Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
so is this alzheimer's drug from Biogen for real?
Boiler Room: The Official Stock Market Discussion
@Futuristic Eskimo
@Brady Hoke's Artery
what are our thoughts on these dividends from the Canadian Energy sector
PWE sitting at 15%
TLM sitting at 6%
Husky at 5%
Arc Resources around 5%
Crescent Point around 9-10%
any chance they dont get cut?.
Might have to do some financial modelling and dig in in 2015. Penn West and Talisman look like Landmines but I might fukk around and put $2000+ in CPG and Arc Resources in Q1 next year.
@Brady Hoke's Artery
what are our thoughts on these dividends from the Canadian Energy sector
PWE sitting at 15%
TLM sitting at 6%
Husky at 5%
Arc Resources around 5%
Crescent Point around 9-10%
any chance they dont get cut?
.Might have to do some financial modelling and dig in in 2015. Penn West and Talisman look like Landmines but I might fukk around and put $2000+ in CPG and Arc Resources in Q1 next year.
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
has anyone eaten at el pollo loco? I don't think they have them in the northeast or at least I haven't seen one.
seen a couple odd calls on Petrobras and Vale too. upgrade to buy? oil and commodity companies in shytty brazil. I don't get it unless they think it's so cheap you can't pass it up.
USD/JPY really pushing to 120.
On my demo account, I entered EUR/USD on a long 10 days ago because I felt EUR could recover but I panic sold today out of impatience lol. And I just saw some TA about EUR recovering against USD smh : https://www.tradingview.com/v/7YuRvla8/
On my demo account, I entered EUR/USD on a long 10 days ago because I felt EUR could recover but I panic sold today out of impatience lol. And I just saw some TA about EUR recovering against USD smh : https://www.tradingview.com/v/7YuRvla8/
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
By the way, any of you know why most major indexes seem to be topping on the Daily
CAC, DOW, DAX, S&P, SX5P and a few others...
central bank manipulation...
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
when is Radio Shack going to zero?
What would you do if you were to trade them. Shorting ?central bank manipulation...
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
I don't like Europe right now. But the ECB could step up asset purchases anytime now and you could be on the wrong side of a short there. I think December will be a good month for US stocks so I wouldn't be short. Honestly most of my portfolio is in index funds that I take a long view on for years. I only speculate with a couple grand.
I can't tell with Europe though. Their southern countries especially suck but everyone knows the ECB will step in. For instance the yield on Portugal 10 year bonds is 2.75% and have junk ratings. Yet even when they were rated AAA they never got to that low of a yield. This is because everyone knows the ECB will intervene if they fukk up more. It makes no sense. Even Italian bonds are yielding nothing implying little to no risk. It's madness. We're just constantly watching central banks and hoping they do something.
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
how real is the Shell/BP merger?
Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
gold and gold miner ETFs acting crazy last second of the day. GDX plunged 10%
to combat this just start placing trailing bids down 10% from the spot price and it's like instant money
to combat this just start placing trailing bids down 10% from the spot price and it's like instant money
Last edited:
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
I don't see how they'd be sustainable at these crude prices. Canadian E&P's costs are generally higher and I would imagine the price discount they sell at compared to Brent/WTI would be even larger than their friends in the Dakotas. I know Bakken shale players sell at an extremely high spread (read an article today on Bloomberg that prices at the wellhead in the Dakotas has fell below $50). Haven't taken a look at their debt situations, but just based on the riskiness I would stay away. If you were to jump in on one of these, go with the least leveraged.@Futuristic Eskimo
@Brady Hoke's Artery
what are our thoughts on these dividends from the Canadian Energy sector
PWE sitting at 15%
TLM sitting at 6%
Husky at 5%
Arc Resources around 5%
Crescent Point around 9-10%
any chance they dont get cut?
Might have to do some financial modelling and dig in in 2015. Penn West and Talisman look like Landmines but I might fukk around and put $2000+ in CPG and Arc Resources in Q1 next year.
I mistakenly called a bottom a few weeks ago, but just bought in on the majors. It has been less painful compared to some of the firms I used to be in.
Futuristic Eskimo
All Star
One of the Most Famous Rules of Investing Might Be Totally Wrong
By Allison Schrager December 03, 2014
Photograph by Constance Bannister/Getty Images
There is supposed to be one fundamental truth in investing: If you take on more risk, you can expect a bigger reward. With new research suggesting that things may not be so simple, investors may want to adjust their strategies—or at least their expectations—accordingly.
Boston-based asset manager GMO recently looked at risk and return data for U.S. stocks from 1970 to 2011, and what the researchers found is surprising: The riskiest 25 percent of stocks—those most vulnerable to swings of the broad market—logged an average annual return of just over 7 percent per year. The least-risky 25 percent of stocks returned 10.6 percent per year. On a $10,000 investment over those four decades, the lower-risk stocks would have yielded more than $450,000.
Investors who took on more risk in search of higher returns should be ticked about this new information. Owning a stock whose price moves with the rest of the market makes your whole portfolio more volatile, and it’s reasonable to expect a bigger return in exchange for taking on that risk. But the 40 years of data suggests otherwise—and it’s not a passing trend.
Story: The Hidden Risk in the World’s Best Pension System
One explanation could be that investing has changed. In 1980, individuals owned 48 percent of stocks. By 2007, that proportion had dropped to 22 percent. The vast majority of stock is now owned by large asset managers: hedge funds and mutual funds that employ professionals to pick stocks. A paper from Paul Woolley and Dmitri Vayanos, both of LSE, and Boston University’s Andrea Buffa argues that the way fund managers are judged and paid has altered how markets function.
A fund manager’s performance is judged according to how well a fund does in comparison to a benchmark, often an index such as the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. Because underperformance means losing assets, and beating the market is extremely difficult, most managers respond by hewing pretty close to their benchmark. For example, managers might believe that a stock is overvalued but feel compelled to buy more of it—which would further drive up prices, making the stock more volatile.
This effect is true for index funds—those designed to follow the market, rather than beat it—as well as actively managed funds. Index fund managers typically save on costs by buying enough shares to mimic the returns, while not buying everything in the index. If enough index-fund managers follow the same strategy, though, the relationship between the stock and the rest of the market changes because stocks are no longer chosen on their investment fundamentals.
Story: Millennials Are Lousy Savers, but Their Parents Were Worse
Duke University finance professor Campbell Harvey agrees that the risk-return relationship, as investors have traditionally considered it, may have changed. He also argues that that volatility may have taken on outsized importance, especially compared to other measures of risk. His research measures the relationship between returns and what’s called tail risk—the chance of an unlikely but major event such as a 50 percent drop in price. The recent financial crisis is considered an example of tail risk. (While tail risk can also manifest to the upside—as in winning the lottery—most people are more freaked-out by the remote chance of losing everything than they are motivated by the small odds of winning big.)
When Harvey performed an estimate similar to GMO’s, he included tail risk and other factors (such as momentum). He found that stocks with more tail risk do, in fact, have higher returns. If he’s right, investors get compensated for taking on extra risk. It’s just a different kind of risk than they thought—and one that’s far harder to see.
By Allison Schrager December 03, 2014
Photograph by Constance Bannister/Getty Images
There is supposed to be one fundamental truth in investing: If you take on more risk, you can expect a bigger reward. With new research suggesting that things may not be so simple, investors may want to adjust their strategies—or at least their expectations—accordingly.
Boston-based asset manager GMO recently looked at risk and return data for U.S. stocks from 1970 to 2011, and what the researchers found is surprising: The riskiest 25 percent of stocks—those most vulnerable to swings of the broad market—logged an average annual return of just over 7 percent per year. The least-risky 25 percent of stocks returned 10.6 percent per year. On a $10,000 investment over those four decades, the lower-risk stocks would have yielded more than $450,000.
Investors who took on more risk in search of higher returns should be ticked about this new information. Owning a stock whose price moves with the rest of the market makes your whole portfolio more volatile, and it’s reasonable to expect a bigger return in exchange for taking on that risk. But the 40 years of data suggests otherwise—and it’s not a passing trend.
Story: The Hidden Risk in the World’s Best Pension System
One explanation could be that investing has changed. In 1980, individuals owned 48 percent of stocks. By 2007, that proportion had dropped to 22 percent. The vast majority of stock is now owned by large asset managers: hedge funds and mutual funds that employ professionals to pick stocks. A paper from Paul Woolley and Dmitri Vayanos, both of LSE, and Boston University’s Andrea Buffa argues that the way fund managers are judged and paid has altered how markets function.
A fund manager’s performance is judged according to how well a fund does in comparison to a benchmark, often an index such as the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index. Because underperformance means losing assets, and beating the market is extremely difficult, most managers respond by hewing pretty close to their benchmark. For example, managers might believe that a stock is overvalued but feel compelled to buy more of it—which would further drive up prices, making the stock more volatile.
This effect is true for index funds—those designed to follow the market, rather than beat it—as well as actively managed funds. Index fund managers typically save on costs by buying enough shares to mimic the returns, while not buying everything in the index. If enough index-fund managers follow the same strategy, though, the relationship between the stock and the rest of the market changes because stocks are no longer chosen on their investment fundamentals.
Story: Millennials Are Lousy Savers, but Their Parents Were Worse
Duke University finance professor Campbell Harvey agrees that the risk-return relationship, as investors have traditionally considered it, may have changed. He also argues that that volatility may have taken on outsized importance, especially compared to other measures of risk. His research measures the relationship between returns and what’s called tail risk—the chance of an unlikely but major event such as a 50 percent drop in price. The recent financial crisis is considered an example of tail risk. (While tail risk can also manifest to the upside—as in winning the lottery—most people are more freaked-out by the remote chance of losing everything than they are motivated by the small odds of winning big.)
When Harvey performed an estimate similar to GMO’s, he included tail risk and other factors (such as momentum). He found that stocks with more tail risk do, in fact, have higher returns. If he’s right, investors get compensated for taking on extra risk. It’s just a different kind of risk than they thought—and one that’s far harder to see.
88m3
Fast Money & Foreign Objects
Yeah of course.
I honestly don't understand why their stock stays in the $20's
thats the main reason I'm big on CPG and ARX. Just off a glance their leverage isnt too bad and they still have good revenue / profit growth and oper cash flows.
Last edited: