Fedex commits $3.2 billion to wage increases, bonuses, pension funding, expanded U.S. capital at its Memphis and Indianapolis locations Investing |
- Fedex commits $3.2 billion to wage increases, bonuses, pension funding, expanded U.S. capital at its Memphis and Indianapolis locations
- BofA Merrill Lynch's "Bull & Bear" indicator has given 11 SELL signals since 2002 with a 100% hit ratio currently signals near market sell off
- Steve Wynn Accused of Gross Sexual Misconduct. $WYNN down 6.5% on the news
- I realized that I kind of suck at picking stocks
- Amazon is up 43% since last earning.
- Bombadier wins Trade Dispute in US
- Today I made money for the 1st time as an investor
- Is investing in ETNs inherently riskier than investing in ETFs?
- Feedback on idea / opportunity
- Credibility of app called Robinhood
- Exchange-traded funds: a crowded trade
- How exactly does hedging work?
- If you could get a guaranteed 4% return, would you pass up stocks?
- What is your longest dated individual stock holding? How has it performed compared to the averages?
- Universal Display's OLED light solutions are about to take off
- Intel is now sitting above where they were prior to announcing Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities.
- Not much talk about Google?
- How do funds get their “expenses”?
- What happened to Vanguard VWO (Emerging Markets) in 2016
- Can someone explain why Caterpillar stock dropped when it reported good earnings?
- Purchasing stocks for the company I’m leaving - is this a sunk cost fallacy?
- Thoughts on $AAPL?
- If NAFTA is killed, with CAD lose value?
| Posted: 26 Jan 2018 01:45 PM PST I work for them as an hourly worker so I'm honestly just waiting to be told I've been let off because of these recent actions due to the tax cuts in D.C. Does this change how you might invest with them? What do you think? [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 26 Jan 2018 08:58 PM PST BAML's 'Bull & Bear' gauge, which takes the temperature of markets, is now flashing overheating warning signals at 7.9, just under the 8 level that BAML recommends selling. It is the indicator's highest since March 2013. It has given 11 sell signals since 2002 with a 100 percent hit ratio, BAML said. Average equity peak-to-trough drops in the following 3 months after the signal have been 12 percent they added. [link] [comments]  |
| Steve Wynn Accused of Gross Sexual Misconduct. $WYNN down 6.5% on the news Posted: 26 Jan 2018 09:34 AM PST |
| I realized that I kind of suck at picking stocks Posted: 26 Jan 2018 01:50 PM PST For anyone out there picking stocks, do you do regular checks against what would have happened had you bought an S&P index fund? I like to think myself savvy, I read "The Intelligent Investor" and "Security Analysis". I tried to follow value-investing philosophies. I can read financial statements pretty well. After 3 years of picking my own stocks, I compared my portfolio with what I'd have had I just added more S&P index shares over the years. I would have been $6,000 richer! Do any stock pickers out there do this check, and are still coming out on top? What's your portfolio like? [link] [comments]  |
| Amazon is up 43% since last earning. Posted: 26 Jan 2018 08:18 AM PST It has P/E 356 with 673 B market cap. This is just ridiculous how much growth a giant company like amazon have in 3 month. what is the next resistance? now it has reached its target price [link] [comments]  |
| Bombadier wins Trade Dispute in US Posted: 26 Jan 2018 11:47 AM PST |
| Today I made money for the 1st time as an investor Posted: 26 Jan 2018 01:26 PM PST I'm 23 years old and have been a long time lurker of /r/investing. My dream to invest was sparked when I was 13 years old. I had a man sitting next to me on a plane give me the best investment advice I have ever received. He said, "When you grow up and make your first $10,000, take all that money you just made and invest it in a company that you believe in and don't touch it for years to come. Start back over at zero, and consider that money out of your hands from there on out." Back in August 2015 I decided to use a little extra cash I had (not even close to $10,000, as I was a University student at the time) and try to invest in a company that I thought would do well in the future. I decided to buy 15 shares of NFLX at $126, because the cable industry was dying and I knew that Netflix would benefit immensely from this. Since I was a new investor, I had no idea that buying at an ATH was not the greatest idea, and from there it plummeted because of the China crash in September 2015. I held on to my position, knowing that selling for a loss was something I did not want to do or something that I could afford, either. I saw it drop as low as $86 and I was determined not to sell even though I saw many "Analysts" say how this stock was overvalued even at $85, with Price Targets as low as $50. Fast forward to today, my sweet, sweet NFLX has shot up over 25% after a stellar earnings report. I sold my 15 shares today for a profit of 116%. It was hard to let go, but after nearly 2.5 years of watching this stock I can't help but feel it'll be in store for a major correction some time soon. I may be wrong about that last part, but it doesn't really matter, if it does happen then I'll be looking to get back in at a lower price. I believed in this company from the beginning, and I continue to do so. My word of advice for anyone that wants to get involved in the stock market (younger or older) is that you should always invest in companies that you personally believe in; ones that have an advantage in their sector... But most of all, even though it has been said time and time again, patience does pay off. Lastly, thank you to /r/investing, a lot of what I have learned came from your posts over the years. I hope to continue to be a successful investor in my future, and that might not have been the case without your help. [link] [comments]  |
| Is investing in ETNs inherently riskier than investing in ETFs? Posted: 27 Jan 2018 02:09 AM PST For me, ETFs are easy to understand, but ETNs are confusing. According to Investopedia, " ETNs are a type of unsecured, unsubordinated debt security based on the performance of a market index minus applicable fees, with no period coupon payments distributed and no principal protections. " What??? I guess, it is best not to invest in anything which one does understand. I still would like to know what others think of ETNs. [link] [comments]  |
| Feedback on idea / opportunity Posted: 27 Jan 2018 01:25 AM PST I continue to think there is a gap in the market for knowing why people make the investment decisions they make. Take the example of bitcoin: we know for a fact that bitcoin has skyrocketed in the past year, but we have no idea why. We can think of some reasons such as pure speculation, or herd mentality, or if you're Bill Miller that bitcoin represents an uncorrelated hedge against the usual asset classes of stocks and bonds which are at all time highs, or so on. But, we don't actually know the weight of each of these reasons. This bothers me a lot. Some might say that Wall St analysts represent the consensus. I beg to differ. I think their "consensus" represents the average of THEIR analysis, not the analysis and rationale of the broader investor community. As such, I wanted your feedback on whether there would be value in a research service that would survey say 2000 owners of a security on a regular basis to understand their rationale for owning the security. The incentive to people to get them to participate is that the survey results will be shared with them all, so they will know why others are owning the security they do. If you're a retail or institutional investor, would you find value in this service? If asked to participate in the survey, would you? If not, would you pay to get access to the survey results? Appreciate any feedback. [link] [comments]  |
| Credibility of app called Robinhood Posted: 27 Jan 2018 12:49 AM PST I am looking for a simple app that allows free transaction. How is this app allowing us to trade stocks freely? and can I trust this app? How many people are using this? [link] [comments]  |
| Exchange-traded funds: a crowded trade Posted: 27 Jan 2018 03:30 AM PST Exchange-traded funds: a crowded trade ETFs have become a dominant trend, but as with any investing force, there are growing fears of unintended consequences In late 1999, as the dot-com bubble was starting to take on dangerous proportions, Anna Kournikova appeared in a commercial for brokerage firm Charles Schwab. As the Russian tennis star stretched courtside and chatted with the umpire, she lectured about the basics of stock investing – valuations, earnings per share, asset allocation. It was but one sign that the stock market had taken on an unprecedented cultural status, at a time when average investors were lulled into thinking they could trade stocks like the pros – an illusion that was shattered when the bubble burst and the ensuing crash wiped out half of the market's value. Fast-forward almost 20 years, and it's a different legend of tennis aligned with a different investing craze. This past week at a conference for exchange-traded funds in Florida, Serena Williams took the stage for a keynote on the topic of "excellence." Another session featured record producer Quincy Jones talking up a streaming music industry ETF that bears his name. What was once a stuffy trade show for a niche financial product suddenly has the profile to draw A-list celebrities. It's official: ETFs have gone big time. With nearly $5-trillion (U.S.) in assets globally, growth in ETFs has become a dominant trend of the era, as vast sums of money spurn what's now perceived as the stodgy, outmoded mutual fund in favour of its flashy younger cousin. But as with any investing force that captures the imagination of the masses, there are growing fears of unintended consequences. Just as the frenzy for internet stocks in the late-1990s fuelled the crash that was soon to come, today's fiercest critics suspect that ETFs may be sowing the seeds of a future stock market rout. There are big, reputable names raising the alarm. From esteemed value investor Seth Klarman, to distressed debt guru Howard Marks, to Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller, to renowned commodities investor Jim Rogers, they're all warning of potential bubbles arising from ETFs and the style of investing they promote. "If history is any guide, this will all come to a crashing end," said Ross Healy, a fund manager for nearly 50 years, and chairman of Toronto-based research firm Strategic Analysis Corp. "But when it's working, it's a hell of a lot of fun." Absent a smoking gun, the main piece of evidence offered up by ETF-phobes is simply how the market has been behaving recently. Almost without fail, the U.S. stock market seems to rise, day after day, with next to no volatility, suggesting the utter absence of concern. The Dow Jones Industrial Average has not declined by 1 per cent or more on a single day since Sept. 5. A hot market tends to fuel itself, luring more and more investors with the promise of runaway profits. Big ETFs that replicate the performance of the entire stock market, or vast chunks of it, are increasingly the vehicle of choice for new money entering the market. They can be bought and sold on a whim, usually with a few clicks, and they tend to charge a fraction of the fees of mutual funds. As such, they might also be a way for so-called "hot money" to exit quickly when markets get rough. The enormous SPDR S&P 500 ETF Trust (SPY), for example, is the largest ETF in existence with more than $300-billion in assets. Five years ago, it had $130-billion. Investors in that fund are indeed having a lot of fun riding one of the best stock market runs in history. In the past two years alone, SPY shares have risen in price by 50 per cent. A growing chorus of market professionals are blaming ETFs for propelling stocks to perilous heights. Passive investing through ETFs – an investing style based on broad stock market exposure – is becoming so popular that it may be distorting the market itself, they say. What if they're right? Could the very thing that democratized investing for the masses and cracked the mutual fund monopoly be inflating a bubble in stocks? It's far from clear that ETFs and passive investing have yet become big enough to warp the market on any mass scale. But at a certain point, it's certainly possible. ETF detractors raise valid concerns about the unforeseen side effects of a financial innovation causing big changes in how people invest, said Howard Marks, co-founder of Los Angeles-based Oaktree Capital, which manages more than $100-billion. "What if passive investing is changing the operation of the market? Is it still right and good?" Perhaps the best example of an investing fad becoming a victim of its own popularity was illustrated in devastating fashion by Black Monday – Oct. 19, 1987 – the single-worst trading day in U.S. market history. Much of the blame for that day's selling spree was placed on what had become a common market-hedging strategy called portfolio insurance. As U.S. stock prices soared through the mid-1980s, institutional investors grew increasingly concerned about a market crash. Those jitters made them quick to embrace a product that could shield them from big losses in the event of a downturn. This was the promise of portfolio insurance – once the market declined by a certain amount it would trigger the automatic selling of stock index futures, which would offset losses in the actual stocks those same investors held. But an instrument that was designed to protect the individual investor became toxic in widespread use, as initial market declines triggered wave after wave of selling, exacerbating the losses on the day. The Dow Jones industrial average ended the day down by a shocking 23 per cent. "The whole strategy blew up and died that day on the stock exchange floor," said Kim Shannon, president of Toronto-based Sionna Investment Managers, who lived through Black Monday as a rookie trader-analyst. Passive investing through ETFs also makes a lot of sense at the individual investor level, she said. But an excessive adoption of the style could doom it to the same fate met by portfolio insurance, once the market hits a downturn, if the result is a cascade of selling. "At what point do you have too much of a good thing? No one knows. This is the great experiment," Ms. Shannon said. The irony is that ETFs were partly conceived as a solution to the havoc wreaked by portfolio insurance on Black Monday. Rattled regulators and exchange operators observed that the automated selling of stock index futures had spread to the underlying stock market, exacerbating the losses in individual share prices. A single instrument representing a basket of stocks that investors could trade, one step removed from the companies listed on the exchange, might provide a useful buffer between the two markets. Thus, the original idea for ETFs was born. That birth was not treated as a happy occasion by the mutual-fund business. In no mood to relinquish their monopoly, fund companies perceived ETFs as a threat to the established order of things. The vision for the ETF was essentially to build a mutual fund that could trade throughout the day on a stock exchange, as opposed to the once-daily or once-weekly pricing of mutual funds. This would allow institutional investors to quickly shift money around by trading baskets of stocks. Initially called index participation shares, these instruments were to be introduced on U.S. exchanges in 1989, and were designed to replicate the performance of the S&P 500 index. The reception was twofold: considerable interest from investors, and immediate resistance from Wall Street incumbents. A lawsuit launched in part by a mutual fund lobby group argued that ETFs were closer to futures contracts than stocks and should be confined to futures exchanges. The legal gambit worked. Stock exchanges were blocked from listing index participation shares. "ETFs started with a jurisdictional battle," said Eric Kirzner, a finance professor at the University of Toronto's Rotman School of Management. "Right off the bat, there was great opposition." After the first U.S. ETF prototype was scuppered, the idea migrated to Canada, where the Toronto 35 Index Participation Fund – the predecessor to the iShares S&P/TSX 60 index ETF – was introduced in 1990. Almost 30 years later, ETFs have become a true investing phenomenon, giving average investors options they never had before. ETFs have opened up access to strategies and asset classes that were once the domain of only the professionals. Today, regular investors can – for better or worse – invest in volatility, commodities, corporate bonds, factors, sectors and leveraged ETFs amplifying the returns of an underlying index. There are marijuana ETFs, blockchain ETFs – even an ETF tracking the U.S. ETF industry ( ETF Industry Exposure & Financial Services ETF, ticker TETF). Last year, 60 new ETFs launched on the Toronto Stock Exchange, flooding investors with exotic new options. There are now more than 500 ETFs listed in Toronto, and within a couple of years, structured listings including ETFs are on track to crowd out the number of individual stocks trading on the TSX. That's to say nothing of the thousands more available on foreign exchanges. The examples of specialized ETFs above are tools of "active" investing, which is predicated on the idea that a skilled investor can pick winning sectors and trends to trade on. But the bigger draw of ETFs is in providing plain-vanilla, broad-market index exposure to investors at a fraction of the cost of mutual fund investing. As awareness surrounding the erosive effect of fees has grown, and as passive investing has performed admirably through the best years of the bull market, ETFs have thrived. Over the last decade, more than $1-trillion has been yanked from U.S. active equity funds and shifted to passive funds (ETFs and mutual funds). Index-investing pioneer Vanguard alone is now taking in about $1-billion in new investor funds every single day, leading its founder, Jack Bogle, to worry that the firm is growing too la Passive investing is based on the idea that the market is so hard to beat, it's best not to try. Just build up exposure to the entire stock market, minimize fees and ride the index. The concern now being raised is that if too many investors go that route, there won't be enough active managers left doing the good work of figuring out how much companies are actually worth. "The strength of this country was built on people who watched individual companies," Nobel Prize-winning economist Mr. Shiller recently said on CNBC. ETFs, in fact, have become Wall Street's favourite scapegoat. They have been called un-American, likened to financial Marxism, accused of inflating asset bubbles, subverting traditional value investing and of pushing the biggest stocks on a relentless upward trajectory with little variation. One of the ways ETFs might be influencing the market is through fund flows into the biggest stock indexes. The way most national indexes, as with the S&P/TSX composite index, are constructed, means that new ETF money flows to each individual stock in proportion to its market value at the time. Shares of Royal Bank of Canada, for example, being the largest listing on the TSX, would be apportioned the largest chunk of a new investment in a Canadian index ETF. All of the other individual stocks within the index would get successively smaller proportions, going all the way down the list. That has the effect of locking in one stock's value relative to another, with ETF flows tending to put upward pressure on each component stock in a synchronized way. "You have this side effect where stocks are being pushed around together," said Mark Kamstra, a professor of finance at York University's Schulich School of Business, who specializes in the study of financial bubbles. "It's an interesting set of problems; I don't think they were anticipated." That effect could artificially reduce market volatility, with stocks within an index marching higher in lockstep. But the power to distort the market requires ETFs being big enough to do so. And ETF devotees usually respond to predictions of doom by saying that neither ETFs nor passive investing in general have yet to assume those kind of proportions. The data seem to back that up, Mr. Kamstra said. He said doesn't yet see evidence of market-level mispricing. After all, most of the market's value is still held outside of managed equity funds. Big chunks of the stock market are held by pension funds, hedge funds, foreign investors and households, for example. As of late last year, U.S. equity ETFs managed $2.7-trillion in assets. But that amounts to less than 10 per cent of the roughly $30-trillion value of U.S. stock market. Similarly, passive ETFs and mutual funds together accounted for just 12 per cent of the total value of American stocks, according to Bloomberg data. These are hardly market-warping numbers, according to Daniel Straus, head of ETF research and strategy at National Bank Financial. ETF and passive holdings are even smaller on a global scale, and in the Canadian market, for that matter. "ETFs are transformative in many ways, but relative to other pools of assets, they're still a small piece of the pie," Mr. Straus said. As of 2017 year end, assets in Canadian equity ETFs totalled a little more than $100-billion (Canadian), which is about 5 per cent of the total market capitalization of the Canadian stock market. Part of the problem is that ETF critics often seem to inflate the market share of ETFs and passive mutual funds. Market-share estimates for passive investment strategies range from 30 per cent to close to 50 per cent of total U.S. equity fund assets, depending on methodology. That has resulted in the mistaken and often-repeated claim that passively managed funds have taken control of half of the U.S. stock market. Again, the U.S. stock market is much bigger than the managed fund business alone. The real share of the total U.S. stock market in passive funds, according to multiple data sources, is more like 15 per cent. Globally, that figure drops to around 8 per cent, UBS said in a recent report. More often than not, those most critical of a passive style of investing are also those who are hurt by its popularity, said Yves Rebetez, managing director of Oakville, Ont.-based ETF Insight, specializing in analysis and research. "A lot of people raising these issues have a clear vested interest in trying to prevent passive from gaining more ground, because it's hurting their business," Mr. Rebetez said. "Those things are hard to stomach for people whose livelihood revolves around being able to pass judgment on securities' prices." Stock picking in general has a dismal track record in recent years. Among large-cap U.S. equity funds, almost 85 per cent of fund managers failed to beat the S&P 500 after fees over the past 10 years, according to Standard & Poor's SPIVA Scorecard rankings, which show mutual fund performance up to the end of June. Active managers often complain that the current market environment, where everything moves up relentlessly, has made their jobs impossible. The U.S. market is being led by growth companies such as the tech giants known as the FAANGs – Facebook Inc., Apple Inc., Amazon.com Inc., Netflix Inc., and Google parent Alphabet Inc. – which few value investors would ever touch. That's a tough market for any stock picker to beat. "It's painful, because value stocks have underperformed for years. As a value manager, you slink around and hope nobody corners you," said Strategic Analysis Corp.'s Mr. Healy. The poor long-term results posted by stock pickers in general have set off an exodus out of active management. In each of the past 10 years, the active-fund space has ceded ground to passive strategies. As with many other frustrated value investors, Mr. Healy said he believes indexing is to blame. And a reckoning is coming for investors who put too much faith in index funds, he said. "One-stop investing doesn't work. It's like you don't have to think about it any more. You may not really understand what you're buying. Eventually, you'll have to suffer the consequences." Mass redemptions from active funds could quickly reverse, however, if stock pickers start to reliably beat the market. "People chase returns, so if they see active investors doing great, they'll plow back into them," Mr. Kamstra said. Which is why it's odd to hear active managers complain about ETFs skewing valuations, he said. If that's actually happening, who better than a skilled stock picker to take advantage of those mispricings. "If I were an active investor, I'd be loving that stuff. It makes for opportunities," Mr. Kamstra said. Those opportunities, in theory, could emerge from how ETF money flows to each stock within a fund. Say a smaller, less liquid medical marijuana company is closing in on a big distribution deal. Instead of trying to purchase shares that might not trade that often, an investor might choose to buy a stake in the Horizons Marijuana Life Sciences ETF instead. Enough investors get the same idea and all stocks within the ETF get pushed up on one company's good news. "Even though nothing might have happened to the other stocks, just because they're part of a bundle, they get bought and sold," Mr. Kamstra said. "That can cause deviations from fundamental value." That's the kind of thing active investing might thrive on. ETFs could very well grow so large as to be capable of single-handedly dislodging prices from underlying value and inflating a major stock bubble. But the trend has not gone that far yet – not even close, Mr. Rebetez said, despite the enormous sums of investor money that ETFs and passive funds have scooped up in recent years. Most of that money just represents a shift away from mutual funds, where it would have been allocated in much the same way, but charging considerably higher fees in the process. "People either see the ETF as either the great equalizer, or as a potential weapon of mass destruction," Mr. Rebetez said. "The reality is, it's neither. It's actually just a very elegant investment delivery tool." [link] [comments]  |
| How exactly does hedging work? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 11:21 PM PST I understand the concept and ideas behind hedging, but how does a hedge fund hedge its risk? For example, if they long NVDA what would they do to hedge their risk? Buy option puts on a competitor or? [link] [comments]  |
| If you could get a guaranteed 4% return, would you pass up stocks? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 10:05 AM PST With a lot of experts expecting lower average stock returns over the next decade or so (Bogle predicts 4%), I wanted to see this subs opinion on taking a guaranteed 4% return. Outside of maxing Roth (no 401k available), would it make sense to take a guaranteed 4% return in the form of paying down mortgage debt? Typically it is seen as smarter to invest extra cash, rather than pay down a mortgage. Passing up a possible ~10%(historically before inflation), for a guaranteed 4%, seems like a smart move for at least some of your extra cash flow. Especially if that 10% can take a big dive pretty quickly This is of course assuming that you view paying down debt as 'guaranteed' returns [link] [comments]  |
| What is your longest dated individual stock holding? How has it performed compared to the averages? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 11:25 AM PST Personally, I am still in college and my portfolio is only about 3 years old. So most of my positions are on average about 18 months old. I am just curious what stocks this Sub has held for decades. [link] [comments]  |
| Universal Display's OLED light solutions are about to take off Posted: 26 Jan 2018 11:15 AM PST Universal Display's stock price has dropped about 20% from recent highs just when demand for its patented OLED solutions are about to take off. These OLEDs are currently used in top model smart phone displays. But with OLED prices falling these high quality displays are going mainstream with demand surging from cheaper phones as well as wider applications in large premium 4k televisions. Panasonic and LG both recently announcing they are going to incorporate the technology in tvs and monitors. Q3 year on year sales doubled while potential applications are expanding rapidly and now include automotives, wearables and lighting. Lighting is where the big money is to be made. OLEDs provide more natural ambient light and are more efficient than traditional LEDs. Market research firm Yole Developpement forecasts OLED lighting sales to grow from $30 million in 2015 to $1.5 billion by 2021 and that's just the beginning. The total addressable market is huge and expected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars in 2030. https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/10/31/this-is-the-real-reason-to-love-universal-display.aspx With a valuation of 30 times revenues and 80 times trailing earnings Universal Display is not cheap but thats sometimes what you have to pay for a company with huge growth, patents and a net profit margin of almost 30%. This post is not a recommendation to buy or sell any security or derivative. Stocks are not suitable for all investors. Please do your own research. [link] [comments]  |
| Intel is now sitting above where they were prior to announcing Meltdown and Spectre vulnerabilities. Posted: 26 Jan 2018 11:51 AM PST Granted it's only been a short while, and I'm sure many lawsuits are pending too. But, seems that short term profits have put $INTC back in the green from before this news. I remember hearing theories of them going under from this, and massive recalls too. I guess there is still a lot to see going forward, but the street sure isn't too concerned. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 27 Jan 2018 12:42 AM PST As much as the tech stocks have risen in value this year, it seems that Google isn't doing as well. There is much talk about Apple, Amazon, Facebook, and etc on this board, but not much discussion about Google it seems. There isn't much to talk about? Just wait and see? How do you guys feel about Google's outlook this year? [link] [comments]  |
| How do funds get their “expenses”? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 06:04 PM PST I understand we obviously want a low expense ratio, but when does the fund management actually take their "expense"? Do they take it out of our dividends? What about a fund that doesnt give any dividends, does the fund just take a chunk of the profit you make from selling the fund later? What if the fund loses money, how would it take an expense? [link] [comments]  |
| What happened to Vanguard VWO (Emerging Markets) in 2016 Posted: 26 Jan 2018 03:13 PM PST ETF has big positions in a Chinese companies, mainly tech and media. What happened in 2016? I looked at most of the ETF's top holdings in 2016 and they did fairly well in 2016...,. [link] [comments]  |
| Can someone explain why Caterpillar stock dropped when it reported good earnings? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 07:54 PM PST I'm new to investing so I'm sorry this is a stupid question. [link] [comments]  |
| Purchasing stocks for the company I’m leaving - is this a sunk cost fallacy? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 05:17 PM PST Hi all, First time posting here. I'm currently working at a company and this year 42% my compensation is RSU which vests twice this year. I'm leaving the company in two weeks and that means I'm not getting any stock this year. My company stock is rising like crazy. I'm giving up 74k worth of stock I was supposed to get this year because I'm switching employers. I believe it will go up even more. It's up 18% since the new year. I'm thinking of buying a lot of the company's stock just so that I don't feel bad when the stock goes up even more. This is a very successful e-commerce company that does a lot of things. The stock is expensive, but I'm going to buy 20 shares now. My portfolio is already over 30% amazon stocks. Am i making a smart decision? I feel like I'm just trying to help me feel less terrible when the stock goes up even more. I'm involving my feeling in making a purchase decision. Has anyone been in a situation like this? I'd appreciate your advice. [link] [comments]  |
| Posted: 26 Jan 2018 05:01 PM PST EDIT: I am long AAPL Feb 2 calls- in fact I am practically all-inning (65% AAPL, 35% AMZN). [link] [comments]  |
| If NAFTA is killed, with CAD lose value? Posted: 26 Jan 2018 01:11 PM PST (noob here) If I am the kind of person who thinks NAFTA is going to be axed, should I convert my funds to USD now in case CAD tanks? Could I potentially make money on converting back to CAD right after the announcement, when CAD is low and USD is high? [link] [comments]  |
| You are subscribed to email updates from Lose money with friends!. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States | |
No comments:
Post a Comment