what I plan to do with my summer cash Forum

[tbo123123]

I am going to invest 50% of my summer earnings into BP stock, and the other 50% into Goldman stock, this is an excellent time to buy either of these companies imho. I'm going to double my investment by the time my 2L SA rolls around. BP $42, GS $137.. WATCH .. it'll be BP $84, GS $270.

Maybe I'll get unlucky and scrape only a +50% return.

[motiontodismiss]

Lol at doubling your money. Everyone thinks they'll double their money. In fact, 70% of investors lose money-the median expected return is negative.

I'm going to stick with the certain, guaranteed returns of the CD/Treasury market.

[badwithpseudonyms]

OP, TITCR

DELETED

Edited for better pic.

[d34d9823]

I am going to invest 50% of my summer earnings into BP stock, and the other 50% into Goldman stock, this is an excellent time to buy either of these companies imho. I'm going to double my investment by the time my 2L SA rolls around. BP $42, GS $137.. WATCH .. it'll be BP $84, GS $270.

Maybe I'll get unlucky and scrape only a +50% return.

Even given your expected rebound, it's not going to double. I just pulled these stocks and their previous prices were BP ~ $56 and GS ~ $170.

[ozarkhack]

Buy McClatchy or NYT.

Don't laugh. Yeah, yeah: Newspapers dying, etc. But they're cheap, cheap now. And while they'll never jump up to values seen just a couple of years ago, McClatchy, for one, is almost half what it was just 4 weeks ago (now at about $3.90). Surely that drop is due more to the world imploding than anything else? Any kind of rebound overall will surely (hopefully) lift the stock back up another $1 or $2/share.

Hell, I'll do you one more and sell you mine. You can thank me later.

Please?

[pleasetryagain]

Buy McClatchy or NYT.

Don't laugh. Yeah, yeah: Newspapers dying, etc. But they're cheap, cheap now. And while they'll never jump up to values seen just a couple of years ago, McClatchy, for one, is almost half what it was just 4 weeks ago (now at about $3.90). Surely that drop is due more to the world imploding than anything else? Any kind of rebound overall will surely (hopefully) lift the stock back up another $1 or $2/share.

Hell, I'll do you one more and sell you mine. You can thank me later.

Please?

attempted short sale of NYT?

[98234872348]

OP, TITCR

Edited for better pic.

If this is the better pic, I am afraid to see the original picture...

[ScaredWorkedBored]

Also, you're about the 900th person I've heard say that about BP stock. So I'm not sure the expected rebound isn't already priced in.

Funny thing is everyone who is buying BP stock so far is getting their legs cut off as it proceeds to go lower & lower.

[d34d9823]

Also, you're about the 900th person I've heard say that about BP stock. So I'm not sure the expected rebound isn't already priced in.

Funny thing is everyone who is buying BP stock so far is getting their legs cut off as it proceeds to go lower & lower.

If you buy now, you're buying for the 3-6 month outlook.

[SaintClarence27]

Buy McClatchy or NYT.

Don't laugh. Yeah, yeah: Newspapers dying, etc. But they're cheap, cheap now. And while they'll never jump up to values seen just a couple of years ago, McClatchy, for one, is almost half what it was just 4 weeks ago (now at about $3.90). Surely that drop is due more to the world imploding than anything else? Any kind of rebound overall will surely (hopefully) lift the stock back up another $1 or $2/share.

Hell, I'll do you one more and sell you mine. You can thank me later.

Please?

Best Avatar ever. Much better than the 3D movie.

[ScaredWorkedBored]

Also, you're about the 900th person I've heard say that about BP stock. So I'm not sure the expected rebound isn't already priced in.

Funny thing is everyone who is buying BP stock so far is getting their legs cut off as it proceeds to go lower & lower.

If you buy now, you're buying for the 3-6 month outlook.

Being underwater by 20% or more from your purchase price rather dents that 3-6 month outlook. You need a 32% rally in that time period just to get back to even. If someone believes that BP will actually do that, more power to them.

[RonArtest]

I'm going to Vegas this weekend. I'll be spending all my cash on hookers and cocaine. I suggest you re-think the BP and Goldman investment and put your money into something that will show some real return (read: hookers and cocaine).

[ozarkhack]

put your money into something that will show some real return (read: hookers and cocaine).

Or ... you can bet on which marine species the BP spill will kill off.

I'm putting down on the Loggerhead Turtle. I mean, it's already way more endangered than the Sperm Whale and Brown Pelican. And at 12-1, are you kidding me?!?!

[jayn3]

HOOKERS AND BLOW

[tbo123123]

the BP situation is an opportunity, the risk-reward balance is more favorable given a -25% correction in the face of an insured event.

The risk isn't a balance sheet risk, if you look at the cash position, their debt-to-equity, and their current ratio, they're good to go.
They're trading at 6 P/E, other stocks in the same industry are trading at 12-15 P/E. In 3 months, no media outlet will cover the "oil spill," I guarantee you that.

Once the oil spill media cycle dies out, and the litigation shifts to the insurers, BP will continue making profits on its business, which is doing whatever it does.

At 6 P/E, I would put in 1% of my net worth into this stock.

[quickquestionthanks]

Nothing about the market fundamentals changes the underlying value of BP with one exception. If that leaking pipeline may need to be permanently sealed, and thus, they will lose capacity. I'm not sure what the flow of that pipe is, but redrilling or rerouting will be expensive and reduce the overall yield from that oil field (no rhyme intended). I don't know how significant the leaking pipe is, my guess is very insignificant, but I could be wrong. Thus, BP is just as valuable (minus the clean up, redrilling costs) as it was 2 months ago, since this represents such a small percentage of their activity.


Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, may have their corporate structure changed. I've heard discussion that they may be broken into 3-4 different organizations as a result of the financial regulations bill. This does change the profitability of their firm, because the synergy they had from operating all different types of investing/financing schemes will be lost. Obama will go to the mat for them, because he's a liar and in their pocket, but there's no way to tell how strong the political will is to fix corporate practices like that. My guess is very high. Buyer beware.

[ToTransferOrNot]

Nothing about the market fundamentals changes the underlying value of BP with one exception. If that leaking pipeline may need to be permanently sealed, and thus, they will lose capacity. I'm not sure what the flow of that pipe is, but redrilling or rerouting will be expensive and reduce the overall yield from that oil field (no rhyme intended). I don't know how significant the leaking pipe is, my guess is very insignificant, but I could be wrong. Thus, BP is just as valuable (minus the clean up, redrilling costs) as it was 2 months ago, since this represents such a small percentage of their activity.


Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, may have their corporate structure changed. I've heard discussion that they may be broken into 3-4 different organizations as a result of the financial regulations bill. This does change the profitability of their firm, because the synergy they had from operating all different types of investing/financing schemes will be lost. Obama will go to the mat for them, because he's a liar and in their pocket, but there's no way to tell how strong the political will is to fix corporate practices like that. My guess is very high. Buyer beware.

PROFITS. BAD. JOBS. BAD. PROLETARIAT. GOOOOOOOOOD.

[SuperFreak]

Nothing about the market fundamentals changes the underlying value of BP with one exception. If that leaking pipeline may need to be permanently sealed, and thus, they will lose capacity. I'm not sure what the flow of that pipe is, but redrilling or rerouting will be expensive and reduce the overall yield from that oil field (no rhyme intended). I don't know how significant the leaking pipe is, my guess is very insignificant, but I could be wrong. Thus, BP is just as valuable (minus the clean up, redrilling costs) as it was 2 months ago, since this represents such a small percentage of their activity.


Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, may have their corporate structure changed. I've heard discussion that they may be broken into 3-4 different organizations as a result of the financial regulations bill. This does change the profitability of their firm, because the synergy they had from operating all different types of investing/financing schemes will be lost. Obama will go to the mat for them, because he's a liar and in their pocket, but there's no way to tell how strong the political will is to fix corporate practices like that. My guess is very high. Buyer beware.

Lame post. Obama isn't in "BP's pocket". I never understand these type of weird accusations.

[SaintClarence27]

Nothing about the market fundamentals changes the underlying value of BP with one exception. If that leaking pipeline may need to be permanently sealed, and thus, they will lose capacity. I'm not sure what the flow of that pipe is, but redrilling or rerouting will be expensive and reduce the overall yield from that oil field (no rhyme intended). I don't know how significant the leaking pipe is, my guess is very insignificant, but I could be wrong. Thus, BP is just as valuable (minus the clean up, redrilling costs) as it was 2 months ago, since this represents such a small percentage of their activity.


Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, may have their corporate structure changed. I've heard discussion that they may be broken into 3-4 different organizations as a result of the financial regulations bill. This does change the profitability of their firm, because the synergy they had from operating all different types of investing/financing schemes will be lost. Obama will go to the mat for them, because he's a liar and in their pocket, but there's no way to tell how strong the political will is to fix corporate practices like that. My guess is very high. Buyer beware.

Lame post. Obama isn't in "BP's pocket". I never understand these type of weird accusations.

To be fair, he said Goldman Sachs, not BP.

[TUP]

Lol at doubling your money. Everyone thinks they'll double their money. In fact, 70% of investors lose money-the median expected return is negative.

I'm going to stick with the certain, guaranteed returns of the CD/Treasury market.

Link on the 70% lose money stat?

[quickquestionthanks]

Nothing about the market fundamentals changes the underlying value of BP with one exception. If that leaking pipeline may need to be permanently sealed, and thus, they will lose capacity. I'm not sure what the flow of that pipe is, but redrilling or rerouting will be expensive and reduce the overall yield from that oil field (no rhyme intended). I don't know how significant the leaking pipe is, my guess is very insignificant, but I could be wrong. Thus, BP is just as valuable (minus the clean up, redrilling costs) as it was 2 months ago, since this represents such a small percentage of their activity.


Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, may have their corporate structure changed. I've heard discussion that they may be broken into 3-4 different organizations as a result of the financial regulations bill. This does change the profitability of their firm, because the synergy they had from operating all different types of investing/financing schemes will be lost. Obama will go to the mat for them, because he's a liar and in their pocket, but there's no way to tell how strong the political will is to fix corporate practices like that. My guess is very high. Buyer beware.

Lame post. Obama isn't in "BP's pocket". I never understand these type of weird accusations.

RC fail

[quickquestionthanks]

Nothing about the market fundamentals changes the underlying value of BP with one exception. If that leaking pipeline may need to be permanently sealed, and thus, they will lose capacity. I'm not sure what the flow of that pipe is, but redrilling or rerouting will be expensive and reduce the overall yield from that oil field (no rhyme intended). I don't know how significant the leaking pipe is, my guess is very insignificant, but I could be wrong. Thus, BP is just as valuable (minus the clean up, redrilling costs) as it was 2 months ago, since this represents such a small percentage of their activity.


Goldman Sachs, on the other hand, may have their corporate structure changed. I've heard discussion that they may be broken into 3-4 different organizations as a result of the financial regulations bill. This does change the profitability of their firm, because the synergy they had from operating all different types of investing/financing schemes will be lost. Obama will go to the mat for them, because he's a liar and in their pocket, but there's no way to tell how strong the political will is to fix corporate practices like that. My guess is very high. Buyer beware.

PROFITS. BAD. JOBS. BAD. PROLETARIAT. GOOOOOOOOOD.

I used the term "synergy" to be kind. "Insider trading," while perhaps not technically accurate, describes what they do a little better. Have you read anything about the SEC complaint against them? That's small potatoes, but encapsulates how they operate and it is certainly illegal.

[1000bmr]

as a current BP shareholder that has beaten the market 4 years in a row, let me assure you that BP is going to be nowhere near $84 in a year. $70 in 2 years would be nice. i own it because (1) the dividend is huge right now and it's not expected to be cut, and (2) too much was taken out of the market cap after the spill. though i think it would be wise to expect that future earnings will be depressed for at least a few years even besides the losses directly related to the spill. doing business with BP will involve PR problems for a little while probably.

if you own it speculatively for short-term capital appreciation i think you are dumb and bad. if you own it because you want to be in the oil business, you like the dividend, and you have an 18+ month outlook i think you're well positioned.

also, if you're 22-28 years old you probably need to be more focused on B&M instead of P&G, as has been mentioned.

[ToTransferOrNot]

"Synergy" is a highly desireable trait that drives a huge portion of corporate mergers, essentially all vertical/horizontal integration, and drives gains in efficiency and, ultimately, social good.

"Insider trading" is a judicial construct based on a rule promulgated by the SEC.

How one is even remotely related to the other is completely beyond me.

And yes, I have read a fair amount about the Goldman case, given that I'm currently in Fed. Reg. (not that that makes me an expert, or even particularly knowledgeable, it does mean I know more than 0). To say that their buisness practices are "clearly" illegal is absurd. To say that the SEC might win or force a rather large settlement and a consent decree--more reasonable. The thing is, essentially every large bank takes similar actions. Query whether the changes the SEC wants to force are actually going to result in greater disclosure/more transparency, also query whether, even if the changes do result in more transparency and disclosure, whether the overall cost to the economy will be worth it.

[quickquestionthanks]

"Synergy" is a highly desireable trait that drives a huge portion of corporate mergers, essentially all vertical/horizontal integration, and drives gains in efficiency and, ultimately, social good.

"Insider trading" is a judicial construct based on a rule promulgated by the SEC.

How one is even remotely related to the other is completely beyond me.

And yes, I have read a fair amount about the Goldman case, given that I'm currently in Fed. Reg. (not that that makes me an expert, or even particularly knowledgeable, it does mean I know more than 0). To say that their buisness practices are "clearly" illegal is absurd. To say that the SEC might win or force a rather large settlement and a consent decree--more reasonable. The thing is, essentially every large bank takes similar actions. Query whether the changes the SEC wants to force are actually going to result in greater disclosure/more transparency, also query whether, even if the changes do result in more transparency and disclosure, whether the overall cost to the economy will be worth it.

The "synergy" that allows their different investment departments to be so profitable stems from their organization having access to so much non-public information. Using non-public information obtained from a member of a public corporation to profit via trading stock is illegal and called "insider trading." This is how these are related.

I'm really not trying to get into a war of words here, just explaining why I said what I did, and why I consider Goldman Sachs to be an evil, evil entity (with the exception of their public bonds department).