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.
There was no drop. The price was $3.74. The same price It was nearly all day.
Correction: I see the 3,384,497 share trade at 4:01 on my system.
The last trade for FMCC took place at 3:59:49pm ET for 1,334 shares.
If you use a brokerage account to look at the daily transactions, you'll see. Web based information is often wrong. Simple glitches. There is no pre-market or after-hours market for OTC stocks. It's the law. It's impossible that a trade can be made prior or after normal market hours in OTC stocks. That's one of the downfalls to being an OTC stock.
There is no after-hours market for OTC stocks. The information is incorrect.
Correct.
It's impossible when market cap is $4.5b and earnings are $11b.
No it doesn't. They had earnings of $11 billion for 2015 and they're trading for $4.53 billion. That means their PE is 0.41. The information you've obtained is incorrect.
Investing has nothing to do with gambling. If you view it that way, you'll have a short career.
I believe it could last up to another year.
They're going out of business soon.
A diaper company. Lmao!!!
The value of the company has nothing to do with market participants to the degree you're under the impression it does.
I've spoken to Tim. I know exactly who he is. Lol.
I have plenty of money, trust me :)
Baby diapers....lmao!!!!!!!
Uh, yes he is.
Looking forward to shorting this scam.
A 3% short interest is actually pretty small. Unless the short interest is at least 10%, it's harmless and not even worth paying attention to.
I'm doing it, so for me it's not a myth. I'm not trying to convince you to do anything.
I didn't make a distinction between average and above average. That's all dependent upon what kind of investor you want to be.
Research who Walter Schloss is. He never had any formal college education. I think that meets the "average" criteria.
Exactly. Well said.
S&P average is 7.4%. If it wasn't realistic, nobody would be achieving it. I know many who are.
Warren Buffett hasn't produced the best annual return, by any means. He's just produced the most money because of the length of his career. I won't argue with you about the subject. It's up to you to do your own investigating and see. I know the answer.
Warren Buffett's average return for the first 20 years of his investing career was over 50%. It's somewhere around 35% now, because his portfolio is so large that it's more difficult to grow quickly.
Many value investors average at 25%.
30 year mortgage is excellent debt. It creates a low monthly obligation which allows more of your money to work for you.
Option #1: 15 year fixed $250,000 loan: $1,762 per month.
Option #2: 30 year fixed $250,000 loan: $1,189 per month.
Investing the difference of $573 and compounding that at 20% over the next 30 years equals an addition $813,000 in your wallet. At 30%, it equals $6.5 million.
A 30-year fixed mortgage is one of the best debts you can have.
It's simple. Fannie Mae is not the only stock in the universe offering a great reward.
I'm not for unions. Not against anyone that is, though.
The standard FDIC insurance coverage is $250,000 per account, and you're correct that investment accounts aren't covered. There are other means beyond FDIC. I never spoke about my net worth here. I don't believe it to be valuable information.
With the costs of insurance these days, you're not really out of line from reality.
A significant portion was accumulated through private land, in relationship to oil transactions.
I'm younger, not by much but enough. I measure risk based on intrinsic value, not in terms of profit potential.
Simple. Preservation of capital. I don't believe in being "bullish" or "bearish". I believe in preserving capital which involves measuring the downside more often than being exuberant about the upside. That, at least for me, is a tough thing to do.
Right now, Ackman is being checked. However, he is a self-proclaimed value investor. They tend to measure their performance over a signifant amount of time, but not always. Even Buffett lost 30%+ in multiple years.
My biggest digression from Ackman has always been EBITDA. Depreciation is a real expense. He doesn't believe it is.
That's precisely why long ago I put together a simple plan that if I were to ever enter, which I never will (age), into that arena, I'd do so the way buffett did:
25% of capital growth with a 5% hurdle rate guarantee. No annual fee's.
The above was his. My plan was always to take no more than God required (10%). If you earned above 5% in a given year, the total fee would be 10% of those profits above the 5% hurdle rate. If the annual return was below the 5% hurdle, the following year you'd have to first make up for the loss and overcome the statutory hurdle before you were able to charge your fee. A true performance based fund. There are some out there that are very good right now. An endeavor I lack the discipline and motivation, and above all - knowledge, to engage in.
After my first 3 accounts, I stopped worrying about it. There's nothing one can do about the statutory limits the government provides. Similar to the situation at hand. Great question by the way, even though I'm certain I didn't sufficiently address it.
I'd be considered a very small hedge fund. Was always an interest of mine, but never had the guts nor wanted the fiduciary (legal) responsibility. One lawsuit, as I've witnessed, can wipe you out rather quickly.
Thank you sir. The working man deserves a larger portion of the pie than he's been given. That is for certain, in my eyes.
I hope the same for you, and everyone here, as well. If it weren't for jobs people like you provide, we'd have to accredit Obama for hiring everyone under the sun. Thankfully some of us know the truth and are thankful for your diligence.
And that isn't to say that I believe Obama is a "bad" man. I think he would have been much better 20 years from now. He certainly has an intellectual zeal that is undeniable.