Talking stocks, trading, and investing in general

[idfnl]

Owning the thread a bit, but eh

On the heels of the GOOG discussion, another sell sign:

Google's Schmidt may sell about 2.4 million shares

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/18/us-google-idUSTRE81G27920120218

 

[legorogel]

google should get into video games. then at least we profit a bit more.

 

[Slopho]

I'm going to post re:APPL & $1,000. Also, you can't take insider selling as a bad sign always. These shares will return to the float, and that should actually help the share price.

 

[javyn]



google should get into video games. then at least we profit a bit more.

Check Glu Mobile, Inc. They share board members with GOOG

 

[idfnl]

Just finished reading Cramer's Confessions of a Street Addict, interesting to read this a few years on with a different perspective.

Good read, lots of interesting tidbits. Wish there was a way to see the S & P Oscillator w/o paying the crazy fees.

The chapter on TheStreet.com's IPO was just nuts. After the com bubble you would think this bullshit would have changed. IPO share price and opening price should be illegal. It should open at the same price the shares are issued at. Some shares should be set aside for the opening so there is a float. I know all the downsides and counter arguments that my friends make but its still a bullshit system. Today nobody but the inside of the inside gets any and they basically get free money at the open when they dump their shares. Also, the syndicate desk being the same company that handles the ipo doesnt make sense. Its in their interests to hold the open and issue a crazy opening price to the detriment of all of us.

During the bubble its incredible how many stocks opened at 11:30 or 1pm with crazy opening prices that never ever reached that price again.

Also, did you guys know its illegal for people with less than 5m in liquid assets to invest in a hedge fund?

 

[otc]

IPO shares, like all stocks, open at the price people are willing to pay. There is no way around that without being stupid...sometimes people who got in on the IPO make out great, other times they do poorly. If you don't want to buy at those prices, feel free not to.

And wtf? an accredited investor only needs $1mm in net worth excluding their primary home (it doesn't need to be liquid). Or you can get away with being on your third year earning 200k or more (2 past years win an expectation that it will continue).

 

[Slopho]



IPO shares, like all stocks, open at the price people are willing to pay. There is no way around that without being stupid...sometimes people who got in on the IPO make out great, other times they do poorly. If you don't want to buy at those prices, feel free not to.
And wtf? an accredited investor only needs $1mm in net worth excluding their primary home (it doesn't need to be liquid). Or you can get away with being on your third year earning 200k or more (2 past years win an expectation that it will continue).

I guess Mrs. OTC forgot to cut the crust off your PB&J this morning.

 

[otc]

I guess it makes sense that you would finish reading a book by Cramer and would come out with bad ideas and incorrect interpretations of rules.

But really, how else should IPOs be done? Holding back some shares for opening float wouldn't do anything. Lets say you let the broker-dealers on the deal hold 100,000 shares that have not been sold to a customer and you require them to ask the IPO price. Two things can happen (if you ignore the 3rd option where nothing happens because the IPO price was perfect): If the IPO was underpriced, those shares will be sold immediately to some other broker-dealer who has the fastest connection to the exchange and the price will immediately jump to whatever it would have been without those 100,000 shares. If the IPO was overpriced, those shares will sit there doing nothing while the price of the stock sits below their ask (the shares changing hands will just be from people who want to dump it or people who had pre-IPO shares at a much lower cost).

It doesn't solve the problem at all when an IPO has a big pop, and it ********** people running the IPO (since they have been essentially forced to sell the 100k shares at cost rather than buying them themselves and taking the profit or selling them to entice clients before they go to market).

 

[idfnl]



I guess it makes sense that you would finish reading a book by Cramer and would come out with bad ideas and incorrect interpretations of rules.
But really, how else should IPOs be done? Holding back some shares for opening float wouldn't do anything. Lets say you let the broker-dealers on the deal hold 100,000 shares that have not been sold to a customer and you require them to ask the IPO price. Two things can happen (if you ignore the 3rd option where nothing happens because the IPO price was perfect): If the IPO was underpriced, those shares will be sold immediately to some other broker-dealer who has the fastest connection to the exchange and the price will immediately jump to whatever it would have been without those 100,000 shares. If the IPO was overpriced, those shares will sit there doing nothing while the price of the stock sits below their ask (the shares changing hands will just be from people who want to dump it or people who had pre-IPO shares at a much lower cost).
It doesn't solve the problem at all when an IPO has a big pop, and it ********** people running the IPO (since they have been essentially forced to sell the 100k shares at cost rather than buying them themselves and taking the profit or selling them to entice clients before they go to market).

Like I said, friends, even one that runs a hedge fund says similar stuff. I take everything I read with a grain of salt. It was the first time I read about an IPO from that perspective.

People at the company running the IPO always get screwed in these deals because everyone out there wants to make a cut and the only way to do that is with a pop. They go on these road shows and pump up the stock and then sit behind the syndicate desks letting orders build until they feel the price is high enough. Thats bullshit. Why wasnt the stock floated and allowed to reach that price on its own... but no, they want to make it all and leave scraps for the rest of us.

Ya, dont buy the IPO. Thats the truth. Just dont. Let every insider continue to make millions out of screwing over home gamers. I have basically stopped buying IPO's, the only exception was GRPN and ate **** on it and DNKN which has done rather well so far. I have passed on 10 or 12 others including BCOV and will likely not buy Facebook.

To your point, if the float was overpriced then the price would go down and IPO buyers would lose money. That should be the way it is: you take the risk of losing and winning. Now, the only ones at risk are buying after the open. Profits are long gone, taken by insiders. And in the end its the companies that get screwed because their floatation earned a lot less than it should have.

Its a rigged system. The second these insiders dump the stock they immediately short it like they did to GRPN. They promise the big press of a pop and then short the stock and **** the company over.

In the end, what I am saying is wouldnt you want a reasonable chance of acquiring shares of an IPO at the original price? If not, thats fine, but I do.

 

[Slopho]

Two men enter, One man leaves.

 

[SkinnyGoomba]



Dividends usually signal the end of the rapid growth of a company, which is what I am mostly interested in at this stage of my life.

Look at Phillip Morris from 1925 through today.

 

[Slopho]

Article on AAPL dividend.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-could-pay-special-dividend-050046173.html

Best quote of the article is how somehow this money is now to much to ignore. If Jobs were still alive you'd be ignoring it. If they institute a dividend its like saying "yeah, the smartest guy in the room isn't here anymore and we're going to tread water until we're no longer relevant." "Here's a couple of bucks to stick around." Be careful what you wish for with this dividiend request.

 

[idfnl]



Article on AAPL dividend.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/apple-could-pay-special-dividend-050046173.html
Best quote of the article is how somehow this money is now to much to ignore. If Jobs were still alive you'd be ignoring it. If they institute a dividend its like saying "yeah, the smartest guy in the room isn't here anymore and we're going to tread water until we're no longer relevant." "Here's a couple of bucks to stick around." Be careful what you wish for with this dividiend request.

Jobs was wrong. A cash whorde like that is like having a big hog and keeping it in the pants. You need to show that **** to the ladies.

 

[Hannerhan]

How about SWHC.

 

[idfnl]

My stocks were **** today.