As I said, I've a fairly simple plan for transforming your permabear noises (aka 'shzitt') into an steady income stream. Already way into the black on selling those March 5-strike calls. Not too many places you can make 10% premium on a now 20-ish% OTM covered call IN THE SAME FREAKING MONTH. If the price stays below $5, I earn that premium money for nothing. If it exceeds $5, I sell a wee bit of my utterly paid-for position, and can get those shares back selling ITM puts with the proceeds. If you had a clue about anything, you'd short premium, not equity. Equity is heading to Bubbleville - shorting it early is a good way to get so mad that you say things like "Kindly go and take a flying phurk at yourself" to strangers, further making said strangers look like they are making you into their buoy-itch.
Sticks and stones, kweef. And thanks most sincerely for all the one-sided, patently idiotic spew you've provided over the years - I doubt I could have made 8800% on this investment without you convincing at least some longs to dump their shares too cheaply, and I doubt the real money would have returned with such vigor if they weren't convinced you were nothing more than a foul mouthed buffoon playing a short-and-distort grift. So again, thank you. You are a non-idiotic investor's dream come true.
My strategy seems to be giving you another kind of stroke, short cakes. How's that Tesla short working for ya?
Some of shorty's spinned-up book-talked bashes are grounded in truth - OPTT did lose an anchor during the Reedsport project, which prompted a lot of anti-green political posturing masquerading as environmental/fiscal concern at the state level. The company responded by basically taking their toys and going home - there will be no phase 3 until Oregon backs off on some conditions that OPTT likely considers reneging on the original deal. Every heavy equipment development initiative will have it's share of expensive setbacks, and OPTT is no exception. They don't help themselves by consistently over-promising / under-delivering. But the dream is beautiful - put sturdy gizmo in the water, and it makes electricity without an input of fuel. If the issue is project management, Lockheed hopes to take that issue off the table. They have some not-so-secret weapons - material science is in a new golden age, in which the difficult becomes easier, the impossible or impractical becomes possible and practical. Think how far we've come from the Apple Newton to the iPhone. Or Superhydrophobic coatings. The people posting non-stop here stating faux-confidently (and lately, angrily) what can't be done are playing the short-and-distort game, and my specialty is waiting for them to huff and puff before boxing them out on the shares they need to shed their risk. Shorts like to say their hated equities are sure-fire zero shots, but the market just doesn't work that way, even on real zero shots - the price on those hurks and jerks all the way down - mostly because shorts don't do as they say (hold the short, and short more on any spike), they take profits when they fear the value players' immunity to short-spun-tales of zero-shot fantasy, and this process bankably raises the price. Long story short (pardon the pun) is you can invest LT at zero risk in these bouncy beans if you buy the big dips with cash back for bigger dips (very important!) and take profits in shares and cash on the rips.
Um, that's not how it works. We're on the downstroke from a high of 4.78, previous low 3.79 - you're using closing prices, which is only close enough for boring stocks where 2% moves are a big deal. You subtract the scaled levels from the high, not add to the low. The 61.8% retracement support is at 4.78-0.99*0.618 = 4.17. The next level down is full retracement (3.79), which must hold, or Fibonacci methodology says you have to go back to 2.11-to-5.06, and wait for 3.24 to get the 61.8% level. Furthermore, we'd all have to be using the same voodoo (or at least KNOW the differences in the various voodoos employed) to get any sort of Nash equilibrium here. The real questions are not "what price is a backup-the-truck-buy, what price is a dump-it-all-sell" (that's what idiots looking to get outfoxed do), but rather "what exposure levels do you target your allocations at a wide array of prices?" You will likely see a wide array of prices here over the next few months, so it's best to know how you plan to react to them in advance, lest you trade badly on emotion. Fibonacci is as good a plan as any, but if you're going to use it, you'd better use it correctly.
Those big insider buys were the reason I doubled down at 9.90 or so (well, that, and I think the shorts here are out of their dad-blamed minds for not more fully covering right after it was clear the insiders were bullish). I sold those blocks (a bit too early) to capture the profit and control my exposure, but at my current $10 cost average, I'm inclined to reinvest going forward - it's still the largest single holding in my Roth, and balances the usual high risk/reward stuff I self-manage. NLY is much better positioned to capitalize on whatever boo-scary, nutty nonsense the market throws it's way than most of the rest of the mREITs, and they clearly know the difference between a bubble and a panic caused by book-talking bozos saying "bubble!" and/or "taper!" over and over again. I'm probably the only one here who actually wishes they could suspend the divvy for a Q or 2 to better pounce on the next episode of stupid-reckless bond selling, but in this case, the main REIT strength is a weakness - they have to pay out what they have to pay out - hence, reinvestment makes more sense than heaping that 3%/Qtr on top of my cash pile...I'll still bid that buy myself via a bigger trade that captures the 3% share count increase, rather than let my broker give me a #$%$ bull-rush price that negates the value of "commission-free! wheee!!!", but obviously that's kind of a risky way to be a cheapskate.
Nope...just making fun of you, my dear ultra-maroon. You make it so very easy to do so. The market usually does what I think it will, but so do you. Tell you what...because you are so polite, entertaining, and informative, if you need cover, I'll sell you some March 5 calls for 50c. Better act fast, because someone else may beat you to 'em!
Yeah! There oughta be a law against making shorts eat their own poisonous cooking! Bail out kweef! Bail out hemmorhob! Nobody say anything nice about wave power! It hurts kweef's tender sensibilities when you do! But certainly not his account balance, doan-chah-noe! He posts here non-stop because he's all heart! His barnyard sounds are because he loves you! For kweef so loved the prospective long OPTT investor that he gave his only begotten time, that whosoever would listen to him would make no mammon whatsoever, but have everlastingly stable account balances. Amen!
I don't believe that at all - jeez, do you guys even read? Charts do all sorts of stupid things because traders are often stupid venal beasts, especially the ones who think trend is always friend. Trends reverse. Might as well mock hemmorhob too - read better dude...I said LMT is largely a reflection of the 2013 bull market trend - the 8% of that 100% is no more likely to be their wave power initiative than Putin posturing-then-eating-crow. The point is that LMT can make OPTT's financials anything they want them to be (including "bad", but I wouldn't bet on that, as I've said many times before). I have no time limit, but will bail if I don't like actual news. What you guys do isn't news in my book - it's a ham-handed attempt to manipulate markets. You're so bad at it that I can't help but take the other side now verbally, and am quite happy I took the other side of it financially after Jan 14..
"LM has no skin in the game yet" is a bit of a stretch, but hey...maybe they have some back-out-of-signed-contracts superpower. The bull market is what has LMT up 100% from a year ago and up 8% since Feb 10, but you can believe whatever nonsense you want to about the effect of the Victoria deal on LMT. The difference between your OPTT short getting harpooned and getting your zero shot isn't how firm you are in your conviction for that horseplop-case kweef always wants to flog. It's in how much LMT plans to squeeze you for the OPTT shares you owe. I think you do see that plan, or you wouldn't be so quick to disavow your short position. That you didn't see it by Jan 27 is the tragic-for-you bit.
So don't invest and get a better life than one spent arguing with we parrots or pirates or whatevs. The short bet here is still dangerous, much much more so than holding profit-in-shares. Sometimes you imply you agree with that judgment by protesting loudly that you are not short. You seem to have a problem with me holding house money shares on the chance that "coming real soon" finally does - why is that? Why would you think you get to talk your book in public without challenge? The market seems to think the Lockheed news is worth at least a $4-ish price. You really haven't explained why the market is wrong on this point, other than to trot out your old prejudices, slanders, horse-floggings and anger. Your anger is what sells me on the notion that I am playing this prudently. If there is a sell-off, I'll figure out where to box out. If the price suddenly (or gradually) doubles, I can sell half and still have my desired exposure. Wave energy will happen unless we come up with something better, that also doesn't send the rest of Greenland's frosting into the Altantic. Hard =/= Impossible, and NEEDING investors to lose faith in what you think to be a foolish idea is far more foolish. It's no wonder you bash and bash, but never admit to having a bet that would benefit your position if you were ever deemed credible. It's also no wonder that I don't believe you. What is a wonder is how quickly the market made you short morons pay for not booking the profit between the two PRs.
The two most prolific bashers are most certainly obsessed. Absolutely certain they have a zero-shot here, and seem to think we're stupid when we don't believe their claim to have no short position in play. Their main arguments are A) the PowerBuoys aren't in the water now, therefore cannot possibly work ever, and B) Company execs are paid too much, therefore investors should all be mad at them or something and sell all their shares in a huff. I'd rather sell some shares at a profit and wait for the fruits of patient investing with house money, but since I already did that, I just post counter-punch "toljasos" to give them a taste of their own medicine. 20% of my portfolio is cash, so if they want to try to shut me up with a bid pinned share price, I'm pretty much in bring-it-ya-twerps mode.
Keep on cherry picking, hemmorhob. But don't pick too hard, or your cherries will burst, and that can be painful - if you ignore that advice this time too, all is not lost - at last check, Tucks was still in business (as long as you didn't go "all in"). Fundamentals do indeed matter; you're just looking at the wrong ones when appraising this stock. When you name drop "Bitcoin" and "Ponzi" in the same paragraph (um, you forgot "Madoff"?), you're in Godwin's Law Corollary Territory. Three times book value for a risky tech stock is hardly the same thing as $20,000 per tulip bulb, but I for one welcome your comically desperate pleas for the market to see reason from your perspective - you short-n-bash guys are much easier to clobber when your zero-shot hopes get the better of your trading discipline.
When the SI is under 100K, my sell-the-OPTT-shorts-short-by-boxing-out-those-overconfident-and-greedy-little-punks advice will no longer be useful. Those who did what I did are sitting pretty right now, and you non-stop bash boys now owe roughly twice as much as when the price was near $2. I'm sure you'll protest that twice zero is still zero, but no one believes you're spending 20 hrs a week here just to do PSAs of doubtful merit.
The difficulty to investing in prematurely public startups is valuation. There are no fundamentals that matter, other than a) "do you think this thing they're doing can ever work?", b) "what's a ballpark on the lowest price can I get some sucker to sell it to me for?", and c) "is the short interest high enough so that the price will be volatile, and thus a reasonably profitable trade?" If all 3 are "yes", the rest is just refusing to leak capital to blowhards and their boo-scary stories. The fact that you're shrieking about your frustration with the market for failing to give your preferred profit on your short is the only one I need to stick with my already highly profitable play here. Obviously we differ on the answer to a); I-obviously-won-you-obviously-lost on b); and c) is the reason your short is making you shriek. The desire to have the market do something based on the facts as you perceive them is the crux of your folly. The more you complain that I am mischaracterizing your short position as such, the more it looks like I am right about that. Even if you are just some idiot wasting time preaching here, SOMEBODY is short, and your pained assertions are making them nervous in this absurdly durable bull market.
Not even close to true. "What you think" = "what gets you in trouble with market reality". If you don't keep your exposure under control, you can get creamed by unexpected bad news. Taking some off the table to lower your cost average ensures you have cash for shorty's best attempt at a bear raid. That's not what the CEO is doing in this case - it's a nip-his-idea-of-a-bubble-price-in-the-bud thing IMO. But if we ignore him, and take the price to $25 or something, it's a pretty good bet he'll sell more….he still has plenty. And the higher we go without good reason, the lower we'll go without good reason…markets make their own dynamics. But if you think this is a safe short, think again. You'll end up doing all the work of serving up a price for us to re-buy with house money, and have a heck of a time getting the reward.
Shorty got gobsmacked - look at the chart. I think they'll still be covering after all this - messing with grownup investors is dangerous to the short portfolio, and that's mostly what we have here.
Agree it's best not to overthink it. There is always a price to buy, no matter the stock or its company's issues. There is also always a price to sell. The chart is the story of where the highest paying buyers met the lowest offereing sellers. He doesn't WANT the price down, or he'd be all out of the stock. NEEDS cash? Very doubtful - he sold a lot more in 2011, and cashed in about $4M then, if memory serves. But he'd clearly rather have cash than excess shares right now, and that is good information (if not altogether welcome news) for us...we longs are fooling ourselves if we think we can hang on to every share, and bankrupt every short by playing patty-cake with each other at (pinky to lips) A MILLLION DOLLARS plus or minus a nickle. It had to happen sometime, and we had exceeded Nov 2012 the lows (7.25) by more than 100%. As to "If he knows something about a decline and sells, the company will be sued for insider trading", um, no. That's what the 10b5-1 is all about - it grants them safe harbor from any such liability. We could sue (and would certainly win) if they flat out lied about increased orders, but only an idiot would think they did any such thing - revenue will be up nicely. We long-timers have done very well here, and shouldn't cry over well telegraphed CEO sales that came in multiple parcels with ample time to react / lock in profits.
The only fact that actually matters to Kweef is the fact that he owes twice as much for his OPTT share deficit than he did 4 weeks ago. The only opinions he can accept are ones that concur with his straight-to-zero fantasy. The worst sort of stock-message-board nozzle, but at least he's a great barometer of just how much pain he's currently feeling (and by proxy, his tribe of deluded zero-shot fanatics).