Yes, that is correct. One person sells either a call or put and one person buys a call or put and the OI goes up by 1 on the calls side if it is a call transaction or up by 1 on the put side if it is a put transaction.
Short options are sold not borrowed. So they are not borrowed like a stock. OI is basically all and underline all open contracts both short and long. Volume is just the number of transactions. Volume is just the number of transactions that take place during a day. Please note that the options trade in pairs. Someone sells and someone buys. An open interest of 1means that 1 contract was sold to someone.........1 person sold and one person bought.
If you think in terms of pairs of options, the OI makes sense. Remember that options aren't as they are right not an actually entity. Someone who sells a call for $85 is giving someone the right to buy an equity for $85.00 and this can be exercised until the option expires.
So the short answer is yes when someone is short an option OI goes up by as many contracts as the person is short.
Doubling your investment in FB in one year is very unlikely. There has been no stock above 190 billion market cap that has doubled in one year. That is in no way saying it cant happen and maybe FB can have an exceptional performance that would allow that to happen.
No one really knows what the market will perform. Expecting FB to double is an unrealistic expectation.
correction: Left side is a few dollars higher than the right side.
There has to be about a 30 percent retrace on the handle. The right side is few dollars higher than the right side. This is not a good C&H which is about a 40% pattern.
This is all per Mr. Oneil
The C&H's that do well are the once that have very nice rounded bottoms and are conformed. The handle needs to have a decent retrace. You do have flag but the coils are not wound tight. With all this said, FB should travel well when it has conviction and share volume. I dont believe the C&H is going to push FB. Technically there is no handle because there is no retrace which should be around $7.
There is talk that YELP is a good take over stock. However, there has not been a 15 billion dollar offer made by FB nor has there been a 10 billion dollar offer by GOOG. Did you know the word "reportedly" means it has been reported? It hasn't been reported. I think you mean something else.
Yelp is a momo stock with a lot of beta. Its all right if you think maybe Facebook might buy Yelp for 15B but don't say it is fact and don't say it has been reported because it hasn't.
I don't know where you come up with this stories. If Facebook were buying Yelp, there would be a little bit of news. It would be out of the rumor mill and there would be 100's of articles.
You are saying the comment is not about the relationship between the two companies and then you draw a relationship. I wholeheartedly agree that there is no relationship between the two companies values.
.....................But if you do want to know how they assign a value to Snapchat it works like this: In a round of founding and investor puts in a certain amount of money (like 10 to 100 million). The dollar amount invested is divided by the number shares and this is turn is multiplied by the total number shares outstanding. These are private shares since the company is not public.
Here is an example of a fictitious company batswamp. Bat swamp has 100 million shares. An investor puts in 100 million dollars in a round of funding. The investor gets 1 million shares. Based on this investment the shares are worth $100/share. Multiply this by 100 million shares and the company is valued at 10 billion. That is not to say that others would pay this price for the company but this is a way that the value of the company is being reported and that is exactly how they ascertain the value of the company.
I don't see how the two are related. FB is valued at close to 200B and snapchat is worth 10B based on what some outside investors speculation on it's future value. The two are really unrelated.
Shame on The analyst who was probably looking at a split adjusted chart. GOOG stalled for a little over a year when it was a little over 470. It also stalled for several years after it hit close to 800.
These guys are numbers people and should not be making comparative chart analysis which is not valid. Also their numbers should reflect an understanding that GOOG had a stock split.
There was no profit to take from GOOG @ $100 because when the iPod they were over a hundred dollars. The briefly saw $99 and change and went parabolic from there. Do you mean when GOOG reached $300+ which was their first plateau? That is when you saw some sell side analysts.
Yeah they were very well thought out ideas.
FB is doing well and it is a good stock. I wish you success in all your investments.
I am not here to laugh at you. If it goes up, we will both make money. I may trade but I am very conservative and I am a numbers guy as you can see.Both of us are tenacious. ;)
I wont argue any further.
Your tangential response which has nothing to do with a butterfly trade is just filled with words and things with no numbers except pps. It would be nice if you could actually put some numbers behind your words so everybody can understand FB :D. I think most people understand that FB is doing well.
You sir are a tangential arguer. One thing I can say for sure is that something without numbers certainly is not the anatomy of the stock. It is your opinion and you are falling down in your argument. Because you throw a bunch of things on your post does not mean it is true.
It certainly does not look like it is nearing a hundred before next quarter by the current trend. So it does not look at least from this vantage point like it could easily happen.
Facts are not the future because it can't be a fact if it has not happened. GOOG went to 350 in about a year and a half not 2-1/2 years. Please write that in your book.............That is a fact.
Future values are opinion not fact. Where FB goes is based on the value the market assigns a stock not what we as individuals think a stock should be worth. That is a fact.
Listen to what I am saying. I am not saying FB wont grow and I am also not saying why or how. I am just saying that because GOOG reached a certain price does not mean that FB will reach the same price.
The fantasy is not where the number or price is. It is creating a scenario where you want the stock to go. Creating revenue sources that do not have a quantified value.
Here are a couple of questions for you:
If FB doubles its earnings will its pps double?
Will the market make comparisons to other stocks like GOOG and MSFT and AAPL when its cap reaches those stocks?
Now listen carefully. If FB produces the earnings based on all the items on your laundry list, how much are these values and how will they affect the pps? All these metrics will have values behind them.
If you want to use comparative analysis here you go:
GOOG will likely do over 64 billion in revenue this year
GOOG has 60 billion in the coffers
After the Whatsapp deal is closed, at a pps of $135 FB will have the same value as GOOG has today.
The consensus from analysts have FB valued at 86.15 at the end of 2015.
FB as a value stock would have to increase earning 8 fold to grow into its current value! That is pretty sobering and that tells you that the market has a lot of latitude in the price of a stock.
You can't make your numbers argument based on value. FB isn't a value stock. It is a growth stock. All value metrics as well as values of future business cannot be piled up on a hefty mountain and left there to ascertain value. The value or price is assigned by the market. If you remembered stocks like Iomega or @home, or RIMM, you will understand the capricious nature of the stock market.
I am not saying where FB will go but I am saying that we cant just place a number in the sky and expect it to happen. Right now FB's prospects are quite good and growth will happen but do remember there are no guarantees.