Grabbed some shares of Ford this morning at $16.15. Not looking to day trade this one, just was waiting for a good entry point on the long term play. I bought into the strength rather than guessing the bottom, let's see how it goes.
Nice buy, bro. I keep hearing good things at Chrysler, too.
This is the greatest thread idea..truely, how did I miss this...great Idea Jone!...What about an option on vz for the feb 10th iphone release and monthly sales report and they sold out on preorders the first day feb(3rd) 36.10 current with a flucutation between 35 and 37...maybe there arn't a lot of options traders?
Other note...does anyone listen to or heard of Harry Dent Jr.?
If EVO didn't move Sprint, I'm not counting on iPhone to move Verizon. Especially since who knows what kind of subsidy money they're going to hemorrhage to offer that product. Great for Apple, of course, so-so for Vz.
thought about the option on apple, who knows, just a thought..we will see I guess I do know I'm all over buying one for myself after waiting 2 friggin years for it
I'm not going to argue on T or VZ with you Seth, at the current price, BUT I love me some both of them. Of course I bought in at alot cheaper than they are now and I've been collecting the 6% dividend on both for awhile now which helps me out. But what puts me over the edge is that VZ split off FTR (Frontier Communications) that pays over a 9% dividend and is up over a buck something a share since I got my almost 100 shares for free.
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
You make money off a stock through one of two ways, capital gain or dividends. If a company does not offer a dividend, you'd still profit if you bought the stock cheaper than you sold it. Say you bought Apple years ago for $50, and now it trades at several hundred dollars a share. You sell your shares now, you just profited that amount.
On the VZ / T debate, I think VZ is going to slaughter them in the long run, but I don't like either one of them as a buy today. Wait for a pullback for a better entry. I could see VZ being a $50+ stock within a year, no idea about T. A lot of my opinion is anecdotal though, as I literally know about 12 or 15 to 1 VZ users to T users. I will admit that.
The iPhone stuff is already priced into the stock though, don't buy it today thinking "Man I'm ahead of the iPhone curve!" That would be far from the truth. But it is guaranteed that VZ is going to take some market share from T, though T is attempting to counteract by adding Androids (so I've heard). Also, VZ is currently one of the few (or only?) companies to still offer an unlimited data plan... which will help them even more. And finally, VZ is also doing away with the "New every 2" discount ($50 credit on an upgrade after 2 years in contract), which should help pad profit margins... though you could also argue that it would remove an incentive from staying within the company, and cause customers to hop ship.
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
hmm ok i think i got it, wouldn't that make a company's stock very unstable because it isn't really backed by anything physical? apple stock could potentially take a huge swan dive at any point since there would be no paying dividends to motivate anyone to hold their share if they saw apple's price start to fall, right?
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
hmm ok i think i got it, wouldn't that make a company's stock very unstable because it isn't really backed by anything physical? apple stock could potentially take a huge swan dive at any point since there would be no paying dividends to motivate anyone to hold their share if they saw apple's price start to fall, right?
Well, it's kind of like fiat currencies. They gain stability from people believing they are worth something, whether there is real value present, or not. As long as enough people are willing to pay for it, then you can find a greater fool at a later date. People will continue to pile in because money has been made in the past, and as long as people do so, then demand outstrips supply and the price of a stock goes up.
I'm not saying that money can't be made in non-dividend stocks, at all, because that's clearly false.
It's just that, in reality, there is no actual "value" in what you're buying and selling, and it's important to be aware of that fact.
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
hmm ok i think i got it, wouldn't that make a company's stock very unstable because it isn't really backed by anything physical? apple stock could potentially take a huge swan dive at any point since there would be no paying dividends to motivate anyone to hold their share if they saw apple's price start to fall, right?
Well, it's kind of like fiat currencies. They gain stability from people believing they are worth something, whether there is real value present, or not. As long as enough people are willing to pay for it, then you can find a greater fool at a later date. People will continue to pile in because money has been made in the past, and as long as people do so, then demand outstrips supply and the price of a stock goes up.
I'm not saying that money can't be made in non-dividend stocks, at all, because that's clearly false.
It's just that, in reality, there is no actual "value" in what you're buying and selling, and it's important to be aware of that fact.
I'm not going to argue on T or VZ with you Seth, at the current price, BUT I love me some both of them. Of course I bought in at alot cheaper than they are now and I've been collecting the 6% dividend on both for awhile now which helps me out. But what puts me over the edge is that VZ split off FTR (Frontier Communications) that pays over a 9% dividend and is up over a buck something a share since I got my almost 100 shares for free.
yea, it is all about the current price. at the current prices, i would put both at hold.
on a side note, i sold the rest of my gldx today at 18.80. made a nice profit on this bad boy! i have much less in silver (SLV), but that is having a great day for me today. i bought it at around 26 a few weeks ago and it is around 30 now! i love me some SLV!
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel If EVO didn't move Sprint, I'm not counting on iPhone to move Verizon. Especially since who knows what kind of subsidy money they're going to hemorrhage to offer that product. Great for Apple, of course, so-so for Vz.
It doesn't matter for other reasons, but the Evo is small compared to iPhone. Sprint sold ~150k in the first weekend, Verizon sold 2M in a couple hours and had to stop. Evo should help keep customers with Sprint but it won't help them grow like the iPhone will for Verizon. And no, I don't have any of the products or services mentioned here
Originally posted by: arch_8ngel If EVO didn't move Sprint, I'm not counting on iPhone to move Verizon. Especially since who knows what kind of subsidy money they're going to hemorrhage to offer that product. Great for Apple, of course, so-so for Vz.
It doesn't matter for other reasons, but the Evo is small compared to iPhone. Sprint sold ~150k in the first weekend, Verizon sold 2M in a couple hours and had to stop. Evo should help keep customers with Sprint but it won't help them grow like the iPhone will for Verizon. And no, I don't have any of the products or services mentioned here
Fair point on the sales numbers.
I'd have to look at the plan details for Verizon, but I have to imagine they're in the same boat as AT&T with the iPhone, where the company didn't really make money on any of those plans since they had to subsidize the phone so heavily.
I don't know if it does you a lot of good to get a couple million new subscribers if they don't pad your bottom line.
Well I'm pretty blown this morning. Wanted to buy some pre-earnings March 19 $7.50 calls on LLNW yesterday for 0.25 per contract, but the boss came in and I got sidetracked. Refreshed and they were already at 0.35 so I decided to pass. Stock was in the $6.10-$6.20 range then.
Stock is showing above $8 in the pre-market, options would have already been in the money and I'm sure a good 600%+ profit. Live and learn, but god damn I was a button click away already on the "preview order" step.
Honestly though, I was only going to buy about $100 worth, so we're talking $100 to $600 instead of $1,000 to $6,000 or $10,000 to $60,000. So I'm not that frustrated, just disappointed that I saw this coming and missed the play.
For the record, I expect LLNW to take a lot of market share for AKAM this year, and LLNW is going to be an excellent long term play. Obviously I want nothing to do with them right now as I just missed the jump, but I'll be watching the stock closely for pullbacks.
In 500 @ $3.99 for OWW (Orbitz). Really like the technical setup here, and I think the potential downside is to around $3.80, the July lows. Expect a potential bounce to take this to the upper $4s, waiting to see how it pans out.
I really like Apr 16 $20 Calls for CSCO... think that's a pretty good buy opportunity for anyone interested.
Ah what the hell, I'm just trying my luck with a stock simulator, been kinda meh (up 3K on the 100K they start you with). Since it's not like I lose anything if your hunch is off, I'll buy in
Another possible play could be Target (TGT) going into earning on Feb 24th. We all know they aren't going anywhere, and the stock sell-off today is a panic due to some political BS. Could be a ripe opportunity arising...
I'd just like to point out that silver has been making some insane gains the last few days......
Yeah, too bad I sold early. Not worth buying now that they're getting higher. D'OH!
Everybody I know with a meaningful amount of silver bought in between $5 and $10
Personally, despite the big potential profit, I'm not planning to cash out, since physical metals are my true "SHTF" fund, and are a relatively small piece of the pie, anyway.
But the reason i mention any of this is to put out there that a lot of people have buying into the stuff aggressively for a long period of time. I could easily see an early-80's drop-off of the metals market occurring if/when things stabilize, so honestly I wouldn't recommend having more than a 25% position in bullion (and that's if you do a proper "permanent portfolio"). If you're investing more traditionally, anything more than a 10% position is probably too much exposure.
If you're buying physical, realize that you can't liquidate the stuff overnight like you can with stocks/bonds. So when prices eventually drop they will drop hard because the market will be borderline-illiquid since the buyers will dry up in the panic (if that's what's in store, which is certainly debatable).
Personally, I'd recommend having a fraction of your metals investment in physical (that you never intend to liquidate, because it's your SHTF fund), and then round out the portfolio with paper so you can unload quickly if you need to reduce exposure.
Granted, this strategy all depends on how much we're talking about. Under $10k, for instance, losing a bunch of value, but having physical on-hand, isn't going to break anybody in the long run.
Another possible play could be Target (TGT) going into earning on Feb 24th. We all know they aren't going anywhere, and the stock sell-off today is a panic due to some political BS. Could be a ripe opportunity arising...
Within the next 5 or 10 years i could actually see them overtaking WalMart, if they play their cards right.
realistically, is it possible to invest in any stocks and commodities if you don't have a substancial (tens of thousands of dollars) to invest? I know that the Fed is loaning money at insanely low interest rates, how does one borrow this money? do you already need to be in the financial sector? can anyone wanting to be an investor get in on this gravy train?
realistically, is it possible to invest in any stocks and commodities if you don't have a substancial (tens of thousands of dollars) to invest? I know that the Fed is loaning money at insanely low interest rates, how does one borrow this money? do you already need to be in the financial sector? can anyone wanting to be an investor get in on this gravy train?
The Fed is loaning money to the banking system. The banking system will loan it to you at a profit for them, so you don't get to realize the 0.1% (or whatever retardedly low rate they have). The closest thing you can do is take out a short-term mortgage on your house for 3.x%.
I'm sure, with enough research, one could find closed-end funds that are able to invest with the Fed's money, and pass along substantial profits to the investors. I suspect a lot of those are hedge funds, though, so you have to be "qualified" (i.e. either institutional, or in possession of a million dollars liquid).
Truthfully, for most people, the best mentality is (1) saving as much of your money as possible (so that you're living on less, and can be satisfied with less) and then (2) capital preservation (you don't need BIG gains...what you NEED to do is meet/beat REAL inflation with your savings)
Also, would anyone like to question my $15 target on SOL now? I knew I should have trusted my gut, but I panicked and sold at $9.59, with a cost average of about $9.20 a share. Today it is trading around $13... FML. Will try to get it on a pullback, but I don't buy at highs and hope to sell higher. Not my style.
However, that 700 @ $2.49 buy on NXG at open on 1/26 is doing well, trading above $3 today but I'm still going to continue to hold it. But hey, 20% gain in less than a month, nothing wrong with that!
Well, my reason for selling SOL was because I thought I could rebuy at $9.20 on the pullback, and I wanted to lock-in profits. Not that I thought SOL was going to tank straight to 0....
Comments
Grabbed some shares of Ford this morning at $16.15. Not looking to day trade this one, just was waiting for a good entry point on the long term play. I bought into the strength rather than guessing the bottom, let's see how it goes.
Nice buy, bro. I keep hearing good things at Chrysler, too.
This is the greatest thread idea..truely, how did I miss this...great Idea Jone!...What about an option on vz for the feb 10th iphone release and monthly sales report and they sold out on preorders the first day feb(3rd) 36.10 current with a flucutation between 35 and 37...maybe there arn't a lot of options traders?
Other note...does anyone listen to or heard of Harry Dent Jr.?
If EVO didn't move Sprint, I'm not counting on iPhone to move Verizon. Especially since who knows what kind of subsidy money they're going to hemorrhage to offer that product. Great for Apple, of course, so-so for Vz.
thought about the option on apple, who knows, just a thought..we will see I guess
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
You make money off a stock through one of two ways, capital gain or dividends. If a company does not offer a dividend, you'd still profit if you bought the stock cheaper than you sold it. Say you bought Apple years ago for $50, and now it trades at several hundred dollars a share. You sell your shares now, you just profited that amount.
On the VZ / T debate, I think VZ is going to slaughter them in the long run, but I don't like either one of them as a buy today. Wait for a pullback for a better entry. I could see VZ being a $50+ stock within a year, no idea about T. A lot of my opinion is anecdotal though, as I literally know about 12 or 15 to 1 VZ users to T users. I will admit that.
The iPhone stuff is already priced into the stock though, don't buy it today thinking "Man I'm ahead of the iPhone curve!" That would be far from the truth. But it is guaranteed that VZ is going to take some market share from T, though T is attempting to counteract by adding Androids (so I've heard). Also, VZ is currently one of the few (or only?) companies to still offer an unlimited data plan... which will help them even more. And finally, VZ is also doing away with the "New every 2" discount ($50 credit on an upgrade after 2 years in contract), which should help pad profit margins... though you could also argue that it would remove an incentive from staying within the company, and cause customers to hop ship.
T-mobile does have unlimited data. Not that it matters, I don't see them as a competitor. More like a Johnny-come-lately.
T-mobile does have unlimited data. Not that it matters, I don't see them as a competitor. More like a Johnny-come-lately.
Sprint has the cheapest unlimited data plan available (and it includes unlimited mobile-to-mobile on any network). Fat lot of good it does them
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
hmm ok i think i got it, wouldn't that make a company's stock very unstable because it isn't really backed by anything physical? apple stock could potentially take a huge swan dive at any point since there would be no paying dividends to motivate anyone to hold their share if they saw apple's price start to fall, right?
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
hmm ok i think i got it, wouldn't that make a company's stock very unstable because it isn't really backed by anything physical? apple stock could potentially take a huge swan dive at any point since there would be no paying dividends to motivate anyone to hold their share if they saw apple's price start to fall, right?
Well, it's kind of like fiat currencies. They gain stability from people believing they are worth something, whether there is real value present, or not. As long as enough people are willing to pay for it, then you can find a greater fool at a later date. People will continue to pile in because money has been made in the past, and as long as people do so, then demand outstrips supply and the price of a stock goes up.
I'm not saying that money can't be made in non-dividend stocks, at all, because that's clearly false.
It's just that, in reality, there is no actual "value" in what you're buying and selling, and it's important to be aware of that fact.
awesome thread, i have a question that might seem dumb but its been bugging for awhile;
a friend recently bought some apple shares, we were talking about it, and he mentioned they don't pay dividends. apparently fewer companies are paying out dividends. since a price of a stock is based on supply and demand, isn't the demand based off potential future dividends? if a company wasn't paying out dividends, wouldn't the stock be pretty much meaningless except for that i hold a piece of paper that says i own a share? i mean, i know people but shares in apple for the capital gain but why would there be a capital gain in the first place without dividends?
Basically, all non-dividend paying stocks operate on the "greater fool theory", since while in premise you "own a piece of the company", in reality you don't have a voting/controlling stake, and you're not having profits shared with you.
Jones observation about "how you make money" trading non-dividend stocks in accurate, but that capital gain, in the absence of the real value of profit-sharing/dividend is kind of a funny cognitive dissonance that the market, in general, seems to have.
hmm ok i think i got it, wouldn't that make a company's stock very unstable because it isn't really backed by anything physical? apple stock could potentially take a huge swan dive at any point since there would be no paying dividends to motivate anyone to hold their share if they saw apple's price start to fall, right?
Well, it's kind of like fiat currencies. They gain stability from people believing they are worth something, whether there is real value present, or not. As long as enough people are willing to pay for it, then you can find a greater fool at a later date. People will continue to pile in because money has been made in the past, and as long as people do so, then demand outstrips supply and the price of a stock goes up.
I'm not saying that money can't be made in non-dividend stocks, at all, because that's clearly false.
It's just that, in reality, there is no actual "value" in what you're buying and selling, and it's important to be aware of that fact.
It's also important to remember that as a common stock holder - you're last in line if/when the company goes under.
I think, in theory, you'd get paid before gift card holders, but I'm not 100% sure
I'm not going to argue on T or VZ with you Seth, at the current price, BUT I love me some both of them. Of course I bought in at alot cheaper than they are now and I've been collecting the 6% dividend on both for awhile now which helps me out. But what puts me over the edge is that VZ split off FTR (Frontier Communications) that pays over a 9% dividend and is up over a buck something a share since I got my almost 100 shares for free.
yea, it is all about the current price. at the current prices, i would put both at hold.
on a side note, i sold the rest of my gldx today at 18.80. made a nice profit on this bad boy! i have much less in silver (SLV), but that is having a great day for me today. i bought it at around 26 a few weeks ago and it is around 30 now! i love me some SLV!
If EVO didn't move Sprint, I'm not counting on iPhone to move Verizon. Especially since who knows what kind of subsidy money they're going to hemorrhage to offer that product. Great for Apple, of course, so-so for Vz.
It doesn't matter for other reasons, but the Evo is small compared to iPhone. Sprint sold ~150k in the first weekend, Verizon sold 2M in a couple hours and had to stop. Evo should help keep customers with Sprint but it won't help them grow like the iPhone will for Verizon. And no, I don't have any of the products or services mentioned here
If EVO didn't move Sprint, I'm not counting on iPhone to move Verizon. Especially since who knows what kind of subsidy money they're going to hemorrhage to offer that product. Great for Apple, of course, so-so for Vz.
It doesn't matter for other reasons, but the Evo is small compared to iPhone. Sprint sold ~150k in the first weekend, Verizon sold 2M in a couple hours and had to stop. Evo should help keep customers with Sprint but it won't help them grow like the iPhone will for Verizon. And no, I don't have any of the products or services mentioned here
Fair point on the sales numbers.
I'd have to look at the plan details for Verizon, but I have to imagine they're in the same boat as AT&T with the iPhone, where the company didn't really make money on any of those plans since they had to subsidize the phone so heavily.
I don't know if it does you a lot of good to get a couple million new subscribers if they don't pad your bottom line.
Stock is showing above $8 in the pre-market, options would have already been in the money and I'm sure a good 600%+ profit. Live and learn, but god damn I was a button click away already on the "preview order" step.
Honestly though, I was only going to buy about $100 worth, so we're talking $100 to $600 instead of $1,000 to $6,000 or $10,000 to $60,000. So I'm not that frustrated, just disappointed that I saw this coming and missed the play.
For the record, I expect LLNW to take a lot of market share for AKAM this year, and LLNW is going to be an excellent long term play. Obviously I want nothing to do with them right now as I just missed the jump, but I'll be watching the stock closely for pullbacks.
I really like Apr 16 $20 Calls for CSCO... think that's a pretty good buy opportunity for anyone interested.
Ah what the hell, I'm just trying my luck with a stock simulator, been kinda meh (up 3K on the 100K they start you with). Since it's not like I lose anything if your hunch is off, I'll buy in
I'd just like to point out that silver has been making some insane gains the last few days......
Yeah, too bad I sold early. Not worth buying now that they're getting higher. D'OH!
I'd just like to point out that silver has been making some insane gains the last few days......
Yeah, too bad I sold early. Not worth buying now that they're getting higher. D'OH!
Everybody I know with a meaningful amount of silver bought in between $5 and $10
Personally, despite the big potential profit, I'm not planning to cash out, since physical metals are my true "SHTF" fund, and are a relatively small piece of the pie, anyway.
But the reason i mention any of this is to put out there that a lot of people have buying into the stuff aggressively for a long period of time. I could easily see an early-80's drop-off of the metals market occurring if/when things stabilize, so honestly I wouldn't recommend having more than a 25% position in bullion (and that's if you do a proper "permanent portfolio"). If you're investing more traditionally, anything more than a 10% position is probably too much exposure.
If you're buying physical, realize that you can't liquidate the stuff overnight like you can with stocks/bonds. So when prices eventually drop they will drop hard because the market will be borderline-illiquid since the buyers will dry up in the panic (if that's what's in store, which is certainly debatable).
Personally, I'd recommend having a fraction of your metals investment in physical (that you never intend to liquidate, because it's your SHTF fund), and then round out the portfolio with paper so you can unload quickly if you need to reduce exposure.
Granted, this strategy all depends on how much we're talking about. Under $10k, for instance, losing a bunch of value, but having physical on-hand, isn't going to break anybody in the long run.
Another possible play could be Target (TGT) going into earning on Feb 24th. We all know they aren't going anywhere, and the stock sell-off today is a panic due to some political BS. Could be a ripe opportunity arising...
Within the next 5 or 10 years i could actually see them overtaking WalMart, if they play their cards right.
realistically, is it possible to invest in any stocks and commodities if you don't have a substancial (tens of thousands of dollars) to invest? I know that the Fed is loaning money at insanely low interest rates, how does one borrow this money? do you already need to be in the financial sector? can anyone wanting to be an investor get in on this gravy train?
The Fed is loaning money to the banking system. The banking system will loan it to you at a profit for them, so you don't get to realize the 0.1% (or whatever retardedly low rate they have). The closest thing you can do is take out a short-term mortgage on your house for 3.x%.
I'm sure, with enough research, one could find closed-end funds that are able to invest with the Fed's money, and pass along substantial profits to the investors. I suspect a lot of those are hedge funds, though, so you have to be "qualified" (i.e. either institutional, or in possession of a million dollars liquid).
Truthfully, for most people, the best mentality is (1) saving as much of your money as possible (so that you're living on less, and can be satisfied with less) and then (2) capital preservation (you don't need BIG gains...what you NEED to do is meet/beat REAL inflation with your savings)
Will try to get it on a pullback, but I don't buy at highs and hope to sell higher. Not my style.
However, that 700 @ $2.49 buy on NXG at open on 1/26 is doing well, trading above $3 today but I'm still going to continue to hold it. But hey, 20% gain in less than a month, nothing wrong with that!