Nobody takes those articles seriously. HALO is a highly volatile stock in a highly volatile sector.
From Mad Money last night, Jim Cramer:
"Halozyme Therapeutics (HALO): "It has doubled. It is up 100%. The biotechs that are too hot are the ones we want to take off the table. That would include that one."
It should go without saying that he has no knowledge of anything specific about Halozyme.
It's good for you to leave the markets. You should only invest in mutual fund-type vehicles. You're so delusional it's bewildering and disturbing. Good luck.
He said you can buy DDD at 16X "next year's #'s" when they were talking about EPS....what does that mean? '14 eps aren't anywhere near $4.50
That's not how it works, as far as blaming GS. They price the deal well below where short term demand was (unlike the FB deal) and the guys who flip it back at a sale in the $40's are the ones who are profiting. I really think there is a lot of misunderstanding about how an IPO works.
That was a really botched way to go about things...if a company can't determine there is a market for their debt deal in advance, in this yield-hungry risk tolerant era, then don't try to do the deal and definitely don't put out a press release before lining up buyers...real bad sign. The existing debt must be getting crushed...may have to do a secondary at some point. Sold my small holdings in the common and wish I had sold my Jan Calls yesterday.
Yep - when there is an increase in volatility (and biotech is subject to wild swings), it's good to know the majority of holders are institutions with deeper pockets and long-term goals.
Berkshire Hathaway (Article in yesterday's Des Moines Register) has a subsidiary that is going to directly compete with Z and TRLA, and Apartment List on the rental side of things.
the only incremental buyers are short covering, and they will get less and less inclined to cover as Z specifically, and the momentum names generally, come in...soon there will be a rush to the exits under $70...I can't see where the support will come from to reverse this.
i've own the Jan$75 puts for a couple months - if this thing breaks $70 (and it feels like that could happen soon) it's a straight shot to low $50's it looks like. gl
I meant to say that even those who use the term bubble (like Barron's yesterday) usually concede that US equities as a whole are not overvalued, let alone bubbly.
You made my point for me...no one is really talking about a bubble in stocks as an asset class - outside of people trying to attract attention and who probably are too short...when the topic is explored in any detail, they bring up the areas of extended valuations I pointed out or refer to other secondary signs of historic concerns (margin debt, complacency, etc.)...in other words it's a straw man argument that there really is much talk about US equities being in a bubble.
I think using the term bubble is too broadly applied to the US equities, it's certain areas of US equities that look bubbly...you know, the feeling that internet 2.0 and solar and 3D printing and trendy restaurants are way out on a limb, and we see IPO's trade too high...it does remind me of tech at the end of last century. I think people don't recall how much more stock specific that correction was...a lot of non-tech names did just fine even as the Nasdaq got cut by 75% or so in a couple years.