All electric vehicles are eligible for a tax credit, whether they are Tesla or Chevie or Toyota. As the number of electric vehicles increases, net tax revenue decreases because of the tax credit and the fact that these vehicles don't incur any gas taxes. So, in time our politicians are going to have to come up with a new model for generating tax revenue to fund hi-way construction and repair. Of course higher taxes on green vehicles isn't going to help come election time and so I'm fairly confident that the reduction in tax revenue will have to become a near crisis before anyone acts. By that time, Tesla will be big enough that should they falter, they'll be given a GM style bailout. Ironic isn't it? We bail out GM and then provide tax credits to buyers of Tesla's so that Tesla can compete with GM. Everybody is happy!
Nearly a 50% gain to hit the target? Analyst obviously believes that current investors have no idea of true value. If they did, current price would be much closer to target. Sorry, but assuming that one analyst is right and thousands of institutional and retail investors are wrong is not a bet I want to make.
So analyst maintains a 1-year price target of 24 and raises the rating to overweight. Does that mean anything? First of all, we know that no one can predict the future other than to provide some probability. Yet no analyst says 80% of hitting 24. If the analyst set a target of 98, we'd automatically assign a very low probability to that outcome. Yet if it is close to the current price we give it 100% validity, or at least some do.
Now, to achieve that target, as least 51% of the investment dollars have to believe it. Belief is based on the soundness of the analyst’s explanation (p/e, sales growth, etc.), but it should also be based upon the track record of the analyst. Of the targets she set, how many have been achieved within a year? Of those that were missed, how bad was the miss? Would a weighted amount based on the target for all securities have generated a profit? Additionally, would it have beaten a broad index?
Oh, and it is not enough to believe the target is right. You also have to believe that most other investors believe it is right. That’s why big companies like GS are successful; their analytics may not be better than anyone else’s but most investors think that other investors will believe their targets.
And the overweight recommendation? How silly can you get? This makes the assumption that you have garbage in your portfolio and need to replace it with more of this stock. What if all the securities in the portfolio are rated as overweight? Doesn’t that make them equal weight? How can I go overweight on any of them without going underweight on another?
I’m convinced that analysts appeal to investors self-perception of being mathematically and logically sound investors. However, they know that they can’t consistently predict the future. Their only hope is to have you believe they can and they do that by presenting data that “makes sense.”
Another weekly option is expiring tomorrow and already price is hugging the 17.50 strike. Put and call priced about equally and at 33 cents each, you could buy each for about half of today's high/low range. So, expectation is clearly that tomorrow will be a flat day.
Of course. Upgrade? That's yesterday's news... literally. You have to know that analysts don't put out their recommendations without having some hidden agenda. Either they want to establish a good rapport with the company, give their invests a chance to get out at a higher price, or provide a more attractive entry point for a short position. Ya just don't know and by the time we hear about it at this level, it is too late.
New record for shortest spike: less than an hour. It's going up. No, it's going down. Maybe it'll be green at day's end. Then again, it might be red. This is a slot machine and while some players make money, most don't. Just the house is assured of a gain.
Yup. Sometimes the best thing is to have no news so that investors assume there is good news that they don't know about yet. As soon as something is announced, investors will be more rational and decide if the news is indeed good or bad. Right now, up is good.
Don't you just hate Fridays? Whatever strike is nearby is a price magnet. Not only with FCX, but every other stock with high option volume. Interesting: markets used to trade in 1/8 increments. Now they trade in line with whoever holds the most options.
Either Hillary or Bernie. If Hillary gets in, I'll have to take lots of drugs. If Bernie gets in, they'll be free.
They'll sell when Berlin decides to retire. Of course the sale will be at a small fraction of the IPO and even the secondary holders will be able to take a long term loss on their taxes.
No, the problem is that ROSG doesn't have any patients. Patents yes, patients no. Me? I've lost my patience amid prospects of a lack of profits. Poo-poo.
A few years ago it was oil companies that were greedy. Then Obama said the insurance companies were the slim bags. Now it is drug companies that bring the wrath of Hillary. Message to America: success is good, just don't overdo it.
If Hillary gets in, major pharma will be guaranteed profits. That is the only way gov't can negotiate prices. After all, they don't want to be accused of forcing drugs off the market. Major pharma, with their locked in contracts will then cut back on R and D, etc. to further enhance profits. With development stage companies pushed aside, competition will be lessened. Hillary sounds good in front of a bunch of people who want stuff for free, but her economics would get a D- in any class.
If Hillary wins, big pharma will be OK. Just as with Obamacare, big insurance is OK. It is the small players that are going to struggle. They tend to develop for rare diseases and between the low probability of success and Hillary wanting to cap high prices, no one is going to want to invest in the small cap drug/biotech business.