Sat, Sep 20, 2014, 6:28 AM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Lions Gate Entertainment Corp. Message Board

  • william.eburn william.eburn Mar 6, 2012 2:28 PM Flag

    This is what I find funny...

    If you're investing in stocks, you're probably not a complete idiot (although I'm sure we've all made some trades that made us feel that way).

    So WHY do these guys who're shorting the stock think that yelling "OMG LGF IS GOING DOWN SHORT IT! SELL SELL!" think that anyone with half a brain cell can't see through what they're trying to do?

    Relax... the market is down because Greece fails... EVERYTHING is down. LGF was bound to be one of them.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "Oh, Rhein, that's exactly what we were talking about--perhaps not your choice of language, but bottom line that's what we were touting when you were bashing."

      "Not your choice of language"... LMAO! Show me where anyone was writing about the growing value of A-list content, the migration of cntent to the digital platform, etc. Over six months ago, the "pumpers" were busy blindly "touting" the latest LGF movies, EPIX, Carl and TV Guide whilst the shares tanked 25%+ and I was short. I read mostly "debates" on the merits of releasing theatrical bombs like "Conan" and these bombs achieving ancillary/DVD sales. Yawn. It only produced "lumpy" results, or losses. A few people here have added incremental value to the LGF analysis---and for that I'm very grateful. Still, if anyone had listened to this "nut," their $10,000 investment in both CBS and LGF in February 2011 (LGF short then long) would now be worth over $140,000. (And I posted either on the day I made the transactions or the day after---and I posted the prices.) And I'm not including my Netflix short (because I may not have posted that on the LGF boards).

    • "I'm not a "new" investor, but I'm an "inexperienced" investor."

      Huh? "Inexperienced" eh?... one key is to separate the BS from good, objective analysis. Over half of that "good" analysis will be wrong anyway (at least the part that's skewed to land investment banking deals). Good luck. And don't listen to the idiots on cable/TV.

    • Oh, Rhein, that's exactly what we were talking about--perhaps not your choice of language, but bottom line that's what we were touting when you were bashing.

    • Ah. I'm not a "new" investor, but I'm an "inexperienced" investor. And I feel there are a lot of little things I can learn from others. Figured if there was something blaringly obvious that I wasn't seeing it was worth asking.

    • "Yes, yes, exactly what we had been trying to get through your thick skull for months."

      Excuse me...

      I didn't see people writing specifically about...

      "The increasing value of A-list content..."
      "Owning the content owners and not the content aggregators..."
      "The increaing value of A-list content as it migrates to the digital platforms..."
      "Online distribution is changing content’s economics..."
      "Each media industry that has transitioned to digital platforms has watched its revenue slide and its market capitalization evaporate..."
      "I like content companies that own copyrights, have long-term library value, and global revenue upside potential, like LGF and CBS..."

      I could go on and on...

      These were some of my reasons for investing in A-list content companies, like LGF and CBS. While some postings here have been informative, the majority is (no surprise)... well... let's call it non-objective.

    • "Why were we Blind? Because we bought in the 4's & 5's? And you bought in the 6's & 7's?"

      Nice try. Put my phrase in the proper context and in the correct time period. They were "blind" because they were pumping the stock when, in fact, the stock was clearly not a "buy" but a "sell."

      And I was right.

      The company was still reporting losses, the fight with Ichan was ongoing, etc. I was shorting this stock when the "blind" were pumping and claiming I was "nuts."

      Yea... nuts to the tune of a 25%+ profit in a matter of months. Within a few weeks I covered my shorts and went long. Never fall in love with a company or its stock.

    • I like this one from Rhien on Sept. 28:

      "I think the company must reevaluate its model. Create/produce more made for TV/cable and sports content and far less theatrical releases. If "Hunger Games" disappoints, they'll have a huge writeoff and this stock will tank even more than it is now (as I've written in the past). They lose far too much money and create non-A-list content with these type of theatrical underperformers or bombs. Not to mention what it does for the stock."

    • <<<"See what I wrote about the increasing value of A-list content, the migration to digital platformsm, the increasing value content aggregators were placing on A-list content, etc.">>>

      Yes, yes, exactly what we had been trying to get through your thick skull for months.

    • "But many here were simply blind to reality"

      Why were we Blind? Because we bought in the 4's & 5's? And you bought in the 6's & 7's?

    • Yes... that's when I was short LGF and making $$$. Now go to July and August. See what I wrote when I covered... and then went long. See what I wrote about the increasing value of A-list content, the migration to digital platformsm, the increasing value content aggregators were placing on A-list content, etc.

    • View More Messages
 
LGF
33.92+0.47(+1.41%)Sep 19 4:01 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.