. I don't see myself needing the money anytime soon. At the time I'd been using an advisor, whom I've fired given that I had a lot of my IRA investments tied up in high-fee mutual funds, and also kept stuff in brokerage when it really should have gone to the IRA. I'd made my normal biweekly contributions to the tune of $1k and he suggested ADSK as a single stock holding to start diversifying into the tech sector.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
District Selectman posted:This looks very interesting, thanks. I'm having a hard time understanding how such a solid and conservatively built company could be so deeply shorted. There is a massive bird flu epidemic hitting the poultry industry. It's limited to the midwest right now but is spreading fast and no one's sure how or what is spreading it... whether it's wild migratory birds or new chickens the farmers are bringing in or what. It's front page/lead story news here in WI, whole chicken and turkey farms are being euthanized and dire predictions of $5/dozen eggs and doubling in poultry meat prices by autumn are floating around. The shorts might have this in mind and are expecting the stock to drop if the whole sector dips, or they're thinking the flu will go nationwide and there won't be any chickens to process.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
MJP posted:It's something like 1% of my total liquid net worth. Around $1k and change. It's probably super inconsequential but I want to make sure I don't panic-sell. I'd personally just hold it. If you're willing to think long term then autodesk probably isn't going anywhere. I don't know much about the company but aren't they transitioning into a subscription based model and away from the desktop sales? It will take some time to make that transition. Also, if additive manufacturing ever becomes more than just a nerd hobby then they'll do very well. Read through the last earnings report if you want to get a feel for where they are and where they're headed: http://www.thestreet.com/story/13061473/1/autodesk-adsk-earnings-report-q4-2015-conference-call-transcript.html
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Land Fish posted:There is a massive bird flu epidemic hitting the poultry industry. It's limited to the midwest right now but is spreading fast and no one's sure how or what is spreading it... whether it's wild migratory birds or new chickens the farmers are bringing in or what. It's front page/lead story news here in WI, whole chicken and turkey farms are being euthanized and dire predictions of $5/dozen eggs and doubling in poultry meat prices by autumn are floating around. I don't think they're shorting based on bird flu....the shorting began in force before the outbreak (avian flu outbreak began ~January and has only accelerated recently, shorting accelerated a few months before that). Plus the virus thrives in cooler weather, and all of Sanderson's locations are in the southern part of the United States where there have been no reported cases -- and where we're halfway through spring already. Sanderson could be at elevated risk in the fall when the migratory birds that are primarily blamed for the spread start heading back south, combined with dropping temperatures.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
fruition posted:I'd personally just hold it. If you're willing to think long term then autodesk probably isn't going anywhere. I don't know much about the company but aren't they transitioning into a subscription based model and away from the desktop sales? It will take some time to make that transition. Also, if additive manufacturing ever becomes more than just a nerd hobby then they'll do very well. "Additive manufacturing" (3d printing, etc.) is already much more important in the real world of manufacturing than it is in the nerd hobby circles. Rapid prototyping is incredibly valuable, and it's driven by 3d CAD/CAM software. For example, one of the reasons China can produce pretty much anything in plastic from an e-mailed design in a matter of a handful of days, is because they can 3d-print the mold master directly from the provided model. It's also increasingly important in production manufacturing, such as in aerospace. And of course, CAD/CAM is still absolutely dominant for subtractive manufacturing (milling/machining) and for manipulative manufacturing (stamping/forming/shaping with a press). Autodesk is doing very cool things. I've met a couple of people in the Bay Area who work there. Their CEO wanders around tinkering with stuff. They have a strong R&D ethic. They engage a lot with children (TinkerCAD, etc.). They've got an atmosphere there that feels very much like a startup, and not very much like the greybearded software grandpa they actually are, in silicon valley.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Anecdotal datapoints on autodesk from my manufacturing & autocad instructor perspective: Inventor is a brilliant product but big industry is already locked in to earlier packages such as ProE/Creo and CATIA due to decades of legacy files. AutoCAD itself and 2d in general is on the way out but it's going to take a long time to transition, again for legacy concerns. Everything it does can be done faster & easier in inventor or solidworks and then the shapefile can go to manufacturing, the same model can be used for marketing brochures and videos, etc. 2d cad is as dead as pen and paper long term. That's only a slice of their product portfolio, I can't speak to the game content creation & motion picture tools. Anyway I don't see much potential for growth in manufacturing for them with existing companies. Their licenses are going to be driven by manufacturing startups. Revit seems like the most potentially sector disrupting thingnon their lineup, dunno what kind of inroads its making to architecture construction but unifying all of that workflow and doc management between design-build-maintain would be huge if widely adopted. That's what I'd look into, is revit becoming a must have solution? shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 19:43 on May 7, 2015 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 19:32
|
|
|
Turn around crude oil, noooooo!!
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
Land Fish posted:dire predictions of $5/dozen eggs and doubling in poultry meat prices by autumn are floating around. This sounds like a fantastic reason to invest in chicken as there is no corn blight right now.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Land Fish posted:There is a massive bird flu epidemic hitting the poultry industry. It's limited to the midwest right now but is spreading fast and no one's sure how or what is spreading it... whether it's wild migratory birds or new chickens the farmers are bringing in or what. It's front page/lead story news here in WI, whole chicken and turkey farms are being euthanized and dire predictions of $5/dozen eggs and doubling in poultry meat prices by autumn are floating around. Actually, for the reasons already stated, that would seem to be a very good sign for warm climate chicken production. If the northern production drops off, that's going to restrict supply and prices will respond accordingly.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:12
|
|
|
Agreed that the real money in additive manufacturing is in real manufacturing, which means metal, and I continue to believe that Arcam offers the only real solution for high reliability metal (currently). As far as CAD, these days mechanical drawings are practically reference materials. Additive manufacturing or classic machine shops are using the 3D model STEP files straight from the CAD programs, and they almost don't even need drawings. However, the particular software they're using to generate those files varies widely and I don't know if quality of software has any bearing on who will be the dominant CAD platform in the future. I can verify that there is a strong pull towards CATIA/Creo/ProE, although I am not a mechanical guy so I don't know the reasons. So I'd bet on CAD, but I wouldn't know who to bet on, because the output going to the shops is platform independent. As for the all in one solutions, while they're brilliant, I think they ignore reality. I have seen presentations from companies (like Ansys) offering fully integrated mechanical, thermal, and electrical CAD solutions, and it's so elegant. But gooood loving luck trying to get a large corporation to force all of their various engineers across many disciplines to change software, and oh yeah, all of your existing designs need to be redone in the in the new software and essentially lose their status as proven designs. I just cannot see it.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:17
|
|
|
It's pretty much, whatever Ford or GM or Boeing or Airbus use, you as a parts supplier will also adopt or you don't exist. The auto industry makes Wal-Mart's supplier relationship strategy look like an episode of Barney and Friends.
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 18:01 |
|
|
Shim Howard posted:It's pretty much, whatever Ford or GM or Boeing or Airbus use, you as a parts supplier will also adopt or you don't exist. The auto industry makes Wal-Mart's supplier relationship strategy look like an episode of Barney and Friends. I worked for a guy who previously was in operations for a sub tier supplier to Ford, I think, and he said Ford wpuld set their profit margins and every now and then they'd(the sub tier) have to hire a private jet transport to get shipments to the plant asap
|
|
#
?
May 8, 2015 11:18
|
|
