While not huge, STKL's short interest has increased. Looks like shorts were attracted to STKLs high share price and perhaps they were responsible for part of the significant decline since STKL's 52 week high.
Looks like the shorts got this one right!
As long as they can source the "nuts" LOL.
For the most part, I have cut out chips and now I daily eat a bunch of almonds. I buy in bulk at WFM and fill up an empty Emerald canister for easy access at work!
Some time ago, some longs were salivating over DMND's rather large short interest--it is a fair amount lower, but still high today.
A/O 11/29, DMND's short interest was 6.18 million shares, down from 6.35 million.
But...given the significant decline in trading volume, the days to cover shot up over 25% from 25.68 to 32.71.
Statistics are fun!
A/O 11/29 figures, based on days to cover, SBAC is now the 14th most shorted of the Nasdaq 100.
SBAC now has 7.99 days to cover.
That said, SBAC's number of shares short DECREASED from 12.5 million to just under 10 million; a pretty large decrease, no? Days to cover was 6.82 for the previous reporting period.
The increase in days to cover is related to the decrease in SBAC's volume: 1.84M per day v most recent 1.25M per day.
"PG is still dog of the dow as usual and a tired company with employees that are just as bad..."
"Fired 10,000 GREAT pg employees"
So PG fired all the "GREAT" employees and let the "bad" employees remain employed?
Can you back up your first statement re "PG is still dog of the dow"?
"A quick Google search of "current dogs of the dow" yielded the list of the Dogs of the Dow A/O yesterday's close and PG is NOT on the list! A/O yesterday's close, PG was yielding 2.93%; the tenth highest yielding stock of the Dow is DD @ 3.00%.
It's fun to complain, but not fun to complain with bogus "information".
"The Dogs of the Dow is an investment strategy popularized by Michael B. O'Higgins, in 1991 which proposes that an investor annually select for investment the ten Dow Jones Industrial Average stocks whose dividend is the highest fraction of their price."
"The best way for both family and shareholders to make money is through stock price appreciation, not high salaries beyond what would earn being at a food company of similar size."
Yup. And the "best way" for the family to make money is to be grossly overpaid and periodically sell a few shares. It's not just salaries; car payments seem quite high as well and, of course, there is more.
jodadjian, your recent posts makes me believe your thoughts are somewhat based on fantasy.
You may benefit from reading the 12/12 Motley Fool post "Why I'm Sterring Clear of Diamond Foods".
Granted the writer points out he was wrong a year ago (so could he be wrong again? Sure!)
That said, here are couple snippets:
"Business hasn't improved yet, but the stock already has, so the cart has already been put before the horse."
"But let's try and stay realistic
The trouble with the hope that some white knight will save Diamond investors is that the buyout premium is now already priced in, and the rumors are at least a couple of years old now -- Kellogg and other potential buyers have had plenty of opportunities since then to buy Diamond at a much better price.
Diamond is clearly overvalued right now, but it's worth wondering if it would even be worth buying at a lower price."
Did you happen to notice management's recent description of DMND? "highly leveraged".
Again, I AM NOT AGAINST SPLITS; I am neutral. I find it sad that so many retail "investors" get a hard on when a stock they own does split. Again, in order for a stock to split, it must HAVE appreciated. Real investors invest for appreciation; they are concerned with the VALUE of their POSITION.
I also find it sad that many retail "investors" balk at buying a quality company's stock simply based on its share price. Why they don't start their investment process with the amount of money they want to invest, rather than the number of shares they want to buy is beyond me.
Some "investors" apparently want to buy MA, but it was too expensive, with its shares priced around 780 bucks. For those who wanted to buy MA shares and who think rationally, they would have paid the "expensive" share price and benefitted when the BUYBACK, INCREASE IN DIVIDEND AND the stock split were announced. The retail "investor" who didn't want to pay $780 per share, but is willing to buy TEN TIMES AS MANY SHARES at $78, lost yet another opportunity. Moral of the story: if you like a company, buy whatever dollar amount you want to invest. Do not consider the number of shares that will be bought (just like when one invests in a mutual fund). It has been decades, since there was a true benefit of buying round lots.
By focusing on the amount one wants to invest, rather than the number of shares, the rational investor does not lock him/herself out of a potential prosperous investment.
Hey compaqaudi, did you see "Why MasterCard's stock split will make it "priceless""? located under MA Yahoo Finance quote? Here are a few snippets:
"Of course, stock splits don't actually change anything for the company or investors' portfolios. For example, a MasterCard investor with 10 shares at, say, $800 the day before the split will have 100 shares priced at $80 after the split. No matter what, the total value will be the same.
So, why would a company go through all that paperwork? It's because a lower stock price makes it easier for retail investors to buy and sell shares in increments smaller than large institutions.
That also explains a lot of why the markets are seeing fewer stock splits than before. Over the past decade, retail investors went from owning 35% of the shares in large-cap companies to 20%, according to data from Thompson Reuters. For smaller companies, retail ownership is even less, ranging on average between 5% and 15%. Stock ownership, in other words, is overwhelmingly dominated by institutions that don't care about stock splits because they buy and sell in bulk.
Thus, for MasterCard's stock, the real drivers behind the 4% jump in price on Wednesday are the dividend and share buyback, according to CNBC contributor Gina Sanchez, founder of Chantico Global."
"No matter what, the total value will be the same" And that is why I care what the right side of my statement looks like (postion valuation) and not the left side (position description; # shares).
No question that oftentimes a stock split announcement can "add value to the stock price", and that's a great thing to experience if one was planning to sell at that time; it's a bonus. BUT...my contention is that over the long run, a company's valuation is based on its fundamentals and its prospects, not how much a share is priced at. As shark noted, there were a few items in their announcement including a div boost and buyback.
To those who argue that JNJ should split its shares because they are too "expensive", I wonder why MA is only splitting 10 : 1, given post split the shares will still be "expensive" in the 70's or 80's LOL.
Again, I'm not against splits, I just don't think they are anything special. What is special is when a company consistently increases its dividend and when a company's share price increases; the latter is something that usually occurs BEFORE a split!
P.S. "Would you like your pizza cut into four, six or eight slices? Either way, the value of the pizza is the same (no charge for the extra labor when more slices are desired).
I'll throw you a bone: VTI has performed about exactly how the well the CRSP US Total Market Index has YTD, 30.20% v 30.35%. Pretty basic stuff, no?
Full disclosure: I've been long VTI's "sister" fund, VTSAX for 21+ years and have been reinvesting the divs--total market funds represent 26.5% (and growing) of all my holdings.
Perhaps you should consider an investment in VTI or VTSAX--great foundation for any portfolio!
Splits also can make...employee stock grants more attractive,"
Really? I've never been in a position to receive stock grants, but being rational, I would be just as happy to receive a grant of 10000 shares of a $25 stock or 2500 shares of a $100 stock.