Wall Street takes a long view. It is understandable that companies like Z (and, before it, AMZN and NFLX) will have to "grow into" their valuations, and the PEs may appear high for the next few years. But if you short Z now, you'll be crying when it's 300 next year.
If NQ does indeed have fraud issues, being bought out by a non-publicly-traded company and never having to disclose anything to the public ever again is the best way to handle it.
So you're saying that the 4,568 $4 puts traded today is not "high volume"? That controls 457K shares. Volume today was 5.2M.
Also, according to the option statistics chart on thinkorswim, only 18% of calls traded at the ask, while 47% of puts traded at the ask. That shows traders are mostly selling calls and buying puts. In what universe is that bullish?
Stock market will hit new highs after the next meeting.
For those of you who think otherwise, it’s going to be a long ten years, at least as far as Brian Belski of BMO Capital Markets is concerned. Belski thinks the current bull has at least another decade of 10% annual returns in it. In the attached clip he lays out his case.
“We’ve been on record since the 4th quarter of 2008 saying that U.S. stocks were entering a 15 to 20 year bull secular bull market. While people have come around to being more bullish I don’t think people believe we have another 10 years left.”
That lack of faith is perhaps the most compelling aspect of the bullish case for stocks. History suggests great stock meltdowns take a generation to rebuild.
Interest rates were higher in 2008. Housing sales have a LOT of room to grow as long as the Fed is keeping rates near zero.
Absolutely false. If you look at the last 4 years, SPX has never fallen more than 3% in a calendar week except for a couple times when there were those problems with Greece. The time to short a market is when it looks fragile. The current market does not look fragile. It looks extremely strong. You do *not* short a market when "everything looks smooth sailing". People who shorted in 1998 had to wait 4 years to see a profit.
I would guess that any auditor has signed an NDA - their report can only be issued to the company (or to regulators), not to the public. If PWC issues an opinion after they've been fired, it may never be seen by the public.
Longtop fooled Deloitte for years. Deloitte even said in its letter that it did not want to be associated with the financials from 2010 and 2011.
If NQ has so much money, why aren't they spending any? In 2012 they spent just $2.3 million in capital on computers and servers, to serve a growing company with 100 million monthly customers. That's a red flag. As I said before, I don't trust bank statements, I trust actual spending.
Maybe some active-trader brokerages' DARTS are down, but full-service brokers must be pretty happy that they can churn customers from fund to fund and still make the customers money.
Cash was real in Longtop, too, until it wasn't. Bank employees gave false statements. There's no way to tell if cash is real unless you see some actual verifiable spending of the cash, to a nonrelated party.
"processed millions of unique documents (including Company emails and other files), applied extensive English- and Chinese-language keyword search terms; and reviewed the resulting documents using the services of qualified attorneys" means "we grepped for keywords in emails".
You're kidding, right? Any significant statements by Obama about Iraq would be at night, in Congress, not during soap operas.