Recent

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

Commerce Bancshares, Inc. Message Board

bearofbleecker 495 posts  |  Last Activity: 22 hours ago Member since: Jul 27, 2000
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    This dog can't seem to hold any gains.

    by rbk1767 Mar 4, 2015 3:35 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 4:01 PM Flag

    There they are, right on time. 275,000 shares @ 103.06.

  • Reply to

    This dog can't seem to hold any gains.

    by rbk1767 Mar 4, 2015 3:35 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 3:53 PM Flag

    Right at the close, we should see a large block cross @ 103. And perhaps another @ 103.50. That's where they were passing it back and forth today.

  • Reply to

    If GILD drops below 100 again i will seriously

    by ernstr43 Mar 4, 2015 10:38 AM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 3:12 PM Flag

    Doubling up on a falling stock would be a questionable decision. You are probably thinking, "But if it pops back up, I'll miss it!" It sounds to me as if you are already long enough to benefit from any rally in the stock price.

  • bearofbleecker by bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 2:47 PM Flag

    MLV & Co., a Houston-based investment bank, has raised their pt from 30.5 to 32, maintaining a "buy" rating.

  • Reply to

    My interpretation of recent trading.

    by bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 12:19 AM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 1:46 AM Flag

    Frey, I was under the influence of Buchanan's 12 year old Scotch when I posted this. This is a blended scotch which is periodically put on sale at CVS (where I "shop for wellness") for under $30, your Best Scotch Value in my book. The drawback is that it has some kind of dispenser cap which requires you to shake the booze out in tiny spurts - developed, no doubt, for stingy Scots bartenders. (A "double whisky" in the UK is only slightly larger than a single American shot.) The first time I faced this contraption, it befuddled and infuriated me; however, my son-in-law went to his I-phone and found an instructional video. The web is a wonderful thing. I didn't know that the czars drank stout.

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 12:53 AM Flag

    "Institutional" ownership is deceptive. If you hold your shares through a brokerage (Schwab, Merrill, TD Ameritrade, etc.) they are held in their name and therefore "institutional" Actually, according to Yahoo!, institutional ownership of GILD declined by about 29 million shares (1.9%) during the last quarter of 2014. I don't know how you hold shares without them being institutional other than stuffing them under the mattress or posting them for sale at some above market price. In the past - I haven't checked lately - short positions were also listed as institutional ownership. So some widely shorted stocks would show more than 100% institutional ownership. (e.g. Herbalife currently shows 128% of the float held by institutional and mutual fund holdrs.)

  • Reply to

    My interpretation of recent trading.

    by bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 12:19 AM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 12:36 AM Flag

    (cont.) So what were those large "dark pool" trades" about? Half a million shares yesterday and another 400k or so today at a dollar lower. Did Fidelity Bio Ultragrowth (all fund names fictitious) pass off some shares to Fidelity Stodgy Growth and Income? There are a lot of institutions anxious to tiptoe out of this one, I think. Nevertheless, I also think that Gilead is a formidable company (Note my quaint avoidance of "amazing" and "awesome".) They made a mistake in letting ABBV into the HepC business, and, I think, another mistake in announcing the dividend and buyback on the heels of a disappointing earnings report. (in terms of projections, not earnings) As I have opined here before, I think the pharmas are ready to sell off again. Since I have some positions which I'm disinclined to sell - companies which could be acquired - it makes sense to me to hedge these positions with some shorts. So I am shorting GILD and AMGN at the moment. Which no doubt colors my interpretation of events. My real message is that this is a stock which is worth what the market says it's worth. It's silly to believe that only we have recognized some huge undervaluation here. Therefore, I would be cautious about putting all of my eggs into this one particular basket.

  • bearofbleecker by bearofbleecker Mar 4, 2015 12:19 AM Flag

    TR, Raleigh, and others here are obviously more into technical analysis than I. (This is a subject upon which I am profoundly ignorant). When trying to discern a pattern, everyone tends to see what they want to see. My own perceptions are colored by a lot of cynicism about the behavior of MM's and investment banks. I will start by saying that when the company reported that the effective discount on Sovaldi/Harvoni was not the 25-30% which had been projected as a worst case scenario, but 46%, this was a seachange. When the company announced a large buyback and the institution of a dividend, this confirmed the change. Several analysts subsequently lowered their price targets by $5 (yes, a couple actually raised their pt). But there was no serious damage done until Credit-Suisse actually downgraded the stock and provided detailed projections. Last week, the stock seemed to rebound. However, my observation has been that when large entities are trapped in a bad position, rather than sell the stock, they buy and walk it down at leisure. That is exactly what happened last week - at the open, the MM's bought a small number of shares at the market, spiking it up and getting the retail investors excited. After which they pinned it in place and sold or shorted the stock. If you had put in a GTC short order above 105, those orders would have filled in the first half hour and you could have made money every day but Friday, when it couldn't quite breach 105. (The illusion that the stock is about to break through 105 is key to selling the March 105 calls, which is the easiest least disruptive way to short the stock.) The shrinking volumes showed that the retail investor had no more dry powder and that there were no other buyers. Those large dark pool trades accounted for about half a million shares of the volume in the last two days, today's block going off at a dollar lower than yesterday's. (cont.)

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 3, 2015 7:33 PM Flag

    Oops. I meant 103.

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 3, 2015 7:32 PM Flag

    I think this would be a good time to consider diversifying out of that heavy concentration on pharmas, Raleigh. Incidentally, I believe this stock was being heavily shorted today @ 130.

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Mar 3, 2015 7:22 PM Flag

    If this stock is indeed under accumulation, how do we explain the extraordinarily low trading volumes in recent sessions, which is not paralleled by similar drop-offs in CELG or AMGN, the other main factors in the IBB? My own belief is that the institution of the dividend and buyback on the heels of the disappointing news about discounting transform this from a growth stock to a value stock. In spite of all the happy talk here about these events, I think few of us bought this stock for a 1.7% dividend and the prospect of steady earnings bolstered by stock buybacks. In my opinion, the stock will have to find sponsorship among a new class of shareholders. Or find a new drug.

  • Reply to

    This ought to cheer some of you guys up.

    by bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 2:43 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 27, 2015 1:18 PM Flag

    If you don't review and acknowledge your mistakes, you don't learn from them. One of my major mistakes last year was to see the biotech selloff coming and not really do anything about it other than to sell some things. I should have shorted a portfolio of biotechs - shorting any one is too potentially dangerous.

  • Reply to

    Anemic Volume...

    by aadaytrader Feb 25, 2015 6:55 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 11:22 PM Flag

    I would suggest that volume is low because the only folks buying this are those who are enticed by the MM's fast runups on low volume at the open. Or daytraders. Retail investors won't sell because they are convinced it's about to break through 105. But institutional investors won't buy because they are befuddled by the 180 degree turn from a growth company to a dividend-paying, stock buyback play. (As the company acknowledges, all the projected growth in per-share earnings over the next few years comes purely from the anticipated stock buybacks.) In the absence of a major new product announcement, this should go lower. Undoubtedly, they will push it up towards 105 again tomorrow - perhaps even above there. But next week we may see the lack of buying interest begin to be reflected in the stock price.

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 5:28 PM Flag

    By my calculations, the increase in the price of PCYC today was worth a $1.29 increase in the price of IBB. PCYC is only 2.25% of the IBB. But it was enough to take GILD from 104.12 to 104.93 in minutes. Obviously, people bought the IBB to capture the gains of PCYC, which automatically meant that the IBB had to buy more of their top holdings: BIIB (9.67% of IBB), CELG (7.96%), and GILD (7.67%).

  • Reply to

    After hours

    by fdimatt48 Feb 25, 2015 4:43 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 5:03 PM Flag

    The current bid after hours is for 100 shares @ 104.40. Not exactly sizzling action.

  • Reply to

    After hours

    by fdimatt48 Feb 25, 2015 4:43 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 4:58 PM Flag

    You can't sell half a million shares after hours without moving the price. This is just late reporting of a trade - or series of trades - which were transacted earlier in the "dark pools". Meanwhile, volume continues to dry up. Today's was the lowest since Christmas of 2013.

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 2:53 PM Flag

    That ping was PCYC skyrocketing and taking the IBB with it.

  • On December 19, Gilead announced that they were licensing a BTK inhibitor from ONO pharmaceuticals. I owned 1,000 shares of PCYC in my IRA at the time, and knowing that their key product, ibrutinib, was a BTK inhibitor, I figured this news would hurt the stock (Gilead's mystique is that strong.) So I sold out at 130, intending to buy it back when it stabilized. It quickly fell to 120. However, I forgot to buy it back. That sudden blip in GILD at 12:45 was the IBB surging on the news that PCYC is up for sale, which quickly took it up to 220. The Gilead mystique cost me $90,000.

  • bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 25, 2015 12:59 PM Flag

    Note that since I posted this on Feb. 12 (to a rousing 3 to 1 thumbs down): CHRS 27.82 - 32.36. EPRS 7 - 9.47. PFNX 12.16 - 13.85.

  • Reply to

    Brisk action today in March95 puts.

    by bearofbleecker Feb 24, 2015 1:09 PM
    bearofbleecker bearofbleecker Feb 24, 2015 6:31 PM Flag

    Well, someone just bet around $200,000 that this will close below 95 on March 20. And they did it in one big lump today. If I see that position continuing to build, I'd be suspicious.

CBSH
42.16+0.04(+0.09%)Mar 27 4:00 PMEDT