How do you buy stocks?

Yea, that’s an interesting one. I hadn’t seen his comments on that before. Appropriate now, too, being Thanksgiving. Pilgrims Pride, the US’s largest chicken producer on the verge of bankruptcy, now having received a third extension of a major creditor payment deadline, allowing their stock to skyrocket over the past 5 days, up by 240%! Damn. If I had bought a week ago I would definitely sell (half anyway, to ensure I at least broke even). Funny, when squid mentioned PPC on November 9 it was trading at 14. Now it’s at 1 (after the 240% gain).

If you’re hoping to make a big, quick short-term gain merely off fluctuation of the share price, based on investor sentiment, and don’t give a damn about the fundamentals or the long-term prospects, then it seems to me the cheaper the stock the better. A company trading at $100/share couldn’t possibly skyrocket 240% in 5 days. But with something trading at $1/share, upon sudden good news, it seems much more possible. At least that’s one of my crude amateur theories. Consequently, I prefer cheaper stocks, so long as the company doesn’t appear to be on the verge of bankruptcy.

PPC is definitely on the verge of bankruptcy. There may be a 50% chance you can double or triple your money overnight, but the alternative seems equally likely. It’s a gamble for sure. Not saying I wouldn’t do it. I might. But there’s humongous risk. When you check out the stock’s chart on a site such as Google Finance, be sure to read the news articles on the right side of the page. In this case you’ll learn:

[quote] Chicken producer Pilgrim’s Pride Corp (PPC.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), which [color=#FF0000]has been losing money for nearly a year due to high feed costs and low meat prices[/color], faces [color=#FF0000]another debt deadline on Wednesday and analysts believe creditors may be less willing to grant a waiver as they did twice before.[/color]

[color=#FF0000]Without a waiver [/color]the company, which is the nation’s largest chicken producer with about 24 percent of the market, [color=#FF0000]could be forced to sell assets or file for bankruptcy protection[/color], according to analysts.

[color=#FF0000]In addition to Wednesday’s deadline, the Pittsburg, Texas-based company has a $25.7 million interest payment due next week.[/color] Both of those events may be troublesome, analysts said, considering Pilgrim’s Pride continues to be hurt by adverse market conditions.

“[color=#FF0000]I think they would not be given an extension,” [/color]said Rich Nelson, analysts at the agriculture research firm Allendale Inc said of Wednesday’s deadline. “Creditors are still looking at chicken prices, noting that chicken breast prices continue to falter.”

Another analyst, who asked to not be identified, predicted the chance of another waiver as “pretty low”.

. . . Nelson estimates there is a [color=#FF0000]60 percent chance the company will seek Chapter 11 bankruptcy [/color]protection or be forced to sell assets.

Earlier this month, Pilgrim’s Pride appointed William Snyder of CRG Partners as chief restructuring officer to help the company cut costs and improve long-term liquidity.

Stephens Inc analyst Farha Aslam said in a note last week that such a hiring “is [color=#FF0000]usually not a good sign” and put at 50/50 the chance that Pilgrim’s Pride will file for bankruptcy.[/color]

“We calculate that Pilgrim’s Pride [color=#FF0000]needs at least $200 million to $250 million to make it through the current downturn [/color]and make it to the other side of the chicken cycle,” Aslam said in the note.

“The size of the cash need is a critical issue. It is challenging for the banks, which are capital constrained themselves, to lend that sum of money to a company that has little control over pricing”. . . [/quote]
reuters.com/article/ousiv/id … AX20081124

That’s really somber stuff. But, one day after the above article, here’s why their stock skyrocketed in the past couple of days.

reuters.com/article/hotStock … ZF20081126

But, who knows if they’ll get further relief?

It’s good news on good. I “bet” it goes up. Fuel prices are down. Credit is getting easier to acquire. Not sure I would “invest” though. :wink:

That is what I am thinking too. Here is one…

finance.google.com/finance?q=OTC%3ASOPW

They got a raw deal with Lehman brothers selling them stocks at a low price and never getting paid for it or something. I can’t find the article now or I would be more specific. Anyway Obama says he is going to support the alternative energy comapnies and this one looks like it is “due” something so… I dunno. What do you think?

The other ones I looked at were:

AIG - Apparently a Chinese firm wants to make a huge purchase.

Bank of America - Going to buy out another bank.

Fannie Mae - Wants to increase it’s share price by 30 to 100 so it can stay on the NYSE.Has to accomplish this by May11. They are talking about doing a reverse stock split. What does that mean?

(I have a million things to do right now, will check in later tonight. Damn this is fun.)

Went to eslite tonight, grabbed a copy of the “The Economist” and discovered that the companies that were relatively cash rich before the crash were set up to make a bundle now by buying up smaller companies at a bargain. That sounded reasonable to me. In fact it is more or less what I’ve been arguing.

Lily is one of the companies that is in a position to buy…
finance.google.com/finance?q=Lilly

Anyway, here’s Fannie Mae

finance.google.com/finance?q=NYSE%3AFNM
(up [color=#FF0000]“fifty”[/color] percent)

Here’s the wiki…
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fannie_Mae

What were the chances that an entity like that would not respond positively to 1)The election of a democratic president. 2) The stimulus package.

The price was down around fifty cents. Giving up on comapnies like GM and Fannie Mae would be like giving up on the country and giving up on thier country is something Americans definitely “don’t” do, particularly when there is money to be made.

Solar Power Inc.
finance.google.com/finance?q=OTC%3ASOPW
(up “twenty” percent)

The other thing point I gleaned from my ten minutes with “The Economist” was that now that the bank’s have been partially socialized they might be inclined to be politicized in their lending decisions, and with access to credit being such an important factor just now that might certainly affect share prices, particularly in the longer term. Is there some way to find out who contributed to the campaign, and which companies those people are invested in. I admire Obama as much as the next person but don’t believe “any” politician is capable of being above this kind of thing.

I hope you didn’t buy yet bob. You may have noticed last night the markets all dropped a spectacular 8 - 9%.

A few you were looking at :astonished:

GM lost 12.4%

AIG lost 18%

BOA lost 21%

Fannie Mae lost 28%

Pilgrims Pride lost 45% as the company filed Chapter 11 Bankrupcty

All stocks I’m tracking lost except contrarians that bet against the market:

EEV, which bets against emerging markets, gained 18%

DXD, which bets against the DOW, gained 15%

SRS, which bets against real estate, gained 36%

So, is NOW a buying opportunity. Maybe, maybe not. Most people believe things will continue to get worse, which means hold onto your cash and wait another 3 to 6 months or so.

No worries MT. I did nuthin but homework. Here is what I’ve figured…

  1. The collapse of Lehman brothers reminded the government of how quickly things will go bad if the financial institutions fail. Fannie Mae will be propped up no matter what.

  2. Volitility is where it’s at, but I’ll be goddamed if I understand it.

[quote=“Mother Theresa”] All stocks I’m tracking lost except contrarians that bet against the market:

EEV, which bets against emerging markets, gained 18%

DXD, which bets against the DOW, gained 15%

SRS, which bets against real estate, gained 36%
[/quote]

There are “stocks” that bet against the market?

I’ll be honest and admit I am just barely getting my head around the idea of “shorting” which involves borrowing a stock, selling it at today’s price and then buying it at a lower price in the future. You don’t actually own it though because when you sold it the first time you didn’t really own it you just borrowed it. Is that really how it works? It is all quite simple to “do” apparently, according to the stock brokers, though I admit I don’t really get it.

And what I “really” don’t get is how a company could profit from it, though apparently a lot do.

You’re right; those aren’t actually stocks, they’re funds – exchange traded funds (ETFs) – except that unlike most ETFs, these ones are designed to go up when the relevant index goes down, and vice versa. Apparently, Proshares is the world’s largest seller of such funds and as you can see at their Website, they have regular short funds and ultra-short funds, intended to double the performance (positive or negative) of the corresponding index. You can also see at their Website that they have short funds corresponding to everything from general indexes such as the DJIA or Russell 2000 (small cap), to sectors such as financials or oil & gas or semiconductors, to China, Japan or emerging markets, to the Euro or the Yen.

And, if Proshares regular inverse funds or 2X inverse funds aren’t enough excitement for you, you can always go with the new Direxion, 3X inverse funds, which must be one hell of a roller coaster ride in this market.

I think your explanation of how shorting works is basically correct. Someone once posted an outstanding, extremely detailed description of how to do it, including the basics procedures and strategies, but I’ve never tried it. It’s MUCH easier with these inverse ETFs. Just buy and sell the same as with shares of ordinary stock.

I think the fund makes money off it by charging interest on the transaction. You do, after all, borrow the stock in order to sell it so that makes senses and I think that is how the broker I talked to yesterday explained it too. These financial types around town are friendly and attmept to be informative but their first language isn’t English so…

All these people betting against the market must exert a downward pressure on prices. That seems obvious but nobody ever talks about it so I dunno. If people start feeling more confident and quit buying into short funds those stocks would tend to spring back to a price that reflects their actual value. Does that make sense?

Oh, but people DO talk about that, though it’s unclear whether it makes sense. In fact, they talked about it so much that the US SEC put in place a temporary ban earlier this year on shorting of financial stocks. The ban was lifted, many argued the ban clearly made no positive difference and the short-selling had clearly been wrongly blamed, but some are now arguing to put the ban back in place.

[quote]Nov 20 (Reuters) - Citigroup Inc (C.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) has asked the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission to bring back a ban on short-selling financial stocks. . .

The Financial Services Roundtable, an industry group, is also pressing for regulators to temporarily bring back the emergency ban that ended on October 8.

The group, which represents most of the largest banks, brokerages, asset managers, and insurance companies in the United States, has been talking to securities regulators and others about reinstating the ban since it was lifted . . .

Short-sellers borrow stock they expect will fall in price in the hope of repaying the loans for less and pocketing the difference. They have been blamed by some corporate executives for driving down the price of their companies’ stock.

John Nester, a spokesman for the SEC, declined to comment.

The agency separately announced on Thursday that it will hold a teleconference of international securities regulators next week to discuss short selling, among other topics.

The effectiveness of the SEC’s last short-selling ban, which started on Sept. 19, is up for debate.

U.S. financial stocks broadly performed worse than the market from Sept 19 through Oct 8, the period of the short-selling ban. S3 Matching Technologies, a market data firm, said it found no statistically significant differences between stocks covered under the ban and those that were not.[/quote]
reuters.com/article/bondsNew … 7620081121

Australia also imposed a temporary ban on short selling as did Taiwan. I believe both have been lifted but am not sure.

In fact, maposquid started a thread on it titled “That’s it, I’m out…” or something like that, where he bitches about how stupid the ban was and how stupid the SEC were for doing it.

:laughing:

Anyway, it’s the first “I” heard of it so it couldn’t have been “that” big a deal. I have been studying the stock market now for a full two weeks now…

viewtopic.php?f=40&t=74424&start=0

Also, Clinton was on the tube today saying that a lot of wealth had been “lost”. I am curious where it went. Did it disappear completely or is it floating around out there somewhere waiting to be grabbed up by those of us smart enough to figure out which stocks are going to rebound first and most furiously. I mean all that land, infrastructure, technology, talent etc is still there. The “value” is still there and the price will increase to reflect that value. It will happen fast, and it will happen when a mass of people start betting on an increase in share prices rather than against it, or not at all. That is how it works, right?

The niggling people are doing now trying to decide whether to buy such and such at 75 today or 73 when it drops tomorrow will seem, well, like niggling, won’t it? particularly when you can look at the charts and see that such and such was at forty dollars within the last year? Or is there some fundamental flaw (like the national debt probably) that will prevent that dynamic from occuring?

How bout this…

greenchipstocks.com/articles … stocks/160

Strange isn’t it that this doesn’t make the news? It “is” news. It’s good news.