Virtually every stock has traded down in the PM, with exception of N. Should open lower, but there doesn't seem to be any panic.
Gold, silver are following the market down. Greatest concern for the US dollar right now is deflation. With everyone else devaluing their currency (either by market or gov't policy), the dollar gets stronger. There are some similarities to the Great Depression. A Fed rate increase right now would be a huge mistake.
My guess is that GDX, gold, silver won't go down as much as the overall markets, but won't go up either.
When you consider the dramatic increase in cyber attacks and our increasing reliance on technology for everything we do, you'd think this segment of the tech sector would be relatively insulated from macro market moves. You'd think, but obviously you'd be wrong. There's no argument that can overcome emotion, to the up or downside.
Markets were down hard today and yet ROSG was flat. How could that happen? Well, there are lots of intraday short sellers and they look for the best short opportunity. With ROSG small market cap, the opportunity for shorts was very small. Lots of big caps presented much better $ opportunities and thus they were the focus of shorts, rather than ROSG and other small caps. When markets are up, intraday short sellers stay away from the strongest companies and instead focus on companies like ROSG. Obviously long buyers also focus on those companies that are strong and offer the greatest $ return.
I understand beta. Do the analysts? Do they provide a 12-month fair value range, or do they just estimate the price based on who knows what formula? I do find it interesting that when the market goes down, all of the cautious analysts seem to get the most attention.
Yet cyber security should be in the market forefront. FEYE should beat the market; not lead it to the downside. Energy was down, today too. Yet some coal stocks actually advanced.
Upgrades and higher price targets? Shares down nearly $4 today. The analysts obviously missed something, but what was it? As I've mentioned before, I think the analysts put out targets on the basis of what they would like to see for themselves or their clients, rather than an objective view.
I want to buy lots of stuff too and as long as my plan is to make the purchases sometime in the future, no one can say that I won't. Of course Uber has an incentive to make a public announcement.: if you say you're going to be the biggest, hopefully that will reduce the likelihood of competition and get folks like you and me to invest in Uber before we ever see the first 1000 of the Uber SD Teslas on the road.
So who actually owns the shared PODS cars? Will it be a subscription service? If PODS are shared, obviously we'll need far fewer vehicles than we currently have and style and performance will not be a factor in purchase decisions. Reliability will be primary, with comfort a close second (much like the traditional taxi industry.) I think the economics of this model are too complex to say that TSLA or any other company will be the leader in the market. It is like trying to pick AMZN as the biggest internet retailer back in 1995.
You'd think the latest revelation of an insider hack would have increased the interest in web security. Guess not, but don't why.
It isn't the selling. It is the lack of buyers that is pushing the price down. Two sides of the same coin? Not really, since a strong base of willing buyers would provide a floor to the price, especially on light volume.
Don't ask me. I have no idea of how much you can afford to lose or hope to gain. I do think you need to ignore sunk costs. How much you paid should be irrelevant to your buy-hold-sell decision now.
I see that margins remained constant and with cash on hand at $171 million, it appears that there was a net decline in cash. Part of the decline was the cost of acquisition integration. However, I don't see any specifics on operating cash flow. Seems to me this is the critical measure. Anyone have the details?
When you are losing money, buying back shares serves only to increase the loss per share. The more they buy, the less the shares are worth.
So I hear there is a new regulation that requires companies to calculate and publish their CEO vs Employee pay. I think that can be misleading, depending upon the number of employees. Better to show CEO pay vs market cap. If that were the case, Berlin would likely be on the top list. His earnings (about $800K) is 2.3% of market cap. If the CEO of MRK were paid the same % of market cap, his annual earnings would be $3.8 billion.