I've been buying July $20 Puts at $0.75 which is cheap. The assumed vol is just 20% and the price does not seem to be taking into account the impact of paying out a dividend on the stock (ie $20.15 minus $0.50 dividend = new price of $19.65)...this is a cheap way for shorts to add to positions.
> So while I may have made a minor math error, you have demonstrated a gross misunderstanding of the entire mreit business model, while putting together a guaranteed to lose portfolio.
The portfolio was not guaranteed to lose. If it were guaranteed to lose, you would be guaranteed to win by doing the opposite. And buying NLY at a 60% premium to book value was not a guaranteed winner.
What was dumb here was not the idea of betting that the price/book premium would contract. What was dumb was your belief that a portfolio short NLY and long mortgages would be a _guaranteed_ loser.
Well jethro, I see you're still attending the double naught-naught school of economics. By all means, keep your nickels under the mattress but watch out for Ellie's critters-'specially those rascally raccoons. You either are a disgruntled ex-employee or know little about the turnaround Jamie has orchestrated. This stock will double in twelve months whether you participate or not. I frankly don't care-I was asked my opinion and gave it.
Note that the 2004 EPS estimate is 14 cents. Who on earth would think that a stock which is trading at 60 times "2004 earnings" is a good buy?????
> I don't even dislike you which probably comes as some surprise
Yes, I'm surprised. I hope you take the humor I've put into this post as just that (or attempted humor, if you don't find it funny), and nothing more.
> I guess I just hate to see one person doing all the talking so "my" agenda is to encourage more banter and hopefully bring us all one step closer to the truth-whatever that may be.
I would be happy to help you in your crusade against monologues by pointing out some other message boards where one person does all the talking. I'm really not doing "ALL" the talking. If you'd like, I can point you to a message board where one person really does do all the talking. No one posts to his website, so he uses multiple IDs to make it look like his forum has traffic. Working together, perhaps we can uncover his agenda, tabulate the frequency of his postings, and debate the meanings of the words he uses.
> I especially like stocks whose eulogies have been exhorted by the Kramers of this world.
Kramer - as with pretty much everyone else - sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong (except Buffett, who is usually right). It's more important, IMO, to focus more on the facts rather than other people's buy or sell recommendations or price targets. Whether Kramer likes or dislikes a stock doesn't make it more or less of buy or sell in my book. But if he present some facts that support a case, this can be a good starting for research.
> One such stock, GLW, has netted me a 5-bagger since Oct & will become a 10-bagger possibly by year-end
Good for you. I mean it. Though, I would substitute a "might" for "will." It might become a 10-bagger and this might happen by year-end. But I sense that we view probabilities in different ways.
> In your dictionary "might" means don't count on it and "awhile" means until tomorrow.
I'll address the second part first. Going to dictionary.com, I find this definition for awhile: "For a short time." This is, in fact, the meaning I intended. I do not use "awhile" to mean tomorrow. Rather, I mean awhile to mean a short time, where the exact duration is not specified. Recall that I said, "I'll check back occasionally to respond to replies to my posts." I could not predict how quickly responses would appear. As it turned out, both you and x_stock replied the next day. So, depending on the speed of replies, "awhile" could have been shorter (if someone had replied within minutes) or longer (if the first response took several days).
As for the definition of "might," I find this definition at dictionary.com: Used to indicate a certain measure of likelihood or possibility (Example: It may rain this afternoon). And this is the meaning I intended - some measure of probability (as opposed to certainty). If someone tells you something might happen, do you count on it? I'm picturing this:
Weatherman: It might rain tomorrow. There is a 40% chance of thunderstorms.
[Next day, no rain]
voiceofreason69: No rain?!!!
Weatherman: I said it might rain - might, not will.
voiceofreason69: In your dictionary "might" means don't count on it.
voiceofreason69: I was counting on rain!!! I was walking around with an open umbrella all day!!!!
On the subject of definitions, I suppose "I'll even let you have the last word" means "I expect you to reply; afterwards, I'll reply" in your dictionary?
> I never intended to prevent your digressions-only to point out their frequency and consistency.
While you're at it, why not compile some statistics as well? Postings per day, mean time between postings, etc. Every day, I'll update the mortgage REIT yield trend summary (until I tire of doing so), and you can update the capm3 posting statistics. (Just joking, please don't take offense)
But, yet again, with this sentence we have more fodder for semantic debate. From dictionary.com: digression: The act of digressing or deviating, esp. from the main subject of a discourse; hence, a part of a discourse deviating from its main design or subject.
I would say that my discussions (not digressions) have held pretty close to the main subject, NLY, though in discussing semantics with you now, I am now digressing.
I was hoping for more discussion of NLY, but it looks like semantics is the focus instead. When people use the word semantics, they often use it with negative connotations; please, strip any negative connotations you might perceive from my use of the word - I mean semantics only as connecting words with meaning.
> I knew you couldn't keep quiet-you like the limelight too much.
From your phrasing, it might sound like I was trying to keep quiet, but unable to overcome an addiction to Yahoo! message boards. I assure you that I have started the 8-step program for kicking the habit. Eventually, with the help of Message Boards Anonymous, I shall prevail! But, I said I would respond to replies, which is hard to do while keeping quiet at the same time. As for liking the limelight - well, perhaps I reply because I like the limelight or perhaps I reply because people raise points in their replies to me that I feel should be addressed. I'm going to guess that the latter is the reason why you replied to me.
> If everyone has an agenda (as you say) then what, may I ask, is yours?
Would you believe that my agenda is to be in the limelight as much as possible by posting on the NLY Yahoo! Message Board? I couldn't make it in Hollywood, so I settled for this instead. Consider: what is the purpose of stock message boards? To exchange information perhaps. Now, look around - I think you'll see that on most boards, people tend to either a) ask for or provide information, b) provide the bullish arguments (or maybe I should say "arguments" - usually, I just see things like, buy this stock, it's going to go up 10 times!), or c) provide the bearish arguments. I think it is easy to understand why so many posts fall into categories b and c.
> I neither pump nor disparage any stock however I question those who do.
Questions are good. But on a stock board, I usually hope to see more questions like, "what are the implications of the relative proportion of fixed and floating rate instruments in the portfolio for earnings going forward, given the recent changes in the rate environment?" If a recitation of facts about a company sounds like pumping or disparagement, this may tell you something.
> My position is irrelevent but I'm neither short nor long-my horizon is fairly narrow.
I suppose that I could equally say that my agenda is irrelevant. In matters of relevancy, we must ask, "relevant to what?" Your position (or lack thereof) is relevant to your postings on this message board because, in general, longs will be tilted against bearish posts and shorts will be tilted against bullish posts. Usually neutral posters will primarily ask for information, while longs and shorts will argue one side or another. Since most of the facts that I have mentioned about NLY can be interpreted as bearish (depending on who is doing the interpretation), the fact that you seem unsupportive of my posts here would suggest that you are long. But if you say you're neither short not long - well, OK. I know your past postings here would be inconsistent with anything other than a long position - if you are neutral now, then you must have liquidated your long NLY position at some point.
> I'm a value-player similar to Buffett. I stay away from the trendy stocks and focus instead on the fundamentals. You see cap-we have something in common.
Good to hear. Yes, the fundamentals should be our focus. But, of course, there are almost always disagreements about the fundamentals, which is the main reason why people trade. If there were no disagreements, markets would be boring. And, unfortunately, sometimes markets do ignore fundamentals temporarily, but, in time, the fundamentals translate into news items, and govern the price action over long time horizons.
Thanks for info. Can'T type so all caps sorry, not yelling. Just bought glw and no I dont own either imo or dd any info you have I would appreciate as have cash in my ira that is burning a hole in my pocket. Tanks in advance.