|
 booyah bitches
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
antishatter posted:drat, you must have a shitload of money in your brokerage account if you can write calls and puts. Are you naked or do you own shares? Naked, and the margin requirements are very high, but I didnt have any other plays that i was interested in. I don't have a "shitload" but I'm not trading with 5k like most people in here seem to be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 20:17
|
|
|
poopfart posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 21:03
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:Naked, and the margin requirements are very high, but I didnt have any other plays that i was interested in. I don't have a "shitload" but I'm not trading with 5k like most people in here seem to be. Morgan Stanley requires a $100k account to be able to write puts and calls. I consider that a "shitload".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2010 21:07
|
|
|
Check out these assholes. I had a lot of money in one of their funds. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/20/business/20stra.html?_r=1
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 02:00
|
|
|
antishatter posted:Morgan Stanley requires a $100k account to be able to write puts and calls. I consider that a "shitload". That's absurd, to the point that it seems like you might be mistaken. I'm not trying to be a dick or tell you that you're wrong but that seems really strange. If true the same restriction doesn't exist for short spreads, right?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 04:17
|
|
|
Plastic Jesus posted:That's absurd, to the point that it seems like you might be mistaken. I'm not trying to be a dick or tell you that you're wrong but that seems really strange. If true the same restriction doesn't exist for short spreads, right? They require you to be able to purchase the stock the options are for, so while you can do write them naked they want you to be able to cover if necessary, or such is my understanding. Not sure on the short spreads. Obviously to just buy puts or calls you need much much less money, but to write them they require the large amount of capital.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2010 08:22
|
|
|
Plastic Jesus posted:That's absurd, to the point that it seems like you might be mistaken. I'm not trying to be a dick or tell you that you're wrong but that seems really strange. If true the same restriction doesn't exist for short spreads, right? Not absurd. My boyfriend could have one with a different company with the same limit. Or a $25000 limit but you have to have a certain number of trades per year. Essentially the $25k limit requires you to be a day trader which he is not.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:31
|
|
|
Rabidbunny posted:Not absurd. My boyfriend could have one with a different company with the same limit. Or a $25000 limit but you have to have a certain number of trades per year. Essentially the $25k limit requires you to be a day trader which he is not. I hate that motherfucking federal 25k limit too. Oh man do I hate it. Talk about needing money to make money.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Last quarter, someone asked to be reminded to buy NFLX before earnings. So here I am, reminding you to buy NFLX before earnings.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 20:06
|
|
|
Free Gucci Mane posted:Last quarter, someone asked to be reminded to buy NFLX before earnings. So here I am, reminding you to buy NFLX before earnings. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 20:20
|
|
|
Wednesday after close right? I'll be in like a sheep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 21:43
|
|
|
Tasty and Delicious posted:Wednesday after close right? I'll be in like a sheep.
|
|
#
?
Jul 19, 2010 22:31
|
|
|
Why is COSI so cheap? I was under the impression they were an expanding brand. Is Panera eating their market space?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 00:06
|
|
|
I'm just starting to get involved with evaluating stocks. AMD seems really low to me can someone with greater knowledge break that one down for me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 00:08
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:I'm just starting to get involved with evaluating stocks. AMD seems really low to me can someone with greater knowledge break that one down for me? Well, working at Best Buy for a while, I can say that very few quality machines actually have AMD processors (don't consider HPs quality) and that most consumers still don't trust AMD; I'd say that AMD is finally doomed. Because they still lost money even when people liked them more.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 00:30
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:I'm just starting to get involved with evaluating stocks. AMD seems really low to me can someone with greater knowledge break that one down for me? here are their earnings for the last couple quarters Diluted Normalized EPS -0.08 0.47 (Intel paid them a couple billion to settle lawsuits this Quarter) -0.18 -0.49 -0.60 still seem low?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 02:03
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:I'm just starting to get involved with evaluating stocks. AMD seems really low to me can someone with greater knowledge break that one down for me?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 04:18
|
|
|
Where does one have access to charts for commodity trading and call/put prices? I havent really been able to find anything online so Im assuming there is a platform.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 06:22
|
|
|
FlyWhiteBoy posted:I'm just starting to get involved with evaluating stocks. AMD seems really low to me can someone with greater knowledge break that one down for me? So they have a fairly high beta compared to the industry average, meaning you can expect much more volatility. Their PE ratio is pretty low which may suggest they are undervalued, however they don't have any products that I have faith in them turning a huge profit from. Their levered cash flow is in the negative which means they are paying out a poo poo load of money on debt interest.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 17:16
|
|
|
Did you miss the person who mentioned the big lawsuit AMD won from Intel? Those earnings aren't real.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 18:37
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Did you miss the person who mentioned the big lawsuit AMD won from Intel? Those earnings aren't real. That doesn't change the p/e ratio. Just means the forward p/e is likely wrong. I didn't suggest he go invest in the stock did I?
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 19:17
|
|
|
antishatter posted:That doesn't change the p/e ratio. Just means the forward p/e is likely wrong. I didn't suggest he go invest in the stock did I? What? The settlement has already been paid, so yes it changes the p/e ratio.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 20:47
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:What? The settlement has already been paid, so yes it changes the p/e ratio. EPS is based on the last four quarters (regardless of where the money came from) and so trailing p/e is too. The future profit outlook from AMD is dim as per what I said originally. edit: Of course if this ends up being true it would have been a great buy. antishatter fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
Apple bends everyone over and fucks them in the rear end. And man, does it ever feel good. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 21:35
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Apple bends everyone over and fucks them in the rear end. I feel like it makes a lot of sense as an acquisiton, especially if apple is trying to move into the lower end market. IMO AMD products are an excellent bang for your buck, its just hard to compete with silicon giant Intel. antishatter fucked around with this message at 21:47 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 21:42
|
|
|
antishatter posted:I feel like it makes a lot of sense as an acquisiton, especially if apple is trying to move into the lower end market. IMO AMD products are an excellent bang for your buck, its just hard to compete with silicon giant Intel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 21:47
|
|
|
Star War Sex Parrot posted:Crazy Apple acquisition rumors are abundant for every quarterly earnings call. I don't even pay attention to them anymore. Apparently AMD doesn't even do fabrication anymore, they no longer even own the means to do it. All their fab is done by GlobalFoundries. So you are probably accurate in saying its a crazy rumor or Apple is trying to scare Intel.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 21:48
|
|
|
antishatter posted:That doesn't change the p/e ratio. But it does make the p/e ratio completely meaningless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 22:09
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:But it does make the p/e ratio completely meaningless. In my original post I said "Their PE ratio is pretty low which may suggest they are undervalued, however they don't have any products that I have faith in them turning a huge profit from." which, I will admit is a little confusing. All I was trying to communicate is that The P/E value as an individual indicator suggests that the stock is undervalued. HOWEVER, due to notoriously poor performance I have little faith that they will be able to turn a profit in the near future. Meaning that their stock is not undervalued regardless of p/e values. antishatter fucked around with this message at 22:30 on Jul 20, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 20, 2010 22:26
|
|
|
antishatter posted:EPS is based on the last four quarters (regardless of where the money came from) and so trailing p/e is too. The future profit outlook from AMD is dim as per what I said originally. you said abtishatter posted:That doesn't change the p/e ratio. Just means the forward p/e is likely wrong. I didn't suggest he go invest in the stock did I? Which is objectively wrong, it DOES change the ttm p/e (trailing 12 months has a huge non-recurring settlement that moved earnings from a big negative number to a respectable positive numbers... hence AMDs illusory p/e. Operating earnings are negative and have been for years). The settlement will actually have no effect on the forward p/e, which you seem to think it will.. so either I'm completely misunderstanding you, or you're confused.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 02:33
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:you said I mentioned at least once how I don't have faith in any of their future products, regardless of whatever server chip they are hyping. I was using forward p/e wrong anyway. Bigger = the company is doing worse. So the argument is moot anyway. Forward p/e is calculated looking at the last several quarters earnings. A huge one time payout would affect the p/e because it would skew the data. At least, such is my understanding. When I said It doesn't change the p/e ratio I was responding to hobologist about how the earnings aren't real. I meant it as in "the earnings not being real is irrelevent because the p/e is what it is" not as in "this one time cash money deposit will never ever have effected the p/e ever"
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 07:32
|
|
|
antishatter posted:I mentioned at least once how I don't have faith in any of their future products, regardless of whatever server chip they are hyping. I was using forward p/e wrong anyway. Bigger = the company is doing worse. So the argument is moot anyway. Forward p/e is calculated looking at the last several quarters earnings. A huge one time payout would affect the p/e because it would skew the data. At least, such is my understanding. Forward p/e isn't calculated from previous quarters' earnings, it's just price to expected earnings ratio. Also 'moot' means 'debatable,' not 'inconsequential.'
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 12:16
|
|
|
antishatter posted:Forward p/e is calculated looking at the last several quarters earnings. This is dead wrong. You're thinking of historical p/e. Forward p/e is based on expected future earnings, which is what the analysts expect. Hence big market moves when earnings either beat or fall short of the "expected" numbers. When the earnings change unexpectedly, the price will adjust to maintain the same basic valuation, all other influences excluded. A high or low p/e doesn't necessarily signify good or bad. Maybe a good company trades at a premium valuation to its benchmark index because the market anticipates greater earnings growth in the future. Likewise, a low p/e could mean that earnings are falling off a cliff and future doom n' gloom is already baking into the price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 13:32
|
|
|
antishatter posted:I mentioned at least once how I don't have faith in any of their future products, regardless of whatever server chip they are hyping. I was using forward p/e wrong anyway. Bigger = the company is doing worse. So the argument is moot anyway. Forward p/e is calculated looking at the last several quarters earnings. A huge one time payout would affect the p/e because it would skew the data. At least, such is my understanding. ok, you're just confused. And if you invest with a "the P/E is what it is" attitude and ignore why it is what it is, you're going to be in a world of pain in very short order.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 16:33
|
|
|
Plastic Jesus posted:Forward p/e isn't calculated from previous quarters' earnings, it's just price to expected earnings ratio. Also 'moot' means 'debatable,' not 'inconsequential.' moot actually means both things, depending on context. It's one of those dumb english words. Usage Note: The adjective moot is originally a legal term going back to the mid-16th century. It derives from the noun moot, in its sense of a hypothetical case argued as an exercise by law students. Consequently, a moot question is one that is arguable or open to debate. But in the mid-19th century people also began to look at the hypothetical side of moot as its essential meaning, and they started to use the word to mean "of no significance or relevance." Thus, a moot point, however debatable, is one that has no practical value. A number of critics have objected to this use, but 59 percent of the Usage Panel accepts it in the sentence The nominee himself chastised the White House for failing to do more to support him, but his concerns became moot when a number of Republicans announced that they, too, would oppose the nomination. When using moot one should be sure that the context makes clear which sense is meant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 16:35
|
|
|
I thought it was moo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 16:40
|
|
|
antishatter posted:In my original post I said "Their PE ratio is pretty low which may suggest they are undervalued. Yes, and it's still not true. There's no way the P/E ratio of AMD can suggest anything of the sort. Their current P/E ratio has zero explanatory value of their future earning and prospects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 17:24
|
|
|
Hobologist posted:Yes, and it's still not true. There's no way the P/E ratio of AMD can suggest anything of the sort. Their current P/E ratio has zero explanatory value of their future earning and prospects. I completely agree with this. That's what I was trying to convey. greasyhands posted:ok, you're just confused. And if you invest with a "the P/E is what it is" attitude and ignore why it is what it is, you're going to be in a world of pain in very short order. I don't at all invest like that I was trying to say that the p/e ratio is no indicator of anything for amd. antishatter fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 05:33 |
|
|
loving Bernanke put. gently caress my life. Is it just me or are the people posting in the GBS Economic Disaster Megathread nothing more than passing market observers? edit: That was it. That was the line. 2:43pm. Load up on SPY calls, this dog can hunt! Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Jul 21, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2010 19:38
|
|