stock market was up today...

#9,976
#9,976
If the big 3 went out of business, the ships would just end up owned by different companies and they'd still exploit US consumer dollars. Bailouts aren't meant to benefit shareholders. I guess investor's capital gains are preferred over capital losses by the Treasury, but that can be said about any investment owned by US taxpayers.
 
#9,980
#9,980
05_never_again said:
All I can tell you is that markets don't go down in a straight line. Look at a chart of the 1929 crash, after 9/11, or the financial crisis. After downdrafts, there were these huge rallies that recouped large portions of the losses. They all eventually turned back lower. After dramatic declines like that, it doesn't take good or even OK data in order to rally...it just takes "less than apocalyptic" information. We've gotten a stream of that kind of information over the last couple weeks. Combine that with the unprecedented Fed stimulus, and you have the recipe for a bounce. If the economy does not begin to slowly re-open sometime in early May, I bet we do turn back lower.

Travel industry stocks are still absolutely decimated and have given up the entirety of their bounce. The banks have bounced, but are still 35% off the February highs. Despite the bounce, the S&P is still down 20% from the high as of this morning. By Scahill's tweet, you're left with the impression that the economy is still awful but the markets have totally recovered, like they are in excess of the old high, and that's isn't the case. I get it - he's trying to make a political point, but he doesn't understand markets.
Click to expand...

I know all the stuff you say in paragraph one. My view is that if you use 2008 as a guide, a 20% decline is not proportionate to the economic damage.

Hard to not be reach the conclusion that all the government/Fed money being injected into the system created an artificial bottom.


 
#9,982
#9,982
Velo Vol said:
I know all the stuff you say in paragraph one. My view is that if you use 2008 as a guide, a 20% decline is not proportionate to the economic damage.

Hard to not be reach the conclusion that all the government/Fed money being injected into the system created an artificial bottom.


Click to expand...

That's your view. The market in aggregate doesn't know and is still trying to figure it out, hence the volatility.

Also, firms talking about how the bottom is in, especially big guys like Goldman/JPMorgan, make me bearish. If they are bullish, it's likely because 1) they're really positioned long, meaning they a most other people have already bought in anticipation of future gains and 2) they need people to sell to.
 
Last edited:
#9,983
#9,983
05_never_again said:
If they are bullish, it's likely because 1) they're really positioned long, meaning they a most other people have already bought in anticipation of future gains and 2) they need people to sell to.
Click to expand...
You're saying analyst reports have ulterior motives? Cynical.
 
#9,984
#9,984
Velo Vol: You're saying analyst reports have ulterior motives? Cynical

Just so you know stock analyst reports are bias and do have ulterior motives. I'm retired from the institutional money manage business. Their is a big difference between buy side and sell side analyst reports. As is implied by the name, "sell side" is about getting people to buy stock, usually stocks the "company makes a market in".

Buy side reports carry more weight as they are more likely to be true analytic as oppose to "marketing" reports. Buy side analysis's tend to publish for internal use, typically not for marketing. Most buy side analysts get compensated for accurate analysis and predictions of performance.

When you go to a website like Marketwatch or any other service that shows analyst estimates and stock ratings, those are most likely sell side analysts. Also you will notice that very few of those analysts put out "sell" recommendations on a stock. They just drop coverage of a company when they think it's a sell.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volinbham, Velo Vol and 05_never_again
#9,986
#9,986
GoDucks349 said:
Velo Vol: You're saying analyst reports have ulterior motives? Cynical

Just so you know stock analyst reports are bias and do have ulterior motives. I'm retired from the institutional money manage business. Their is a big difference between buy side and sell side analyst reports. As is implied by the name, "sell side" is about getting people to buy stock, usually stocks the "company makes a market in".

Buy side reports carry more weight as they are more likely to be true analytic as oppose to "marketing" reports. Buy side analysis's tend to publish for internal use, typically not for marketing. Most buy side analysts get compensated for accurate analysis and predictions of performance.

When you go to a website like Marketwatch or any other service that shows analyst estimates and stock ratings, those are most likely sell side analysts. Also you will notice that very few of those analysts put out "sell" recommendations on a stock. They just drop coverage of a company when they think it's a sell.
Click to expand...
And in the off chance they do put a sell/downgrade on a stock, it's almost always after some precipitous decline that likely has already factored in all of or most of the reason the analyst is saying to sell it. Their "recommendation" is more a reflection of reality as opposed to something with predictive power. It's a marketing thing. They never slap sell recommendations on stocks in well-defined uptrends. If you follow their recommendations literally - buying when they say buy and selling when they say sell - it's a great way to lose money.

For example, a few analysts slapped downgrades on CCL in late March, after it was already 75% off the high. Not mid-March, early March, or late February, and sure as hell not when the coronavirus first appeared. That's purely because it looked silly to still have CCL as a hold or buy at that point.

Now, I'm not suggesting they could have known in advance that the reaction to the virus from the authorities would be to shut down the economy for an extended period of time, but I would virtually guarantee you that their buy side analysis was different than their sell side analysis on that stock.
 
#9,987
#9,987
GoDucks349 said:
Velo Vol: You're saying analyst reports have ulterior motives? Cynical

Just so you know stock analyst reports are bias and do have ulterior motives. I'm retired from the institutional money manage business. Their is a big difference between buy side and sell side analyst reports. As is implied by the name, "sell side" is about getting people to buy stock, usually stocks the "company makes a market in".

Buy side reports carry more weight as they are more likely to be true analytic as oppose to "marketing" reports. Buy side analysis's tend to publish for internal use, typically not for marketing. Most buy side analysts get compensated for accurate analysis and predictions of performance.

When you go to a website like Marketwatch or any other service that shows analyst estimates and stock ratings, those are most likely sell side analysts. Also you will notice that very few of those analysts put out "sell" recommendations on a stock. They just drop coverage of a company when they think it's a sell.
Click to expand...
How is the publicized "price target" derived?
 
#9,988
#9,988
Velo Vol said:
How is the publicized "price target" derived?
Click to expand...
An infinite number of ways. OK, maybe not infinite, but there's a ton of ways to do it. Both fundamental and technical. Ultimately it's just the analyst's opinion of where he/she thinks the stock is going. It isn't like there's just one or a couple ways that it is done.
 
#9,991
#9,991
GoDucks349 said:
Velo Vol: You're saying analyst reports have ulterior motives? Cynical

Just so you know stock analyst reports are bias and do have ulterior motives. I'm retired from the institutional money manage business. Their is a big difference between buy side and sell side analyst reports. As is implied by the name, "sell side" is about getting people to buy stock, usually stocks the "company makes a market in".

Buy side reports carry more weight as they are more likely to be true analytic as oppose to "marketing" reports. Buy side analysis's tend to publish for internal use, typically not for marketing. Most buy side analysts get compensated for accurate analysis and predictions of performance.

When you go to a website like Marketwatch or any other service that shows analyst estimates and stock ratings, those are most likely sell side analysts. Also you will notice that very few of those analysts put out "sell" recommendations on a stock. They just drop coverage of a company when they think it's a sell.
Click to expand...

I consulted for a company that did independent market checks on sell-side analyst reports. The key differentiator was explicitly not talking to management (conf calls, etc) of the companies covered and holding no positions in companies covered. Clients for this were institutional investors. Most findings confirmed analyst guidance - big wins for clients was when we had credible info that guidance was off (up or down).
 
#9,993
#9,993
volinbham said:
Impossible to make that blanket statement. Liquidity, backstopping and willingness to intervene all signal companies. Actions are taken; not taken based upon the signals and support.
Click to expand...
It got me to wondering if there will be any kind of Occupy Wall Street II agitation this year?
 
#9,996
#9,996
SpaceCoastVol said:
Here's an interview with Dougie from AAL. I particularly want to focus on the minute or so starting at 14 minutes in. I am curious as to what ya'll think about what he says

Watch CNBC's full interview with American Airlines CEO Doug Parker
Click to expand...
Sounded reasonable up until he said “we need to find ways around that”. Sounded like they were considering circumventing the loan terms. I’m not shocked they are putting limitations on stock buybacks and dividends. I would guess those are going to be standard terms to any public company seeking assistance with this loan money pool.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SpaceCoastVol
#9,997
#9,997
NorthDallas40 said:
Sounded reasonable up until he said “we need to find ways around that”. Sounded like they were considering circumventing the loan terms. I’m not shocked they are putting limitations on stock buybacks and dividends. I would guess those are going to be standard terms to any public company seeking assistance with this loan money pool.
Click to expand...
That guy makes me sick. They didn't have any cash reserves to speak of because they used them all to buy back stock and enrich the upper management so when a pandemic shows up on their door they come crawling to the government. When the government gives them money and says they only have to repay 1/3rd of it but these are conditions they say okay, but we still will figure out a way to enrich our stock holders and upper management.
They should just let the airlines all file for bankruptcy and let the cards fall where they will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rjd970
#9,998
#9,998
VolStrom said:
That guy makes me sick. They didn't have any cash reserves to speak of because they used them all to buy back stock and enrich the upper management so when a pandemic shows up on their door they come crawling to the government. When the government gives them money and says they only have to repay 1/3rd of it but these are conditions they say okay, but we still will figure out a way to enrich our stock holders and upper management.
They should just let the airlines all file for bankruptcy and let the cards fall where they will.
Click to expand...

Yep. Airline travel isn’t going away and neither are the airlines, but the company leadership needs to feel this pain.
 
#9,999
#9,999
VolStrom said:
That guy makes me sick. They didn't have any cash reserves to speak of because they used them all to buy back stock and enrich the upper management so when a pandemic shows up on their door they come crawling to the government. When the government gives them money and says they only have to repay 1/3rd of it but these are conditions they say okay, but we still will figure out a way to enrich our stock holders and upper management.
They should just let the airlines all file for bankruptcy and let the cards fall where they will.
Click to expand...
Yeah the only problem is that guys like him and the BODs aren't the ones that suffer. It is the 80,000 worker bees that lose pensions and homes. He's just gonna jump in his Tesla and go to his beach condo and clip coupons and won't miss a beat in his life.
 
#10,000
#10,000
NorthDallas40 said:
Sounded reasonable up until he said “we need to find ways around that”. Sounded like they were considering circumventing the loan terms. I’m not shocked they are putting limitations on stock buybacks and dividends. I would guess those are going to be standard terms to any public company seeking assistance with this loan money pool.
Click to expand...
You nailed the phrase. And that's the way they ALL feel, not just airline execs. And the sickening part is that he already has the workaround plan set up.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top