Shorting is an important part of the marketplace, and I accept it as rational blah blah blah
But I think I do have a semi panacea for being victimized by others shorting a stock when one is long that stock
Rather than risking one's investing in the usual vagaries, vicissitudes, hazards, and manipulations that are the reality of the marketplace
Try to only or mostly hold so-called "value stocks"
The phrase means whatever one says it means I grant, while to me the meaning is that the stock price is below or close enough to its "book value"
I am not claiming this is fool-proof wis-dumb because "book value" is amorphous and subjective, and value stocks by definition aren't generally quick "movers"
So, I request that we here try to list what the poster regards as his/ her "value stocks"
I suppose the alleged source or reference be cited or not, at the discretion & choice of an individual poster
PERHAPS with no or little comment, just list the things, because further research is always implicit, because of the inherent reality of pump/dump, which is the hyping of something while disingenuously actually getting shed of it
So, don't trust me but certainly do verify before actually plunging
Here's a few for now, I plan to post more, and hope you do too
CRESY, huge Argentina food agricultural & landowner, around $13, recent FORTUNE article-- I dunno if it's really a value stock for sure, and caveat emptor (because its 52 week low is around $4)
Multimedia Games, gambling, FORTUNE, around $5 a share--ditto
> Shorting is an important part of the marketplace, and I accept it as > rational blah blah blah
> But I think I do have a semi panacea for being victimized by others > shorting a stock when one is long that stock
> Rather than risking one's investing in the usual vagaries, > vicissitudes, hazards, and manipulations that are > the reality of the marketplace
> Try to only or mostly hold so-called "value stocks"
> The phrase means whatever one says it means I grant, while to me the > meaning is that the stock > price is below or close enough to its "book value"
> I am not claiming this is fool-proof wis-dumb because "book value" is > amorphous and subjective, and value stocks > by definition aren't generally quick "movers"
> So, I request that we here try to list what the poster regards as his/ > her "value stocks"
> I suppose the alleged source or reference be cited or not, at the > discretion & choice of an individual poster
> PERHAPS with no or little comment, just list the things, because > further research is always implicit, because of the inherent reality > of pump/dump, which is the hyping of something while disingenuously > actually getting shed of it
> So, don't trust me but certainly do verify before actually plunging
> Here's a few for now, I plan to post more, and hope you do too
> CRESY, huge Argentina food agricultural & landowner, around $13, > recent FORTUNE article-- I dunno if it's really a value stock for > sure, and caveat emptor (because its 52 week low is around $4)
> Multimedia Games, gambling, FORTUNE, around $5 a share--ditto
> Prospect Capital, around $9, FORTUNE--ditto
This is very counter to my simplistic argument, so take so-called value stocks with grains of salt, as I'll try to do
Differing views of prices are what a marketplace is about
The guy that's selling his stodgy value stock is happy to have the bargain-hunting buyer aka sucker
the short sellers have the power to destroy a value stocks price if they desire.they just pass around lies about the company,contact their creditors,start more rumors and drive the price down as they make big money..they use the internet to have a feild day at our expense.
> Shorting is an important part of the marketplace, and I accept it as > rational blah blah blah
> But I think I do have a semi panacea for being victimized by others > shorting a stock when one is long that stock
> Rather than risking one's investing in the usual vagaries, > vicissitudes, hazards, and manipulations that are > the reality of the marketplace
> Try to only or mostly hold so-called "value stocks"
> The phrase means whatever one says it means I grant, while to me the > meaning is that the stock > price is below or close enough to its "book value"
> I am not claiming this is fool-proof wis-dumb because "book value" is > amorphous and subjective, and value stocks > by definition aren't generally quick "movers"
> So, I request that we here try to list what the poster regards as his/ > her "value stocks"
> I suppose the alleged source or reference be cited or not, at the > discretion & choice of an individual poster
> PERHAPS with no or little comment, just list the things, because > further research is always implicit, because of the inherent reality > of pump/dump, which is the hyping of something while disingenuously > actually getting shed of it
> So, don't trust me but certainly do verify before actually plunging
> Here's a few for now, I plan to post more, and hope you do too
> CRESY, huge Argentina food agricultural & landowner, around $13, > recent FORTUNE article-- I dunno if it's really a value stock for > sure, and caveat emptor (because its 52 week low is around $4)
> Multimedia Games, gambling, FORTUNE, around $5 a share--ditto
> the short sellers have the power to destroy a value stocks price if they > desire.they just pass around lies about the company,contact their > creditors,start more rumors and drive the price down as they make big > money..they use the internet to have a feild day at our expense.
> JUST SAY NO TO "OBAMMUNISM "
Yes the shorts and particularly hedge funds can do enormous destruction
Theoretical book value "equity safety" is no slam dunk, though if organized s.o.b.s are able to keep shorting a stock price that is already at or below book value, then the board of directors may defensively have to sellout to a stronger party for near the "book value" or at a loss
No comment from me about politics doesn't mean that I concur with anti- Obamans, though non partisan mutual interest in this n.g. could hopefully not be gutted because I'm a Democrat and have run for my State legislature
re:huh?
I try to think for myself, and usually respond to substantive queries (pro & negative slants) as per the above example
> Theoretical book value "equity safety" is no slam dunk, though if > organized s.o.b.s are able to keep shorting a stock price that is > already at or below book value, then the board of directors may > defensively have to sellout to a stronger party for near the "book > value" > or at a loss > I try to think for myself, and usually respond to substantive queries > (pro & negative slants) as per the above example
Aside from an entity whose only asset is cash in an insured institution, where do you plan to find this army of geniuses to determine a true "book value" of EVERY publicly traded stock???? Will they determine "book value" on the price of a company that has to be liquidated today, in 30 days or if it can be sold piece-meal over a period of 3 years??? Not too long ago, Goldman & Merrill underwrote a company after doing their "due diligence" on the books with their own forensic accountants........a few months later, a BOGUS asset of $685M was discovered......The company went bankrupt.......If Goldman & Merrill missed it, where are you going to find this army of bean-counters to determine "True Book Value" of EVERY publicly traded stock??? ANYBODY can complain.......I respect someone with the brains to put forth a practical solution.........
> > Theoretical book value "equity safety" is no slam dunk, though if > > organized s.o.b.s are able to keep shorting a stock price that is > > already at or below book value, then the board of directors may > > defensively have to sellout to a stronger party for near the "book > > value" > > or at a loss > > I try to think for myself, and usually respond to substantive queries > > (pro & negative slants) as per the above example
> Aside from an entity whose only asset is cash in an insured institution, > where do you plan to find this army of geniuses to determine a true "book > value" of EVERY publicly traded stock???? > Will they determine "book value" on the price of a company that has to > be liquidated today, in 30 days or if it can be sold piece-meal over a > period of 3 years??? > Not too long ago, Goldman & Merrill underwrote a company after doing > their "due diligence" on the books with their own forensic > accountants........a few months later, a BOGUS asset of $685M was > discovered......The company went bankrupt.......If Goldman & Merrill missed > it, where are you going to find this army of bean-counters to determine > "True Book Value" of EVERY publicly traded stock??? > ANYBODY can complain.......I respect someone with the brains to put > forth a practical solution.........
You have interpreted my spiel about the phenomena as if I'm asking for you to hold a closed particular definition of value stock, while me and ye both know it's opinion and open-ended
Everybody seemingly wants under-priced stocks or bargains, "value stocks"
I posted 3 stocks that FORTUNE portrays as value stocks, and here again the three are opinions, and they (players) may simply have ulterior reasons such as trying to talk up their stocks, and they may really think their stocks are dogs
It doesn't matter if you do not want to cite sources or you post and/ or link detailed discussion
I am interested in names to watch, sleepers that I'm not aware of which you have reason to think are good values
If this response doesn't directly address your actual question/ point ... I am giving it my best but perhaps I'm not hitting the exact target that you want me to think more about
B-t-w: If you are long (or short), on a stock that would be appropriate to post too
> On Nov 8, 4:32 pm, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Robert Cohen wrote on 11/8/09 2:05 PM:
> > > Theoretical book value "equity safety" is no slam dunk, though if > > > organized s.o.b.s are able to keep shorting a stock price that is > > > already at or below book value, then the board of directors may > > > defensively have to sellout to a stronger party for near the "book > > > value" > > > or at a loss > > > I try to think for myself, and usually respond to substantive queries > > > (pro & negative slants) as per the above example
> > Aside from an entity whose only asset is cash in an insured institution, > > where do you plan to find this army of geniuses to determine a true "book > > value" of EVERY publicly traded stock???? > > Will they determine "book value" on the price of a company that has to > > be liquidated today, in 30 days or if it can be sold piece-meal over a > > period of 3 years??? > > Not too long ago, Goldman & Merrill underwrote a company after doing > > their "due diligence" on the books with their own forensic > > accountants........a few months later, a BOGUS asset of $685M was > > discovered......The company went bankrupt.......If Goldman & Merrill missed > > it, where are you going to find this army of bean-counters to determine > > "True Book Value" of EVERY publicly traded stock??? > > ANYBODY can complain.......I respect someone with the brains to put > > forth a practical solution.........
> You have interpreted my spiel about the phenomena as if I'm > asking for you to hold a closed particular definition of value stock, > while me and ye both know it's opinion and open-ended
> I posted 3 stocks that FORTUNE portrays as value stocks, and here > again > the three are opinions, and they (players) may simply have ulterior > reasons such as trying to > talk up their stocks, and they may really think their stocks are dogs
> It doesn't matter if you do not want to cite sources or you post and/ > or link detailed > discussion
> I am interested in names to watch, sleepers that I'm not aware of > which > you have reason to think are good values
> If this response doesn't directly address your actual question/ > point ... I am giving it my best but > perhaps I'm not hitting the exact target that you want me to think > more about
> B-t-w: If you are long (or short), on a stock that would be > appropriate to post too
Well, I re-read your post
Accounting is not science
It's an art
An asset, for example a shopping center, may actually be in deep doo- doo, but the bank still shows it as an asset
If they treated it as what it current market value really is, the bank would have to declare to its regulators whom would then close the bank
It's apparently the major ON-GOING dilemma of our financial economy
> B-t-w: If you are long (or short), on a stock that would be > appropriate to post too
I don't post my particular holdings as everyone has different circumstances and goals........What may be very comfortable for me may give someone else ulcers........ Instead, why don't you decide what you want a security to do for you and learn how to do your own research??? There are "Headcases" in this group who will get all excited about some dog and then "Copy & Paste" every bit of propaganda they see until the dog tanks(as most of them have done)........
On Nov 8, 10:55 pm, Blash <bla...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Robert Cohen wrote on 11/9/09 12:14 AM:
> > B-t-w: If you are long (or short), on a stock that would be > > appropriate to post too
> I don't post my particular holdings as everyone has different > circumstances and goals........What may be very comfortable for me may give > someone else ulcers........ > Instead, why don't you decide what you want a security to do for you and > learn how to do your own research??? > There are "Headcases" in this group who will get all excited about some > dog and then "Copy & Paste" every bit of propaganda they see until the dog > tanks(as most of them have done)........
i suppose you are being prudent, while imho stocks that are discussed in a mass circulation newspapers and magazines, are not usually the obscure kind to keep to one's self
anyhow, i hope to be posting that kind, and shall try to always qualify everything so fools do not think i am posting sure thing bets since there ain't none
