Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
FYI: citations and links are only reqd for info that originate from a specific source not accessible to, or difficult to be found by, the public. Info that is well established, easily referenced, or known in the industry does not warrant it. If I told you the earth is round, would you req that I provide you w/ a cite for the source of that info? Of course not. Because of this, pls do not ever ask me to provide you w/ a citation source for such info. I can assure you that I will never hide the ball because doing so only weakens my argument. Therefore, instead, maybe you should learn to look it up yourself. Remember, there is no better way to learn something than by using self-reliance.
Hope you're rt. Vol has been steady in the 2.5 mil range for the past few wks. Appears something is up.
My apologies if you have been mistakenly refering to my usage of the term "low price" as "historic low," or any other usage I did not intend. However, to be clear, I use the term "low price" according to its common everyday usage. If I had intended to refer to a stock's "historic low," I would have used that term. For future reference, pls be aware that I will be continuing to use the term "low price" in the same context in order to avoid confusing everyone else. I guess the easiest way for you to to understand would be by you replacing the term "low price" w/ "stock costing less than almost everyting else I own," or "stock that seems cheap to me based on what I paid for other stocks."
To comment on your distaste of "chart theories," as I stated prior, technical analysis has always been recognized by the industry as even the Dow Theory relies on its principles.
Once again, I hate to have to reiterate the the commonly known "basic tenets" relied on by both TA and the Dow Theory, but to name just a few: (a) THE AVERAGES DISCOUNT EVERYTHING EXCEPT ACTS OF GOD; (b) THE PRICE OF STOCKS SWING IN TRENDS; (c) THE AVERAGES MUST CONFIRM; (d) VOLUME GOES W/ THE TREND; and (e) A TREND SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ITS REVERSAL HAS BEEN DEFINITELY SIGNALED.
Every successful public co on the planet, at some pt, reqd its leaders to take a leap of faith by extending equity to the pub in exchange for NEEDED capital. Whether the capital was needed to survive, continue operation, or expand, it is clear that capital was NEEDED. If the co's fundamentals did not indicate this NEED, the co would have merely financed itself.
Do you realize that your reasoning conflicts w/ the underlying principle for a co going public? Even the most recognized iconic cos once exhibited poor fundamentals. We purchase an interest in these cos because we are buying into its idea and its potential. If one intends to emphasize fundamentals as you do, he/she should only consider cos expected to have a established fundamental history, and be willing to pay the price.
From your reasoning, It makes sense to purchase YHOO now that they have an established fundamental history, but at 1.00 way back, it would have been the worst decision on the planet. Does this make any sense?
Analogously, if one had purchased YHOO at 1.00, no rules prohibit him/her from selling to make a small profit. No one is forced to keep their stock for any period of time. A few here have already done this and realizing a handsome profit. You shouldn't get mad at other's success. At least someone is makin' money. FYI: this is called short-swing trading. You should try it some time.
In response to your statement:
"when there are no fundamentals, folks start talking about shorts and after they have exhausted that. Then it's time to work on the chart theories,"
I'd like to ask for your thoughts regarding the very common situation where a co's price significantly increases over a certain period despite the co's unchanged fundamentals over that period. And pls, remember, this is a very common occurrence for very reputable cos.
Since your buddy dropped the ball on this one, maybe you'd like to step up.
I take the time to respond to your demand for answers and and you fail to comment? Pls refer to post #577 and respond appropriately. Remember, you questioned me.
Once again, dodging the issue. But that's fine. But first, let's get something straight, I've replied to every one of your demands for answers. You've failed to answer any of mine. This last question included.
Every co has virtually nothing fundamentally at some pt. That's why we choose to invest in 'em at those times. We want the low price w/ the potential. If I wanted a MSFT, I'd go get it. In this case, I'm willing to pay the low price for the potential because I foresee more action.
In response to your statement that "those who pump the stock - they have nothing but technical 'analysis' and words regarding momentum," I'd like to ask for your thoughts regarding the very common situation where a co's price significantly increases over a certain period despite the co's unchanged fundamentals over that period. And pls, remember, this is a very common occurrence for very reputable cos.
Do you want to know why only the fundamentalist are able to provide links to co info? Think about it? Who around here cares about fundamental info? Only a few of you. The rest of us rely on technical analysis. We base our decisions on information displayed in the charts. So if you want a link from one of us as cited authority, just take a look at the charts.
Also, if you believe that 6 million in naked short covering w/i a short time frame "won't even make a dent," well, I'm not going to take the time to try convince you otherwise, but as I stated prior, I disagree.
FYI: I often use the adj "alleged" when intending to be clear to someone, in a nice way, that I think they are wrong. Like I said, I disagree. I guess we'll just have to see who proves correct. Thus far it's been me.
That is 100% correct. Everyone, listen up.
You have no idea what is going on do you? Each of my answers to YOUR questions are verifiable, commonly accepted, and just plain out supported by common sense. Keep talkin', you lose more credibility each time.
I guess you didn't get my response:
(1) Re this stock being a bargain, its already proven to be a bargain for me. So cheap and up approx 100%. I don't understand your question.
(2) Re going back in time, to date, I continue to buy on the dips because I believe this one has a lot more coming. There is no need for time travel because personally, I'm still expecting at least 100% gains from here.
(3) Re the applicability of TA to co valuation, Barron's defines an undervalued security as a security "selling below its liquidation value or THE MARKET VALUE ANALYSTS BELIEVE IT DESERVES." As you can see valuation is not only based on fundamentals as you believe. Besides, I would have to say, I think I'm a pretty good analyst. Especially in this case.
(4) Re TA and the Dow Theory, I'd hate to have to reiterate the theory's commonly known "basic tenets," but to name just a few: (a) THE AVERAGES DISCOUNT EVERYTHING EXCEPT ACTS OF GOD; (b) THE PRICE OF STOCKS SWING IN TRENDS; (c) THE AVERAGES MUST CONFIRM; (d) VOLUME GOES W/ THE TREND; and (e) A TREND SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ITS REVERSAL HAS BEEN DEFINITELY SIGNALED. Yes, these principals are also the cornerstones of TA.
(5) Lastly, re there being many ways to trade the mkt, I couldn't agree w/ you more. That is why I find it so difficult to understand why fundamentals keeps being forced down our throats. Believe me, I already have my share of long-term stocks. Personally, I find them boring. I buy em' then don't pay attn to em'. Our stock is my source of action. My gamble. I treat it for what it is. A short swing investment. I think that you're the one arguing the either/or fallacy.
We're getting closer to a support level, but still much room for comfort. At this pt I'm not expecting any major drops.
Who cares about today? It's not like we're gonna die tomorrow. All of us who have this little gift called foresight will wait.
Good luck dude. I've been acquirin' on the dips too. Tho I'm holdin' out for for the dam to break.
I like that. Hey Laguna, after this one breaks all-time highs, a bunch of us are gonna party like rockstars. Just to let you know, you're invited.
All I will say is that I disagree w/ your alleged facts and I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's rt.
Cool, we got one more w/ clarity of thought. Welcome to this forum bro!
That's what I've been doing. That's cool, now we're bros.
All this TA talk has momentarily caused me to lose focus on the naked shorts that bless our stock. Gang, hold on tight! All-time highs are comin'!!!
Then can we party like rockstars???!!!
Altho at this pt my decisions are also based on other mkt drivers, from a straight TA standpt, I'd have to say that I agree w/ Chart. In my opinion, there is a consolidation occuring. Despite these past few days, we are still comfortably above the support levels I view as significant. Whether influenced by a few or many, this has been made clear as our stock seems to encounter support at specific levels. Altho from one perspective the MACD does indicate a down trend, contrarily, the specific MA that I've consistently relied on for stocks such as ours also indicates that the circumstances are very much in our favor. At this pt, I am very willing to wait for a buyer's push because I don't see any danger whatsoever. Besides, if other mkt drivers end up workin' in our favor, we probably will see all-time highs.
Where is everybody?
Stock not lookin' to pretty today. Vol is good tho.
Chart, maybe when this finally comes to an end we'll all have to party like rockstars!!!
Frankie, thanks for posting the chart. I needed something to make my day.
I'm very happy that you were able to make some cash on this one. I don't think this one is quite done yet tho. I guess we'll have to just see.
Whoa, easy there. All I really need to say is, "it is what it is," but instead, I'll take the time to answer your questions:
(1) Re this stock being a bargain, its already proven to be a bargain for me. So cheap and up approx 100%. I don't understand your question.
(2) Re going back in time, to date, I continue to buy on the dips because I believe this one has a lot more coming. There is no need for time travel because personally, I'm still expecting at least 100% gains from here.
(3) Re the applicability of TA to co valuation, Barron's defines an undervalued security as a security "selling below its liquidation value or THE MARKET VALUE ANALYSTS BELIEVE IT DESERVES." As you can see valuation is not only based on fundamentals as you believe. Besides, I would have to say, I think I'm a pretty good analyst. Especially in this case.
(4) Re TA and the Dow Theory, I'd hate to have to reiterate the theory's commonly known "basic tenets," but to name just a few: (a) THE AVERAGES DISCOUNT EVERYTHING EXCEPT ACTS OF GOD; (b) THE PRICE OF STOCKS SWING IN TRENDS; (c) THE AVERAGES MUST CONFIRM; (d) VOLUME GOES W/ THE TREND; and (e) A TREND SHOULD BE ASSUMED TO CONTINUE IN EFFECT UNTIL SUCH TIME AS ITS REVERSAL HAS BEEN DEFINITELY SIGNALED. Yes, these principals are also the cornerstones of TA.
(5) Lastly, re there being many ways to trade the mkt, I couldn't agree w/ you more. That is why I find it so difficult to understand why fundamentals keeps being forced down our throats. Believe me, I already have my share of long-term stocks. Personally, I find them boring. I buy em' then don't pay attn to em'. Our stock is my source of action. My gamble. I treat it for what it is. A short swing investment. I think that you're the one arguing the either/or fallacy.
I concur, because currently, I'm makin' a ton............... In fact, I probably covered some of you shorts... Ha! Ha!
I'll be watchin' rtwhichya!
It appears that you are correct. From my viewpt, tho, I think the support level is at approx 1.05. I'm just hopin' we don't even go there.
Chart, you know what? Despite this stock's bargain price, solid vol, pretty consolidation pattern, and not to mention handsome gains, next time, we should listen to the fundamentalists. No more searching for the undervalued stock exhibiting huge potential based on technical anylysis. The same anaylysis that acts as the cornerstone of the Dow Theory. Instead we should consider only growth stocks that hopefully we'll be able to liquidate in say ten yrs. Besides, I do have too much excitement in my life and I'd prefer to tie up my money for the long-term.
Chart, it is clear as day, some have no understanding of TA. Its amusing to see the same typical negative talk taking place over and over in almost every forum. Negative talk based on fundamentals already accounted for in the price. The bottom line is if you want short-swing returns, you invest here. If you are willing to wait for slow, long-term growth, you invest in an expensive stock exhibiting great fundamentals, but costing 50 times more.
I applaud you and your group!
I've always admitted that I have an interest in this stock. I made that clear wks ago. Most of us are open to admitting that because we know that claiming otherwise is futile. We are all transparent in that sense. So, let's get real here once and for all. No one spends their day caring what happens to others in the mkt, and no one cares about the balance of rpt'd info. We ALL have an interest, either way, in this stock. At the least, let's be honest about that.
Those who short stocks always bash the co w/ claims based on fundamental shortcomings, and always under the veil of protecting others. The truth is that the majority of stocks trading at a bargain price will display some sort of weakness. However, those weaknesses are already built in to the price. If one wants a rock solid stock to hold ten plus yrs, and if they want that sort of action, then they should focus on those types of cos, but they will have to pay the price. There are many stocks out there that are safe, but yet, much more expensive. Most of us here are short swing investors w/ a focus on applicable mkt drivers. We really don't need a reiteration of fundamentals. First I'm called a pumper, then I'm called a cultist, and I'm the one having my posts deleted?
I also heard some good stuff about this one. I think I'll acquire some shares just to keep things interesting. Not too much, but enough.
Thanks for your help.
Because it is what it is.