stupid stock tip panning out

Seanaldinho said:
There was a lot of genius in that movie. Investment and otherwise.
Click to expand...

Nobody ever said crooks couldn't be geniuses.

What was the Don Henley line?
"you can steal more with a briefcase than you ever could with a gun.."
 
Anymouse said:
IIRC, Mortimer was one of the two bums Eddie Murphy gave a bag of money to in "Coming to America."
Click to expand...

orange said:
And one of the millionaires in Trading Places. The Coming to America part was a spin-off. In Trading Places, they lost all their money in a commodity trade (frozen orange juice...LOL) and became poor. Eddie Murphy was in both movies.

I just realized that they were in Coming to America as bums.
Click to expand...

Maverick said:
I believe the correct movie reference would be "Trading Places" with Eddie Murphy and Dan Aykroyd.

Jean
Click to expand...

In pure pot stirring fashion, I felt it was my duty to refer to the more obscure movie reference. It was a pretty funny easter egg in Coming to America.
 
Chip Sylverne said:
.....The new theory of "investing" is trading options on stock with high volumes and making bets on the reversion to the mean. Volatility is currently in vogue as a good thing. Expect more of it.
Click to expand...


Ok I have no clue what you said here.
 
I just actually took a look at the company and stock.

SELL that the second you can. There are 3 Billion outstanding shares. A few months ago there were almost 2 billion bought in a few week span.

This is a classic pump and dump. I'm surprised it's stayed up this long.
 
islandboy said:
The price increase is riding on low volume. I view this as a head fake. I would take my winnings and walk.
Click to expand...

Agreed...

That hockey stick graph rise was caused by Bryan's stock purchase alone...:rolleyes:
 
eman1200 said:
Ok I have no clue what you said here.
Click to expand...

Notice that several stocks move up and down with regularity and on fairly high volume. NFLX and AMZN come to mind, but there are several. As long as there is volume in the stock, and a pattern of wide price moves, you can assign a relative volatility, or index value based on statistical data. Call it an index of the expected intensity of price moves.

Now, based on the theory that all things 'revert to the mean' or the idea that what goes up, must come down, and if it does it for a long enough period of time, you can make an educated guess at the middle, or mean value. Traders using his method place bets for pennies on the dollar using options to buy or sell the stock, based the direction their relative volatility models show how far, how fast and in which direction the stock should go.

What you need to determine a relative volatility index, that is volatility relative to price (and several other "secret sauce" variables), is a stock with good volume and a track record of wide price swings. Find a relatively unknown name with those characteristics, and you can make money. Problem is everybody and their brother are looking for the same thing with some very high-tech algorithms.

It's the latest flavor of how to 'beat the market'. It's a lot easier just to find good companies that consistently make money and hold them forever. But that ain't easy either.
 
Last edited:
I dont typically discuss this here but- the other day IBM got its head bashed in and dropped down to the 140 level. IV (Implied Volatility) skyrocketed up towards 70% I have absolutely no problem owning shares here so I sold 10 naked puts (140 strike) for 2.15. today I closed them for .75 for a quick $1.40 profit. Guess I wont' own those shares after all, but still quite pleased with the 2 day trade.

Same with AAPL. Sold the 110 Weeklys for 1.00 or so and now trading down at 30 cents or so.

Obviously if you do not understand options you would never do this, and you would never sell naked puts on stocks you don't mind owning...
 
EminiTrader said:
I dont typically discuss this here but- the other day IBM got its head bashed in and dropped down to the 140 level. IV (Implied Volatility) skyrocketed up towards 70% I have absolutely no problem owning shares here so I sold 10 naked puts (140 strike) for 2.15. today I closed them for .75 for a quick $1.40 profit. Guess I wont' own those shares after all, but still quite pleased with the 2 day trade.

Same with AAPL. Sold the 110 Weeklys for 1.00 or so and now trading down at 30 cents or so.

Obviously if you do not understand options you would never do this, and you would never sell naked puts on stocks you don't mind owning...
Click to expand...


Just another confirmation the ENTIRE market is nothing but "Smoke and Mirrors"...:yes::redface:
 
EminiTrader said:
I dont typically discuss this here but- the other day IBM got its head bashed in and dropped down to the 140 level. IV (Implied Volatility) skyrocketed up towards 70% I have absolutely no problem owning shares here so I sold 10 naked puts (140 strike) for 2.15. today I closed them for .75 for a quick $1.40 profit. Guess I wont' own those shares after all, but still quite pleased with the 2 day trade.

Same with AAPL. Sold the 110 Weeklys for 1.00 or so and now trading down at 30 cents or so.

Obviously if you do not understand options you would never do this, and you would never sell naked puts on stocks you don't mind owning...
Click to expand...

As a wise man once said, you never want to be short and uncovered.
 
N801BH said:
Just another confirmation the ENTIRE market is nothing but "Smoke and Mirrors"...:yes::redface:
Click to expand...

How does this confirm the entire market is nothing but smoke and mirrors? What I do is nothing special -it's been going on for decades.... ??
 
vkhosid said:
As a wise man once said, you never want to be short and uncovered.
Click to expand...

Correct. I only do naked puts with a VERY small percentage of my account and ONLY on stocks I have no problem owning. Of course, I generally have no plans on holding it long - i'll sell calls to get out of it but thats not the point :)
 
I fear "Y" can't get out now....

gulp
 
Clark1961 said:
Invest in hookers-n-blow, at least you'll enjoy losing all of it...
Click to expand...

I have never tried cocaine. I wouldn't even know where to get it.

There was this shady dude at Gaston's that flew down from Colorado toting a couple batches of "brownies". They were good but kept me craving more and more.

I don't think that has anything to do with cocaine though.

Maybe next year he will bring a fresh batch of Colorado hookers.
 
Tomahawk674 said:
No one answered by question so I'm putting it all on black, and so should Bryan.
Click to expand...

I heard once you go black... er... um the sweeter the juice or something.
I really don't know what it was I heard.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
Maybe next year he will bring a fresh batch of Colorado hookers.
Click to expand...


55127b69dd7c3578b2347c2d0bab49a9.jpg


(Shamelessly stolen from the Telluride Fly Fisher's website, whoever they are...)
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
I have never tried cocaine. I wouldn't even know where to get it.

There was this shady dude at Gaston's that flew down from Colorado toting a couple batches of "brownies". They were good but kept me craving more and more.

I don't think that has anything to do with cocaine though.

Maybe next year he will bring a fresh batch of Colorado hookers.
Click to expand...

Ya gotta watch those folks from Colorado. He was prolly lucky to find Gastons and no way he could do it twice.
 
Posted by me to another forum*:

This comes up periodically.

I see investing in securities as involving a paradox.

On the one hand, in an ideal efficient market, things are always priced "fairly". Everyone has access to the same information, and all knowledge, be it past chart performance or fundamentals, are always factored into the current price of anything. Hence "overvalued" and "undervalued" are mythical concepts. The implication is that, short term, securities behave unpredictably, and this has a name: the Random Walk Theory. Trying to tease out inefficiencies in markets and to profit from them by short term trading has proven very difficult - if not impossible once transaction costs are figured in.

On the other hand, there are successful investors. This may be nearly all luck, as Taleb puts forth in "Fooled By Randomness". I read a book, still available and periodically updated, called "One Up On Wall Street" by Peter Lynch. I highly recommend it for anyone interested in investing in the stock market.

In any case, I may be "Fooled By Randomness", yet following Lynch's basic advice, I have or had very nice gains in Apple, Google, Netflix, Amazon, Sturm Ruger, Polaris, and so on. Dividend paying stocks can dwarf returns one might get from a bank. Other picks have not performed as well, but overall I've done quite well and do not have to rely on my Social Security alone in retirement.

Rightly or wrongly, I come away seeing investment as far different from gambling. But YMMV, and I would never encourage anyone to invest in the stock market if they're not comfortable with the concept. But please invest in something - having to live on Social Security alone would be a very meager existence.


*There's an extremely long and frustrating thread on Technical Analysis here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=293559
 
Last edited:
EminiTrader said:
I dont typically discuss this here but- the other day IBM got its head bashed in and dropped down to the 140 level. IV (Implied Volatility) skyrocketed up towards 70% I have absolutely no problem owning shares here so I sold 10 naked puts (140 strike) for 2.15. today I closed them for .75 for a quick $1.40 profit. Guess I wont' own those shares after all, but still quite pleased with the 2 day trade.

Same with AAPL. Sold the 110 Weeklys for 1.00 or so and now trading down at 30 cents or so.

Obviously if you do not understand options you would never do this, and you would never sell naked puts on stocks you don't mind owning...
Click to expand...

If you don't mind my asking, which IV calculator program are you using? There are a bunch of them with varying levels of reliability. I traded options at one time, long before all this technology came to the fore. Options moves can be vicious.
 
Looks like RDSH is Roadships Hldg. This is a bizarre company.

"The Company's operations comprise three strategic business units (SBUs): Short Sea Freight Shipping, Freight Shipping Logistics and Ground Freight Transport."

Great! Sounds legit... so why did they acquire Click Evidence in August? "Roadships Holdings, Inc. (OTC-Pink: RDSH) announced today that it has entered into a Share Exchange Agreement by which it will acquire not less than 90% voting control over Click Evidence Inc., of Tuscon, Arizona"

Click Evidence does: "Its premier product is the KlickZie system, which enables any smartphone camera to create trustable pictures and videos". Uhh... Ok. So does that fall under the Short Sea Freight shipping, or Ground Freight Transport business units??


This is like a merger between FedEx and Instagram. Bizarre.
 
I saw that but some anonymous internet forum user says "this looks like a good buy" so I said, why not?

Fwiw I'm talking play money (hundreds not thousands)
So it wasn't hard to sell it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top