OFFICIAL STOCK MARKET & ECONOMY THREAD VOL. SCHOOL'S OUT

[johnnyredstorm]

Basically some money managers buy certain stocks at certain times when they have to reveal their holdings so shareholders think those certain stocks have been held for a while.

 

[freakydestroyer]

Ok so the institutions who have first dibs on the Facebook IPO want to artificially inflate it's value. In order to do this they have to make other stocks around it look good upon it's arrival. So for the next month or so, expect institutions to pump up stocks like FB, CRM, Z, BIDU, YELP, etc. Leave the weaker ones alone like GRPN and ZNGA , though they might also see some pop. After this buying frenzy is all said and done and FB is sitting at the price they want, they are going to unload everything and fall back down to Earth. In a way it is a scam, but if you're not a fool and  know how to play along with the big boys you will make money.

Or better yet
LNKD= Kourtney Kardashian
FB= Kim Kardashian

 

[electroki5hi]

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

Ok so the institutions who have first dibs on the Facebook IPO want to artificially inflate it's value. In order to do this they have to make other stocks around it look good upon it's arrival. So for the next month or so, expect institutions to pump up stocks like FB, CRM, Z, BIDU, YELP, etc. Leave the weaker ones alone like GRPN and ZNGA , though they might also see some pop. After this buying frenzy is all said and done and FB is sitting at the price they want, they are going to unload everything and fall back down to Earth. In a way it is a scam, but if you're not a fool and  know how to play along with the big boys you will make money.

Or better yet
LNKD= Kourtney Kardashian
FB= Kim Kardashian

Interesting, you're saying it's a gamble, but if we're willing to take the risk, we should be looking into these listed stocks at the moment? If all the social media stocks look strong, that will cause FB's stock price to rise.

 

[electroki5hi]

Originally Posted by DaJoka004

Can I get a count of who here is actively trading? 
Some of you post

 like you actually own shares of these companies. 

I'll go first. 

Long AAPL, IGTE, DXPE, MD common shares. Long DXPE May 45 calls. 

Just sold my BAC shares. Currently only holding AUQ. Its a small/mid cap gold mining company. 
Thinking about buying YUM stock soon, what do other people think? According to charts and stuff, its a good buy, and fastfood is doing well in America at the moment (no surprise), just look at McDonalds.

 

[freakydestroyer]

I'm not saying this is a gamble. I said buying Google weekly put this week was. They had good earnings released, but somehow are still down today. Goldman Sachs is underwriting FB's IPO, they are doing this to roll out the carpet for FB. They have to make these stocks look good relative to Facebook. They're not doing all this just to see FB top at $120 per share. I even think FB buying Instagram for $1B is part of this scheme. Instagram would've easily took a third that money and ran. FB just wants to create this facade that they have money to blow. Again this is my two cents, but it's quite obvious what is going on. 

 

[electroki5hi]

Social media companies are interesting because they dont generate as much revenue as people may think. The main source of revenue for social media is advertising, and unless you're facebook or google, advertising money is not enough to be profitable. SO FB just paid a billion dollars for a company that makes no revenue. 
So are you saying because FB's IPO is nearing, investors will begin buying social media stocks like YELP and others in order to make all of those stocks look bullish and causing FB's share prices to be inflated. Once the price reaches the desired level, these same investors will sell all of their shares to cash out, and cause FB's share price to return to "normal" levels?

And as for the NT people, if we all play smart, we can make some money in this little scheme

 

[runningfishy]

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

I'm not saying this is a gamble. I said buying Google weekly put this week was. They had good earnings released, but somehow are still down today. Goldman Sachs is underwriting FB's IPO, they are doing this to roll out the carpet for FB. They have to make these stocks look good relative to Facebook. They're not doing all this just to see FB top at $120 per share. I even think FB buying Instagram for $1B is part of this scheme. Instagram would've easily took a third that money and ran. FB just wants to create this facade that they have money to blow. Again this is my two cents, but it's quite obvious what is going on. 

Why do I keep reading about how 'earnings' mean everything?  It doesn't.  Fundamental analysis and trading are VERY DIFF'T things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're thinking of sector stocks correlating makes sense in a general sense, but you are furthering it too much by trying to craft a reason behind a suspicion.  You are going to fail like that.

With out hesitation, FB will propably be pushed up and opened higher than it's original intended price.  However, unlike the other social media companies, FB has a lot of unquantifiable value. 

 

[freakydestroyer]

Originally Posted by RunningFishy

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

I'm not saying this is a gamble. I said buying Google weekly put this week was. They had good earnings released, but somehow are still down today. Goldman Sachs is underwriting FB's IPO, they are doing this to roll out the carpet for FB. They have to make these stocks look good relative to Facebook. They're not doing all this just to see FB top at $120 per share. I even think FB buying Instagram for $1B is part of this scheme. Instagram would've easily took a third that money and ran. FB just wants to create this facade that they have money to blow. Again this is my two cents, but it's quite obvious what is going on. 

Why do I keep reading about how 'earnings' mean everything?  It doesn't.  Fundamental analysis and trading are VERY DIFF'T things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're thinking of sector stocks correlating makes sense in a general sense, but you are furthering it too much by trying to craft a reason behind a suspicion.  You are going to fail like that.

With out hesitation, FB will propably be pushed up and opened higher than it's original intended price.  However, unlike the other social media companies, FB has a lot of unquantifiable value. 

I did not think that earnings meant everything, that's why I recommended GOOG puts for a quick scalp and somehow it worked out.

I'm really intrigued by your trading methodology. How do you come up with your ideas? Is there a formula or system?

 

[freakydestroyer]

Originally Posted by ElectroKi5hi

Social media companies are interesting because they dont generate as much revenue as people may think. The main source of revenue for social media is advertising, and unless you're facebook or google, advertising money is not enough to be profitable. SO FB just paid a billion dollars for a company that makes no revenue. 
So are you saying because FB's IPO is nearing, investors will begin buying social media stocks like YELP and others in order to make all of those stocks look bullish and causing FB's share prices to be inflated. Once the price reaches the desired level, these same investors will sell all of their shares to cash out, and cause FB's share price to return to "normal" levels?

And as for the NT people, if we all play smart, we can make some money in this little scheme

Yes that is what I meant. But I wouldn't want NT to follow my advice blindly. Do your due diligence. And NT is not going to pump these stocks further up. These aren't penny stocks.

 

[dman14]

are sites like yelp profitable?

 

[runningfishy]

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

Originally Posted by RunningFishy

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

I'm not saying this is a gamble. I said buying Google weekly put this week was. They had good earnings released, but somehow are still down today. Goldman Sachs is underwriting FB's IPO, they are doing this to roll out the carpet for FB. They have to make these stocks look good relative to Facebook. They're not doing all this just to see FB top at $120 per share. I even think FB buying Instagram for $1B is part of this scheme. Instagram would've easily took a third that money and ran. FB just wants to create this facade that they have money to blow. Again this is my two cents, but it's quite obvious what is going on. 

Why do I keep reading about how 'earnings' mean everything?  It doesn't.  Fundamental analysis and trading are VERY DIFF'T things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're thinking of sector stocks correlating makes sense in a general sense, but you are furthering it too much by trying to craft a reason behind a suspicion.  You are going to fail like that.

With out hesitation, FB will propably be pushed up and opened higher than it's original intended price.  However, unlike the other social media companies, FB has a lot of unquantifiable value. 

I did not think that earnings meant everything, that's why I recommended GOOG puts for a quick scalp and somehow it worked out.

I'm really intrigued by your trading methodology. How do you come up with your ideas? Is there a formula or system?

I understand the risks in the market.  I think we all do.  To say that there is a system, formula, or trading methodology would just equate to you losing.  You can find this trading methodology in Technical Analysis, Elliot Wave, and Earnings Talk!

 

[freakydestroyer]

Originally Posted by RunningFishy


I understand the risks in the market.  I think we all do.  To say that there is a system, formula, or trading methodology would just equate to you losing.  You can find this trading methodology in Technical Analysis, Elliot Wave, and Earnings Talk!

So in other words, you're a Contrarian. Just do the opposite of everyone else?

 

[electroki5hi]

Originally Posted by DMan14

are sites like yelp profitable?

YELP has been in the red, and that's why they did their IPO. Being in the red for so long, YELP needed a new way of getting some cash now, IMO. 
The more I think about it, the more it seems like we're actually in a social media bubble. All of these startups are awesome, but how are these companies making money? YELP, for example, has been in the red, and i dont think they are going to be profitable anytime soon. As the different options of making money to maintain these companies runout, what next? If this bubble does indeed burst, then we'll see many of the small social media companies go away, and along with those, other smaller manufacturers of parts and such. The big companies like Apple,Google and IBM will suffer, but they'll survive.  Sooner or later, these companies will need revenue to stay afloat. I'm no expert on the "Dotcom" bubble, but that and this social media bubble seem the same. 

 

[nocomment6]

Originally Posted by ElectroKi5hi

Originally Posted by DMan14

are sites like yelp profitable?

YELP has been in the red, and that's why they did their IPO. Being in the red for so long, YELP needed a new way of getting some cash now, IMO. 
The more I think about it, the more it seems like we're actually in a social media bubble. All of these startups are awesome, but how are these companies making money? YELP, for example, has been in the red, and i dont think they are going to be profitable anytime soon. As the different options of making money to maintain these companies runout, what next? If this bubble does indeed burst, then we'll see many of the small social media companies go away, and along with those, other smaller manufacturers of parts and such. The big companies like Apple,Google and IBM will suffer, but they'll survive.  Sooner or later, these companies will need revenue to stay afloat. I'm no expert on the "Dotcom" bubble, but that and this social media bubble seem the same. 

Just what I was wondering. They may increase advertising in the future or they may have some sort of plan. Because they did work pretty much the exact opposite way an ordinary company would. First they expanded like crazy and then started to advertise etc.
I think this may support the idea, which was suggested by freakydestroyer that it's a good idea to shop LNKD, who even without this bubble looks like a good stock.

 

[bruce negro]

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

Originally Posted by RunningFishy


I understand the risks in the market.  I think we all do.  To say that there is a system, formula, or trading methodology would just equate to you losing.  You can find this trading methodology in Technical Analysis, Elliot Wave, and Earnings Talk!

So in other words, you're a Contrarian. Just do the opposite of everyone else?

He's telling you methodologies based in analysis and market prediction will kill you. And they will. If you want hedge fund trading strategies, again, I propose diversification. The more diversified the fund, the better the fund performs, and there is data out there to prove it. If anyone here says they're trying to trade like a hedge fund manager, or gain similar returns consistently, and they are not diversified then they aren't trading like a hedge fund manager at all, nor should they expect similar returns.

 

[nocomment6]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

Originally Posted by RunningFishy


I understand the risks in the market.  I think we all do.  To say that there is a system, formula, or trading methodology would just equate to you losing.  You can find this trading methodology in Technical Analysis, Elliot Wave, and Earnings Talk!

So in other words, you're a Contrarian. Just do the opposite of everyone else?

He's telling you methodologies based in analysis and market prediction will kill you. And they will. If you want hedge fund trading strategies, again, I propose diversification. The more diversified the fund, the better the fund performs, and there is data out there to prove it. If anyone here says they're trying to trade like a hedge fund manager, or gain similar returns consistently, and they are not diversified then they aren't trading like a hedge fund manager at all, nor should they expect similar returns.

As true as that is, I think the unfortunate truth is that one would need a pretty large sum in order to create proper diversification.

 

[lazyj10]

Not all hedge funds diversify in fact most don't because they usually launch based on the investment/fund managers specialty along with that if their traders.

If you wanted to invest in a long short fund for diversification purposes (because most the time those are the diversified vehicles) then you may as well consider a managed account.

 

[electroki5hi]

Diversified portfolios need large capital to make good returns, IMO. WHile you may have an overall positive percentage in your portfolio, if you're only make 10% with $2,000/YR, that's only $200!
I watched an interview with Mark Cuban once on WSJ, and he says he does NOT believe in diversification. His reasoning for an un-diversified portfolio was having a great amount of knowledge in one specific sector. So instead of knowing a little bit in the tech sector, and a little bit in the energy sector, Mark suggested being an expert in only one of these sectors. While this may be putting all of your eggs in one basket, he's saying you better know a lot about that basket before you do anything. The lack of knowledge in the other sectors is the reason for the losses, thus one making "bad bets." There's just another opinion on this matter of hedging and strategy.

 

[freakydestroyer]

Originally Posted by bruce negro

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

Originally Posted by RunningFishy


I understand the risks in the market.  I think we all do.  To say that there is a system, formula, or trading methodology would just equate to you losing.  You can find this trading methodology in Technical Analysis, Elliot Wave, and Earnings Talk!

So in other words, you're a Contrarian. Just do the opposite of everyone else?

He's telling you methodologies based in analysis and market prediction will kill you. And they will. If you want hedge fund trading strategies, again, I propose diversification. The more diversified the fund, the better the fund performs, and there is data out there to prove it. If anyone here says they're trying to trade like a hedge fund manager, or gain similar returns consistently, and they are not diversified then they aren't trading like a hedge fund manager at all, nor should they expect similar returns.

That is clearly not what he's saying. You must not have been following along. The stuff he says are borderline trolling but I was just curious enough to ask.

 

[dajoka004]

Originally Posted by RunningFishy

Originally Posted by freakydestroyer

Originally Posted by RunningFishy


Why do I keep reading about how 'earnings' mean everything?  It doesn't.  Fundamental analysis and trading are VERY DIFF'T things!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You're thinking of sector stocks correlating makes sense in a general sense, but you are furthering it too much by trying to craft a reason behind a suspicion.  You are going to fail like that.

With out hesitation, FB will propably be pushed up and opened higher than it's original intended price.  However, unlike the other social media companies, FB has a lot of unquantifiable value. 

I did not think that earnings meant everything, that's why I recommended GOOG puts for a quick scalp and somehow it worked out.

I'm really intrigued by your trading methodology. How do you come up with your ideas? Is there a formula or system?

I understand the risks in the market.  I think we all do.  To say that there is a system, formula, or trading methodology would just equate to you losing.  You can find this trading methodology in Technical Analysis, Elliot Wave, and Earnings Talk!

I don't think you understand $*$#. You come in here and literally make $*$# up. I'd like a response to my reply on the last page where I called you out.

 

[dajoka004]

Originally Posted by ElectroKi5hi

Diversified portfolios need large capital to make good returns, IMO. WHile you may have an overall positive percentage in your portfolio, if you're only make 10% with $2,000/YR, that's only $200!
I watched an interview with Mark Cuban once on WSJ, and he says he does NOT believe in diversification. His reasoning for an un-diversified portfolio was having a great amount of knowledge in one specific sector. So instead of knowing a little bit in the tech sector, and a little bit in the energy sector, Mark suggested being an expert in only one of these sectors. While this may be putting all of your eggs in one basket, he's saying you better know a lot about that basket before you do anything. The lack of knowledge in the other sectors is the reason for the losses, thus one making "bad bets." There's just another opinion on this matter of hedging and strategy.

Warren Buffet has said as much also. He once said something along the lines of diversification being for investors who didn't know what hey were doing. I own four stocks. I have two on my watch (MCD and SBUX). I know those six companies in and out. If I didn't, I wouldn't be trading them. That's how everyone should trade.

 

[dajoka004]

And AAPL @ $605 is a huge buy for me. I'll have $7000 in cash when my IGTE trade settles on Wednesday. If AAPL is anywhere close to $600, I am buying.

 

[dajoka004]

For those interested in trading AAPL, I highly recommend going to the Apple Finance Board on the Mac Observer forums. A lot of good information there. Also, I can't stand weekends.

 

[finnns2003]

Originally Posted by DaJoka004

For those interested in trading AAPL, I highly recommend going to the Apple Finance Board on the Mac Observer forums. A lot of good information there. Also, I can't stand weekends.

Good looks... I saw I lost a ton of money when the share price fell on Friday, almost choked. 

 

 

[dajoka004]

Looking at AAPL May 650/660 bull call spread for tomorrow. 
Based on last close: net debit of 2.95, max gain of 7.05. Break even price at $652.95. 

Counting on stellar earnings propelling us up ~10% from where we closed Friday.