Trade Radar Operator

Trade Radar Operator
Contributor since: 2007
Company: TradeRadar
Agreed, but sometimes these stocks can be very rewarding. With all the current negativity, they are ripe for a bounce.
Thank you for the correction. That helps explain the strong chart...
Yes, I remember that post. I think I said that you have to hold your nose in order to invest in those stocks but at the time they did show a bump in momentum according to my stock screening program. Sure enough, after that bump, they went back to being stinkers.
I must say, though, I didn't think TLT would bounce back as strongly as it did.
The company has released a statement saying their supply chain is not impacted by the Japan situation.
To bigskings and truebrit,
This post is not an endorsement of the financial sector. In my personal opinion, this is one of those "hold your nose while investing" scenarios.
In any case, this post is merely pointing out that the trend has been positive for the sector. For those who are trend followers, that may be useful information.
Some have suggested that CSC could be a good fit for Oracle. CSC remains profitable (after all, struggling companies don't typically raise their dividend) but perhaps it will take a Larry Ellison to get the company on a stronger growth path.
I agree, TBT always seems like it deserves to rally but it never does.
This post just points out that some technical indicators suggest it could happen this time. Time will tell...
Keep in mind, breakouts are always followed by pullbacks. The jury is still out, waiting on the next earnings report. The recent pullback was exaggerated by an analyst downgrade whose thesis, increased competition from TXN, doesn't seem all that compelling to me.
I believe the $500 million contract was for phase 2 of a project after CMTL had already been awarded phase 1.
I've had no better luck trying to find out when EMC might begin paying dividends.
With respect to Rackspace, I think they're in a good place in terms of the movement to outsource data centers and server support; however, I'm not so sure they are cloud leaders and I have to think their margins and return on assets will continue to be thin. IMO, they are currently over-valued.
The article did not focus on Q2 earnings at all, only on forward guidance. Unfortunately, the Seeking Alpha editor used the word Earnings in the title.
Please see the post that does just what you suggest: Is company guidance worth listening to? (blog.trade-radar.com/2...)
Good to hear from someone with direct experience. What do you think - is this ag sector bull run over done?
Totally agree. Traditional chips continue to edge toward being commodity products. The value-add is in the higher integration chips which should provide fatter margins.
Agree with respect to MOT, no opinion on HTC but Samsung has been in serious growth mode for the last few years including in the cell phone market. I wouldn't bet against them. Google could do a lot worse than partner with Samsung.
With respect to Apple, I don't get the impression Jobs would ever partner with anyone big to any significant degree. Walled garden, etc.
Can you address the potential of the AdMob acquisition for Google? Providing ads (without depending on search) on mobile devices - seems to be what you are saying is missing from Google's arsenal.
As pointed out in the article, growth stocks by definition have high PEs. Does that mean one shouldn't have any growth stocks in their portfolio? Should all value analysis exclude growth stocks?
TTM earnings are used in this analysis. I should have specified that.
It is my understanding that EV-to-EBITDA less than 6 is considered "deep" value so the 6 to 12 range, in my opinion, can be considered "reasonable value" to fairly valued.
Point taken; however, the period you mention was during the Internet bubble so I'm not sure it particularly makes sense to compare current conditions to bubble conditions.
Personally, I have been a tech bull for months, especially with respect to semiconductors. So it came as a surprise to see the article about inventory buildup. It was a jarring note, so to speak, so I thought it was worth posting about.
I remain bullish but watchful.
My fear exactly!
The NAFC referred to in the post is Nash-Finch. they are a food service company, not a steel company. They are up at least 4% since the post was published on my site a couple of days ago. Maybe you have the symbol wrong?
Moving averages show where we have been. The point of my post was to show that the moving averages suggest underlying strength remains; therefore, the pat of least resistance would probably remain up.
I admit I'm not an expert on mortgage securitization. I was merely enjoying some righteous taxpayer indignation.
I agree that forensic accountants are digging into these loans but they are starting their analysis by looking at the securities showing the greatest number of defaults. In my simple way, it seems like where there's smoke there's fire.
It is all too true that banks are tightening lending standards. Keep in mind, however, stupidly lax lending standards are what got us into this mess to begin with. So the pendulum swings; eventually we'll end up in a reasonable place.
There's more to this economy than banks and mortgages.
Another laughable post from the main apologist for the status quo
Sometimes the Seeking Alpha editors take liberties with the posts that they publish. For example, they removed the link that I provided to previous posts on the subject. Here it is for those that are interested:
blog.trade-radar.com/s...
Also, the title has been made more provocative than that on the original post. I am not suggesting investors should flee stable value funds altogether, just that they should consider lessening their exposure.
On Oct 10 11:41 AM Alan Young wrote:
> I have done a lot of studying on investment, but this is my first
> encounter with the term "stable value fund." Sounds like a good idea,
> but what is it? Imagine my dismay when the article gives no definition,
> no explanation, no examples, not even links to the previous "several
> posts."
>
> Well, maybe "dismay" is too strong a word. But it sure makes the
> article useless for many readers.
Manuel, you are correct. My caution arises from the fact that so many stocks have accomplished this. This indicator can't get much better but could easily get worse.
On Sep 14 10:02 AM manuel wrote:
> sorry I am learning, but if a shorter term MA(20) crosses a longer
> term(50) isnĀ“t that a bullish sign?
Digs - please don't confuse productivity with cost savings. Everything is 10 times harder to accomplish and takes 10 times longer now that more systems and services are integrated and rationalized. You are spot on, however, in your assessment of Citi's auditors.
If you look deeper into the numbers, the picture is not so rosy. They didn't take as huge a write-down as expected on certain assets and their tax rate was 1% instead of the expected 27%. Processor sales were down significantly. Don't get me wrong, the company did well under the circumstances, but this is not short sellers manipulating the market.
Default rates on student loans are high and the government guaranties make it worthwhile for private lenders to offer these loans. Given that the government limits what interest rate can be charged to borrowers, the government has effectively caught lenders in a vise - they are unable to adjust credit cost according to creditworthiness if the lender wants to participate in the FFEL program.
Most analysts are of the opinion that the great results from Apple and IBM were company specific, not indicative of the tech sector as a whole. I was looking to confirm this by maintaining a scorecard. As good as Google did, their rate of growth is clearly slowing and the Adsense issue is troubling.
Apologies for not including the numbers for Apple.