|
greasyhands posted:They don't need growth at this price, they just need somewhat stable commodity prices. Oil is an absolute joke right now, +-6% a day on the substance that literally runs the world. The speculation is out of hand, demand isn't gone(in fact, it continues and will continue rising)- there is a slight supply imbalance and everyone is acting like the world is ending. FCX hosed up their oil play, but it is still sustainable with $50ish oil, which we will get back to and their mining business looks great. Don't forget about the impact of the dollar. Throughout this oil glut, we have also had the dollar at or around decade highs. It is almost the opposite of what we had in 2007, when the dollar was real weak and oil prices high. Also:
|
#
?
Feb 3, 2016 22:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
Yup, the dollar will weaken once everyone chills out a little bit and commodity prices will rise as a result of that as well. People are acting like it is somehow the end of raw materials, when it is actually just a confluence of several factors being magnified by idiotic speculation. LIke the world suddenly doesn't need copper and oil because china growth slowed from 9% per annum to 6% Who cares about oil inventories, they have almost no historical correlation to anything and the jump from 350mil barrels to 500+mil barrels represents a few days supply- its meaningless and there is nothing alarming in 30+ years of historical trends. the US is producing way more oil than it ever has before (that will rapidly change if prices stay this low) so inventories increasing is not alarming or unexpected https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCESTUS1&f=W
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
I wonder how many years before Venezuela has a revolution, if oil sticks at its current price? http://money.cnn.com/2016/01/18/news/economy/venezuela-economy-meltdown/index.html?iid=hp-stack-dom Maybe less than one. If Venezuela explodes, do you think that'd (ironically) drive up oil prices?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
People are short sighted loving lunatics. Does this assuage your emotions?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
I think everyone is looking back to the 1998 oil crash and are scared of that happening again. They don't want to buy in now and have it drop to <10 dollars a barrel, even though it's for sure going to just rebound up to ridiculous prices again eventually because it's not like the world doesn't still run on oil.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:07
|
|
|
Oil is going to $60 very quickly, where it will probably chill for a long while.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 02:55
|
|
|
This is the beginning of the bull market into 2020. Load up. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 03:15
|
|
|
I'm not aware of any historical precedence for a market as disjointed as this one. I think buying indexes will be a poor return for the next decade or so. There is a major disconnect in valuation between something like NFLX and something like FCX, I think we are going to see a normalization which will be a sharp rise in share price for the 'traditional' businesses that are trading at absurdly low valuations right now, and the 'new economy' stuff that has been driving market gains since 2009 are going to drop in value a little- I dont think there will be a crash, but they will depreciate enough to make the S&P essentially stand still. There is almost no reasonable justification for NFLX or FB or CRM or AMZN or even MSFT and GOOG to be trading where they are today. In fact, everyone cries about AAPL valuation, but in the digital age (i realize AAPL is a hardware company, but they essentially produce disposable items- they do not hold inventory or assets that appreciate over time) so far the market has rather grossly mispriced these equities because they produce a lot of profit. Well, profit is not the entire value of a company- assets are also important. So you take a company like FCX, who has assets that are only going to increase in value over time and will never be obsolete or worthless (at some point in the distant future when the world runs on fairy dust and nuclear fusion they might be worthless, but for the forseeable future their assets are not comparable to something like a warehouse full of iphones- which are obsoleted in a matter of months.) And it is not hard to see why their p/e ratio should be higher than a company like AAPL. Their market cap represents a lot more than just profits and a little bit of intellectual property- it represents hard, appreciating assets that have intrinsic value to every single person on earth and they represent all the manpower and machinery and land that is required to harvest said assets. Tech companies *should* trade at a lower p/e than capital intensive and asset heavy businesses, because their equity simply represents less stuff. When it comes to profits, a dollar is worth a dollar- but for over a decade now the market has been rewarding anyone who generates a profit without an underlying asset base with a higher p/e. Which is why, I think, people are having a hard time trying to "value" the market as it is. AAPL is the only tech stock that trades at a reasonable valuation for what the equity represents, in my opinion. There will be a historical revaluing of technology at some point, once everyone figures out that a dollar made over the internet or a payment processed on an ipad is not worth any more than a dollar handed over the counter at walmart. And, in fact, earnings being equal, the company with more underlying assets generating those profits should be awarded a higher market cap than the company that is asset light because you can liquidate the company and end up with more dollars in the end. A dollar profit is a dollar profit- it makes no logical sense to reward ultra-high margin profits a p/e premium, in fact it makes sense to give them a lower p/e because a larger percentage of the 'total value' of the company is just dollars/profits- therefore a lower multiple of that makes sense. Thats why AAPL is valued like it is, and the rest of the tech world is eventually going to end up like them. Buy the gently caress out of hard assets right now- and I mean the materials the world (including the tech world) depends on to produce their goods, not precious metals (although I am buying those too).
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 04:36
|
|
|
I think you make some good points, but... well, you're also skipping some stuff. Not all physical assets appreciate. Land generally does (but not always), but buildings, equipment, etc. are usually depreciating assets, and what's more, they cost money to maintain. Moreover, companies like Apple have "human capital" - and yes, those employees are at-will and can leave at any time for any reason or no reason, but despite a normal level of churn, tech companies still usually maintain a pool of talent and expertise, and that human capital deserves some kind of valuation. Apple is more than just warehouses of iPhones, it's cube farms of people who know how to make iPhones... and improve iPhones, and invent new iPhones. Not that your FCXes don't also have human capital, mind you. Just, for any company, that should be taken into account. I completely agree that valuations across the market seem to be pretty irrational and wildly inconsistent, and that seems ripe for correction. I won't make a prediction as to when exactly the market will become more rational though.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 04:53
|
|
|
I also didn't address debt levels, but I couldn't bring myself to write an entire thesis right now. Needless to say it is very complicated.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:I also didn't address debt levels, but I couldn't bring myself to write an entire thesis right now. Needless to say it is very complicated. Well that's the real kicker in the energy sector, though. If we had a bunch of oil firms with no debt sitting around pumping cheap oil for lackluster earnings, there would be much less doom and gloom. However what we have is an environment where majors are getting downgraded by S&P and the expectation is that oil price stability will only come from failures in the domestic oil market. The specter of actual bankruptcies and their contagious effects is what is driving the volatility, not concerns for earnings.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:I also didn't address debt levels, but I couldn't bring myself to write an entire thesis right now. Needless to say it is very complicated. Not addressing debt levels in commodity producers is ignoring the giant elephant in the room--if these companies weren't levered, sure, buy away, but it doesn't matter how good a company's assets are if the debt situation is out of whack. There's a very real risk with FCX of bankruptcy or substantial dilution.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 06:07
|
|
|
Might be a messy one today, ECB revising growth estimate downward and BOE saying something about their rates in like half an hour. Plus Credit Suisse announced a huge loss, their first since 2008. Dollar currently getting hammered and all the other currency futures up half a percent.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 12:41
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:This is the beginning of the bull market into 2020. Load up. Yeah, SCHOMP has been trending up for a whole week now. Panic over, good job boys, lets buy!
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 15:25
|
|
|
Hahahahahahahahaha the etrade portfolio full of pink sheet pharmas Martin Shkreli posted as bail is down 89% and the judge wants more money.
shame on an IGA fucked around with this message at 15:36 on Feb 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 15:31
|
|
|
shame on an IGA posted:Hahahahahahahahaha the etrade portfolio full of pink sheet pharmas Martin Shkreli posted as bail is down 89% and the judge wants more money. Couldn't be happening to a nicer guy. In other news, LB is getting beat up on paying a bigger dividend, stock repurchasing and having a booming year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 15:43
|
|
|
Why does BoA always have such insane volume despite being a pretty boring financial. Is it the low share price?
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
DNK posted:Why does BoA always have such insane volume despite being a pretty boring financial. Is it the low share price? Not sure, but C was the same way before their reverse split. Something about mega cap banks make for "fun" trading vehicles I guess.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 17:06
|
|
|
DNK posted:Why does BoA always have such insane volume despite being a pretty boring financial. Is it the low share price? I remember reading they have a lot of exposure to energy loans. They are probably acting as a proxy plan to the commodity rout.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 17:12
|
|
|
Hell yeah FCX! unfortunately it's only a tiny little part of my portfolio as I keep holding on to stocks that lost a bunch since Dec 31 thinking they'll recover. Now I'm muttering opportunity cost to myself and kicking myself 
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 18:18
|
|
|
ScrubLeague posted:Might be a messy one today, ECB revising growth estimate downward and BOE saying something about their rates in like half an hour. Plus Credit Suisse announced a huge loss, their first since 2008. Dollar currently getting hammered and all the other currency futures up half a percent. TUP climbing 5%+ with the weakening dollar.
|
|
#
?
Feb 4, 2016 21:30
|
|
|
Tableau down as much as 50% in after hours trading, sitting around IPO price at this point. Seems like an overreaction, though yoy licensing slowed
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 01:15
|
|
|
aaaaaanndd down goes Linn energy. Stock drops 60% by the open from already penny stock prices. This one is headed for almost certain BK. Who's next? Chesapeake?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 15:54
|
|
|
Later Linkdin! Piece of poo poo spamming site. http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/LNKD
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:05
|
|
|
See I think its kind of a useful site, but if they haven't figured out how to monetize that poo poo by now I figure they're screwed. Wall Street is demanding results now. The "growth now and profits someday" story is played out. TSLA is gonna absolutely tank next week when the epic cash burn from last quarter is announced e: already down 31% YTD and way further to fall too oxsnard fucked around with this message at 16:15 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 16:13
|
|
|
Christ. Come on March! Get here quicker!
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
March for what? Fed rate hike that won't ever happen?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
So, let's review today. Stocks tank. Bonds, Tank. Gold, starts by tanking and is now swinging up. So everyone needs money. I guess we have an election to buy. I can't wait for March. Christobevii3 posted:March for what? Fed rate hike that won't ever happen? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Tuesday March 1st.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:01
|
|
|
How much more till officially a bear market? What is average length histories?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:08
|
|
|
FANGs keep getting destroyed. Enjoying this since my portfolio sat out their ridiculous gains last year.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 21:54
|
|
|
Pretty demoralizing in general here. Still not a bear market, if that gives any indication as to how much more this correction can go if we get some bad domestic news.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:04
|
|
|
OK, I'm game. The thesis seems to be "Super Tuesday, the day on which the presumptive nominees for each party are typically locked in, will have some kind of predictable effect on the stock market." What effect are you predicting?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
oxsnard posted:aaaaaanndd down goes Linn energy. Stock drops 60% by the open from already penny stock prices. This one is headed for almost certain BK. CHK has years worth of assets sales that will be forced before any kind of BK or debt restructuring leaves the bondholders holding the bag. LNCO is relative junk. I'm long CHK and will stay long CHK, and while BK 2-3 years from now is a possibility if gas stays extremely low, I would be shocked if they are the 'next shoe' to drop. on another note, LNKD is hilarious and a good example of why I dont play around in the massively overvalued tech/social arena. I was calling LNKD overvalued in here like 2 years ago but said I would never touch it because of how moronic the entire sector is. It would have been a profitable short at this point, but god it would have been terrifying. greasyhands fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:FANGs keep getting destroyed. Enjoying this since my portfolio sat out their ridiculous gains last year. My Netflix puts are doing their best to keep my portfolio treading water. It's not working
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:35
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:OK, I'm game. The thesis seems to be "Super Tuesday, the day on which the presumptive nominees for each party are typically locked in, will have some kind of predictable effect on the stock market." I'm not. I'm stating your exact first sentence. Well, not exact. I'm stating it will be the next major date, in regards to the market. VendaGoat fucked around with this message at 22:42 on Feb 5, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
I keep trying to guess which direction oil is going to swing 5% in for no apparent reason and just totally blowing it lately.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:41
|
|
|
SPX daily with 50 SMA and momentum for each of the last five Super Tuesdays. I'm including February on all charts because of the 2008 February primary/caucus dates. Super Tuesday 1996 (March 12th), Bob Dole secured nomination (vs. incumbent Bill Clinton).  Super Tuesday 2000 (March 7th), Al Gore and GW Bush secure nominations.  Super Tuesday 2004 (March 2nd), a new "mini tuesday" already happened in February. John Kerry secured nomination (vs. incumbent GW Bush).  Super Tuesday 2008 (March 4th), the February 5th "mini tuesday" became a "giga tuesday" as more states pushed forward their primaries/caucuses. Only 4 were on March 4th. John McCain secured a solid Republican lead on Feburary 5th, that became unassailable on March 4th, but Clinton and Obama were still essentially tied after March 4th.  Super Tuesday 2012 (March 6th). Twelve states (374 delegates) voted from January 3 to March 3 for a Republican nominee. Out of 374 delegates only 172 were allocated to the candidates, 18 were unbound RNC delegates, 2 were allocated for Huntsman but were unbound,[30] and 182 delegates were unallocated. Romney had a solid lead from those 12 contests, which he extended on March 6th, but Santorum, Gingrich, and Paul were all still theoretically viable, Santorum in particular. (Vs. incumbent Barack Obama).  Conclusion: while the S&P500 does seem to have made moves on or around the last five Super Tuesdays, I do not see a clear pattern.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:47
|
|
|
Top Bunk Wanker posted:I keep trying to guess which direction oil is going to swing 5% in for no apparent reason and just totally blowing it lately. Have you tried flipping a coin?
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 22:51
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Conclusion: while the S&P500 does seem to have made moves on or around the last five Super Tuesdays, I do not see a clear pattern. Oh....OH I get what you are asking me. It depends on the candidates chosen. It's a reduction in variables. Currently I would consider the Market to be "ranging". Players in it are moving money out of it, into liquid form to support a laundry list of candidates, that are only now starting to be cut down. So the market doesn't have a direction. Throw out all of the candidates and let's simplfy this with a thought experiment with only two variable candidates, who's campaign only touch one part of the market, let's say, Energy. Cand A: has a green policy, 90% renewable 10% fossil Cand B: has 90% fossil, 10% renewable The energy market TANKS, because now both sides are fighting for their best interest. Pumping money they have invested in an industry that is either about to die or boom and both want the latter. The rest of the market, doesn't have a dog in the fight, but they can have liquidity. And they have a major opportunity, depending upon whom wins. So the rest of market take a turn lower as people load up and get ready. Cand A and B have their debates, have their town halls and yakkity smackity, all the while the energy sector has a bloodbath in fund raising. Until such time, that a tipping point is reached, this will continue. Once that scale starts to slide, all the money goes to the sector of the candidate that is going to win. If you want me to make a prediction with 11 candidates, with 10 opinions on marketplace and however many laws. Well, I just can't. But give me two. With a stated document on their policies and the degrees to which they care about them and how they plan on going about them and then maybe I can. Best I can tell you. You will see, in my opinion, possibly my wrong opinion, a reduction in the volatility of the market, baring a major scandal.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:29 |
|
|
OK, that's very helpful. Although I don't think people take money out of the stock market in order to make campaign donations to any significant degree, but that's probably not what you meant. That said: I predict that regardless of who the Republican and Democratic candidates are, they will differ on energy policy, and that will create ongoing fear, uncertainty and doubt in domestic energy stocks through the November election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 5, 2016 23:26
|
|