Shabba

Total Rating:
+1 / 0

17 Comments

    • Fri Nov 7th 14:21 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Digging into Shipping
      That's true, their is a significant "burn-rate" for these things. They're extremely expensive. It still looks like massive panic to me though based on the total collapse of the spot prices in such a short period of time (down about 80% in 2 months, and close to 95% from the bubbilicous highs). There really isn't anything to explain this on fundamentals. It just seems incredible to me that supply/demand for shipping dry freight could change that much in such a short period of time, especially for a company the size of dryships.
      View article »
    • Fri Nov 7th 11:37 AM | Rating: +1 0
      Commented on:
      Digging into Shipping
      The stock prices for these type of companies are just ridiculous, DRYS is trading at 70% of last year's earnings. They just reported too, and only missed by 2%. They made about 3.50 a share. The stock is about 15 a share. Yes yes I know, the BDI is low rates are terrible. There is no way it can continue, what, are people not going to eat and import goods?

      It's just a big game for the players in the market, let's see how low we can drive shares, cover our shorts, and then hopefully time the bottom correclty. It seems the entire market has completely stopped trading on fundamentals. It's all a mass panic.
      View article »
    • Mon Jul 21st 20:25 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The SEC's 'Sacred Cow' List: Where Are WaMu and Wachovia?
      I think your data is wrong. It doesn't make any sense for the finanicals to have a lower short interest than the S&P 500. In fact it makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and I gotta say that your data must be wrong. These stocks have been decimated. I wonder if this includes "naked shorts". How are they measuring this, is it the average short interest at the end of the day, or what? I've seen a lot of these companies exchange 20+% of their total shares in one day. This has to be massive short selling.
      View article »
    • Tue Jul 15th 18:43 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The SEC Panics
      Hey Maw,

      I think if you're trading with a mainstream broker you're fine. If not I would just give them a call. I think it's impossible to know where exactly the shares come from.

      And selling short has IMMENSE value to it. If you can't sell short, the only position you could take in equities (excluding options, etc. I'm just talking purely equities) is that they will appreciate. Equities are mispriced all the time, and causing people to only be able to make one-sided bets will cause them to be even more mispriced. It would really screw up the pricing and cause even worse bubbles than what we see now. It's naked shorting that is ridiculous and should have been banned a long time ago.
      View article »
    • Tue Jul 15th 16:19 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      The SEC Panics
      The SEC is doing what it should be doing, keeping the markets honest and fair. What they are trying to regulate is "naked" short selling. It's where people are selling shares that they DON'T have. This shouldn't be going on anywhere, in any stock. It's especially bad in these stock though because of the recent news.

      I remember a day last week where there were 300+ million shares of FRE traded. There are only about 650 million shares in the company available and institutional ownership is about 95%. What is basically going on is that people are just rapid fire short selling the stocks dozens of times in a day, covering, and then shorting again. All the while they don't have any of the shares they are selling.

      And the Ackman plan, give me a friggin break. The guy is short the stock! His plan for the companies will make him a fortune, if I were a news editor I would be embarrassed to publish the plan. It's ridiculous. I hope Ackman gets taken out to the woodshed on his short positions. These companies have problems (and they should given this is the worst housing bust EVER) but they aren't insolvent.
      View article »
    • Tue Jun 3rd 19:10 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Visa Estimates Upped Through 2010
      Frankoramaaa, Frankorooski, Frankomayooo. Predictin the stock market, the Frankmeister.

      The Frankmeister buyin the overprice stock, gonna make the big buck. Go Frankoramaaaaa!
      View article »
    • Tue Jun 3rd 19:06 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Lehman Brothers: The Much Feared Shorts
      Will Uncle Ben takes this one green? I must know, I have life savings in Lehman. Performance not good.
      View article »
    • Mon Jun 2nd 12:50 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      General Discussion on V
      OK, I see now! Google doubled, therefore Visa should double because they both had IPOs. Brilliant!

      Talk about cutting edge analysis. I don't know what I would do without the brilliant people at seeking alpha. Nine, you're the man!
      View forum topic »
    • Fri May 30th 13:43 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Visa Estimates Upped Through 2010
      This stock seems to go up about 3% a day, every single day. Does it seem to anyone that someone (or people) is pumping this stock up? I mean it's almost unreal. It's doubled since the IPO, original price was $44. I've never seen anything like it.
      View article »
    • Wed May 28th 18:49 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      General Discussion on V
      I stand by my post that visa is like dot com mania all over again. Consider these FACTS (and no matter what you think Frankie, these are FACTS):

      1. Visa's initial IPO price was $44. It has almost doubled in about two months. IPO date was March 16 I believe. Is there any rational way that the largest processer of debit/credit transactions could be re-valued at twice the price they originally sold for in 2 months? No, there isn't. Either the investment bank that set the price is idiotic, or people are monkeying with the stock.

      2. The PE is extremely HIGH. I think it is over 50, but it is subject to speculation because it is new and you have to project a forward PE. Let's say you project EPS growth of 40% for this stock, which would be the absolute best case scenario. 1st quarter earnings were .39, if you project 40% growth over a year for EPS you get 1.77. Stock price is roughly 81, so PE is 81/1.77=45.5. I can't imagine an argument where you could say that the largest processor of debit/credit transactions in the world would grow more than 40%, so the PE is most likely higher.

      3. Mastercard's PE is close to 30, by the math above you could consider Visa overpriced by 50%. The companies are very similar and yes I understand that Visa has the advantage in growth, Asia, etc. But let's be realistic, a 50% premium? Give me a break.

      You're argument about future growth being priced into a stock is EXACTLY what drove the dot com mania. The argument was always that this or that company one day would be making X per share, and therefore it should be value at some insane price. 10 years later the NASDAQ is 50% of it's high back in 1999-2000. If you want to use that logic at what point do you cut off the date for earnings. Why not use 2010 earnings, or 2011, or 2012? And an even better question, how reliable are earnings forecasts several years out?

      Visa is a great company and will make money, so in a way it is very different than the dot-com types that were hyped 10 years ago, but a similar argument is being used to hype the stock. The reason all of this is important is because in the end the stock price is almost entirely driven by earnings, regardless of the short speculative waves that occur from time to time. And if you can't make some sense out of the price of the stock based on earnings, then you're gambling, not investing. It seems like Vegas would be a lot more fun than this.

      If you don't agree Frankie that's fine with me. If you made a ton of money off of the stock that is also fine with me. If you want to call me a bunch of middle school names because you have nothing to counter my facts or my logic don't waste your friggin time.

      If you have something meaningful to say that uses facts and or logic to support why Visa's earnings would grow by so much in such a short period of time I want to hear it (and I think everyone else here wants to hear it too).
      View forum topic »
    • Mon May 19th 18:47 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      General Discussion on V
      Sorry, I read that wrong. The 28% was the difference between Mastercard and Visa. I heard in their earnings report that they expect 20 something percent growth in earnings per share, if you extrapolate that to a full year then you get a very high PE. Bascially the PE you have doesn't jive with Visa's expectations of growth in earnings per share.
      View forum topic »
    • Mon May 19th 18:44 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      General Discussion on V
      I think the PE is much higher for 2008 than what you have listed. If you extrapolate 28% growth in earnings per share you don't come close to $2.00. And the PE that results is extremely high by any standard.

      But, anyways, I've been told not to worry about that here. After all the value of a stock doesn't depend on how much they make, it depends on how many other greater fools are willing to bid it up to an even more ridiculous level. Don't get me wrong, I think Visa is a great company, but I agree that the price makes no sense.

      As for your last question, they actually made .52 per share when you consider the whole 817 million shares. The .39 you mention is only on the 400 million or so common class A shares. I guess the general idea here is that about half of the company was sold to private interests before the IPO. That's the impression that I get, but I've never seen that explicitly stated. This still puts them way behind Matercard, and I have no idea why.

      But that doesn't matter! Just keep buying the damn stock!!!
      View forum topic »
    • Thu May 15th 17:39 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Visa Keeps Charging Ahead
      Uh-huh. Right, the stock price of a company has nothing to do with it's earnings? It's got a PE over 50! Mastercard has a PE of 30. And google dropped 20%(it has PE of 40 to put it into perspective). It's like dot com mania all over again, don't people ever learn anything?
      View article »
    • Fri May 9th 17:33 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      General Discussion on V
      VWinner-

      With all due respect you're missing my point. The 39 cents per share I mentioned in my post are on the shares that WILL NOT be redeemed (class A shares, you can look this up if you wish). I think overall they made 52 cents per share.

      And Visa is saying themselves that they will grow by 20% over the next year, who has a better idea of how fast Visa will grow, you or the company? I mean come on here, give me a break.

      If you make more on this stock good for you, reason doesn't dictate that it is properly valued at all though. And you're right, the P/E will adjust, just by a different mechanism than you suppose. I'm just saying be careful, I'd at least lay off the calls until it is more clear that the stock will continue to defy reason and gravity.
      View forum topic »
    • Fri May 9th 16:55 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      General Discussion on V
      I was actually just able to confirm what I said below. Here is the math, this is as of close today. P/E listed is 215.2, it's for the trailing 12 months and they have only reported one quarter of earnings (so you can actually divide this by 4 if you assume earnings will be flat or make some other assumption on growth). Closing price was 82.86. Take 82.86/215.2 and you get the .39 cents per share that was reported for class A common stock. This is the 400 or so million common shares I mentioned. So it does not matter one bit that they will be redeeming shares if you are talking about the P/Es that are put out for the company.

      At any rate, I heard on the conference call they assume they will have 20% growth. If that is true then the forward P/E based on today's price is 82.86/(.39+.408+.427+.... I used a quarterly growth rate of 4.66% which translates into an annual rate of 20%. In other words it is massively overpriced.

      And I'm not a hater, congratulations to everyone who made a lot on the stock. I think it is extremely important to get an idea of what they stock should be worth before you go buying calls in a bad market. Good luck though, if it goes up and you make money then good for you. It has definitely defied gravity so far.

      Disclosure: I am very short the V.
      View forum topic »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»