|
Any Canadian goons out there with broker suggestions? I'm looking at iTrade right now, which used to be E*Trade Canada. I wanted to go with TD initially but Waterhouse isn't nearly as competitive as Ameritrade.
Vatek fucked around with this message at 21:16 on Jun 8, 2010 |
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 20:48
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
Janin posted:Just bought a bunch of RIG on the dip -- I don't understand why everybody's hating harder on them than on BP, but here's hoping they recover in a few years I did the same. I'm averaged in at around $48. To be honest I'm not sure I understand the Goldman downgrade of RIG. The way I understood it was that they believe the U.S. drilling moratorium will be extended from six months to twelve months. I'm not sure that's going to be the case. Even the six month moratorium is getting a lot of backlash from the gulf states seeing as it's a large part of their economy. And Obama knows that: WSJ posted:At a meeting at the New Orleans airport, Charlotte Randolph, president of Lafourche Parish, said she implored Mr. Obama for the second time in eight days to immediately lift the deepwater drilling moratorium. Billy Nungesser, president of Plaquemines Parish, suggested to the president he should deploy a federal official on every rig with the authority to shut it down at the first sign of trouble. Then he could lift the moratorium. I just don't see them extending a moratorium and creating more employment issues for an already bruised and battered part of the country. They've said they aren't going to lift the ban, but now I think we might be in a place where it's announced the ban will stay at 6 months and drilling stocks will rebound. But then again, I'm a novice and it's very possible Goldman knows something I do not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 22:19
|
|
|
RIG dropped due to another spill rumor/half truth.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2010 23:02
|
|
|
I know that was a big part of it, I'm just trying to understand the situation the best I can. Speaking of which, if you're out of the loop on the details of the whole spill, this article does a pretty good job of outlining things: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704026204575266560930780190.html
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 00:59
|
|
|
I'd say (completely my opinion) that not buying into the slump of BP and the related contractors, and the whole sector right now is kind of like not buying BAC around 3-5. ie; They aren't going anywhere and this poo poo will be in courts probably for decades while the companies are still reaping the profits and the bbl price goes back up. You see, it's a "perfect storm".  Just be ready to average down if you're going to play.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 03:36
|
|
|
While we're talking about oil spill opportunity plays, anyone have an opinion on Atwood Oceanics (ATW)? They were specifically downgraded for being a "deep sea driller", but they only have one rig in the Gulf, and it's in 70 feet of water (and accounts for only 3% of their revenue). All their other rigs are in other parts of the world, and I don't think any of them were planned on deploying to the US any time soon...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 04:20
|
|
|
Limit Up posted:PA didn't confirm the move from Friday. Hence Monday's a non-issue. No big deal. Back from the grave
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 05:28
|
|
|
ChubbyEmoBabe posted:I'd say (completely my opinion) that not buying into the slump of BP and the related contractors, and the whole sector right now is kind of like not buying BAC around 3-5. ie; They aren't going anywhere and this poo poo will be in courts probably for decades while the companies are still reaping the profits and the bbl price goes back up. It's difficult to compare BP/RIG/HAL to BAC/C/GS for a lot of reasons. It's possible that you're right and that these are crazy-low prices that will seem like obvious buys in 12 months. They could also keep going lower. I just don't see any reason to buy on the way down. BP is 40% of its 100 day and 11% off its 20 day EMA. I'm not even considering getting in until I see stabilization and if that "costs" me $5/share I'm ok with that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 13:10
|
|
|
Well my resolution to hold onto RIG for a while melted as soon as I logged in to see it had almost entirely erased yesterday's losses. In at 44.67, out at 47.84 -- I'll buy back in when everybody goes back to panicking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 16:50
|
|
|
I WANT TO EAT BABBY posted:It's difficult to compare BP/RIG/HAL to BAC/C/GS for a lot of reasons. It's possible that you're right and that these are crazy-low prices that will seem like obvious buys in 12 months. They could also keep going lower. I just don't see any reason to buy on the way down. BP is 40% of its 100 day and 11% off its 20 day EMA. I'm not even considering getting in until I see stabilization and if that "costs" me $5/share I'm ok with that. My point was that it isn't a falling knife scenario. BP et al aren't filing a BK anytime soon (probably in our lifetime). It's definitely not without a pretty high level of short term loss risk, but the long term benefits outweigh that imo. Here's a quote of my "big three" who have been torn up because of the GoM mess and the recent dip in oil prices so people can come laugh at me down the road. HAL 23.53 RIG 46.60 BP 31.57
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 18:13
|
|
|
Man I agree with you Chubby but I'm having a hard time stomaching the 14% I've already lost on BP in 2 days. Even as a long term position it's gonna take a long time to make that up. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 18:25
|
|
|
eek. Well I should say that BP is the much, much more riskier option of the three especially short term. They are going to have their name put on a lot of papers filed in courthouses across the southeast very publicly. I wouldn't be surprised to see them lose another 20-30% in the short term (1-6 mos).
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 18:45
|
|
|
yah bp has really managed to gently caress this situation up. Now they've got congressmen yelling at them to hold their dividend... like having to pay the dividend has anything to do with the anemic cleanup efforts. I thought this was easy money back at 45, and its looking more like a loving circus every goddamn day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 18:51
|
|
|
Janin posted:Well my resolution to hold onto RIG for a while melted as soon as I logged in to see it had almost entirely erased yesterday's losses. In at 44.67, out at 47.84 -- I'll buy back in when everybody goes back to panicking. I'd say you picked a good time because BP and RIG are both taking a shitkicking now.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 19:49
|
|
|
Janin posted:Well my resolution to hold onto RIG for a while melted as soon as I logged in to see it had almost entirely erased yesterday's losses. In at 44.67, out at 47.84 -- I'll buy back in when everybody goes back to panicking.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 19:51
|
|
|
Yeah I think this is the post where I  out
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 19:53
|
|
|
I think BP is almost textbook mismanagement of the whole incident, top to bottom so far. Had no idea they would bungle this up so badly. I'm still holding on because I just cannot imagine how this disaster will cost them more than 100 billion. But I guess if they manage to fire sale all the assets to some other company in return for diamond-encrusted golden parachutes, then leave all the shareholders holding the bag containing the shell of whats left of BP, I'm hosed.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 20:05
|
|
|
Baddog posted:But I guess if they manage to fire sale all the assets to some other company in return for diamond-encrusted golden parachutes, then leave all the shareholders holding the bag containing the shell of whats left of BP, I'm hosed. I think there's good money to be made in buying companies tangentially involved in the whole thing, like HAL or RIG. But I wouldn't touch BP itself with a ten-foot stick, especially since this happened in an election year.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 20:23
|
|
|
If a single oil spill can destroy a 200 billion company why would you even bother with oil. Nat gas seems like the better idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 20:39
|
|
|
Jack posted:If a single oil spill can destroy a 200 billion company why would you even bother with oil. Nat gas seems like the better idea. Not helping is the BP executives going on TV, downplaying how bad things are, and generally acting like a bunch of cocks. They've been practically begging Congress/Obama to make an example, and wow what do you know that's what's happening. I can't think of any worse way BP could have handled this.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 20:55
|
|
|
Jack posted:If the worst oil spill in US history can destroy a 200 billion company why would you even bother with oil. Nat gas seems like the better idea. Fixed that for you. Calling it "a single oil spill" is like calling Hiroshima in 1945 "a single bomb". I will admit that the reaction to the BP spill is certainly a lot more harsh than, say, the Exxon spill in '89, but I really don't see it taking down BP entirely. Vatek fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 20:57
|
|
|
The point more being is if a mega cap can get killed off why bother taking the risk. As I remember there was a similar if not smaller spill in '89 involving another mega cap and I'm sure it won't be the last time. There is a chance this will all lead to alternative sources (ng) being promoted. But whatever. The energy industry as a whole doesn't appear all too interesting to me anyway right now. Especially if we are headed into more deflation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 21:11
|
|
|
The way I see it, this is about the perfect situation to invoke excessive fear in the market. You have a disaster that keeps going for 3 months and estimates just keep getting worse and worse. You can clearly see some ridiculous fears in some people who quote the spill at 250k-1million bbl/day. Those are ridiculous numbers but I've seen them several times in the news. Fear just keeps building on itself and is causing some ridiculous changes in prices. I agree that RIG, Noble are safer bets, as neither has any liability in the spill. RIG if it is grossly negligent would, but that is extremely unlikely (using fake parts lol, not likely), BP was in complete control of the RIG and takes all liability from RIG. Looking at other offshore drillers really emphasizes my point. Noble has ~15% of its rigs in the GULF the rest are international, around countries that care about money, Middle East, India, etc. These countries will not stop drilling because of US laws or environmental impact. Saddam opened his oil wells during the war (biggest spill ever by far) and other middle eastern countries would likely do the same. In addition, I doubt the US drilling ban will last longer than a year. Offshore drilling provides a huge amount of jobs for the gulf and is an important part of the US's oil production, even the gov of Louisiana (the state most effected) is against the drilling ban because it will damage the state's economy. BP is obviously the most risky bet in the group that had this decline, and until recently, RIG and NE were probably a better bet. But BP is becoming more and more attractively valued. Bankruptcy for the company all out is not going to happen, even if the US wanted to change laws retroactively so it seized all assets without a 10 year court battle (not gonna happen), BP is a British Company and would have a massive writeoff but recover, this is the absolute worst case scenario, and is already priced in. England would never bow to US demands for ownership over the company, impossible. BP makes up ~15% of British pensions doing so would be political suicide. That's the worst case situation, what is more likely to happen is everyone is really pissed off, but the courts take forever to go through everything and BP will probably pay 5-10 billion in cleanup with 5-15 billion in legal fees. For a max of 25 bil, but likely 15bil tho. The damages will be limited, the oil will not destroy a city, a la Katrina, and there is a 75 mil cap on liability, and a government fund of 1.2 billion for that liability. All this about BP being extremely unsafe is might have some merit but these documents also show the government approving these practices consistently. As far as continuing damage the LMRP cap seems to be working quite well. 15k bbls a day is a lot and although it speaks to the size of the spill being higher than though, there is evidence that the majority is being captured. Looking at video you can occasionally see the yellow LMRP cap through the plume escaping out the bottom, this puts a finite limit on the amount escaping, as if it was more the escaping plume would be completely opaque. Improvements to the LRMP will continue and the spill will likely become less pronounced over the next 6 months. In conclusion, I believe that although this is a terrible disaster and BP should be liquidated for the victims and cleanup, however, that will not happen and BP will be an excellent long term investment, short term extremely volatile, but over time the costs will become finite and the market will value the company accordingly. As a bonus for investors any payments will be tax free, BP is taxed at 35%. Since the spill costs are already in the price, BP's profit is essentially increased by 50% (1/.66). Essentially making 10 billion a quarter, with a marketcap of 95 billion thats not bad. As a note on ethics I think the way the oil industry handles safety is pathetic and stricter regulations are needed. The fact that none of the oil majors have a contingency for this situation is absolutely ridiculous. The BOP could easily be designed with access for a situation like this but they didn't bother. Unfortunately and unjustly it will be the residents and wildlife of the gulf coast and the will pay the price. However, morally buying into a company is not endorsing its practices, my purchase does not give any money to the company, as it is not an IPO, and if everyone decided not to buy it the stock price would go to zero the board could take complete control and reap 6 billion in profits a quarter (a hyperbole obviously). Oh, and take everything above and remember BP is only responsible for 65%. I have been slowly averaging money into these companies as they have dropped, and have lost a bit. I don't really have a problem with this tho, short term volatility and all. I do have limit to how much I will put into it tho as risk management, diversification are important. Also the mexican spill in the 80's was on par with this although not near the more delicate marshlands, total cost 150 million. Were damages more, of course, but legal safety nets protected the Mexican company. BP has an immense amount of legal protection about it, and although less that the mexican company will fair far better than the market is giving it credit for. As far as divided cuts, if they do so it will be for PR purposes only, and I don't believe they will, Tony quote "I pay taxes so I don't go to jail, i pay dividends so I don't get fired." Bigntasty fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jun 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 21:12
|
|
|
Janin posted:It's not so much the spill itself, but their utterly inappropriate and ineffectual response. If they'd just blown the well up like the Russians have been telling them to do from the start, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. Instead, they've been faffing around with containment domes so they can get more oil out. They've spent 1.25 billion working on it so far. They should be doing more but honestly you get diminishing returns after a bit. If the government felt like some specific cleanup effort should be done that is not being done they could do it or contract someone to do it at no cost to them, as it is clearly written that the feds can bill for any cleanup efforts they participate in. The 1.25 billion includes renting the coast guard I believe. Nuking is a terrible idea, imagine the fallout if it cracked open the reservoir and a billion barrels poured into the Gulf. As another positive for RIG they're loving swiss good luck suing them for anything, worst case they don't do business with US or England. Bigntasty fucked around with this message at 23:57 on Jun 9, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2010 21:16
|
|
|
Bigntasty posted:
on that, BP is suppose to be a large portion of dividend base retirement portfolios back in the UK (and I assume in the US). Wouldn't them cutting the dividend even temporarily force a sell off (which I believed happened today) because they wouldn't fit into the portfolio? should've shorted BP when it bounded to 45 and then fell to 42...
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 00:51
|
|
|
Dr. Jackal posted:should've shorted BP when it bounded to 45 and then fell to 42... Wishing the same thing with RIG. It rebounded to 48 early today and dropped down to 42 and change by close.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
Bigntasty posted:Oh, and take everything above and remember BP is only responsible for 65%. I have been slowly averaging money into these companies as they have dropped, and have lost a bit. I don't really have a problem with this tho, short term volatility and all. I do have limit to how much I will put into it tho as risk management, diversification are important. I still don't understand the sense of urgency people have with BP. Why average-in on the way down instead of waiting for the turn? There's still a lot of selling left as hedge funds continue to unwind their positions. And why BP and RIG? XOM and RDS are both down 10% for no reason other than they sell oil. ATW is down 35% and only 3% of their revenue comes from the 1 rig they have in the gulf (the GS downgrade is super-suspect). It feels like people just want to be right about calling a bottom rather than make money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 14:27
|
|
|
quote:I still don't understand the sense of urgency people have with BP. Why average-in on the way down instead of waiting for the turn? There's still a lot of selling left as hedge funds continue to unwind their positions. People believe that even in BP's current state its still undervalued. Whose to say its not going to go up 15% tomorrow and the opportunity is gone?
|
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 23:50
|
|
|
antishock posted:People believe that even in BP's current state its still undervalued. Whose to say its not going to go up 15% tomorrow and the opportunity is gone? Case in point, it's up 12.26% today. Vatek fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 10, 2010 23:54
|
|
|
With $12B in cash and over $200B in assets I dont think they are gonna go anywhere. Seen on a number of forums of people saying "hurr, people still hate Exxon" Look at em on a 20+ year chart and they have split 3 times (once before, twice after the spill) and are only down a portion over just the last 3 years. Hell even their dividends kept going up. MrBigglesworth fucked around with this message at 00:39 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 00:34
|
|
|
Vatek posted:Case in point, it's up 12.26% today. dump funds into long calls (maybe september?) to profit from when people buy back in after the backup wells start draining the oil leak?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 00:53
|
|
|
MrBigglesworth posted:Seen on a number of forums of people saying "hurr, people still hate Exxon" What a lot of people don't realize is that the Exxon spill had virtually no effect on their stock price. It bottomed out after losing 7% from pre-spill levels and by the end of '89 it was actually above pre-spill prices as well. Then again, media coverage wasn't nearly as pervasive back then. Dr. Jackal posted:dump funds into long calls (maybe september?) to profit from when people buy back in after the backup wells start draining the oil leak? I think it all depends on whether this new cap that they're prepping for a late June/early July installation works. The relief wells won't be operational until August. It's got to find a support level soon, and when it does I would expect to make substantial gains on a position by September or October at the latest, provided that they can fix the leak. Vatek fucked around with this message at 01:25 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 01:09
|
|
|
My CNX pickup on Monday is paying off. Picked up some PSUN today too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 01:26
|
|
|
Bigntasty posted:They've spent 1.25 billion working on it so far. They should be doing more but honestly you get diminishing returns after a bit. If the government felt like some specific cleanup effort should be done that is not being done they could do it or contract someone to do it at no cost to them, as it is clearly written that the feds can bill for any cleanup efforts they participate in. The 1.25 billion includes renting the coast guard I believe. They've spent great heaping gobs of money trying to fix it, but they haven't made any money trying to make it look good for the press. As shallow as this will sound, that counts for a lot in a scenario like this where the damage is removed from most people, so the media has free reign on their feelings to this. Frankly, BP's public relations team should be dragged out behind the building and shot for how poorly they handled this. It would've probably cost even more money to outfit shrimping boats with oil-collecting skimmers or whatever, but you don't do it for the efficiency, you do it for the camera footage that plays at 6 and 11 that shows a thousand little shrimping boats combating the big oil splotch, so it doesn't look like BP's asleep at the wheel. Good press is hard to come by for oil companies, and it boggles my mind that they couldn't be intelligent enough to seize this opportunity.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 05:05
|
|
|
Vatek posted:What a lot of people don't realize is that the Exxon spill had virtually no effect on their stock price. It bottomed out after losing 7% from pre-spill levels and by the end of '89 it was actually above pre-spill prices as well. Also, what a lot of people don't realize, is that it happened at remote rear end Alaska, and the spill was much, much smaller. It still wasn't cheap for Exxon. I wonder how cheap it will be for BP considering all the factors make it a magnitude or two worse?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 11:03
|
|
|
antishock posted:People believe that even in BP's current state its still undervalued. Whose to say its not going to go up 15% tomorrow and the opportunity is gone? This is the best possible money management technique. Indeed, what if BP goes up 5 points? No sense in even trying to get in on it, opportunity's gone. Plastic Jesus fucked around with this message at 11:36 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 11:23
|
|
|
This market is pretty funny. Consumer sentiment the best its been in years which leads to consumer retail spending being the lowest its been in nearly a year. I'd hate to see where a poor consumer sentiment would lead. With that said tech is insanely overbought. Almost laughable how they just keep repeating this cycle over and over. The nasdaq is going to end up looking like Q4 08/Q1 09 again. You think they'd have learned at barely a year and a half out. I also like how we've rallied based upon 'China growth' the past few days when the Chinese stocks are the cheapest thing out there by miles a lot of them trading at near liquidation prices and of course they're the ones yet to rally.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 16:02
|
|
|
Oh good. Etrade seems to have forgotten how to quote bond prices. My Bon-ton bonds are at $97,250. I always wondered how long it would take to get a 6-figure balance...
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 16:21
|
|
|
Dr. Luau posted:They've spent great heaping gobs of money trying to fix it, but they haven't made any money trying to make it look good for the press. As shallow as this will sound, that counts for a lot in a scenario like this where the damage is removed from most people, so the media has free reign on their feelings to this. Frankly, BP's public relations team should be dragged out behind the building and shot for how poorly they handled this. It would've probably cost even more money to outfit shrimping boats with oil-collecting skimmers or whatever, but you don't do it for the efficiency, you do it for the camera footage that plays at 6 and 11 that shows a thousand little shrimping boats combating the big oil splotch, so it doesn't look like BP's asleep at the wheel. BP is well past the point of trying to spin this as "not so bad", it's an outright calamity. They are trying to obscure things as much as possible now to keep everyone confused and keep the entire situation murky at best- they are doing a fantastic job of that and it's exactly what their PR team wants. You have a rather naive idea of what PRs function is for something like this- it's to cover the company's and shareholders' asses, not make the company look good. This is BPs PR effort - http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opinions/view/opinion/Are-Journalists-Being-Kept-From-the-Oil-Spill-3934 greasyhands fucked around with this message at 19:14 on Jun 11, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2010 19:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 05:50 |
|
|
greasyhands posted:BP is well past the point of trying to spin this as "not so bad", it's an outright calamity. They are trying to obscure things as much as possible now to keep everyone confused and keep the entire situation murky at best- they are doing a fantastic job of that and it's exactly what their PR team wants. You have a rather naive idea of what PRs function is for something like this- it's to cover the company's and shareholders' asses, not make the company look good. Link reminded me of the message control tactics of the Conservative Party of Canada. I'm guessing the BP PR tactic is to stonewall the Geraldo Riverras and Brian Williamses until August, when access will then be granted to cover the fantastic success of the relief wells. The only reason I know the CEO's name, Tony Hayward, is because he has been nothing but a total loving douche since April 20. I agree with the previous poster, that by employing the unemployed shrimp boaters with some boom wings or Kevin Costner technology, a positive human interest story would be available to the dailies right now. The best way to piss any reporter off is by telling them "you can't go there/shouldn't be here." Resorting to underhanded treatment of the media can only result in endless daily cycles of negative press. In 2008, when Maple Leaf Foods was feeling the poo poo after some people died from eating cold cuts laced with listeria, the company CEO ran a TV commercial within the week, giving a heartfelt apology and promising to earn the customer's trust once again. About a month later, the CEO took all the dailies for a tour of their warehouse to show how they ditched every piece of equipment linked to the outbreak, and demonstrated how the employees sterilize the new equipment everyday. Anyway, The stock price went from about $11 to >$7 after the outbreak, then rebounded to ~$11 (then the recession happened and wiped out all of that goodwill and honesty). At the time, I saw that as a smart approach by a CEO - to immediately acknowledge a blatant gently caress up. Hayward's coyness and relaxed demeanor is why I can't see BP ever rebounding back to $50-60/share. St00ert fucked around with this message at 03:57 on Jun 12, 2010 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2010 03:53
|
|