Let's gamble.
Speaking strictly on the merits of the stock (not on the morals), should I buy BP stock in the next day or two?
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BP
Printable View
Let's gamble.
Speaking strictly on the merits of the stock (not on the morals), should I buy BP stock in the next day or two?
http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NYSE:BP
Are you drunk again?
I don't think you'd lose money on it, but there's probably better stocks to buy for the long term.
If the new cap is found to have issues and it winds up dropping more, it might become a better deal.
I wouldn't. There's a lot of unknown potential liabilities for the company. Despite its fairly strong balance sheet and cash flow, there are other energy companies out there with similar financials but much less uncertainty. Certainly you pay for the lower risk (BP's stock is quite low right now) but I think there are serious questions about BP's medium-term financial situation. If you're looking at very long term investment horizons, though, it might be worth it given its fairly low P/E.
The best time to buy a stock is when a company's stock is in the toilet but the company's still strong. If you have an extra chunk of cash lying around, a fairly high risk tolerance, and you don't have any scruples about investing in the company that spoiled the Gulf, buy it. I think its a good bet.
EDIT: if you're going to buy, do it before the results of this new cap come out. If it ultimately fails, the stock's not going to take much more of a hit. But if it stops the leak, the stock may jump.
This is sorta unconstitutional, isn't it?
I agree the well tests could give a big pop. But I am concerned this will somehow inhibit their ability to grow their cashflow because of special regulations that impact just BP...Quote:
Meanwhile, a House panel voted Wednesday to ban BP from obtaining new offshore drilling leases or permits for as many as seven years. A separate House panel may vote as early as Thursday on a measure to make it harder for oil companies with a history of violations to drill.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...600444990.html
I think the violations part of that is the key. BP has several hundred violations that date back as far as 2005 they haven't accounted for, combine that with the accusations of the rig workers for further violations; should the government sit idle while BP continues to expand while ignoring both worker and environment well being?
I'm not sure I follow you, Dread. Are you objecting to the first bit (the vote to ban BP from obtaining new leases) as being unconstitutional, or the second bit about the vote to ban oil companies in general to obtain drilling leases if they have a record of being naughty?
Don't worry about it. When the leak is plugged and the most visible effects of the spill are papered over and Congress goes back to the Republicans at worst nothing more will happen. Yeah BP's going to spend a lot of money paying people off in the Gulf, but that's temporary and they make obscene amounts of money so will easily cover it and remain profitable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Nope. Why would it be? Are you claiming it's invidious?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Your objection to it is, of course, that it's not the standard bidding practice. Sorry Dread, but Congress is ultimately the regulatory body *yeah, yeah, these days it's the Executive branch that actually does it, but that's because Congress has been delegating more and more of its functions to the Executive since practically the first session. Constitutionally, the permanent regulatory authority still lies with them* they determine what the standards are. You literally can't accuse Congress of breaking the law. Because what they choose to do IS law. You can only whack them for being unconstitutional. One assumes you think any deviation from current standard practice violates the equal protection clause but that won't go anywhere, due to how they *and no, they're not unique in this* constantly violate regulations. Congress *and the Executive, using authority and functions Congress has ceded* have the authority to ban companies from operating in US jurisdictions entirely, for a host of different reasons. Doing so is not a matter for the courts, though it may be challenged there for being done on unconstitutional grounds. There is no judicial process, no set of civil torts or criminal charges for forbidding a company from operating, because that power doesn't lie with the judicial system.
...Arghhh!!! :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
...really? I beat out Rand, Loki, and Dreadnaught in picking potential stocks to invest in, and my whole education involving anything related to money and the stock market is Economics 101... :mad: ...I would've invested* back when it was at ~ $27 a share, which it was around several times for nearly 12 - 24 hours since I made that post. Hell, I wouldn't even have to have waited as long as Loki was suspecting, I probably could've dumped the stock today for a tidy $11 profit per share, or perhaps waited till tomorrow when it might actually hit $40, and gotten $12 - $13.
Edit: Back to your question, no, I would've bought it weeks ago when it was below $30. Its price is only going to go significantly up until the cap is successfully put on, and then a bit more when the relief wells are finished, then its likely to get hammered again as the government lays into it when its no longer necessary to have them around to shoulder the costs of the cleanup and compensation they have to dole out.
*If I had a significant amount of disposable savings just lying around, which I do not.
Deadline tomorrow: should I short BP stock?
What do you think you should do?
Probably just sell the few shares I currently have and not short. I've never really tried shorting before. But I could see lots of other people selling shares tomorrow, and there's suggestions that the oil cap might not hold out, which would cause another tumble.
I truly don't know, maybe one of the other money-grubbers like you has an opinion.
But considering that you are you, I would seriously suggest going with your own instincts.
Unworking? Take a couple of days in the great state of Georgia. ;)
Buying stock is "money-grubbing"? :rolleyes:
The question is---are you investing, or trying to time the market and act like a day-trader?
I think you can be reasonably sure that Wraithy took the comment exactly the way it was intended, Geegee. :rolleyes:
No doubt he did. What of the other money grubbers?
Maybe you don't own stocks or have investments, Lolli?
You're probably right. Just cash out now, and not take on any additional risk. This is already a much sooner payoff than I was expecting when I bought. (I wish I'd bought more)Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
I've been quite busy IRL so haven't had as much chance to follow this, but I replied to you back then saying that it was no "sure thing" either way. Like Dread said at the start of the thread, I said back then, it's gambling. You may think you know which way it'll go, but then again you may think you know who'll win Saturday's football game. Either way, its not a done deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by Illusions
I think we can be reasonably sure no one but you would ever take it badly, or think it was worth being a bitch over.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
I also think we can be reasonably sure that Wraithy doesn't want financial advice from you. I seem to remember your trying to tell him he shouldn't be investing in the stock market, and you don't seem to have a very good understanding of investments in general, either.
But, unlike you, I can admit to a general lack of knowledge in that area.
So, no, my investments are not in stocks. They probably should be, but the only way I would is if I thoroughly understood the stock market. And, if I felt the urge, Wraithy would be one of the first people I talked to looking to increase my general knowledge on the subject.
Sorry, I wasn't aware this was just something between you and Wraith.
It's not necessarily "bitchy" to take this thread with a wee bit of seriousness, even though it's in General Chat.
I'd never tell someone they shouldn't be investing in the stock market, but would say a trusted advisor is crucial. I'm comfortable with my investments and know more than quite a few people, and how to find good advice. :bored:
If it were just between me and Wraithy, it wouldn't have happened in a public setting. I have multiple methods of having a private conversation with Wraithy.
I made a simple comment to emphasize something Wraithy already knows perfectly well - that, while my advice on any number of topics is spot on, he should probably remember that I am filthy commie scum.
And I am pretty sure that is a sign that I am taking Wraithy's investments pretty fucking seriously.
Good decision. While it is true that in the long-term the stock market as a whole generally tends to perform better than cash savings or other non-property investments, it is still only a generality.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Averages are made up of highs and lows, they're not uniform. It would be a bad mistake to pick any individual stock semi-randomly and expect that to inevitably go up with the market, anything can happen to that company and any company can fail.
My personal advice as the most simplistic way to invest in stocks is: Don't. At least don't invest in individual, specific stocks. Invest in whole categories of stocks, eg a DOW Tracker etc - and even then only if you can safely save your cash for a very long time (decades) without needing to withdraw it. In the short-term or even medium-term a stock can perform badly. The FTSE stockmarket is down now on where it was 12 years ago. An investment 12 years ago of cash stuffed under your mattress would have performed better, let alone cash savings in a bank with compound interest.
For Wraith: Unless you know what you're doing, shorting is quite dangerous.
Then why tell him to "go with his instincts"? That's usually not a great idea for investing. Gut feelings have too much emotion and fear / mania.
For bp specifically, we had posted about this elsewhere. I sold probably half my shares and held the other half with a wait-and-see attitude. Disappointed they suspended the dividend, but I think it might come back over time. (They might even be merged with another company, who knows.)
My personal opinion is never try to time the market, even though it looks "simple" and appealing, unless that money can be flushed down the toilet. I'd never buy something with the plan of selling soon at some peak, because short term capital gains are taxed higher than long term ones. ie if you don't want to hold it for at least five years, then it's a gamble like Vegas or the Lotto.
Not that stocks aren't already a "gamble".
Since at the moment the main purpose of my investments is to insure two kids a college education (complete with grad school, if desired), without being dependent on financial aid at all (even though there is a reasonable expectation of scholarships for both) I just prefer safe investments.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
You're making assumptions again.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Indeed, I'd agree with that. Not sure your oldest's age but if you consider that the markets down on 13 years ago here in the UK - you wouldn't want that for yours would you!Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Best bet for stocks is for someone out of college saving for retirement decades away. Even then paying off loans nowadays and investing in property is probably a better and safer bet. I can afford either to buy a house or buy stocks, personally I want a house much more and long-term its probably better anyway.
She turned 11 today (and I have had a bit of an emotional moment realizing that I am old enough to have an 11-year-old). I probably could have been less cautious, but the last thing I would ever want is for the two of them to feel trapped out of some sense of not wanting to burden me. And, if they get scholarships and grants and all those other goodies, the money will be theirs after graduation for a down payment on a house or a few years abroad or whatever floats their boats.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
:coffee:Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
Awww, happy birthday for her. I definitely think you've made the smart decision.
PS She's the same age as my little brother :)
You're assuming Wraithy's instincts would be emotion-based, leading to a poor decision. A comment made to a specific person, even publicly, does not have to be made so that the lowest common denominator can read it and understand it. I did not say that anyone investing in the stock market should trust their instincts, I said that Wraithy should. I even advised him to talk to other people (meaning Randy and Wiggin, mostly) before making a decision.
So yes, you are making assumptions again.
Yeah, I know. I'll probably just stick to long positions, since I seem to be doing alright with that so far.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Anyone else find it hilarious that GGT is trying to lecture others about not giving in to fear/mania?
Fuzzy- My issue is with making laws that specifically ban a specific company from doing what its competitors do. Isn't that a Terri Schiavo nono?
Well, I decided to buy $300 worth of BP shares this morning. I got the money from selling a stock a while ago and it was sitting in a money market. Pleasingly, the shares went up 7% today. But assuming I sold tomorrow, if I take fees into account, the net pre-tax capital gain would be about $20.
Maybe I should have bought more shares. So either I sell tomorrow and make $20 pre tax (because 7% capital appreciation in a short unit of time is pretty dandy), or I go a bit longer with the gamble and assume that BP will eventually make this work and operate as a cash-producing company to pay off its responsibilities. And/or get bought out.
Since when is posting an opinion a lecture?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
Besides, it's not like I haven't been forthcoming over the last couple of years about my personal anxiety in market volatility, accounting rules, new laws, fin-reg.
It's one thing to be honest about normal worries, especially as the mother in charge of her childrens' finances. Lolli doesn't have a monopoly on that market. It's another thing that I am older than many of you here; I have to think of my own retirement funds as well as my kids' educational or legacy funds. I have to be able to go back-and-forth between those very different investment strategies. Excuuuuse me if the dichotomy shows through in my posts.
:donkey:
No offense, but taking tips from Rand, wiggin......that is not really an investment strategy, or asking for expert counsel. We have some very smart and savvy members, but NO ONE should confuse our discussions or debates as professional advice. Adjuncts only.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
In other words, all the things we post here are just opinions and not intended as professional advice. Well, other than saying find a reliable, trustworthy professional advisor that isn't posting in a forum General Chat to plot a strategy.
:bored:
Its no sure thing that your car is going to work in the morning, but you wouldn't say that you were gambling because you expected it to. You also wouldn't say it was gambling if people bet against Loki posting like a communist hippie. Why is that?Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I don't think anyone but you ever fucking would think that.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Wraithy asked, I told him what I thought. If he was looking for expert advice, he wouldn't be asking here. Looking for opinions from a group of people with different backgrounds is just that.
Yes, you "gave him your advice", then admitted you really have no fucking clue. :rolleyes: So don't act like we're not all just expressing what we think as lay people.Quote:
Originally Posted by littlelolligagged
If you're not comfortable with investments in the stock market, then fine, that's your comfort level limit. If you really want to discuss investments in general, then we could go into the long term "safety" of real estate or home ownership, since Rand brought it up. Mortgages vs paying cash and having illiquid property assets whose value is plummeting?
Or we could keep it light and simple, musing about buying stock in stressed multi-national energy corporations......
Yes, my advice to follow his instincts, knowing that his instincts have served him reasonably well so far. That's clearly a terrible thing to do, because anyone reading it would instantly assume it applied to them as well and that it went far beyond expressing what I think as a lay person.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
You may discuss whatever the hell you want. Make sure you continue to use your vast age and "experience" as reasons people should listen to you.