Roubini has been saying 600 for a couple of months now. That's not news.
But 500 on the S&P? Unlikely, as he says.
Doesn't make sense whatsoever. Prices of shares are only relative to the amount of shares outstanding. What you seek in valuation. Should you deem BAC undervalued at $6, more so than ABK and MBI, then make the move. But not based on price.
Forget out remodeling and closing down stores. With flat and negative same stores sales comps, and flat or down earnings, what management really needs to do is either quickly pay down their debt, which seems unlikely, or renegotiate the terms. Because it seems to me that unless they get more favorable terms, RT will be forced to file Ch 11.
You're correct: Ackman is a portfolio manager. And nothing more. And with all the kudos he's gotten for calling the monolines 'right' he's gotten slammed on GGP and TGT.
He shorting the monolines and then giving testimony and directly writing the rating agencies and shouting out that they are insolvent is not only a conflict of interest, it's downright unethical.
"Ackman did do a good job in alerting the world"...or did he go on a crusade and show his powerpoint presentation to anyone that would listen?
Also, one can argue that the third downturn in November was a direct result of Moody's downgrade (late, and following several letters sent by Ackman, who had a vested interest in killing these stocks with his short positions).
Also, running around and calling a business insolvent is a bit of a stretch and might be sanctionable by the SEC. To say that they're overvalued is one thing, but to call them insolvent is like calling fire in a crowded theater, causing panic and adverse systemic reactions.
And talk about adding insult to injury, with the addition to Target, Ackman made an investment in General Growth Properties. I wonder if GGP's bonds are insured.
Johnny, perhaps the most retarted and conspiracy-oriented (albeit not even a good one) I've seen.
Quite elaborate, but no substance. Reminds of a lyrics from a song I know, "got to be goodlooking because he's so hard to see". Nothing here.
Inexperienced question. Said company just announced a small layoff. Q: is a company that's scaling down in a position to acquire another company? Next Q: is said company's layoff's a precursor and hint to its backlog?
Funny, you are the one bragging about your past position. Me, you didn't know my previous position. To assume that I missed the boat is, in itself, arrogant.
...and so you shorted at $7. Good for you; I'm happy you got the chance to capture a gain on the downside. Me, much, much earlier than you...
...and first with put options.
You're too funny. Your idea to have specific heads roll because the stock is down is very short-sighted. Question: what restaurant stocks is NOT down? The master of eatery demand, the consumer, is paying up for a host of reasons. Thus same store sales are negative...and not just at Ruby, but virtually ALL restaurants.
Firing someone because of this? That's shortsighted. However, you want someone's head to roll, target the AH would loaded up this company with debt years back. It is that that will force RT to file bankruptcy.
What does it matter if there was insider buying? Do you think it tells you something? Do you think they know more than you?
Look, if you followed the insiders buying at $6, you lost. If you followed them when they were buying at $3, you lost. Now, if they were buying here would you follow them?
The market is smarter and will sort out the 'sh*t'-managed companies and balance sheets from the rest. The market is telling you that those insiders will probably post losses on their recent 'insider smart' transactions.
Insiders buy, the CEO bought 100,000 shares at roughly $3. And what does this mean?
Nothing. Absolutely nothing.
Shut up. Listen. Learn. Just because the CEO of the company bought shares doesn't mean he/she's omnicient to the company's financials and doings. If all the 'powers that be' were that smart, they would have seen this broader economic and market disaster coming. Goldman Sachs, run by Harvar/Wharton MBA types. As is Morgan Stanley. Merrill Lynch. Lehman Brothers. Citi. BofA.
Guess what: they all -- ALL OF THEM -- got it wrong. No onwhat to do. e with their doctorates, their 'experience'...not even Warren Buffett got this. And Sec. Treas Hank Paulson and Fed Chairman Ben Bernake are utterly clueless as to do..shifty policy as volatile as the market itself, only adding to concerns and volatility.
Ruby Tuesday, mark my words: it will be forced to declare bankruptcy. The stock is telling you such. Look at the balance sheet and see how much debt they have. Then look at their debt debt servicability -- free cash flow, acid test. RT simply cannot mean its debt obligations. And even with penny pinching their locations to death, its demise is out of management's control...
and management know that and is only playing the 'buy time' game before the inevitable.
The overall market is down and remains weak an in bear territory.
Consumer-related stocks are suffering in general because of tighter spending resulting from higher energy prices, higher inflation expecations, lax consumer confidence, weak housing and tighter credit.
UA has already missed earnings. Few companies that miss only miss one time. Others usually miss again, perhaps a third time.
UA at $25 is attractive, but in my view, I think there's likelihood of further downside risk before things turnaround for a) the overall stock market; b) consumer-related and retail stocks; and c) UA specifically.
Never catch a falling knife. Wait for a basing, even an upward trend, then perhaps buy. To buy here I think is unnecessarily risky.
UA has been repriced already, like many other consumer discretionary companies. UA stock is still over 50% off its highs. I'd say that's a repricing.
I'm sure you didn't buy puts, otherwise you would have said strike and expiry.
Being a monetarist, the only thing that drives inflation is excessive liquidity, and too many dollars chasing too few goods.
With the Fed's lowering of short-term interest rates, its goal is to provide liquidity and ease the credit markets. Among other factors, should that work and that that additional liquidity be put to work, then inflation will be muted. If, however, we remain in a tight credit cycle, then that excess liquidity will fail to be put to productive use and result in more greenbacks with the same amount of production. Hence inflation.
The subposition that rising commodity prices results in inflation has little backing. Keep in mind that oil has gone for a low of $12/brl to current prices with little creep in inflation or little crimp in profit margins. Also, if you recall in the mid-late 1990s, wages were increasing at a very healthy 4-plus percent...product price inflation was really nowhere. Back then, everyone and their mother thought that wage inflation will result in product price inflation. It never happened simply because that demand resulted in more output with virtually no price increases. Duh, a no brainer...that is, if you're a monetarist.
The current weakening of the dollar is a function of several factors: (1) a weakening US economy; (2) more dollars in the system vis a vis Euros; (3) a deliberate move among oil-producing nations to diversify currency trading and holdings (China too); (4) obscenely low nominal and real yields among US Treasuries. With that, commodities have an inverse relationship to the dollar, and paperbacks in general. With that, it can, but not necessarily guarantee to result in inflation.
In my view, the rise in commodity prices is the NEW bubble. Fear driven buying of US Ts is another bubble. In my assessment, crude oil is nothing less than 40% overvalued, and I would avoid most commodities and the general energy sector.
You can definitely make a bearish case for UA:
-- consumer discretionary stocks suck and won't work during slowing consumer demand.
-- when all or most consumer discretionary stocks are down, it's hard to beat the trend in you're in the sector, no matter how good the fundamentals.
-- P/Es are compressing. High relative P/Es should compress more.
-- Good news falls on deaf ears, and bad news is heard around the world.
-- Initial costs of UA's shoe line might have come at the sacrifice of near-term earnings.
-- Marketing campaing might come at the sacrifice of near-term earnings.
-- Nike, Reebok, Addidas aren't jokes
-- UA's had excess inventory at one point, and who's to say that won't happen again.
There's your bearing case.
The bullish case:
-- UA is perhaps one of the strongest brands in the 15-27 year old male market, strong enough that it goes unaffected of overall economic environment.
-- Strong brand recognition and excellent marketing makes for the new-new chic.
-- UA is the first company to fill the gap between sportwears and outdoor wear.
-- While current forward P/E too high for many investors, the stock is trading at less than 2x forward sales...unheard of for growth stocks.
-- Organic growth will always result in higher assigned P/Es than growth throw acquisition or price or a mix of both.
-- Maintains market lead in performance sportswear, gaining share elsewhere, albeit from a small position.
-- Short position is ridiculously high, a mad dash to short on the obvious: the antipation of Superbowl euphoria.
-- If and when the market turns around, high-beta, mid cap growth will outperform the overall market.
I agree with your assessment in most market conditions, except corrections, which by definition, this is. Had UA cracked in more normal conditions, whether bull or bear or basing, I would agree. But during corrections, throw the typical technical analysis out. Most tech indicators lose meaning.
I also agree that the market is usually right EXCEPT on the tails. That's when the market is wrong, when the heard mentality sets in. Currently, EVERYONE is bearish; there's little confidence; most think we're in a recession; many think there's inflation creep; etc., etc. With that short levels and put longs are tremendously overblown. Stock valuations, in large, are terribly undervalued, compared to US treasury ylds.
Currently, I'd say that this is the time to shop. Get the list of stocks handy and take initional positions and add to them as market conditions improve.
>>>wild unelxlainable swing s constantly<<< Question: what high-beta, mid-cap, high growth company ISN'T volatile right now?
>>>but the stock has lost half its value<<< Question: what high-beta, mid-cap, high growth companies HAVEN'T retraced almost half its value? Especially consumer non-discretionary stocks?
>>>Look at the chart around the time the whole Super Bowl add hysteria occuurred. The stock went from 43-25 in about three trading days. That's not normal.<<< Question: who says that's not normal? Who says the markets are always rational? How says that someone, anyone, took advantage of that 'hyteria' and sold short into it? Who says that there weren't other unoriginal investors that road that coattail?
The 'manipulation' theory is and is ALWAYS the weakest theory. Fact of the matter is this: most high-beta, small-to-mid cap, particularly consumer diescretionary stocks are signficiantly down, and UA is no special case whatsoever. The fact that nearly all stocks are down and that UA is down more than the average is no special case whatsoever.
I'm fascinated why most Yahoo posters and day traders think that stocks are always manipulated. Everytime there's a run-up or down, you guys think it's 'big money' or the ''tutes', or the 'MMs' manipulating the stocks. But the fact is this: manipulation, if and when it does occur, is much more rare than you think. Bottomline, you're trying to explain away the unexplainable by using the crutch excuse of manipulation. Most often it's merely market forces at work, which can be confusing and irrational at times.
Per the heavy UA short postion, have you considered that the P/E is too high for this environment? Have you considered that consumers may ease their discretionary spending? Have you considered that heightened inflation expectations can broadly compress P/Es? Have you considered that UA's shoe start-up and marketing costs can grimp near-term earnings, sacrificed for long-term growth? From an investor perspective that focuses on technical analysis, did you consider that the chart looks bad? Have you considered that someone is merely making a big directional bet, and that that bet could be write or wrong? And have you considered all the piggy-backing some investors do when a big bet is made, exacerbating the stock's reaction.
With all these possible explanations, no one knows which ones are the chief reasons until it's history. But Yahoo posters and day traders overlook them and quickly conclude that it's nothing more than stock manipulation.