I don’t disagree, but whatever your thought about the politics of Obama is, I think no one can deny the economic uncertainty in which he had to make economic decisions in. And the economic circumstances are not like ever before. There are now great deviations between the expectations about the economy and the reality of it. Whatever economic variable he started targeting, it immediately lost its value as an economic indicator. As an example, his administration’s policies in reviving the housing market are successful but they are no longer a measure of overall economic health….
Interest Rates will stay low, just like coming out of the 1930's. Look at all the 30 year corporate bonds paying very low rates to holders. Union Pacific or Norfolk southern are prime examples. Look at their 1930's bonds none paid over 4% and stayed that way into the 1970's. Nixon and Obama are the same guys different days.
Watch Obama fail just like Nixon when he puts wage and price controlls on the Gougers. Down he comes. It is just that fee simple if you read Rothchilds history at all.
continued….although I know that the reality of an exit strategy may differ widely from theory. Our recent experience with the market’s reaction, have often been cited as reasons for not exiting.
I know that the idea of maintaining the positive market effects and desired operations in markets after exiting, might seem unachievable. But however idiotic or stupid my view may appear, I don’t think the recent market reaction is due to the exit strategy.
The market participants know that an exit strategy today, is an elegant construct—intervene strategically in a market over a finite period to make a long-lasting structural change in the market. The appeal of creating programs with a finite life is great in an era when the central government is being accommodative and the private sector becoming more self-efficient.
After note: As I coin the phrase “Superb Metamorphosis”, I think the term is self-explanatory but it might still seem vague. Some might not understand the link to this company’s board. Here is my definition which might help newbies view it more than just “nonsense.”
Superb Metamorphosis is recognizing the power of market forces to transform. It is not concerned as much with the short-term economic consequences, as it is concerned with the long term outcomes resulting from various strategies used in the financial world. I look at how financial markets and firms innovate. The degree of change sought and the motivations for the change; the concept fits well within the current trend in financial markets towards the “easing model” and its “exit strategy” of restructuring and personnel changes in order to withstand the increased competition.
From Superb-Mindset & Superb-Momentum to Superb-Metamorphosis: I start off by addressing the issue of “Superb Metamorphosis” by exploring the various theories and practices associated with the easing model. My intent is to examine how effective the model’s design is and whether we have realistic expectations of its effectiveness over time. Is the perceived worry to the “exit strategy” rational?
Some of us view the easing model as a transition strategy of limited duration, while others see a long term need for interventions designed to achieve a sustained recovery. Although, time limited interventions are likely to lead to limited results and might require a very long-sustained effort. And although achieving apparent success now, is no guarantee that the results and changes will be sustained after the exit or else, taper. With that said, this multi-year time horizon is generally accepted as a long enough time to achieve its objectives.
The widely held worry of the exit strategy is that it might be harmful, but to me, not as harmful, as the continuous intervention, with no real impact. Interventions in markets can do more than simply leave markets unchanged. Changes could result to outcomes that are counter to intended goals. Intervention in markets can result in harm that may delay a dynamic recovery.
The expectation that the intervention will have the same impact today as it did a few years back, to me, is unrealistic. If an intervention improved the market in past years, the same forces may undo the work now. The same interventions that positively transformed markets yesterday might un-transform or cause negative changes today.
Are these the same guys if so, why let them continue to do buisness...3 strikes and you are out? How many stirkes is that?
"The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged two investment advisers at Oppenheimer & Co. with misleading investors about the valuation policies and performance of a private equity fund they manage"
OK, now I understand your point of view. I actually was trying to get a conversation going since I don't really know too much about this stock but have a small position in ti based upon some research a while back. I will definitely look into the comments and recommendations from its analysts to see if their approach substantiates my outlook.
The major problem is the dual share structure of the stock. 100% of the voting shares are held by the CEO. The stock you and I can buy has no voting rights. A lot of institutional investors like to have some say-so in corporate governance and shy away from this type of structure. Also, it is very thinly traded (only 12MM+ shares outstanding).
Fair enough…if you are a first time reader of my posts you will probably have a hard time following my thought process…
I don’t post ideas like this stock is a buy or sell, and if I do, I make sure to elaborate on why that is and make substantiated arguments….
Now to your point, if you know the CEO’s "philosophy", then you would know that he believes one of the characteristics of his firm’s performance, is how well the economy is doing. Therefore, focusing attention to the economy is one way to gauge how well, or not, the company will perform.
Moreover, if you follow the weekly market commentaries and public notes to clients, by analysts and other company executives, as well as the TV appearances of chartists and others at this firm, then you would be able to understand that my posts are linked to their findings…it is my response to their prognostications and forecasts…after all, we all expect a financial firm to follow its own forecasts, so if those analyses are panning out as they have expected, then it is the easiest way to determine whether the company will have superb performance....if they are not, then we should expect it to do poorly...
Is this stock a good buy or what? I don't understand why it gets so little play and coverage. Anyone have positive or negative opinion on OPY?
I rate it a BUY!
What's with the nonsense posts by supermomentum, you lonely ??
The bears and even some bulls say that all this optimism of the markets is an illusion, it is a Fed induced rally and not a fundamental expansion….As we all know this rally is not due to current extraordinary revenue growth, superb margin growth or low price to earnings multiples but to me, it all boils down to the realization by investors that American companies are dominating the world and can easily expand market share if only they put their cash to work more aggressively. We need to see an increasing acceleration in money supply that will trickle down to the real economy.
With that said, I still like the hesitation by these institutions, it is proof that nowadays firms are more rational; many are still reeling financially from the financial crisis a few years back.
The fact that no mid/large cap companies are trading like a 50 cent-on-the-dollar investment, despite the stimulus of quantitative easing, is a very strong sign. Even as earnings and margins might still be on the normal side, the current trends capture the potential of a rising and explosive US investment-based mindset.
Based on the history of global investors to US based companies, we can be fairly certain that a strong rally will come soon enough. I don’t know if the spike in performance will come by month-end or year-end but I believe that we have in no way reached the top. A potential strengthening in the US will be the driving force and lead to a rise of all boats…. global markets will surely follow…
the most likely trend to follow is the strength of the economy….which will anchor a further rise in the stock market….
I guess this is the million dollar question nowadays…..Here is why?
Some like to use the rumors of whether “the Fed will or will not taper” to prove that markets move according to this idea. I too believe that this “whisper” did in fact play its role in price action. But only initially, to me, markets are really good at quickly switching to what should be the most currently relevant/appropriate focus and invest accordingly...
Here is a story that I think might better illustrate my point:
A minister told his congregation, "Next week I plan to preach about the sin of lying. To help you understand my sermon, I want you all to read Mark 17."
The following Sunday, as he prepared to deliver his sermon, the minister asked for a show of hands. He wanted to know how many had read Mark 17. The majority of the hands went up. The minister smiled and said, "Mark has only 16 chapters. I will now proceed with my sermon on the sin of lying."
My point here is not to question the majority of the audience raising their hands when not having “read” the chapter of the book….my point here is that the audience might have been tricked the first time, by the minister’s witty attempt to push his point across, but it’s necessarily doubtful that they will be tricked a second time.
And that’s exactly what occurred last Friday with the strong employment number. The markets did not sell off when asked if they had “read” the chapter. In fact, it had the exact opposite reaction: no one raised their hands! The “minister” thus had a very hard time proceeding with his “sermon” and helping them better understanding it!
Moreover, there are also those who claim that there is a rotation from bonds to equities that’s why markets soared on Friday….they are simply confusing the “affect” vs. the “effect”….as I have been recently writing, to me, stock buying, selling or rotating is affected by the strongest player effect…the markets no longer care if the boy cried “taper”!
pretty powerful move in equity markets, me thinks. but will this out-performance continue?
if you have been reading my past (sometimes cryptic and rich in mystical language) posts, you probably know where my focus lies now. i am no longer fed-focused since i don’t think the fed’s actions have any bearing in the velocity of money. i actually think, my new focus in determining the next directional move in markets is fairly reasoned and simplistic.
while the media has again failed to adapt and capture the reasons for the changing economic circumstances. others, like me, are trying to gauge possible or probable economic outcomes by following the foxy or hedgehog-like actions of these institutions.
to me, they are the strongest players today, not the fed. and again, my belief is that this will become more evident gradually, not instantly…
as always: just my personal opinion
Actually, they were one operation until the mid-1970's, so you were partially correct. At that time the B/D, the Funds and a separate money-management company became 3 separate entities.
I knew the funds and this company were separate....but for some reason I thought they had the same origins. I always remember the Oppenheimer Funds sponsored Wall Street Week with Louis Rukyser.
Thanks for the clarification.
You may be confusing this company with Oppenheimer Funds which is owned by MassMutual. Oppenheimer & Co. Is a broker dealer with no in house funds to my knowledge.
On my Schwab acct. I saw estimates ranging from .21 to .27. So I consider their number as being better than average.
I kinda like this little, out of the limelight financial. They are a bit of a boutique outfit with a number of funds that are popular with private money managers and financial planners. I wouldn't say their funds are outperformers, but they aren't awful.
The stock has traded above $20 in last 12 months and with improving numbers and the market likely to have a decent 2nd half I could see OPY tacking on 20% from here pretty easy.
I'm not sure if it was a good beat...since I don't know what estimates it outperformed? However, it is a good absolute number relevant to the current environment...that is, as I've pointed out recently, an environment where money supply is not accelerating, thus resulting in the rate of trading activity flattening...the growth dynamics of 0.27 are positive...
As always JMHO...