Palantir

;D ;D ;D

If there's so much value, why is it undervalued? Maybe they should you know....buy back with some of that cash?

If you don't want this job, Can I apply? I'd love to work in an SS ER job just to get an entry.

If it is a "moat" company you expect to grow for years, you should hold, because it will go up. If it is a deep value, spinoff, net net, microcap cash box, you should sell when it crosses IV. Basically are you Lynch or Graham?

Why, did Steve Jobs recommend this? ;D

You will have more cash with the dividend, but wouldn't the IV of the dividend paying stock be higher than the one who bought back?

Let us know when you find them. Seriously.

This is a great way to break in, and these are very competitive to get. If you can get in, go for it! (Trying to break in myself as well) EDIT: I think writser might be referring to a full time Sales positions.

I'm running into this problem right now. RHT is trading a little below my "buy" price, but I've already invested 1k/15k of my portfolio in it and don't want to invest more than 1.5k/15k, so I can't average in effectively, will have to wait for support and resistance.

I don't understand most of the stocks people on this forum discuss - BAC, AIG, SD etc. :'(

^ Unless you're buying HPQ, you'll always be averaging in ;)

What are you buying? :D

Another good short I missed out on were the marijuana companies that exploded with the thought that there would be legalization. Why is this so hard to find shorts?

Be careful how you phrase your defense .. "Officer, I'm 100% long so I have been following these attractive shorts for a while. Frankly, most of them are worthless. They need a correction". +1

My portfolio declares war on your portfolios. Jiiiihaaaaaad!

Do this: Read the Blue Kaplan book. Buy the Qbank, and just do those questions. You'll kill it.

I work at an RIA that has managed accounts - passive asset allocation type stuff. What we're looking to do is get a software packages that can upload account info, compare allocation to model, and put together trades that will bring it to model etc. Anybody have product recommendations? We have looked at Investor's View, but it's too pricey.

With all due respect, I think you are confused about the role of QE and its context in broader macroeconomic theory. I understand yields rose after QE, but the relevant point of comparison is before QE1 was announced, simply noting that yields rise during QE (which I am aware of)and fall inbetween QE 1&2 does not imply that QE is responsible for yields rising.

It's not about simply "backstopping" financial institutions, there is a lot more to it than building up bank reserves. Backstopping banks is only one facet of a broader injection of liquidity into the markets. As you note, the ECB has not printed a single dime, why on earth would there be risk taking then? Knowing a sovereign backstop is there is not relevant. You keep saying "yields rise during QE", you are forgetting that QE is merely one part of a broader plan to suppress rates and inject liquidity, right after QE yields can rise somewhat, however it is not the relevant comparison, the relevant comparison is to rates PRIOR to QE1, before the Fed started buying assets.

How do you know they rise as investors sell/short in order to buy risky assets? You keep saying, and you are not clear at all where you're getting this from. First you say treasury yields fell, and then you say non treasury yields fell? huh? Now you say the exact opposite - non-treasury rates didn't fall? Again, how do you know that rates were only suppressed due to Euro crisis fears? You keep making a hypothesis that "rates are low because investors are scared", and keep repeating it as fact for some reason. But what caused the change in sentiment, that drove risk taking and the "huge margin expansion" you refer to? It suddenly flipped for no reason?

Why do you feel the Fed causes treasury yields to rise prior to investor action? Do you feel that rates would be lower had the Fed not initiated QE? Correct, however, rates were still suppressed at that point in time right? I think you are focusing too solely on the capital markets response. What caused the changes in sentiment that drove the market rallies? I say it was the injection of liquidity that did it, otherwise we'd face a substantial monetary contraction, there would be no appetite for risk in that scenario.

^No, they're not getting banks to buy equities. The goal of Monetary Easing is to suppress rates to below the growth rate of GDP. What happens is that low rates push investors into riskier assets in order to get a good return - equities, HY debt, hard assets, housing, oil, gold etc. Asset prices broadly rise, it's not just equities.

I don't understand the bear case. As long as Fed is continuing QE, stocks will do well. Fed will slow and stop QE when growth picks up, stocks will still do well. The only bear case I see is if Ben is replaced by some inflation hawk who cuts down on QE prior to growth.

Oracle (ORCL)

Maybe some of the more enterprising equity analysts on the forum could go and sign up for yoga and do due diligence with a camera. If you get arrested, make it clear that you were not collecting "inside" information, and that transparency always helps support the bottom line.