What does "hardly an overwhelming show of confidence" mean other than you view this as a negative?
To me its neither but it could be either. It could be positive in that he exercised his options before March 3 annual results release. Why? You pay tax on the value of the shares at the date of exercise. Option exercises can be bullish bets because they think it will be more expensive to exercise their options later.
However, as was pointed out, he used shares to pay all the taxes and costs involved. On a ratio basis this wouldn't matter regardless of price. So why do it now?
If it was a negative why not exercise and sell all shares? He didn't cash out so why hold if he knows earnings will be bad? You can exercise later at a lower cost, even on a ratio basis since taxable income percentage goes down.
Finally sarcastic; without calling you a moron, FYI insiders (which he is) cannot trade on their knowledge of the earnings release. So this was likely all pre-arranged I'm sure you understand the restrictions on an insider.
You really don't understand the free enterprise system. The U.S. isn't a monolithic entity and neither is Canada. Some Canadian refineries can't handle heavy crude in their system. Most of our heavy crude refineries are on the gulf.
Some crude is produced nearer a Canadian refinery or where shipping to Canada is more efficient than shipping to a U.S. refinery. What's strange about that?
We get to refine (i.e. produce jobs as a result) their heavy crude and turn it into gasoline. The cost of a new refinery is in the billions and there isn't an economic need for one in this part of the world.
The free enterprise system produces the most efficient results regardless of the borders involved. This isn't something you've learned, rather you look at the absolute numbers as conveying something on an "us or them" basis. That outlook smacks of leftist ideologue to me.
To refresh; the cost of building as smelter is 3 times what it was when they built the last one but with the same margins. There is no way to economically build one with China close with lower cost smelters. If you read the CC your first issue was covered.
Your second management issue likewise; they have an agreement which lasts another 6 or 8 years as to the tax and export controls which can be assessed on them. All Jim Bob was saying is that it will be worked through. The government passed a law which is in contract to their written operating agreement. Indonesia will have to go through the process of dealing with the ramifications of their agreement with FCX. That will take time to deal with since there's no benefit to making enemies in the current government.
Finally let me add to the naysayers. A year ago this stock tanked since FCX was no longer a copper pure play. Huge criticism of related party dealings and the fact that MMR was acquired. With hindsight that was BRILLIANT!!!!! Who's now backing up saying - wow management thought 18 months - 24 months ahead!!!!!!
All of this makes me much more comfortable with a long-term position in FCX. Thanks Jim Bob and the team. Leon C. ain't no dummie either although I did flip out of GULTU - $600M mkt cap seems a little rich for a 3.6% ORRI.
If you would read the conference call you'd see your concerns were well addressed. Big down day I guess the shorts come out hoping to get it a little lower. Another .50 down and I'll refill my position although moving into line has been good on a relative basis.
Hmmm.... the very opposite of trend investing. The flip side to that technically is to buy only when the stock has exceeded its prior highs.
As to volume, I agree, a move up on large volume is significant versus any move on low volume.
However, trading a news based stock on technical makes no sense to me. In 45 days (assuming a February decision if that's still reasonable) we should know one way or another the short-term direction of the stock price.
That I think is king's point..... there isn't anything relevant to the stock price except what happens in court and what will happen in Parson's next ruling on damages and whether he uses contract law precedence or "creates" as PIP wants "new law".
If he reverses his prior damages theory, it's IMO over, we win. If he doesn't, this still isn't over as generally a new position can continue to be tested against prior legal decisions.
Since this is Parsons, and he hates SIGA; I give it better than 50/50 that the drama will continue for a number of years.
Lots of snow, few traders in the market today but MCP still running at twice the normal volume. This bodes very well for next week. However, let it fall a little more yet, I have an order to fill.
Mutual fund and other large holders routinely get calls from their brokers to have their shares borrowed. Interest is paid to them for the use of their shares.
However, while much has been made about the short interest; I'd like to make 2 points. First, who's to say that some aren't simply short against the box and no purchase will be required to cover the position? Secondly, today's volume was 5 times normal and we got a 12% increase in price. That indicates to me that shorts will be able to easily cover when they want.
It also says that the recovery is for real with such strong volume. So I'm excited for the next couple weeks not because of short covering but because the strong increase was done with tremendous volume.