Palo, the move today doesn't make any sense, other than maybe the market makers accumulating inventory from shorts. The 10% move up is certainly not justified on a fundamental basis. I'm under water now, but I've seen this movie before. It usually doesn't end well for stocks in a protracted downtrend. If I'm correct, the volume will drop off more towards the norm in the coming days, and the stock will head back down.
GWRE had a weak report, with disappointing guidance. Today is your basic short squeeze, which will probably be faded, starting tomorrow. I'm thinking of betting against the market on this one.
Good theory, and maybe spot on. It's all about the money. All the "strategists,", "economists" and others are all after clients. Cramer? TV ratings and book sales. Jeremy Siegel? Book sales, and extra fees for guest appearances, and on and on. Frankly silversplode, I'm sick of all of them.
Some freaking economist on CNBC is touting a 45 YEAR chart, explaining why stocks are not overvalued, and investors shouldn't worry. That is not a misprint, a 45 year chart. They must think traders are really stupid.
Interesting perspective. I would argue it's considered more newsworthy because of the transgender decision, and how that's playing out in the liberal dominated media. Maybe Bill Clinton should become a woman, so that he can be the traditional first lady if Hilary wins in 2016.
But the market, or really the financial media, uses Greece as an excuse to rally, as if Greece is the only reason why the market could go down. Actually, to be clear, it's the futures traders that run the market. If they keep using Greece as a ping-pong ball, the markets won't have an opportunity for a badly needed correction. So to your point, you're correct, the fact the perception is it could be a Lehman moment, which is why they won't let it happen.
He told everyone to sell PANW when it was trading under $100. Now, only a few months later, PANW is "the best stock he's following". This is the classic definition of a fair weather guy. If you want to make investment decisions based on clown strategy designed to increase television ratings, go right ahead. PANW is a great company. My point is not to listen to Cramer, Tom Lee, Jeremy Siegel, Dr. Doom, Roubini, or any other CNBC guest who has their own agenda. They are not your personal financial advisors. As for Cramer, I just don't understand how the SEC can look the other way.
You really don't have to look further than the chart. This stock has been under distribution for months. I think it's headed to around $60 or so within a couple of weeks, regardless of what sell side analysts say tomorrow. As for an acquisition strategy as some have suggested, companies want growing brands at a reasonable price. I don't think that's Deck.
Of course you don't have to take my word for it, just watch the price action lately in MTDR, vs. other oil companies. The price dips have been bought, not so with some of the others. It has been in a trading range since early April, and I would anticipate an upside breakout soon.
Wasn't PANW the company Cramer said to sell when it was trading under $100? I still don't know how the SEC let's Cramer exist.
This IS the beginning of a sell off. When a bull market is over, most people don't realize that fact. That is, unless you watch the up volume vs. the down volume.
The only guest whose opinion I trust on CNBC is El Erian. He's very, very smart, and most of what he says is logical. Everyone else is strictly entertainment.
He told this to CNBC. I'll bet CNBC doesn't have him on as a guest anymore. Keep in mind, Cramer, Tom Lee, and Jeremy Siegel are still very bullish, so this adds fire to Paulsen's thesis.
If you think there's further downside, or that the company will go out of business, you don't buy. But if you think the company will hire a turnaround warrior as its CEO, and the company will recover and all the flooring issues fade away, you accumulate at these low levels.