Rockstar teases of possible RDR 2. States they are very pleased to see continued over it's 'Western franchise' and to 'please stay tuned in 2015'
It's vague, but singling out 'Western' leaves me optimistic for a possible RDR prequel, or a sequel sans John Marston
well if we are going to be nitpicky you are technically right, his downside is capped at a paltry 2500% (roughly). His max profit is 4%. Great risk return ratio....
If you call this 'conservative' too, I have a bridge to sell you.
Selling options are far more riskier than buying options as your risk is not defined. Albeit the odds are with the options writers as the vast majority of options expire worthless and I've said luc is most likely going to have a well played position. Writing options works out far more often than not, but this fact by no means indicates it is a 'conservative' position. In fact it's consider they riskiest option play as stocks and markets decline far faster than they advance.
In fact the term "picking up pennies in front of a steamroller" originates from this type of trade and this type of risk return profile is considered a Taleb distribution.
Soliciting this advise as conservative on a board with many new investors is reckless.
right, so now you are betting a base will form, when technically we are seeing a breakout (golden cross, very bullish), and fundamentally we have seen declining YoY profitability for the past 3 quarters. From a macro perspective the S&P had it's worst week in 3 years last week and a global macro sell off unquestionably sees a decline in all stocks.
Again, I've said you could more than likely be right, but this is by far not a 'conservative' strategy as is evident in your 48% CAGR number. I can list a dozen scenarios in which you leave money on the table
yet the company can't get product from the west coast because of port delay's disclosed via earnings call, 4 days later California was hit with a hurricane which I doubt makes the port situation any better. I think you are right, but my point is you never know, and when you buy options you are betting you do know.
I hope your right, I bet you will be right, but I can't buy your argument that selling premium is conservative. It's more conservative than buying premium, but it is still very risky.
Yes, volatility is very high hence the premiums are very high, yet you are betting it will remain in a 5 point window.....
If you have a 55% chance they expire worthless, "the odds" are still in your favor, but your still flipping a slightly irregular coin
I just expressed two scenarios were you leave a tremendous amount of money on the table.
"pretty conservative way to buy shares" is were I'm getting hung up...
a 48% annualized return is by no means conservative and it does sound like your being greedy.
the only way you don't leave money on the table is if the stock stays between 50-55, pretty narrow range for a stock with implied volatility at 41, it's clearly a gamble. A conservative way to buy shares is to press the buy button and have a tight stop loss on, not writing options.
My hang up is you are soliciting a method as "safe" and "conservative" while I would contend that it is anything but.
for instance, if LULU preannounces worse than expected q4fy14 results (like they did Jan 13, 2014), the stock could fall 10 points easily (like it did Jan 13, 2014)
unless the stock bounces up to 65 by january....
You've capped your gain at 4% (average $2 at a roughly $50 base), and you have unlimited downside risk. The odds are with you and these expire worthless, but I have never been a fan of writing options
UA operating income TTM = 305MM
LULU operating income TTM = 373MM
UA market cap = 15 BB
LULU market cap = 7.5 BB
So let me get this straight vulture, LULU is the over valued? Yet LULU made 20% than UA in the past year, yet UA trades at nearly twice the market cap?
that's insane, this is an old gen game folks!
This is even a surprise to me. But the polished look, first person mode, peote, etc. etc. make the experience completely different on next gen.
Well done Zelnick
Troll (n) - A person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments by posting inflamatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.
You see Troll, I do have a point, being up over 40% off the lows is indicative of a trend reversal fool. Being soundly above the 200/50 dma is technically sound. Seeing a golden cross as we are right now is very bullish.
You on the other hand lack any argument whatsoever fool. When did I say I bought at the bottom? I simply state the past six month trend is been positive. You attacked me troll, you assumed I bought at the bottom and your jealous tone is evident in your absolutely irrelevant Dec 2013 comments. You got hosed it's apparent.
Please troll elsewhere
LOL, what a silly little troll you are....
Ummmm, no. Click 6 month chart, up 37%. If I said 52 week low it would have been up OVER 40%
By the way what's your point? Have you been short since Dec? Long since Dec? I'm not underwater, are you?
the weak guidance was not due to performance, it's due to port delay's and the lower Canadian dollar. Thus I think the street gave LULU a pass on guidance.
It looks as if store traffic has peaked, but with LULU doing over $2,500 per foot annually it's one of the best in retail, and on top of that, growth in online i.e. direct to consumer is far outpacing any drop in sss.
The exciting part is the topline growth. LULU is opening stores left and right and thus far has increased it's total square feet by 17% this year with store growth forecasted for years to come.
Also, one may give LULU a pass on income if we look at the company last year. It was a mid cap company with a small cap budget. The decline in profitbility is directly correlated with new management investing in IT and infrastructure, which ideal will help prevent another 'see-through' scandal, help with it's inventory issues all around, facilitate online sales, etc. etc. etc. mgmt has repeatedly called this year an 'investment year' so really, a decline in profitability makes sense. Next year will be the key year to see if these 'investments' paid off.
I find it hilarious when people talk about the brand being tarnished by Chip Wilson. I want to know how many LULU shopper's even know who Chip WIlson is, and I want to know how many watch Bloomberg. Target research released a study aprox 6 months ago (sorry not sure on the date, just remember the piece because it reinforced my conviction) stating that the brand loyalty at LULU was extremely high, more so than Nike.