|
Wow I totally missed out on the awesomeness of Palm. I guess I was a year too early buying puts on that piece of poo poo. Also lol GGP, what are we gonna talk about next, buying lottery ticket calls on AIG or daytrading MTLQQ? Not that I'm above that, I just think it's funny.GET MONEY posted:I want to hedge some of my long EM/commodities exposure. Let's say the China bubble pops for whatever reason, oil slips and there's a negative demand shock through the resource sector. What would start outperforming? I don't buy gold for "flight to quality". As has been proven in the past (but may change/not necessarily happen) from such major events like 1987 and 2008, I believe treasuries will outperform relative to gold if there was a major drop. Pull up TLT vs GLD during 2008; TLT up 10%, GLD flat. Of course, there's the whole US debt situation and reckless spending that goldbugs love to talk about; but you have to keep in mind that in comparison to UK gilts and Eurozone bonds, the US still looks pretty decent. I mean hell the UK had a higher % of QE than we did. In terms of a bubble pop/mini recession, I would in theory do a couple pairs trades to try and hedge. For example, lets say the other PIIGS countries start circling the drain similar to Greece. Sell euros and buy pounds or dollars. Or if there is a drop in demand for commodities...outright short the commodity, or sell currency/bonds in countries with commodity exposure and buy US/GBP currency/bonds. With regards to equities...they're all lovely in a bubble pop, so the best you could hope for is relative performance, which I think is stupid unless you're an equity only mutual fund and you have no choice. In that case, what worked in 2008/2009? Mostly stuff like WalMart or Altria or whatnot. You could still try pairs trade like short Cheesecake Factory and buy McDonalds, but yeah if you legitimately have to hedge your portfolio you shouldn't be asking for advice on SA. However, the likelihood of major events in the US occurring doesn't seem that high to me...things are so boring lately. EU trouble is still ahead but that doesn't affect the S&P/emerging markets as drastically as a deflationary credit crisis like in 2008. Bigass Moth posted:Any advice on Silver holdings or mining companies? Also anecdotally I feel that silver is "small time" relative to gold (meaning more retail investors and goldbug-like speculators) and therefore I should short the hell out of it. As far as miners go, SLV is volatile enough for me so personally I avoid them.
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
Sigh. I sold out of Citi yesterday at 4.60, putting me at 12% over my original investment. Since then? Price is up to 4.77 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 16:13
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:Sigh. edti: vvv He regrets selling a high beta financial and losing out on gains. I'm telling him why the gains occurred and why he should have seen it coming so he's better prepared the next time he faces such a decision. Furthermore, I'm disclosing a position which may have biased my opinion. There's absolutely nothing wrong with my post. Josh Lyman fucked around with this message at 18:03 on Apr 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 17:20
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Why would sell a financial ahead of JPM's earnings this morning? Hell, half my portfolio is FAS. I wish posts like this were probatable...honestly, shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 17:35
|
|
|
Dead Pressed posted:Sigh. I almost did the same thing, but I thought with earnings coming out for them next week I might as well take the chance. I figure they'll be better than last year and that'll put the stock up. Probably get out around 5, then wait for it to settle down. I don't think you made a stupid call though, it's shot up in the past 2 weeks something fierce, I doubt it'll sustain.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 17:54
|
|
|
Whats wrong with C?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 17:59
|
|
|
Technicals pointing to a retracement?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 18:21
|
|
|
Josh Lyman posted:Why would sell a financial ahead of JPM's earnings this morning? Hell, half my portfolio is FAS. I know why it happened, it was just one of those situations where I felt it ballooned up too much, was uncomfortable and had read some stuff that didn't help my feelings. ANGRY_KOREA_MAN posted:Whats wrong with C? Nothing. I loved them long term. A few things sprang up about financials fudging some numbers, and I got scared with earnings coming up next week. In reality, I just jumped ship too soon. I mean, I'm still up 12%, but the fact that'd I'd be up 20% for waiting 24 hours is really kind of upsetting. At least the difference is only a few hundred dollars in my case, and a bird in hand is worth two in the bush, and yadda yadda. Duey posted:I almost did the same thing, but I thought with earnings coming out for them next week I might as well take the chance. I figure they'll be better than last year and that'll put the stock up. Probably get out around 5, then wait for it to settle down. I don't think you made a stupid call though, it's shot up in the past 2 weeks something fierce, I doubt it'll sustain. Haha, thanks. I got out on AMD in a similar situation and can't complain. I'm making money, so I'll just be happy with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 18:24
|
|
|
It's hard not to take down profits too frequently in this market. Clever journalists and wall street drama queens are too good at finding and frightening my inner child, so as a result I've changed over to buying in-the-money long term calls. This way, I can take advantage of what I see as long-term upside in companies like C and JPM without being tempted to pull the trigger every time they gain or lose 10%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 18:52
|
|
|
Lunchmoney gamble, Bought 1000 shares of FBC @ 0.677 today. Earnings out April 27th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 19:22
|
|
|
SIRI is on a tear today, up almost 13% but on pretty low volume. I guess going over 1.00$ again set it off.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 20:24
|
|
|
Pretty sure it's because I sold out the remains of my position @ .87 last week  .Seriously though. They showed an unexpected (177k) jump in subscriptions.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 20:41
|
|
|
Beyond all the other resources to explain how stocks and such work, is there a guide or resource on the basics of how trading for income works? I ask because while it seems like information on strategies and analyzing data etc is easy to find, I haven't found a good example of how to actually get started and what to look for. For example, how much money should one have to get started and actually have a shot at being successful? 500? 1000? 5000? How much of a gain do you need to be profitable on a stock to account for comissions, taxes or anything else? On the surface, buying 100 shares of something at $10 each and then selling at $15 would seem like a $500 profit. But you have to take into account any commissions on the purchase and sale and you would be taxed on the income or gain as well would you not? Is there a book or similar out there that walks through things like this?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 20:59
|
|
|
destructo posted:Lunchmoney gamble, Bought 1000 shares of FBC @ 0.677 today. Earnings out April 27th. rear end in a top hat, wish $600 was my lunchmoney. Where do you eat lunch at? Do they serve i3 laptops for lunch?
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:00
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:rear end in a top hat, wish $600 was my lunchmoney. Where do you eat lunch at? Do they serve i3 laptops for lunch? Sell to close those ABK puts yet? Why did you buy into MIPI after the trial results jump? Even if it is a fake portfolio \/\/\/ destructo fucked around with this message at 21:24 on Apr 14, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:08
|
|
|
I wish this was my real portfolio. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:15
|
|
|
Duey posted:SIRI is on a tear today, up almost 13% but on pretty low volume. I guess going over 1.00$ again set it off. This makes me happy. I bought in at .865. Earnings are in 2 weeks.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:21
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:This makes me happy. Wish I could say the same. I bought in at 0.88 then sold out at 1.09. Then stupidly bought back in as it retraced around 1.00, then it kept retracing. Almost sold out completely at around .80. Oh well, at least my loss is all but erased now and I have Citi options making me money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:23
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:Beyond all the other resources to explain how stocks and such work, is there a guide or resource on the basics of how trading for income works? I ask because while it seems like information on strategies and analyzing data etc is easy to find, I haven't found a good example of how to actually get started and what to look for. If you mean trading as a full time job, you're going to need something well into the six figure range to make it worthwhile. If you mean just making small trades as a hobby (poker is probably more fun and there's a decent chance you'd lose the same amount doing either) then, as you mentioned you need enough that commissions don't eat up all of your profit from a trade. I'd encourage you to do a LOT more reading before jumping in, though. I think the OP has some good resources to check out.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 21:37
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:I wish this was my real portfolio. Well, CONN was part of my portfolio until recently, but I wouldn't buy Fannie Mae with stolen money. Go with CMO and some other mortgage securities companies that hold Fannie Mae's debts. Those are guaranteed, you know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 22:30
|
|
|
^^ I've been watching a few but they all scare the poo poo out of me to be honest.destructo posted:Why did you buy into MIPI after the trial results jump? Even if it is a fake portfolio Those are daily gains/losses, not overall.
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 22:33
|
|
|
asmallrabbit posted:Beyond all the other resources to explain how stocks and such work, is there a guide or resource on the basics of how trading for income works? I ask because while it seems like information on strategies and analyzing data etc is easy to find, I haven't found a good example of how to actually get started and what to look for. It's a zero-sum game. When you make money, someone loses it. Therefore, it's in the best people's interest to keep great moneymaking ideas to themselves, and thus you have to figure out everything for yourself, let alone secrets/strategies to success. If it was easy everyone would be doing it. To be well capitalized and doing it for real, and this is AFTER you learn the basis and practice and whatnot, and you're trying to makie money for rent/life/whatever, you need a bankroll of least 100k unless you still live in your mom's house or something. At the very very minimum you need at least 25k to get past daytrading limits for equities/options. Futures and fx I think you could get by trading a couple contracts with 25k, but that still qualifies as play money to most people. In terms of where to get commission info, any brokerage house will tell you what their rates are. ThinkorSwim is probably the most user-friendly IMO. How to figure out how much you "make" is way way way ahead of where you need to be. First you actually have to come up with a successful trading strategy...then you can worry about the commission and taxes. disclaimer: i do not trade for a living, nor do i have successful trading strategies...
|
|
#
?
Apr 14, 2010 23:56
|
|
|
PsychoAndy posted:It's a zero-sum game. An investor is actually playing a negative-sum game. Cost of commissions puts you two-steps back as soon as you enter, and you need to get back to neutral then past your exit commission before you break-even. 10% hit on my troubled gold-producing Jr play today. Ughhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Just have to hold out for a positive quarterly earnings.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 00:41
|
|
|
PsychoAndy posted:It's a zero-sum game. When you make money, someone loses it. A biotech company's stock is halted pending news... turns out the news is they cured cancer and the equity reopens at +300%. Short interest going in was <10% of the float. Who lost money other than the <10% short?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:07
|
|
|
Two things, would a stock really be halted pending really good news? Also, I think even the largest company would probably go up more than 300% for finding some universal cure for cancer. Probably would have a market cap of a trillion.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:Two things, would a stock really be halted pending really good news? Also, I think even the largest company would probably go up more than 300% for finding some universal cure for cancer. Probably would have a market cap of a trillion. Could you maybe address the actual point, obviously it's a hypothetical situation exaggerated for effect and yes equities are halted all the time pending really good news. Pretend I said it opened up 500000% if that puts your brain at ease.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:17
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:Two things, would a stock really be halted pending really good news? Also, I think even the largest company would probably go up more than 300% for finding some universal cure for cancer. Probably would have a market cap of a trillion. To answer the above question, when you have instant valuation of intellectual property, the whole zero-sum thing doesn't entirely work until all the shares have changed hands after the fact. destructo fucked around with this message at 01:22 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:18
|
|
|
When that company goes up so much the capital pouring into it has to come from somewhere. Likely divested from other investments or bought with cash that might have gone elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:21
|
|
|
ayekappy posted:When that company goes up so much the capital pouring into it has to come from somewhere. Likely divested from other investments or bought with cash that might have gone elsewhere. Ok, you have no idea what you're talking about, but when an equity is halted it isn't trading, no money is exchanging hands. When it opens +300% that price has been set by the market makers as a result of the underlying company suddenly being so much more valuable, the equity will begin trading +300% from the moment before the halt without a single share changing hands. To head off the "well someone had to sell that share and that's a lost opportunity cost for them" imagine our BIO is selling for $1. I sell my 1,000 shares to you at the asking price ($1), I now have $1,000 and you have 1,000 shares of BIO. 15 minutes later BIO is halted pending news. A CURE FOR CANCER WOW! after the news disseminates, the equity reopens +300%, you immediately sell your shares for $3 apiece leaving you with $3,000.. I still have my $1,000. You gained money, I lost no money. Wealth has just been created. I suppose you could make the argument that the money you just made will be coming from cancer patients and their insurance companies when BIO sells their hot new cure to them, but if you want to abstract it that far the entire world is zero sum and I suppose that's true. The argument that for one person to make money in the market another person has to lose money in the same market is demonstrably false. destructo posted:To answer the above question, when you have instant valuation of intellectual property, the whole zero-sum thing doesn't entirely work until all the shares have changed hands after the fact. What occurs in a very short time with my example occurs every day with other equities, it's an incorrect assumption that for an equity to increase in price there has to be a precisely equivalent buy/sell imbalance. Equity prices can and do go up due to anticipated demand as well as actual exchange demand. Anytime news breaks outside of extended trading hours (or when an equity is halted) you see this happen in an easy to digest and perfectly clear way, it also occurs during market hours it's just a little trickier to see. greasyhands fucked around with this message at 02:25 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 01:25
|
|
|
PsychoAndy posted:It's a zero-sum game. When you make money, someone loses it. Therefore, it's in the best people's interest to keep great moneymaking ideas to themselves, and thus you have to figure out everything for yourself, let alone secrets/strategies to success. If it was easy everyone would be doing it. Look at CRM today, it traded 2,208,889 shares and had a high of 83.97. Assuming every share traded at that high the total $ value traded today would be $185.48 million. The real number is significantly less. The stock went up $3.44 today and the total shares outstanding are 127 million. The total market cap gained was $436 million. There is a gap of 256 million phantom dollars gained. That phantom money is actually real money though and why it isn't a zero sum game. Options and short interest wouldn't make up this gap either. Whoops should have read all the posts, but yea the post above mine illustrates this as well.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 03:12
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:... the equity reopens +300%, you immediately sell your shares for $3 apiece leaving you with $3,000.. I still have my $1,000. You gained money, I lost no money. Wealth has just been created. ... Except an entirely new party is now out $3,000 for those 1000 shares of stock, thus finishing the zero sum (ignoring brokerage fees). Wealth hasn't been created, it has been transferred. It will again be transferred when that holder sells his shares to someone else, regardless of whether it's more or less than his buy price. Trading does not create wealth. Dividends could be seen as creating wealth, though. Sure, the price of a stock goes down by an amount equal to the dividend paid, but it can theoretically go right back up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 06:03
|
|
|
Jack posted:Look at CRM today, it traded 2,208,889 shares and had a high of 83.97. You're confusing what market cap is; this is the amount all outstanding shares are worth if they were to be sold at the price of the last trade. In practice, only a company being bought out will result in all outstanding shares being purchased at the price of the most recent trade (usually significantly more, even). Attempting to sell every outstanding share of a stock at market value will never, in practice, happen. Try to sell even $100k worth of stock for a random small cap and you'll almost certainly drive the price down a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 06:09
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:The argument that for one person to make money in the market another person has to lose money in the same market is demonstrably false.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 06:40
|
|
|
Indeed. When I buy a stock, it's because I anticipate it will go up in the next few months or years. My counterparty might be a day trader who thinks it will go down in the next few seconds. We can both be right and we can both be better off after the trade than before.
Hobologist fucked around with this message at 07:11 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 06:51
|
|
|
Midget Mafia posted:Except an entirely new party is now out $3,000 for those 1000 shares of stock, thus finishing the zero sum (ignoring brokerage fees). Wealth hasn't been created, it has been transferred. It will again be transferred when that holder sells his shares to someone else, regardless of whether it's more or less than his buy price. Well you have a misunderstanding of what a zero-sum game is. A zero sum game requires someone to gain value, and someone to lose value. When a person buys your position for $3k, he doesn't "lose" the 3k, he exchanges his money for an asset worth the same amount. (I.e, when you buy a house for 100k you dont lose the 100k, you get a house worth 100k (that's called investing).. if you bet 100k on black at roulette and it comes out red... you lose 100k with nothing to show for it and the casino gains $100k (thats a zero sum game)) There is no loss taking place- yes the equity valued at $3k is changing hands but no one is out any money, because the institution the equity represents has created value (a new discovery, just being a well run business...whatever.) On the other hand, options are zero sum- the seller of a put/call, who directly gains/loses wealth vs. the buyer of his put/call. http://www.theessentialsoftrading.com/Blog/index.php/2007/06/22/the-zero-sum-game/ Investopedia Says: Options and future contracts are examples of zero-sum games (excluding costs). For every person who gains on a contract, there is a counter-party who loses. Gambling is also an example of a zero-sum game. A stock market, however, is not a zero-sum game because wealth can be created in a stock market. edit: no one is saying the stock market literally prints money, but most of the people in here are throwing around "zero-sum" game without understanding what it actually means. Midget Mafia posted:You're confusing what market cap is; this is the amount all outstanding shares are worth if they were to be sold at the price of the last trade. In practice, only a company being bought out will result in all outstanding shares being purchased at the price of the most recent trade (usually significantly more, even). Attempting to sell every outstanding share of a stock at market value will never, in practice, happen. Try to sell even $100k worth of stock for a random small cap and you'll almost certainly drive the price down a bit. This doesn't even make sense. You completely missed the point of his argument. He's demonstrating how the amount of money invested into an equity on any given day does not have a 1:1 correlation with the increase/decrease in market value of said equity. It would be 1:1 if it were zero sum I kind of understand what you're getting at, but you're removing the whole idea of a market from your argument... if someone tried to dump the entire float into the open market there would be a decrease in price *only* if there were more sellers than buyers (equities often trade their float 4 and 5x over on big up or down days)... If there were more sellers than buyers at a given price, then yes the price should go down...that's how a market works... greasyhands fucked around with this message at 07:52 on Apr 15, 2010 |
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 06:52
|
|
|
You guys make great points re: zero sum game, except I was thinking more along the lines of FX and futures, since the original question asked was in regards to trading as a full time job. I feel that most daytraders trade the ES or CL or EUR/USD, as opposed to say, small cap biotech companies that jump 300%...not that those daytraders don't exist. Maybe I focus on macro or futures traders too much; I guess you could daytrade Citi stock or SPY options or whatever you want to as long as you had a strategy, but I believe things like liquidity and crazy price action are definitely determining factors. Assuming you need 2k a month to live (...in poverty), you either need a huge bankroll/margin so that the 5% jump in Citi counts for something other than lunch money, or you need to be ridiculously levered using futures or options or fx...or you need to be throwing darts at microcap biotech companies with your lunch money. I'm not even going to consider "investing", especially in equities as a way to make money in lieu of a full time job, unless you have a huge roll, in which case I'm sure you can find very talented people who can run your money for you. Semantics aside, my main point was that nobody is going to tell you their 1337 strategy because they can either a.)make money for themselves using magical method or b.)sell it. Everybody doesn't win. Unless you're willing to take time out of your schedule to show us how we all can win with you...
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 17:23
|
|
|
destructo posted:Lunchmoney gamble, Bought 1000 shares of FBC @ 0.677 today. Earnings out April 27th.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:Pretty sure it's because I sold out the remains of my position @ .87 last week Siri: Day's Range: 1.10 - 1.18
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 19:09
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:AMD is up 28 cents in after hours. God I wish I bought when they were $4. Glad I got in at 2.75.
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 14:33 |
|
|
So this might be a stupid question, but what effect does options expiration have on the market? Does it usually push prices higher? lower? no effect?
|
|
#
?
Apr 15, 2010 22:02
|
|