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.
ahhhhhh! Merci
deleted
Without anything? no bracket? nothing at all???
...tech support needed by the needie... I need to know how to post a chart from stockcharts -- I pretty sure I understand the first part of what's being said here #msg-528107
I don't get the second part... what exactly do I insert after I delete the http:// ?
A "how-to" manual would be great guys, because I feel kinda bad about asking a question that I'm sure, has been asked a thousand times.
Regards,
Michael
deleted
deleted
Hi Cush... just started lurking on your thread and I'm very new to T/A.
So here's my first shot:
...added Bombardier @ $3.63 on the premise that it is oversold-- my 2 outta 3 is the lack of a crossover on a tightly set MACD:
http://stockcharts.com/def/servlet/SC.web?c=BBD/B.TO,uu[h,a]dbclyyay[db][pb11!b22!d20,2!f][vc60][iut....
Regards,
...sold my position in Kinross (K-TSX) for $2.85 for a 20% loss, I'm certainly not thrilled-- my daytrading money has been getting smaller by the week.
...added Bombardier (BBD.B-TSX) @ $3.63
Regards,
...sold my position in Kinross (K-TSX) for $2.85 for a 20% loss, I'm certainly not thrilled-- my daytrading money has been getting smaller by the week.
Regards,
well... ford is now down 11% and I'm still in disbelief... this couldn't be happening, nah...
I'm still trying to grasp the reality of the situation-- unreal, feels like I'm watching a movie. thanks...
Wow! Is Ford headed into bankruptcy? Down by more than 8%, sub 8 bucks...
It's not that it's "good enough," I consider it a great growth company with a management team that has the ability to raise money. Ross Beaty can promote, and that's worth the premium needed to buy the stock.
Regards,
Yeah... PAAS is my favourite trader and Western Copper is a core position.
yup... I'm getting pounded hard -- reminds me a little of last summer. With this kind of action I suspect the market will crawl in a sideways direction until further notice from the White House.
...and for the life of me I can't figure out why silver stocks are being punished as bad as gold, they haven't recovered from last summer swoon -- and the commodity is priced w-a-y below the cost of production.
We've either been handed the buying opp of the century, or I've swallowed the stupidest pump job of my investment career.
Going by the HUI... the DOW is up 1-1/2% and the gold index is down by over 3% -- either the selling of gold stock is over the top or this rally might finally have some legs.
...having said that I'm not entering the markets, yet... not by a long shot.
Vox: Intel -- INTC
By FABRICE TAYLOR
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
You'll find them in newspapers and magazines, on television, at conferences and at the barbershop: Pundits who tell you to buy stocks that have fallen drastically because a) "they're cheap" and b) "there's a real business there."
By now, most investors — who before this bear market knew only salad days — have learned that stocks don't automatically become cheap when they fall and that "a real business" is only worth buying at the right price. The boosters haven't disappeared — at least not enough of them — but their audience has waned, which explains why they're trying to convince you that they've been bearish all along. How many strategists are revisiting their Fed-model-based calls to buy stocks?
Intel's a good example of the kind of mistakes investors make. The stock does look cheap at $14 (U.S.) if you remember only that it averaged around $40 in the thick of the bull market. But back then, the shares were quoted at a mere 30 times earnings. Down 80 per cent from their peak, they're just as expensive today.
You won't have to look far to find someone willing to explain to you that you have to 'normalize' the earnings, that is, price the stock on the profitability of the company over the economic cycle. That's true, but this same person wasn't advising you to temper your expectations when the cycle was at the top.
At any rate, to cure yourself of the temptation to see cheapness where there is only correction, forget the stock price and think of the value of the entire business. Intel has a diluted share count of 6.8 billion for a market cap of more than $95-billion (there's virtually no debt).
So you could buy Intel for that much (ignore the control premium) or you could buy a bond portfolio made up of 10-year notes, which would earn a return of about $3.5-billion annually at current yields, guaranteed by the U.S. government.
Intel is not a bond portfolio; it's an enterprise (an excellent one) engaged in the risky business of making technology. Needless to say, you probably wouldn't settle for a 4-per-cent return given the risks, mitigated though they may be by Intel's superlative economies of scale. You'd want more than that. Let's say you figured you deserved 12 per cent. What would Intel owe you?
That depends on how much growth it could squeeze out of its dominant business position. Since it's hard to find an analyst report on the company that doesn't have the word "mature" in it in one form or another, we'll assume the company can't grow at a much faster rate than the economy over time.
Let's say 6 per cent on average (which is considerably more than the economy).
If Intel stopped growing at double-digit growth rates, it could afford to pay out more in dividends — or it could keep aggressively buying back shares, as it has been doing.
Amazingly, the share count has actually risen, thanks in part to option grants.
Assuming it could pay out 40 per cent of its profits (which is more than some quality banks), according to the trusty dividend discount model, the company would have to make $14-billion (on a normalized basis) next year to justify its current price. The company has never come close to making that much money and with deflation in technology, it probably never will.
So insist that there's a real business there, predict it will triple, make money any way you can. But don't call Intel cheap.
http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/business/RTGAM/20021008/wxvox8/Business/businessBN/b....
...a slightly off-topic news story, but it could be an important one for folks who speculate in that region.
Majors interested in Ghana's oil potential-oilmin
By Neil Chatterjee
LONDON, Oct 8 (Reuters) - Oil majors are in talks with Ghana over exploring the West African country's deepwater potential, as fears of a war in Iraq add impetus for the U.S. to reduce reliance on Middle East supplies, its energy minister said on Monday.
http://www.forbes.com/newswire/2002/10/08/rtr743825.html
Hey Matt... I have an issue with the old bald headed guy (with a beard, no less) that shows up in my profile. How much would it cost me to upgrade to a dollar sign?
...and yes I do have a credit card and I'm not afraid (or too cheap) to use it.
A Beautiful Market
Interview by Robert Graham
The market is absolutely beautiful right now. When people are fearful, as they are now, it's time to be greedy, and so it's a good time to own stocks, says Fisher Investments Inc. CEO Ken Fisher
Transcript
GUZIK: Welcome to InvestorCanada.com. I’m Donna Guzik.
Not many people would call this market beautiful, but as Rob Graham found out, beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
IC: If you’re like many investors, the equity portion of your portfolio has suffered a steep, steep fall in this long, drawn-out bear market and good looking is probably not how you would describe the current market. But according to our next guest, this market is one of sheer beauty. It’s stunning, he says.
Joining us from Woodside, California, is money manager Kenneth Fisher. He also writes the Portfolio Strategy column in Forbes Magazine. Ken, welcome to the program. Why do you find this market so attractive?
Fisher: Well, attraction is a function of looking forward, not looking backward and there are some very simple rules in life. One of them is that big bear markets are always followed by big bull markets.
Even if in the long term, the market doesn’t end up going anywhere, in that whenever you had a huge drop in the market in the range of more than 40 percent, you’ve always found that after you hit the bottom, whenever that is, seeing a rise that’s 30, 40, 80, 120 percent. And it might be that after a couple of years of that it goes away, but that’s enough to be beautiful. Big is beautiful.
Secondarily, it’s a beautiful world because of all the pessimism that we have right now. As a general rule in life, you want to be greedy when other people are fearful and fearful when other people are greedy. And right now, people are fearful, which is a good time to be greedy, and that’s beautiful.
There’s a simple feature that when you look in history at the bear markets that have been in the range of over 40 percent, the average movement of the first 12 months, once you’ve hit a bottom, has been of 50 percent up.
That’s the average move. So that’s a lot and that’s when you’ve thrown out the move coming off the bottom of the Great Depression, just looking at the more normal bear markets.
So simply, it’s beautiful because people are frightened by so many normal things. For example, right now you have quite a lot of people frightened about a war in Iraq potentially. But the history of wars is that as they begin, usually the market does relatively well and it’s never actually done terribly as the war has begun.
IC: Yes, ahead of a war, that’s when there’s trouble on the market because it’s uncertainty.
Fisher: Well, there’s the age-old saying of sell on the scare, buy on the bullets. That might be amended today to sell on the scare, buy on the bombs, but it’s sort of the same concept.
IC: There’s this ongoing debate as to whether or not we have in fact hit bottom. Should we really concern ourselves with that?
Fisher: Well, the answer to that depends on who you are, but if you think of the vast majority of people who would listen to this program who would not have successfully seen the top when it happened and don’t have some long history of analysing markets and figuring out where bottoms actually are, the answer is no.
It would be perilous to try to do that because when you’re actually at the bottom, all of the news must be bad. The market must have acted badly for a long time. Everyone you talk to will be pessimistic and it will be hard to find reasons for that person to think we’ve hit the bottom. So that would be a treacherous thing to do.
For the most part, all you have to see is things are pessimistic, the market’s been down a heck of a long time and a heck of a long distance, and then remember be greedy when people are fearful, be fearful when people are greedy rule, and that tells you this is a good time to own stocks.
IC: Investors are wrestling with many issues. I'm wondering if we could say that this is a unique period for the market. Corporate scandals are eroding confidence, still paying the price for that big, big bubble that built up through the late 1990s. And now, we touched on this earlier, the threat of war in the Middle East. Is it different this time, or no?
Fisher: It’s never different. In fact, at every bottom people say it’s different this time. The fact of the matter is the market has faced corporate scandal issues many times before.
Perhaps the closest parallel to this is the 1903 bottom which is the period leading into the phenomenon of buffeting up the US trust operations, the steel trusts, the oil trusts, etc., etc., which again was a corporate integrity scandal issue and saw a market that in its first 12 months rose 60 percent in the face of that.
IC: How do you counter the argument that some people are still making that share prices in relation to earnings are still high by historic standards, even though stocks have come down so far? Their argument – things are still too expensive.
Fisher: Well, the reality of that is that that’s complete and utter misunderstanding of how markets bottom and what markets are about. The fact is, and I’ve done a lot of work on this, a lot of fundamental research on this.
First when you look at the history of market returns versus valuations, valuations counterintuitive though it may be, have never actually been any kind of a good forecaster for market returns looking one, two, three, four, five years out.
That is statistically higher valuation markets go up and down, just as many times and just as much as lower valuation markets do. And valuations have never in history been a driver of market timing.
And so if you think that the next three years must be bad because valuations are high, you’re actually saying something that has no basis.
The secondary feature of course is that often, although not always, valuations appear higher by the way some people measure them at market bottoms than they do at market tops, because particularly if you look at things like price earnings ratios, a little more than half the time in a bear market, the earnings fall more than the prices do, making the price earnings ratio rise as the prices fall.
http://www.investorcanada.com/interview.php?contentID=1116&display=transcript
Japan opens flat, banks steady...
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=^N225&d=t
Nasdaq-100 After Hours Indicator
http://dynamic.nasdaq.com/dynamic/nasdaq100_indicator_after.stm
Yeah geezzz Doug! I wouldn't be promoting SI from IHub-- especially from something posted from me. You'll get us both in trouble. :)
George, in the future could you please include the link-- with all the anti-American crap that was written in that article, I though for sure you were the author.
Regards,
Gold stocks must be anticipating a swoon, very similar to the oil and gas sector.
gee whiz... I meant don't fight the fed. :)
Jim... golds muted response? Don't fight the fight, we'll just let the banks bring the fight to us.
Regards,
That's exactly it. They went from the fry pan to the oven. Their flagship property in Russia is an iffy proposition considering that they're playing with the Magadan administration, where a list of North American firms have lost their lisenses to operate. Mining companies should spread geo-political risk to protect shareholder value, but in South Africa? FWIW, there is a number of terrific undervalued NA plays they could of bought instead.
The upside?
By adding a SA miner to their portfolio ... they've just increased the beta of their stock. But I would only play this one after I see which way the court ruling swings in regards to Kinross' case in that same Russian territory.
...here's the pr:
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/020913/kinross_omolon_update_1.html
Global: Services -- The Next Leg of Deflation
Stephen Roach (New York)
Although deflationary pressures are building in a US-centric global economy, there is still a sense that the aggregate price level will stop short of outright contraction. Central to that belief is the long-standing dichotomy between goods and services. Unlike the tradable-goods sector, which is increasingly exposed to the tough competitive pressures of cross-border trade, the so-called non-tradable services sector has long been shielded from such pressures. That was then. The globalization of services changes all that, and points to the possibility of a new leg of deflation in the United States and the world at large.
Services are by far the dominant component shaping the aggregate price level in the United States. They account for 53% of inflation-adjusted GDP and have a weight of 59% in the Consumer Price Index. During the modern-day, post-World War II era, services inflation has indeed played an important role in shielding the US economy from deflationary cyclical pressures that periodically arise in the goods-producing sector. That role is now changing, as pricing in the services sector is taking on a cyclical pattern normally confined to the goods-producing sector. That leaves the aggregate US economy far more exposed to the risk of outright deflation than ever before.
The latest trends speak for themselves. Services inflation (based on the services component of the broad GDP chain-weighted price index) was running at a 3.0% y-o-y rate at the last business cycle peak in 4Q00. In the six quarters since it has slowed by 0.8 percentage point to 2.2%. By contrast, in the previous six recessions, services inflation actually increased, on average, by 0.2 percentage point over the six quarters following the business cycle peak. Apart from the cycle of the early 1980s, when the US was coming out of a period of wrenching double-digit inflation, the current cycle has been by far the most disinflationary of the lot for services.
These results are all the more impressive when juxtaposed against the more extreme price cycles in the goods-producing sector. Goods inflation, which was running at a +0.7% y-o-y rate at the last business cycle peak in 4Q00, morphed into outright deflation of -0.8% in 2Q02. This swing of -1.5 percentage points over this six-quarter time frame is fully three times the average disinflation of -0.5 percentage point that occurred over the same six-quarter interval in the past six business cycles. The result is a rather extraordinary combination. Not only have the deflationary pressures in the goods-producing sector been far more intense in the current cycle than in those of the past, but there has been no effective offset from the heretofore-resilient services sector. As a result, the current business cycle is turning out to be far more deflation-prone than those of the past.
As always, a certain amount of the devil lurks in the detail -- especially when it comes to measuring inflation in the services sector. It turns out that the largest component of the services prices is shelter, with a weight of 31.5% in the total CPI. Fully 22 percentage points of that portion is what the US Bureau of Labor Statistics refers to as "owner’s equivalent rent of primary residences" -- in effect, the price of the service that is consumed by residing in a dwelling. Not only is this imputed rental price nearly impossible to measure, it is largely a theoretical construct that has little bearing on mark-to-market pricing of the real-life economy. And yet its impact leads to clear distortions of the overall price level. Government statisticians estimate that CPI-based services inflation would be running at a 2.6% y-o-y rate in August 2002 if the rent of shelter were excluded; that would be fully 0.5 percentage point slower than the 3.1% rate currently estimated for services as a whole. In other words, absent statistical distortions in the measurement of services pricing, the US economy would be even closer to outright deflation than now seems to be the case.
Measurement pitfalls aside, there is a much bigger story behind these trends. Now that America has moved firmly into its post-industrial era, there can be no mistaking the ascendancy of services in shaping the fabric of economic activity. It has become accepted wisdom that this transition has imparted a greater resistance to deflationary perils. If you can’t trade services, goes the logic, then their pricing must be determined largely by domestic forces that are immune to foreign competition. As services grow in importance, that immunity is presumed to be ever more powerful in shielding a mature economy from harsh competitive forces, including deflation.
That is the key presumption that the globalization of services is now turning inside out. A confluence of three powerful forces is at work -- a worldwide shift to deregulation, surging cross-border mergers and acquisitions and other forms of foreign direct investment, and new Internet-based technology platforms. The globalization of services is not new -- it has been under way for over 20 years (I first wrote of it in "Services Under Siege -- The Restructuring Imperative," Harvard Business Review, September-October 1991). What’s different today is that IT-based platforms have added a real-time connectivity to cross-border linkages in service organizations. Globalization has accelerated in response.
As a result, I believe competition in services must now be seen in an entirely different light. From telecommunications and finance to transportation and even retail distribution, vast multi-national services industries now span the globe. In effect, they redefine the concept of capacity in this segment of the US and global economy. Country-specific supply curves -- long a key determinant of service-sector pricing -- are now being replaced by global supply curves. In this context, pricing leverage in services is now increasingly determined by global forces that are comparable to those that have long been prevailing in the tradable-goods sector. All that acts to reshape the service-sector pricing equation on a secular as well as a cyclical basis.
Financial services are an obvious case in point. Less than a decade ago, there were five "bulge-bracket" firms in the global securities business. Today, courtesy of the rapid growth of the so-called universal banks, that number is now closer to eight or nine. Needless to say, this fundamental reshaping of the competitive playing field in the financial services market has had important deflationary implications for pricing, margins, and earnings. A wrenching correction in worldwide equity markets certainly hasn’t helped matters either.
There’s one more piece to the deflationary story in services -- the globalization of services outsourcing strategies. An increasingly wide array of service functions is now being performed offshore in places such as India, Ireland, and China -- nations with low-cost, high-quality, English-speaking labor pools that are now easily connected to multinational corporate networks through the Internet. Nor are these simply low-value-added remote call centers. The outsourcing of services is now involving increasingly higher-value-added activities such as software, remote e-mail help desks, accounting, production layout design, logistics tracking, network management, telemarketing, remote billing and subscriber management, transcription and translation services, engineering services, systems integration, and engineering services.
This has given rise to a whole new concept of "IT-enabled services (ITES)" -- activities that are now taking India by storm. A recent study by McKinsey and India’s National Association of Software and Service Companies (NASSCOM) estimates that India’s ITES industry will grow from US$1.5 billion revenue in 2001-02 to $17 billion by 2008 (see NASSCOM’s "The IT Industry in India: Strategic Review 2002," available at www.nasscom.org). Similar efforts are under way in China, although the language advantage obviously favors India insofar as services exports to the English-speaking world are concerned. Increasingly, courtesy of IT, price setting in a broad array of services is being defined at the margin by relatively low-cost operations in the Indias and Chinas of the world.
The combination of globalization and the IT revolution has fundamentally altered the concept of pricing leverage in the tradable-goods industry. Against a backdrop of restrained growth in worldwide aggregate demand, the resulting overhang of excess supply has led to an unusually powerful deflationary shock in the downleg of this global business cycle. The globalization of services challenges the conventional notion of a non-tradable segment of economic activity. And the facts speak for themselves: No longer can mature economies count on the inherent resilience of service-sector pricing to hold the line against periodic deflationary cycles in goods-producing industries.
All this has profound implications for America’s current battle against deflation. Overall GDP-based inflation is now running at just 1%, a 48-year low. Outright deflation of -0.6% for goods and structures, combined, is being offset by a lingering inflation of 2.2% in services. Many believe that this is a welcome development for a mature service-based economy such as the United States. With 78% of its private sector workforce toiling in the services sector, deflation in tradable goods is argued to represent an expansion of purchasing power for the bulk of the nation. So far, that’s still the case. But diminished pricing leverage in services is likely to test this model of the deflation-proof developed economy as never before. The US and a US-centric world are in the throes of the most disinflationary pricing cycle ever experienced in services. To the extent that the globalization of services is only in its infancy, the once-natural cushion against deflation is likely to get thinner and thinner. The endgame of global deflation can no longer be dismissed out of hand. Unlike the past, it will now be exceedingly difficult for services to save the day.
http://www.morganstanley.com/GEFdata/digests/20021007-mon.html
Bema More than Doubles Gold Production and Reserves by Combining with EAGC, (Owners of Chimera Mines and Minerals)
http://biz.yahoo.com/cnw/021007/bema_eagc_agreement_1.html
Bema halted. -- Pending news...
The Coming Crash in Health Care
Medical insurers' stocks are sky-high. But the party can't last.
FORTUNE -- Monday, October 14, 2002
http://www.fortune.com/indexw.jhtml?channel=artcol.jhtml&doc_id=209682
Economic Calander
Monday, Oct. 7
• Building permits (August)
Tuesday, Oct. 8
• Housing starts (September)
Wednesday, Oct. 10
• No major events scheduled
Thursday, Oct. 10
• U.S. wholesale inventories (August)
Friday, Oct. 11
• Employment numbers, unemployment rate (September)
• U.S. retail sales (September)
• University of Michigan consumer sentiment index (October)
-----------------------------------------------------------
Corporate Calander
Monday Oct. 7
• Negotiations between CAW and DaimlerChrysler kick off
Tuesday Oct. 8
• Pepsico (BMO)
Wednesday Oct. 9
• Cott Corp.
• Redback Networks (AMC)
• Yahoo (AMC)
Thursday Oct. 10
• Juniper Networks (AMC)
• Network Associates (BMO)
• Teknion Corp.
Requiem for the Ruthless
The Gold Cartel in Dying -- May They Rest in Pieces
by James Sinclair -- October 6, 2002
It is reasonable to assume that JPM is out of the gold controlling business.
It may well be that the firmness of gold is a result of JPM closing short positions via beards (agents on the Comex floor and in the world gold cash market to hide the identity of JPM) as money would be called in from all JPM trading operations. This is SOP crisis action. Clearly, JPM is in crisis mode as they cut their staff by 20%. JPM is not alone in a crushing economic squeeze.
Commerzbank in Germany, another commercial bank that is a derivative dealer in Germany, has lost a quarter of its value last week. All the derivative maniac commercial banks are bleeding badly.
It is also reasonable to assume that the entire gold cartel, all trading entities of commercial banks, may well be headed out of the business of controlling the gold price. Lately their efforts have appeared to me to be more bluff than reality. Sure they will try to bluff the moves, but without ample funds, their game is up. All the commercial banks have bigger fish to fry.
The bigger fish is the interest rate derivative market and massive mismatching.
I do not expect that market to implode, but it is going to skin many derivative positions alive. No one expects interest rates to tighten, so if I am right about the bond market top, the Grim Reaper is going to descend on whatever profits the commercial banks have left. are
http://www.financialsense.com/metals/sinclair/editorials/100602.htm
SR... thanks -- so much to read, so little time.
Yeah, you're right... credit card penetration is a lot less too.
...get a load of this one from Arab News:
http://www.arabnews.com/Article.asp?ID=19213
What difference would it make? My credit cards are maxed out and my house is worth less than what I originally paid for it. But I am curious to see if they can lower the zero percent financing deal that's available for new cars, 'cause I'm thinking about trading in my old one.
sarai... I don't know, but if you read the the original story the derivative risk was in response to an inquiry from a US investment bank-- JPM, by any chance? The stock price tanked big time last week too. Also, Commerzbank does have an American subsidiary.
http://www.commerzbank-usa.com/
Regards,