AEM has declined below our original buy recommendation price. AEM has lost -42% from the date this sell recommendation article was published to May 21, 2013.
15 Reasons Why Apple Is A Once In A Lifetime Opportunity [View article]
Greetings Olson,
Now that Congress is putting Apple on the grill for standard tax evasion procedures, can scrutiny of their accounting be much further off?
Give it time, maybe Apple will take the fall on the matter, even though they are among hundreds of companies that take advantage of the same tax and accounting gimmicks (found here: http://yhoo.it/14vcotp).
Apple is down -23% since this article was published. The stock is struggling to achieve our recently calculated $528 upside target. Let's hope AAPL doesn't revisit the 52-week low. Otherwise, it could decline to our extreme downside target.
Rail Manufacturer Crushes Earnings Estimates And Is A Buy On Any Pullback [View article]
Bret,
You've gotta be piling into this position at $18. I don't use forward projections, for the reasons pointed out by Daniel, but what's your take on this company now?
Kinda made me twitch when I saw the "golden cross" next to the "death cross." I mean, what good are the "crosses" when they don't give consistent indications over a long or short time frame.
Homebuilder Short Part 2 - Ryland Homes [View article]
Greetings MI,
I made a mistake about the actual timing based on the disclosure. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Also, the call was solid so I was interested in seeing if there was a follow-up article based on actual transactions or a changed perspective/position.
After the breakout from the prior 52-week high, I was curious to see if your perspective had changed. However, as you noted earlier, you've reiterated the short recommendation.
I'm not looking for someone to hand-hold their readers through recommendations. Instead, I'm trying to verify quality of work with reasonable follow-up. Too often, recommendations are never followed up even though authors have exited the transactions.
Without knowing what you did, the standing short rec appeared to be still standing (at approximately the $43 level) even though you entered and exited the trade before reiteration of the short at $50.
Your disclosure made more sense after you explained it, which is the reason that I asked. No beef at all, just seeking clarification as a student of the market. Thanks.
Homebuilder Short Part 2 - Ryland Homes [View article]
Greetings MI,
Your disclosure for when this article was published says "I am waiting for a capitulation spike higher in RYL (a day when the stock spikes 10%) and at that point I intend to purchase 2 month OTM Put's at a price 10% below the current stock price."
and
"I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours."
Additionally, the publish date of January 23, 2013 seems to indicate that if you had no positions and were not planning to engage in a transaction at the time then it would have been difficult to take advantage of the move down that you've indicated since 72 hours after would have brought you to Saturday January 26th before you would make any trade, based on your disclosure.
Again, my question wasn't whether you made the trade or not, I was curious when you decided to exit the transaction, especially if the trade goes against you, as it may have for those who followed this recommendation.
It seems that you're sticking to the short thesis without a follow up article that you exited the initial short rec...got it.
"I personally have never read any compelling explanation of how the Fed printing money makes the stock market go up."
This may be a simple function of not reading a compelling explanation of how the stock market has risen 100% of the previous declines of -40% or more when the Fed didn't exist (1860-1913).
"Fed Blameless in Current Run, History Shows It's Typical Market Behavior" (found here: http://seekingalpha.co...)
The Sell-Off In Gold Has Become Plain Silly [View article]
Greetings Ken,
Since the introduction of paper as money, the only reason that gold and silver was ever used as money was to legitimize the introduction of paper currencies. Governments knew that they were going to take the gold backing and convertibility away as soon as the public was "comfortable" with paper in circulation.
The most fascinating thing is that the public knows the history of the good ol' bait and switch of paper for gold. Yet, the public has continually accepted the introduction of a paper currency that is "backed" by gold or that has a gold "standard."
If the public is gullible enough to have the exact same game played on them of the last 3,000 years then it is no surprise that a few tinfoil hats, the uber gullible, demand to have the same scam played on them by begging for the gold "standard."
It's something like that thing that Einstein said about expecting different results.
WRCX is getting an offer to be acquired Actavis (ACT) at $20.08 a share.
Based on the December 16, 2011 price to April 30, 2012 sell recommendation, the annualized return was +276%, excluding the August 2012 special dividend payment.
Based on the December 16, 2011 price to the completion date of the transaction, expected by year-end 2013, the annualized return would be +78% including the August 2012 special dividend payment.
The Sell-Off In Gold Has Become Plain Silly [View article]
Greetings User 10263571,
Only 4 comments and this latest is really good. My criticism lies in the points that were made seemed to be rooted in short-term data or indicators that have proven to give false signals. As an example, the author said:
"...given the extreme negative sentiment, in addition to the numerous other contrarian indicators I've outlined in previous articles, I have never in my life seen a market set up technically for a big bull move as gold/silver and the mining stocks are now."
The author hasn't taken the time to be somewhat reflective on the fact that what was thought to be a contrary indicator may not work. It would be helpful to reflect on the prior indicators to understand that they didn't or don't work and the reasons.
You have to prove that the indicator works over an extended period not just the short-term to prove a point. As an example, regarding the CoT data:
Gold Commercials Net Position: Peaked in 2005 and declined all the way to the 2007 low. Possibly suggesting that gold was a buy (sell) in 2007. Yet, gold was in an upward trend in that 2005-2007 period of time. Then it peaked again in 2008 and bottomed in late 2009. However, it has continually risen even as the price of gold peaked and declined since 2011.
Gold Large Spec Net Position: bottomed in late 2008 and peaked in late 2009, even as gold and silver had more room to the upside and peaked in 2011.
Gold Small Spec Net Position: It bottomed nicely in late 2008, but then it peaked in late 2009, even as gold and silver had more room to the upside. Then, in 2012, it went above the 2009 high while gold and silver were in a declining trend from 2011 to the present. The 2012 collapse in the fourth quarter was the ultimate fake out.
Taking the opposite view on any of the CoT indications as buys instead of sells and sells instead of buys would still result in the rampant inconsistency of all the indications of the periods.
Such inconsistencies should result in the abandonment of the indicator for the future direction of gold.
This is only one example of the data that has not been consistent enough, on a long-term basis to be worth making calls on gold.
Our effort to provide data on the stock market while in a declining trend was dated February 13, 2009 and titled "The Importance of Market Perspective" (found here: http://seekingalpha.co...). Then as now, the quality of the data chosen is paramount in the process. We could have been wrong, however, going forward, we will definitely revisit the same data after a stock market decline of -40% or more.
Thanks for the great thought and we are scaling in at these levels as you have accurately suggested, but not for the reasons stated in the article above.
Time To Sell Agnico-Eagle [View article]
This is only something to those who made the counter case against selling the stock after it rose +40%. As indicated in the article above:
"Our experience indicates that there will be many opportunities to re-acquire Agnico-Eagle at better relative prices."
Here we are...at the same price as the original buy recommendation. Thanks.
Best regards.
Forget Apple, Google Is The Tax Avoidance Elephant In The Room [View article]
Regards.
Time To Sell Agnico-Eagle [View article]
15 Reasons Why Apple Is A Once In A Lifetime Opportunity [View article]
Now that Congress is putting Apple on the grill for standard tax evasion procedures, can scrutiny of their accounting be much further off?
Give it time, maybe Apple will take the fall on the matter, even though they are among hundreds of companies that take advantage of the same tax and accounting gimmicks (found here: http://yhoo.it/14vcotp).
Apple is down -23% since this article was published. The stock is struggling to achieve our recently calculated $528 upside target. Let's hope AAPL doesn't revisit the 52-week low. Otherwise, it could decline to our extreme downside target.
"Considering the Downside Prospects for Apple"
(found here: http://seekingalpha.co...)
Regards.
Rail Manufacturer Crushes Earnings Estimates And Is A Buy On Any Pullback [View article]
Rail Manufacturer Crushes Earnings Estimates And Is A Buy On Any Pullback [View article]
You've gotta be piling into this position at $18. I don't use forward projections, for the reasons pointed out by Daniel, but what's your take on this company now?
Regards.
A Dead Cat Bounce For Gold Prices [View article]
Kinda made me twitch when I saw the "golden cross" next to the "death cross." I mean, what good are the "crosses" when they don't give consistent indications over a long or short time frame.
Regards.
Homebuilder Short Part 2 - Ryland Homes [View article]
I made a mistake about the actual timing based on the disclosure. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Also, the call was solid so I was interested in seeing if there was a follow-up article based on actual transactions or a changed perspective/position.
After the breakout from the prior 52-week high, I was curious to see if your perspective had changed. However, as you noted earlier, you've reiterated the short recommendation.
I'm not looking for someone to hand-hold their readers through recommendations. Instead, I'm trying to verify quality of work with reasonable follow-up. Too often, recommendations are never followed up even though authors have exited the transactions.
Without knowing what you did, the standing short rec appeared to be still standing (at approximately the $43 level) even though you entered and exited the trade before reiteration of the short at $50.
Your disclosure made more sense after you explained it, which is the reason that I asked. No beef at all, just seeking clarification as a student of the market. Thanks.
Regards.
Homebuilder Short Part 2 - Ryland Homes [View article]
Your disclosure for when this article was published says "I am waiting for a capitulation spike higher in RYL (a day when the stock spikes 10%) and at that point I intend to purchase 2 month OTM Put's at a price 10% below the current stock price."
and
"I have no positions in any stocks mentioned, and no plans to initiate any positions within the next 72 hours."
Additionally, the publish date of January 23, 2013 seems to indicate that if you had no positions and were not planning to engage in a transaction at the time then it would have been difficult to take advantage of the move down that you've indicated since 72 hours after would have brought you to Saturday January 26th before you would make any trade, based on your disclosure.
Again, my question wasn't whether you made the trade or not, I was curious when you decided to exit the transaction, especially if the trade goes against you, as it may have for those who followed this recommendation.
It seems that you're sticking to the short thesis without a follow up article that you exited the initial short rec...got it.
Regards.
Homebuilder Short Part 2 - Ryland Homes [View article]
Regards.
Why Inflation Never Came [View article]
This may be a simple function of not reading a compelling explanation of how the stock market has risen 100% of the previous declines of -40% or more when the Fed didn't exist (1860-1913).
"Fed Blameless in Current Run, History Shows It's Typical Market Behavior" (found here: http://seekingalpha.co...)
The Sell-Off In Gold Has Become Plain Silly [View article]
Since the introduction of paper as money, the only reason that gold and silver was ever used as money was to legitimize the introduction of paper currencies. Governments knew that they were going to take the gold backing and convertibility away as soon as the public was "comfortable" with paper in circulation.
The most fascinating thing is that the public knows the history of the good ol' bait and switch of paper for gold. Yet, the public has continually accepted the introduction of a paper currency that is "backed" by gold or that has a gold "standard."
If the public is gullible enough to have the exact same game played on them of the last 3,000 years then it is no surprise that a few tinfoil hats, the uber gullible, demand to have the same scam played on them by begging for the gold "standard."
It's something like that thing that Einstein said about expecting different results.
Regards.
Warner Chilcott Is A Sell [View article]
Based on the December 16, 2011 price to April 30, 2012 sell recommendation, the annualized return was +276%, excluding the August 2012 special dividend payment.
Based on the December 16, 2011 price to the completion date of the transaction, expected by year-end 2013, the annualized return would be +78% including the August 2012 special dividend payment.
The Sell-Off In Gold Has Become Plain Silly [View article]
You stole Akak's "ah-ha" moment...I hope.
Regards.
The Sell-Off In Gold Has Become Plain Silly [View article]
Only 4 comments and this latest is really good. My criticism lies in the points that were made seemed to be rooted in short-term data or indicators that have proven to give false signals. As an example, the author said:
"...given the extreme negative sentiment, in addition to the numerous other contrarian indicators I've outlined in previous articles, I have never in my life seen a market set up technically for a big bull move as gold/silver and the mining stocks are now."
The author hasn't taken the time to be somewhat reflective on the fact that what was thought to be a contrary indicator may not work. It would be helpful to reflect on the prior indicators to understand that they didn't or don't work and the reasons.
You have to prove that the indicator works over an extended period not just the short-term to prove a point. As an example, regarding the CoT data:
Gold Commercials Net Position: Peaked in 2005 and declined all the way to the 2007 low. Possibly suggesting that gold was a buy (sell) in 2007. Yet, gold was in an upward trend in that 2005-2007 period of time. Then it peaked again in 2008 and bottomed in late 2009. However, it has continually risen even as the price of gold peaked and declined since 2011.
Gold Large Spec Net Position: bottomed in late 2008 and peaked in late 2009, even as gold and silver had more room to the upside and peaked in 2011.
Gold Small Spec Net Position: It bottomed nicely in late 2008, but then it peaked in late 2009, even as gold and silver had more room to the upside. Then, in 2012, it went above the 2009 high while gold and silver were in a declining trend from 2011 to the present. The 2012 collapse in the fourth quarter was the ultimate fake out.
Taking the opposite view on any of the CoT indications as buys instead of sells and sells instead of buys would still result in the rampant inconsistency of all the indications of the periods.
Such inconsistencies should result in the abandonment of the indicator for the future direction of gold.
This is only one example of the data that has not been consistent enough, on a long-term basis to be worth making calls on gold.
Our effort to provide data on the stock market while in a declining trend was dated February 13, 2009 and titled "The Importance of Market Perspective" (found here: http://seekingalpha.co...). Then as now, the quality of the data chosen is paramount in the process. We could have been wrong, however, going forward, we will definitely revisit the same data after a stock market decline of -40% or more.
Thanks for the great thought and we are scaling in at these levels as you have accurately suggested, but not for the reasons stated in the article above.
Best regards.