...

Go Back   Lateral-g Forums > Lateral-G Open Discussions > Off Topic Forums
User Name
Password



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #3521  
Old 12-27-2013, 02:40 PM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by toy71camaro View Post
And the numbers today showed everyone else did too. LOL
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sieg View Post
I was watching it this morning and hope you did.




Yes!! So like most things -- the key is to get in BEFORE it takes off and get the heck out before it drops faster than you can say SELL...


Ever watch the movie "Trading places"?



I'd made up my mind last night that I was going to take a nice gain -- regardless if I missed another 10 points higher -- I was happy with what I had and that's it. So I was up an hour and a half before the market ever opened and sold on the open. If you're UP 45 points -- do you really care if it's down to only 41 points... You shouldn't ----- that's where people get crossed up! It's called GREED. We're not trying to be greedy -- we're just trying to make money. Big difference. It's an attitude - and ya gotta have your head in the right place.
Reply With Quote
  #3522  
Old 12-27-2013, 03:53 PM
glassman's Avatar
glassman glassman is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Livermore
Posts: 2,466
Thanks: 111
Thanked 84 Times in 62 Posts
Default

Greg, that is so funny you say that about Trading Places, i got my family to watch it last nite for the first time. I worked at the theatre's when it came out and its always been one of my favorites.....

But, can you put it to me in laymans terms what went on at the end, I get the "fixes" the Dukes where trying to do (get a peak at the orange crop, which i;m sure was altered by Valentine and Winthorp)

So Dukes instructed their buyer to "gobble" it all up in the a.m., buy low, hold for a minute or longer(much)...sell high...

But "HOW" did V and Winthorp make out? I saw at the end they were either buying or selling rather calmly and slowly...if they "shorted" the stock, how'd they do it....i'm missing something
__________________
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3523  
Old 12-27-2013, 04:08 PM
96z28ss's Avatar
96z28ss 96z28ss is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Portland,OR
Posts: 2,024
Thanks: 18
Thanked 10 Times in 6 Posts
Default

I just never got twitter. I just never felt they had a good way for advertising revenue. I think the stock will go down like Facebook did and once they show they can make money off of advertising it will go up.
I got some Facebook at $33 and at $26. Hopefully it keeps going up.
__________________
1969 Camaro LS2/T56 D1SC
www.automotivedesigneng.com
Special thanks to: DPE Wheel / Columbia Parts Company / US Collision / T. Bruning
Reply With Quote
  #3524  
Old 12-27-2013, 05:51 PM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glassman View Post
Greg, that is so funny you say that about Trading Places, i got my family to watch it last nite for the first time. I worked at the theatre's when it came out and its always been one of my favorites.....

But, can you put it to me in laymans terms what went on at the end, I get the "fixes" the Dukes where trying to do (get a peak at the orange crop, which i;m sure was altered by Valentine and Winthorp)

So Dukes instructed their buyer to "gobble" it all up in the a.m., buy low, hold for a minute or longer(much)...sell high...

But "HOW" did V and Winthorp make out? I saw at the end they were either buying or selling rather calmly and slowly...if they "shorted" the stock, how'd they do it....i'm missing something


So with "FUTURES" --- you're buying the ABILITY to purchase "X" at "X" price... some time in the "future".... The Dukes had paid to see a sneak peek at the report... Winthrop and Valentine got the "peek" that should have been delivered to the Dukes --- and altered it and mislead the Duke boys. So they thought there was going to be a SHORTAGE of Oranges.... and were buying "ahead" of the actual news (illegal to say the least)... THEY ran the price to the moon trying to "corner" the market.... Winthrop and Valentine were SELLING at the PEAK of the market.... and then bought when the market crashed and went low ----- Very much like a short.... they sold delivery of the commodity at high prices (but they really didn't own the commodity) -- and in order to deliver at those high prices (the buyer at the high price MUST take the goods or resell or whatever) Valentine and Winthrop BOUGHT the futures at low prices -- therefore making the "spread" between the low and the high.

The Dukes BOUGHT all the way up ---- then they were unable to sell since the market was closed and therefore had to come up with the cash for their purchases.



So ---- In the STOCK MARKET --- if you SELL a naked short (meaning you borrowed the stock from the brokerage house and sold it) you get the cash in your account ------ say you shorted 100 shares of Apple for $550 a share. The brokerage would deposit $55,000 cash into your account --- but they'd also show a MINUS 100 shares of AAPLE in your account.... and at some point you must buy that 100 shares to clear up your short. Obviously you'd be trying to SELL HIGH and BUY LOW.... so you're hoping (betting/gambling) that APPLE was going to go LOWER than where you sold it short. And if successful - you'd pocket the difference.


COMMODITIES are like this ---- so let's say you're a huge user of PORK BELLIES.... you use 100,000 pounds per month... you might have a professional 'trader' buy pork belly futures for you so you could control - or try to control - your cost -- out 6 months or a year. Airlines buy FUEL this way etc. They "TRY" to hedge their costs by betting which way prices are going to go. Sometimes this is great - sometimes it's just like any other bet - it goes against you and you loose.

The key to much of this is that you don't ever actually have to take the commodity you're betting on. Much like they don't mail you a stock certificate... so you could "bet" fuel prices were going higher by this summer --- and buy fuel futures now at X price for June "delivery" --- but maybe they go even higher as June approaches -- and you resell your "contract" to someone else that actually wants that fuel --- or maybe it goes to another speculator....

Commodities are best left to the pros.... as this is a very specific "knowledge" base.

SHORTING is nothing but gambling --- and I never do it -- even though I THINK about "I should" do this because I "just know" (a gut feeling) that X company is going to suck. Well --- about the time you THINK you know this -- and short the hell out of X company -- some other company comes in and makes a huge order that bails them out - and the stock goes sky high ---- or some other company folds up and your company gets all the business ---- or some competitor offers to buy the whole thing for X (which is $10 a share higher than where you shorted it!!). It takes a huge amount of research to be a successful short seller. It's too much work -- and why bet that someone is going to suck --- I'd rather bet that "X" is going to do well -- and for me -- it's an easier "guess" than who is going sour.

There is also "shorting against the box" -- which is selling a stock short against stock you already own... at least that way if the bet goes against you - you know what you're cost is because you already bought the shares you shorted - so you can replace the shorted shares with the ones you have. I've done this a couple of times -- then I thought --- why bother --- I've added stress to my life and for what? If I think the company is going to suck - and I own the shares and need cash -- why don't I just sell now and move on. DONE.

So let's say you shorted TWITTER yesterday -- you sold 100 shares SHORT.. pick up 66,000 in your account --- and you replaced them today when you bought them at the end of the trading day for $56 -- you'd have made 10 a share for your effort. But what if you got greedy and didn't "cover" -- or you got busy and forgot to "cover" -- and monday they start back up and keep going up 3 and 4 bucks a day? When do you cover now? DO you wait for that magic misstep or do you just watch the shares shoot to 100... In other words "how much pain are you willing to accept"? UGH! Not for me -- no sir.
Reply With Quote
  #3525  
Old 12-27-2013, 06:21 PM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GregWeld View Post
Okay -- I changed my mind --- I SOLD IT ALL....

It's just not a stock I want to be in to. I picked up a 40% return on my purchase for one month. That's good enough. DONE.



12/27/2013 Sell Trade Details TWTR
TWITTER INC
1,700 $69.602 * $118,313.73
12/27/2013 Sell Trade Details TWTR
TWITTER INC
300 $69.591 * $20,875.60



BETTER LUCKY THAN SMART is my favorite saying!!!
Reply With Quote
  #3526  
Old 12-27-2013, 07:37 PM
glassman's Avatar
glassman glassman is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Livermore
Posts: 2,466
Thanks: 111
Thanked 84 Times in 62 Posts
Default

Thanx for the explanation Greg, i knew most of it and i'm still a little foggy on the "spread". But, yeah, i can see where a "specialist" has to do this in futures, just way too many variables for us in the "not know"....which is also why i dont really invest in tech, too much too know and the game changes to fast for me (and i grew up "programming" computers, could'nt grasp the logic)...

I need the "KISS" philosophy....and thats all there is to it.

Saw Peter Lynch on Bloomberg two weeks back, man i like that guy and the way he thinks....
__________________
Mike
Reply With Quote
  #3527  
Old 12-27-2013, 10:19 PM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

My first investments were based on the Peter Lynch "theory" --- I still use his version to this day and it's never let me down.
Reply With Quote
  #3528  
Old 12-28-2013, 10:56 AM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

I have posted here before that "money" chases "return" -- and it's my belief (and history bares this out) that there is no unused pile of money just sitting around waiting to be put to work. Rather --- for one asset class to rise --- another must fall ---- because that is where the money is coming from to make the other rise.

Found this paragraph in another article discussing the recent rise in the 10 year treasury bill.



The average interest rate for a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage rose to 4.48% this week from 4.47% last week and 3.35% a year ago, according to Freddie Mac.

Investors have sold Treasury bonds en masse this year to seek higher returns in stocks and riskier fixed-income assets. Through November, U.S. bond funds targeting Treasury debt suffered a net outflow of $40.2 billion in 2013, according to data provider Morningstar Inc.

In contrast, funds that invest in low-rated "junk bonds" issued by U.S. companies have attracted $2.6 billion from investors. (because they pay a higher rate of return!) <I added this>

Treasury bonds are on track to suffer their biggest annual loss since 2009, according to Barclays PLC.
Reply With Quote
  #3529  
Old 12-28-2013, 11:09 AM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

So.... here's the funny part about the statement above.


The author states that people have SOLD bonds en masse.... so that they could invest in riskier assets. REALLY!!!


What happens when people SELL EN MASSE?? Doesn't make any difference if they're selling BONDS or STOCKS or HOUSES.... PRICES FALL...... When there's more sellers than buyers.

So now try to convince me why the author (and anyone else you talk to that supposedly knows all about money) thinks that BONDS are less risky to own.

That my friends is complete nonsense! If you own something and it is SUBJECT to going down -- that is taking a risk isn't it? So my whole deal against bonds is that they pay LESS THAN market rates (for the type we're discussing here - government issued super "safe" Treasury and Muni bonds) ----- and they go down and continue to go down in a rising rate market. That isn't safe -- and the only way to get your money back IN FULL --- is to hold the bond until maturity. That could be 10 or 30 years!! So for the entire time you've held that super safe bond --- and collected the below market rate of return... for what -- ZERO potential of capital growth (so inflation is kicking your butt as well!). The only way you can make money owning bonds is if the rate on your bond is ABOVE market rates. Given the timeframe of the maturity of the bond -- you MUST KNOW that interest rates are going to go up and or down during that period.... so aren't you just gambling that by buying a bond that pays X rate for X years -- that at some point the market rate is going to be LESS that what your bond pays and you will have a capital gain? UGH --- safe? I don't think so. You have two forces working against you -- time -- which is inflation... and the interest rate market.
Reply With Quote
  #3530  
Old 12-28-2013, 11:12 AM
GregWeld's Avatar
GregWeld GregWeld is offline
Lateral-g Supporting Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Scottsdale, AriDzona
Posts: 20,741
Thanks: 504
Thanked 1,079 Times in 387 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by glassman View Post
Thanx for the explanation Greg, i knew most of it and i'm still a little foggy on the "spread". But, yeah, i can see where a "specialist" has to do this in futures, just way too many variables for us in the "not know"....which is also why i dont really invest in tech, too much too know and the game changes to fast for me (and i grew up "programming" computers, could'nt grasp the logic)...

I need the "KISS" philosophy....and thats all there is to it.

Saw Peter Lynch on Bloomberg two weeks back, man i like that guy and the way he thinks....


SPREAD = difference of what you paid and what you sell for. It could be minus or positive.

So you bought for $1 and sold for $2 -- the spread was $1. Normally this would be called gain... but when you're buying futures -- etc - the term changes to "the spread" because it is moving and variable and it isn't a "gain" (or loss) until the contract closes for you.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Lateral-g.net