***Official*** 2014 Stock Market Thread

[JEDI]

You would think so, but remember for ever seller there must be a buyer. If buyers aren't buying at 8% higher then the fund won't sell for 8% higher.

A double short fund means that the NET Asset Value of the shorts increases twice the rate of the single short fund. But ETFs rarely trade at exactly NAV. They usually have a premium to NAV of -.5 to .5%, but can differ as high as -3% to 3%.

There are many complications for valuing ETFs. Here's an example.
http://www.etftrends.com/2013/07/vanguard-etf-premiums-discounts-and-volatility/

Take a look at:
http://www.etf.com/DNO

and you can see the difference between DNO and DNO NAV.

interesting.

so buyers of dto are not compensated for the extra risk?

today oil plumented into $53/barrel territory.
at noon, dno is up 2.4% but dto is only up slightly more at 2.6%.

a saving grace is that dto's expense ratio is only .75% vs 2% for dno?

 

[Kwatt]

oil has fallen below support levels.
53.xx territory!

For a large part of the 1990's oil bounced around $20. Run that past an inflation calculator and it runs about $35. A lot of resources have been put into oil and may have driven the price beyond a base price. If so, it may have to fall to the inflation adjusted price. Or get bailed out.

Someone posted earlier about getting in at $40. After consideration I MAY put a little back in at that price. Although when things reverse to norm they tend too over shoot. I'll just wait and see. I no longer concern myself with the bottom 20% or top 20%. If I can just get the 60% in the middle I'll take it.

.

 

[Imp]

Show's over for the year. How'd everyone do?

What the market did for comparison:
http://money.cnn.com/2014/12/31/investing/stocks-market-2014-great-year/index.html?iid=Lead

Just taking the CAD$ value of my shit on December 31, end of day, last year and comparing to December 31, end of day, this year: 8.1%.

FML. I was at around 14% right up until the oil sector took a massive dump at the through December. My performance was probably slightly better because I upped my principal amount significantly in the latter half of the year. Oh well.

 

[FelixDeCat]

My DRYS calls have fallen in value by 50%, but still good until June 2015. IN THE meantime, I sold some January weekly calls against them, lowering my entry price by 10%. If i can keep doing this successfully I might recover my entire outlay and then some.

 

[brianmanahan]

return of about %8 this year, using a set-it-and-forget-it asset allocation with mid-year rebalance

 

[JEDI]

retirement funds made 10.2%.
I only beat the Dow.

but then again, I have a chunk of my $ in Bonds so it only makes sense that I didn't beat a 100% equity index (S&P, nasdaq).

not surprised that the Dow didn't go up that. 2 of the 30 components were oil companies (exxon, chevron).

IBM was the biggest DOW loser? WTF happened?!
investors didn't like their new corporate strategy of transitioning from a hardware company to a consulting company?

 

[richardycc]

15.33% from my 401k, probably lost 1% on the last day of 2014. I screwed up my rebalance, and was 100% in a REIT fund for most of 2014, that turn out to be a good move. I didn't really trade much in 2014.

 

[sm625]

IBM was the biggest DOW loser? WTF happened?!
investors didn't like their new corporate strategy of transitioning from a hardware company to a consulting company?

The answer can be found in this quote from this article dated Oct 20th 2014:

The company’s revenue hasn’t grown in years. Indeed, IBM’s revenue is about the same as it was in 2008.

But all along, IBM has been buying up its own shares as if they were a hot item. Since 2000, IBM spent some $108 billion on its own shares, according to its most recent annual report. It also paid out $30 billion in dividends. To help finance this share-buying spree, IBM loaded up on debt.

While the company spent $138 billion on its shares and dividend payments, it spent just $59 billion on its own business through capital expenditures and $32 billion on acquisitions. (To be fair, Ms. Rometty has been following a goal set by her predecessor, Samuel J. Palmisano, to return $20 a share to stockholders by 2015. Ms. Rometty abandoned it only on Monday.)

emphasis mine.

There you go. The only reason anyone in the market has any problem with spending $100+ billion dollars on the black hole stock buybacks is only because even $100 billion was not enough to meet these ridiculous lofty obligations to the shareholders. (Keep these expectations in mind as we go through the next few months) So they jumped ship en mass in search of prettier tulip bulbs. I imagine some of them "bought the f***in dip" in fracking sand stocks like EMES. Hahhaha. Funny stuff.

 

[Kwatt]

The answer can be found in this quote from this article dated Oct 20th 2014:



emphasis mine.

There you go. The only reason anyone in the market has any problem with spending $100+ billion dollars on the black hole stock buybacks is only because even $100 billion was not enough to meet these ridiculous lofty obligations to the shareholders. (Keep these expectations in mind as we go through the next few months) So they jumped ship en mass in search of prettier tulip bulbs. I imagine some of them "bought the f***in dip" in fracking sand stocks like EMES. Hahhaha. Funny stuff.

Some of the companies that borrowed to buy back also met the EPS goal (by reducing share count not increasing earnings) for which the officers were rewarded by....wait for it... issueing themselves new stock options and shares!

So the company borrowed to pay a bonus to the officers.

What a bussiness.

.

 

[Hugo Drax]

The answer can be found in this quote from this article dated Oct 20th 2014:



emphasis mine.

There you go. The only reason anyone in the market has any problem with spending $100+ billion dollars on the black hole stock buybacks is only because even $100 billion was not enough to meet these ridiculous lofty obligations to the shareholders. (Keep these expectations in mind as we go through the next few months) So they jumped ship en mass in search of prettier tulip bulbs. I imagine some of them "bought the f***in dip" in fracking sand stocks like EMES. Hahhaha. Funny stuff.

I don't want to disclose too much but Internally, IBM is a fucking mess from what I have been hearing. Some of the stories are quite humorous and sad at the same time.

Another shithole mess is Cisco.

 

[BoT]

anybody bought ETSY [ETSY] or GoDaddy [GDDY]?