Stock Thread (3 Viewers)

[Buckna]

He's moving to cash....other than all the businesses he owns. lol.

Sounds like he's just freeing up $ to buy a struggling company or 2.

There was a thread on here a few years ago I believe that was one of those Financial Advice type columns with the topic "What would you do with 100K cash?"

Cuban's answer was keep it in cash and wait until the next correction/recession.

 

[Capella]

He's moving to cash....other than all the businesses he owns. lol.

Sounds like he's just freeing up $ to buy a struggling company or 2.

Cuban was talking about how amazon was about to run up the other day too. I like the guy but it’s hard to take any of these guys serious when they have this much money at stake. 

 

[Big League Chew]

buying MFA @ 1.64

 

[stbugs]

TTD has had bigger swings than most.  I closed out my 7/18 put yesterday at over 30% profit, just didn't want to deal with pain of having to watch it swing up again.  Seems like this may be the norm for the short term.  So far 4/4 on cashing puts on TTD  and will likely look to open another one up at some point.  They are getting expensive but the gains have still been pretty good with some sharp swings.

Looks like SNAP had a good quarter which couldn't have hurt.  I don't like SNAP but they definitely had a little room to grow their userbase.  Mid March is when ad revs will start their decline.  It will be interesting to see what Facebook reports in a couple of weeks and if they give guidance going forward (which will not be good).

Saw a related article today about OTT/CTV spend, at least what Pixelate thinks the recent trend to be starting in March.  This will be the trend that affects TTD across all mediums for the next six months IMO

https://www.bakercityherald.com/coronavirus/national/programmatic-connected-tv-ott-ad-spend-drops-14-in-the-face-of-covid-19-hulu/article_5e1be801-9515-5d2e-ac74-8f40ecabbe67.html

Also another related article, Coca Cola cutting ad spend.  This should be the norm for any brands that have had a decline recently.

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/04/22/coca-cola-slams-brakes-ad-spend-there-limited-effectiveness-brand-marketing

News like this should keep coming IMO

I still have a good stake in them, but 500 shares was way too much. Could have made a few more bucks today but I’d rather feel a bit safer. Over the next month (earnings report early May), I’d bet I will buy in cheaper than I sold today. Outside of AMZN, which is a special case for me, TTD was 4-5 times any other holding. Just too much in one pot and I did make a nice return over 30% in 11 months.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Anybody watching cnbc with chamath palihapitiya?  Dude is dropping knowledge bombs on Wapner again.   Scott keeps trying to counterpoint him and keeps getting destroyed. 

I love Chamath and agree with a lot of what he says.  I also think Scott does a good interview with him and neither of them are trying to "destroy" each other.  Wapner is doing a good job of getting Chamath to expand on his points and counterpoints.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I love Chamath and agree with a lot of what he says.  I also think Scott does a good interview with him and neither of them are trying to "destroy" each other.  Wapner is doing a good job of getting Chamath to expand on his points and counterpoints.

I agree for the most part—but Scott kept trying to pick holes in his argument at the beginning when Chamath was talking about what percentage of profits S&P 500 companies had allocated to buybacks over the past 11 years.  Chamath was saying that companies should only do buybacks once their balance sheets are rock solid, they spend enough on R&D—and he used IBM as an example..   Wapner then said—“well how about Apple then—they have done more buybacks than a lot of companies”—and thats when Chamath had to remind him that Apple has one of the strongest balance sheets around and have historically been criticized for holding on to too much cash.  If I remember right—Chamath said that up to 90% of S&P 500 companies profits over the past 10-11 years went to buy backs.  That’s just disgusting.  

 

[FreeBaGeL]

Tanker stocks down a little today if people are still looking for a good entry point.

 

[BassNBrew]

I do agree with this and have taken advantage but I am almost capped out right now. Loaded up on long-term bets rather than short-term. Really want some mgm though. 

I've been doing some pruning to raise cash.

Still like INTC but sold off a 1/3.  Up 5.13% today and 27% in 33 days.

Ditto JPM; 1.4% and 6.6%

MRO; 5% and 42%

WFC: 0.2% and -4%

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I agree for the most part—but Scott kept trying to pick holes in his argument at the beginning when Chamath was talking about what percentage of profits S&P 500 companies had allocated to buybacks over the past 11 years.  Chamath was saying that companies should only do buybacks once their balance sheets are rock solid, they spend enough on R&D—and he used IBM as an example..   Wapner then said—“well how about Apple then—they have done more buybacks than a lot of companies”—and thats when Chamath had to remind him that Apple has one of the strongest balance sheets around and have historically been criticized for holding on to too much cash.  If I remember right—Chamath said that up to 90% of S&P 500 companies profits over the past 10-11 years went to buy backs.  That’s just disgusting.  

I thought that was a good discussion that did move (or at least clarify) Chamath's argument a little from "no one should do it" to "no one should do it irresponsibly".

I think Wapner does a good job being unbiased and not getting stuck on his own arguments.  Even when Chamath went off the air where a lot of other anchors use that as an opportunity to pick on the argument without the other side there to defend itself.  Wapner even went as far as defending Chamath's argument against his own in some cases when talking to other analysts about his discussion with Chamath.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I agree for the most part—but Scott kept trying to pick holes in his argument at the beginning when Chamath was talking about what percentage of profits S&P 500 companies had allocated to buybacks over the past 11 years.  Chamath was saying that companies should only do buybacks once their balance sheets are rock solid, they spend enough on R&D—and he used IBM as an example..   Wapner then said—“well how about Apple then—they have done more buybacks than a lot of companies”—and thats when Chamath had to remind him that Apple has one of the strongest balance sheets around and have historically been criticized for holding on to too much cash.  If I remember right—Chamath said that up to 90% of S&P 500 companies profits over the past 10-11 years went to buy backs.  That’s just disgusting.  

He was awesome. Great interview as well. 

 

[lod001]

Cuban has more $ than he needs so he can afford to gamble that the market drops again. I mean if I had that kind of $ I would do the same.  You don't need to make 7%...10%...15% on your $.You already have more than you need to live comfortably. But if the opportunity arises where you can double that with no risk, you do what he is doing.

 

[sporthenry]

I thought that was a good discussion that did move (or at least clarify) Chamath's argument a little from "no one should do it" to "no one should do it irresponsibly".

I think Wapner does a good job being unbiased and not getting stuck on his own arguments.  Even when Chamath went off the air where a lot of other anchors use that as an opportunity to pick on the argument without the other side there to defend itself.  Wapner even went as far as defending Chamath's argument against his own in some cases when talking to other analysts about his discussion with Chamath.

I missed this one but caught his first one. I was mostly in agreement with him, just thought he went to an extreme to say let them all fail so glad to hear he moved off a little from that. 

I mean the issue is if we require companies to maintain the type of liquidity and cash that some people want, it will hurt future growth. That may be a trade off that people are willing to accept. But if you look at the marginal buyer of equities, it has almost all been corporates. So what would the market be if buybacks weren't allowed? 

This all ignores the fact that the shareholders would pressure the company to do something with their cash. Perhaps this changes that dynamic a bit. Now I'm not for necessary bailing them out because they got their money through dividends/buybacks/leveraged M&A. I just think it's a fine line we have to walk going forward. Perhaps it is almost like a bank's reserve requirement but anytime you start adding these regulations, it usually doesn't end well. 

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I missed this one but caught his first one. I was mostly in agreement with him, just thought he went to an extreme to say let them all fail so glad to hear he moved off a little from that. 

I mean the issue is if we require companies to maintain the type of liquidity and cash that some people want, it will hurt future growth. That may be a trade off that people are willing to accept. But if you look at the marginal buyer of equities, it has almost all been corporates. So what would the market be if buybacks weren't allowed? 

This all ignores the fact that the shareholders would pressure the company to do something with their cash. Perhaps this changes that dynamic a bit. Now I'm not for necessary bailing them out because they got their money through dividends/buybacks/leveraged M&A. I just think it's a fine line we have to walk going forward. Perhaps it is almost like a bank's reserve requirement but anytime you start adding these regulations, it usually doesn't end well. 

I think that was a big part of his point, but I think the largest part is that letting these companies fail isn't as bad as it's made out to be.  People look at Delta and think OMG they have 250,000 employees!  But if Delta files for bankruptcy that doesn't mean 250,000 people will lose their job.  There will still be airlines whether Delta or someone else.  Most of those will probably keep their job.

The people that really get screwed are the shareholders, which, as he mentioned, that's part of the game.  I think he used a poor choice of words in his initial interview when he said those people "deserved" to be wiped out, but I think his real point was that those people (like us) bought in with the knowledge of what we were getting into and what the risks were.  It's not the government's responsibility to protect shareholders that made a determined gamble on a company, even though the reality is that the government keeping a company afloat is protecting those people a lot more than it is protecting the company's employees.

 

[fruity pebbles]

I thought that was a good discussion that did move (or at least clarify) Chamath's argument a little from "no one should do it" to "no one should do it irresponsibly".

I think Wapner does a good job being unbiased and not getting stuck on his own arguments.  Even when Chamath went off the air where a lot of other anchors use that as an opportunity to pick on the argument without the other side there to defend itself.  Wapner even went as far as defending Chamath's argument against his own in some cases when talking to other analysts about his discussion with Chamath.

Two things he said I couldn’t agree with more. 1. The real economic pain is gonna start in Q4 when things come due and the economy still isn’t 100% back.  2. Companies that didn’t need the PPP funds should be outed for taking them, Harvard was the example he used. Sitting on a pile of cash, yet still receiving aid. 
 

 

[Todem]

Except it’s not a long term game.  Nor do I believe that Cuban has likely ever in his life played this game and gone to all cash.  It’s a short term game where he’s betting the market is presently overvalued, and he wants to get in when it dives.  

Theres nothing ordinary about what we’re facing as it’s related to previous market collapses/uncertainty. Sure, historically you’re better setting and forgetting.  But I don’t think someone going cash at S&P 2800 is a fools game.  Tough to see a whole lot of near term upside from here.  And you’re right, Cuban can afford that gamble.

It is a fools game if that move to cash is for panic and emotional reasons which 99% of people who go to cash....do it for that reason. 

For those who are shrewd and savvy......yeah not really a fools game. But. Still a risk. And also knowing when to enter again is a slippery slope as March 23rd keeps proving that each and every week we go here.

I have been on record as stating I by no means think this is over. But I do believe with a ton of confidence the lows were made and it will very tough to see us retest the March 23rd lows unless another black swan hits with the virus. 

I fully expect a whipsaw for several months leading into the election. Then I full expect a positive year in 2021 assuming the worst of the virus is behind us. 

 

[BassNBrew]

I think that was a big part of his point, but I think the largest part is that letting these companies fail isn't as bad as it's made out to be.  People look at Delta and think OMG they have 250,000 employees!  But if Delta files for bankruptcy that doesn't mean 250,000 people will lose their job.  There will still be airlines whether Delta or someone else.  Most of those will probably keep their job.

The people that really get screwed are the shareholders, which, as he mentioned, that's part of the game.  I think he used a poor choice of words in his initial interview when he said those people "deserved" to be wiped out, but I think his real point was that those people (like us) bought in with the knowledge of what we were getting into and what the risks were.  It's not the government's responsibility to protect shareholders that made a determined gamble on a company, even though the reality is that the government keeping a company afloat is protecting those people a lot more than it is protecting the company's employees.

I agree with you except for the caveat that gov't is the one that put them out of business in this case.  If the gov't decided it want to run a road through your house and not pay you fair value, we wouldn't be OK saying that's the risk of buying a home (extreme example).  Part of the shareholders gamble didn't include a gov't lockdown.

 

[NajehHejan]

Anybody watching cnbc with chamath palihapitiya?  Dude is dropping knowledge bombs on Wapner again.   Scott keeps trying to counterpoint him and keeps getting destroyed. 

I listened on the radio - fascinating interview - he spoke truth to power for sure

 

[ROCKET]

USO doing 1 for 8 reverse split at close 4/28

Since this was brought up yesterday and questions were how some of these ETF can deteriorate.  

I'm into this turd for 400 shares @ $5.00 per. I assume the consensus now is sell off @ $2.50, eat the 1k loss and move on? This isn't retirement $$ for me and I knew there was risk going in.

 

[FreeBaGeL]

I agree with you except for the caveat that gov't is the one that put them out of business in this case.  If the gov't decided it want to run a road through your house and not pay you fair value, we wouldn't be OK saying that's the risk of buying a home (extreme example).  Part of the shareholders gamble didn't include a gov't lockdown.

In all seriousness isn't a pandemic listed explicitly as one of the risks of investing in the ToS you have to agree to when opening a brokerage account?  I could be mistaken but I thought I remember someone posting that here a few weeks ago.

Your broader point is very fair though.  Though I don't think the government has as of yet banned people from getting on planes.

 

[BassNBrew]

Two things he said I couldn’t agree with more. 1. The real economic pain is gonna start in Q4 when things come due and the economy still isn’t 100% back.  2. Companies that didn’t need the PPP funds should be outed for taking them, Harvard was the example he used. Sitting on a pile of cash, yet still receiving aid. 
 

Then the legislation should have included the caveat that you demonstrate loss of revenue when applying.  If I go to the store and they are having an 80% clearance sale, should I be chided for not paying full price since I have enough money to pay full price?  There are people right now making more on unemployment.  Are we going to call them out for not taking a job at Lowes making less than unemployment benefits.  I'm not going to call out anyone for taking advantage of gov't legislated benefits when there's an opportunity.  When the gov't legislates and mandates something like ACA that kills small business revenue, they are backstopping those companies then.

 

[BassNBrew]

In all seriousness isn't a pandemic listed explicitly as one of the risks of investing in the ToS you have to agree to when opening a brokerage account?  I could be mistaken but I thought I remember someone posting that here a few weeks ago.

Your broader point is very fair though.  Though I don't think the government has as of yet banned people from getting on planes.

No, you are correct, but they have required them to stay and home and closed everything that someone would be traveling for.  

My only point is that I consider this a special situation and am OK with some shareholder support via company bailouts/loans.

 

[fruity pebbles]

Then the legislation should have included the caveat that you demonstrate loss of revenue when applying.  If I go to the store and they are having an 80% clearance sale, should I be chided for not paying full price since I have enough money to pay full price?  There are people right now making more on unemployment.  Are we going to call them out for not taking a job at Lowes making less than unemployment benefits.  I'm not going to call out anyone for taking advantage of gov't legislated benefits when there's an opportunity.  When the gov't legislates and mandates something like ACA that kills small business revenue, they are backstopping those companies then.

Just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should. The legislation was pushed through quickly to get the money out there. It didn’t surprise me that the funds were dried up in days when I heard hedge fund managers, private universities and dozens of large companies with CEOs who made north of a million dollars last year were given funds. But this is the wrong thread. 

 

[Big League Chew]

Holding long term?

aiming to sell @ 1.74-84

 

[BassNBrew]

Just because you can, doesn’t always mean you should. The legislation was pushed through quickly to get the money out there. It didn’t surprise me that the funds were dried up in days when I heard hedge fund managers, private universities and dozens of large companies with CEOs who made north of a million dollars last year were given funds. But this is the wrong thread. 

Technically it's not the wrong thread because there are investment opportunities due to this subject unless you wouldn't buy a stock of one of these companies on principal.  I Fully support someone taking that position.  I'm just saying while they may be taking advantage of the situation in the present, they may have been hindered by a gov't program previously.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

In all seriousness isn't a pandemic listed explicitly as one of the risks of investing in the ToS you have to agree to when opening a brokerage account?  I could be mistaken but I thought I remember someone posting that here a few weeks ago.

Your broader point is very fair though.  Though I don't think the government has as of yet banned people from getting on planes.

The government has not banned people from boarding planes domestically--even when New York was at the peak of the virus--planes were still flying in and out.   Another reason why I like what Chamath had to say.  Small business owners and employees--who all pay taxes--had their businesses forced closed by the government due to this pandemic.   The big companies get to deal direct with the government and get masses of money in an expedited fashion.  The small companies (who if you cumulatively look at how many people they employ are just as important to Americas business landscape) have to go through layers of bureaucracy, go through banks who put their own customers ahead of them--and by the time they get any money--will be on the brink of insolvency.    The vast majority of workers will have no choice but to go back to work and acting as guinea pigs and gambling their health for a disease that we don't know a lot about because of governments favortism to giant companies who they bail out over and over again.  The more they are finding about this disease--the worse it is--they are now finding that those that are lucky enough to be asymptomatic or have mild symptoms when they get it are still showing issues with their lungs that could reduce their life expectancy.  

This just resonates one of the lines that Chamath said--there is a divorce between Wall Street and Main Street.   I'll expand further--and I'll just say that the judge in that metaphorical divorce is the government and that judge always rules in favor of Wall Street.   

 

[BassNBrew]

aiming to sell @ 1.74-84

Riding your coat tails Mr. Big League.

Can't wait to tell my friends I made a 25% return on MFA because Big League Chew from Footballbuys recommended it.  My partner was laughing when I told her I tripled up on a biotech company because a guy name Chet from Footballbuys recommended it.  When she ask why I would believe what Chet from the innernet says, I told her he bought Cavalier from the internet a steak dinner and rode in his nice car.  Cavalier said Chet has a lot of money so he must know stuff.

@Golf Guy 69 @chet

 

[beef]

I'm into this turd for 400 shares @ $5.00 per. I assume the consensus now is sell off @ $2.50, eat the 1k loss and move on? This isn't retirement $$ for me and I knew there was risk going in.

I don't have any good advise on it.  I took a hit yesterday on it.  And the value in not tracking it any longer is nice.  

 

[beef]

Any JETS guys in some more action today?  I joined you all late and could average down a bit today so I did at 13.20.  Will do again if it dips into the 12's.  

 

[lod001]

Riding your coat tails Mr. Big League.

Can't wait to tell my friends I made a 25% return on MFA because Big League Chew from Footballbuys recommended it.  My partner was laughing when I told her I tripled up on a biotech company because a guy name Chet from Footballbuys recommended it.  When she ask why I would believe what Chet from the innernet says, I told her he bought Cavalier from the internet a steak dinner and rode in his nice car.  Cavalier said Chet has a lot of money so he must know stuff.

Just bought and sold TRIL today because Revshark says he bought it. Just under 7% made in about 2 hours.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

 

[BassNBrew]

WTI up 11% today.  Not sure if that was @todem or at @sporthenry that made the reccomendation, but mucho gracias.  Just culled a 1/3.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

Getting sucked back into another TTD position. 7/17/20, $195p, going for around ~$17.60 right now, I sold these yesterday for $25

the swings are crazy here, lots of opportunities in a short period to play either side

 

[SFBayDuck]

Looks like SNAP had a good quarter which couldn't have hurt.  I don't like SNAP but they definitely had a little room to grow their userbase.  Mid March is when ad revs will start their decline.  It will be interesting to see what Facebook reports in a couple of weeks and if they give guidance going forward (which will not be good).

Saw a related article today about OTT/CTV spend, at least what Pixelate thinks the recent trend to be starting in March.  This will be the trend that affects TTD across all mediums for the next six months IMO

https://www.bakercityherald.com/coronavirus/national/programmatic-connected-tv-ott-ad-spend-drops-14-in-the-face-of-covid-19-hulu/article_5e1be801-9515-5d2e-ac74-8f40ecabbe67.html

Also another related article, Coca Cola cutting ad spend.  This should be the norm for any brands that have had a decline recently.

https://www.thedrum.com/news/2020/04/22/coca-cola-slams-brakes-ad-spend-there-limited-effectiveness-brand-marketing

News like this should keep coming IMO

Sold my FB shares today on the bounce they got from SNAP.  Just think ad spend is going to be fugly for awhile.

 

[SFBayDuck]

Riding your coat tails Mr. Big League.

Can't wait to tell my friends I made a 25% return on MFA because Big League Chew from Footballbuys recommended it.  My partner was laughing when I told her I tripled up on a biotech company because a guy name Chet from Footballbuys recommended it.  When she ask why I would believe what Chet from the innernet says, I told her he bought Cavalier from the internet a steak dinner and rode in his nice car.  Cavalier said Chet has a lot of money so he must know stuff.

To clarify Cav and Chet had drinks that night, Chet dropped Cav off to meet me, and Cav and I had dinner.  Unfortunately I was stuck on a call and didn't get to meet Chet or lay eyes on said nice car.  Just want to make sure you have your facts straight.  

IIRC, Cav ended that evening passing out on a Chicago sidewalk.  

But your point remains - of course the random dudes on the Old Yeller interwebs know stuff.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Getting sucked back into another TTD position. 7/17/20, $195p, going for around ~$17.60 right now, I sold these yesterday for $25

the swings are crazy here, lots of opportunities in a short period to play either side

gonna try to join you this time

 

[sporthenry]

WTI up 11% today.  Not sure if that was @todem or at @sporthenry that made the reccomendation, but mucho gracias.  Just culled a 1/3.

Not I. Just recommended against USO. It's a ponzi scheme. Oil up 20% in the front month. 10% in Jul/Aug. USO down 8%. 

 

[BassNBrew]

With airplanes being idle, couldn't we fly them to Cushing and store oil in them?

 

[commoncents]

$USO halted trading. Announced they will allocated 20/50/20/10 mix for June/July/August/Sept and might also diversify into other oil products. Provides stability, but continues to destroy more value as it sells June barrels and moves up the futures curve to purchase August/Sept barrels.

 

[beef]

With airplanes being idle, couldn't we fly them to Cushing and store oil in them?

United should do this.  Their seats and cabins are already junk.  At least the ones I've flew in are.  

 

[kevzilla]

Speaking of Old Yeller, someone needs to do the humane thing to USO

 

[Maik Jeaunz]

Yeah - long, short, or cash dude still has one more comma than the rest of us will ever see.

tres comas.

 

[-OZ-]

Bought a few cases of BUD at $42 

There's definitely concern if sports don't come back, but eventually the king of beers will return. PE below 10, dividend 4.65%. fairly typical rebound play.

 

[BassNBrew]

Bought a few cases of BUD at $42 

There's definitely concern if sports don't come back, but eventually the king of beers will return. PE below 10, dividend 4.65%. fairly typical rebound play.

If it's good enough for OZ from the inner webs, it's good enough for me.  Two cups up.

 

[-OZ-]

If it's good enough for OZ from the inner webs, it's good enough for me.  Two cups up.

 

[Lacey]

Joining this crew.  Not sure about you all, but everyone I know is drinking more these days.  
 

Sold Facebook thinking ad revenue will cause it to take a hit and bought beer stock.  

 

[beef]

Joining this crew.  Not sure about you all, but everyone I know is drinking more these days.  
 

Sold Facebook thinking ad revenue will cause it to take a hit and bought beer stock.  

And for those hurt by the economy there are 30 packs of Busch for $12.  That's like Mountain Creek, Meister Brau, Hams level.    

 

[BassNBrew]

Grabbed a little TZA late in the day.  Just a gut feel.

 

[beef]

Grabbed a little TZA late in the day.  Just a guy feel.

Good luck!

NTTIAWWT

 

[Don't Noonan]

Bought some APA today.  At this level I think it has a good chance to double in a year or two.  Down 67% YTD.

APA ($9.50) up 10% today, up 17% from what I bought it on Monday ($8.15).  Anyone else here own APA?  It is Merrill's top energy pick and they have price target of $22.  High beta play, lot of debt but most over 2/3rds of debt not due until at least 2028.

 

[BassNBrew]

With all of this trading, I'm now up to 45 different stocks that I currently own.  With Amazon and Google being about 20% of the holdings, that means 80% spread among 43 stocks.  Now some of this is sectors plays like 3 airlines, 4 tankers, 3 PPP abusers, 3 oil, etc to reduce risk.  Am I getting to diversified with too many holdings?  On the plus side I've heard that it's smart to limit your individual holding in a single stock (forget the rule of thumb).  On the down side, at some point the Bass Fund is just so watered down it becomes the BUD Fund and just follows the market.

Just curious how aggressive/sensible other here are.