Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Well, bought 2281 shares at a price range of $56.6-58. Hope it does well.
Originally posted by: EKKC
Originally posted by: zoiks
Originally posted by: goog40
Originally posted by: evident
ugh, i really wish i had money in my stock account right now. fudge!!!
Same here, I just setup my TDAmeritrade account a couple months ago to buy Nintendo, made the initial deposit without any problems. I just tried to add funds yesterday, and they have to verify the bank account by making a couple test deposits, which could take up to a week. It's frustrating that it's easier to open a new account and fund it to buy stocks immediately than it is to add money to an existing account (using the same bank account!).
I transferred my funds on the 15th and they still haven't arrived in Etrade. I also sold some stocks yesterday to make room for VISA but the funds for those won't be available for 4 days.
On the other hand, I could wait for Facebook...
even though i enjoy facebook very much, know that facebook is a fad. it's not google. based on its current model IMO it cannot sustain long term growth on purely visitors looking at their ads while browsing at what applications friends added or stalking their ex's. if it went IPO i would short the hell out of it.
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
Originally posted by: sandmanwake
Well, bought 2281 shares at a price range of $56.6-58. Hope it does well.
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
The banks owned part of Visa, so what's the problem?
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
The banks owned part of Visa, so what's the problem?
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
The banks owned part of Visa, so what's the problem?
I don't think he has a problem with that.
Going back to his original post, I'm also one of those who doesn't take part in IPO's.
I'll evaluate the company in a month or so if I think they're worth a look.
However I don't buy companies on IPO day because of the volatility.
I'd rather wait until after the dust has settled.
He might also have a point on it being a bear trap. (I'm not saying it is, just giving an example)
When BX was coming out almost everyone was hyping it to be the next "GS".
They're no where near that.
Peter Peterson was smart in cashing out almost all his BX stock at the IPO price.
BX is currently down almost 60% from it's IPO price.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
The banks owned part of Visa, so what's the problem?
I don't think he has a problem with that.
Going back to his original post, I'm also one of those who doesn't take part in IPO's.
I'll evaluate the company in a month or so if I think they're worth a look.
However I don't buy companies on IPO day because of the volatility.
I'd rather wait until after the dust has settled.
He might also have a point on it being a bear trap. (I'm not saying it is, just giving an example)
When BX was coming out almost everyone was hyping it to be the next "GS".
They're no where near that.
Peter Peterson was smart in cashing out almost all his BX stock at the IPO price.
BX is currently down almost 60% from it's IPO price.
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
The banks owned part of Visa, so what's the problem?
I don't think he has a problem with that.
Going back to his original post, I'm also one of those who doesn't take part in IPO's.
I'll evaluate the company in a month or so if I think they're worth a look.
However I don't buy companies on IPO day because of the volatility.
I'd rather wait until after the dust has settled.
He might also have a point on it being a bear trap. (I'm not saying it is, just giving an example)
When BX was coming out almost everyone was hyping it to be the next "GS".
They're no where near that.
Peter Peterson was smart in cashing out almost all his BX stock at the IPO price.
BX is currently down almost 60% from it's IPO price.
historically IPOs have a period of time where the price rises sharply and quickly then it drops to below the IPO price for a while, its at this time that the long term "investor" gets in if they think its a good company.this is nothing new and not a "bear trap" and should be expected by investors. If you arent comfortable with this then I suggest reading up more on IPOs and their history. Just about any finance text should detail them for ya
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: TheoPetro
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: ricochet
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Originally posted by: ricochet
Do you guys entertain the possibility that this might be a bear trap? The insiders (ie troubled banks) get it at $44 while the public gets it at $60 ($59.50 open). Banks commence profit taking.
I'm assuming you don't know how an IPO works.
Sorry, I'm not keen on these things. But the disparity between the IPO given to the banks and the public is considerable. Given this market conditions one has to wonder what incentive some of these smaller troubled banks of keeping their shares. I understand that the larger banks would want to keep their stake, though.
Ex:
National City Corp. said it will post a $450 million cash gain by selling about a third of its stake in the newly public Visa Inc..
The banks owned part of Visa, so what's the problem?
I don't think he has a problem with that.
Going back to his original post, I'm also one of those who doesn't take part in IPO's.
I'll evaluate the company in a month or so if I think they're worth a look.
However I don't buy companies on IPO day because of the volatility.
I'd rather wait until after the dust has settled.
He might also have a point on it being a bear trap. (I'm not saying it is, just giving an example)
When BX was coming out almost everyone was hyping it to be the next "GS".
They're no where near that.
Peter Peterson was smart in cashing out almost all his BX stock at the IPO price.
BX is currently down almost 60% from it's IPO price.
historically IPOs have a period of time where the price rises sharply and quickly then it drops to below the IPO price for a while, its at this time that the long term "investor" gets in if they think its a good company.this is nothing new and not a "bear trap" and should be expected by investors. If you arent comfortable with this then I suggest reading up more on IPOs and their history. Just about any finance text should detail them for ya
Thank you for proving my point.
Like I said, I'd rather wait for the dust to settle rather than get caught up in the volatility on IPO day.
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
With Visa, you can easily compare it to Mastercard. If you do that, the current stock price is quite reasonable.
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Or you can buy and sell on the ups and down and make some additional money.
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Or you can buy and sell on the ups and down and make some additional money.
Day trading is "generally" a losing game.
I don't play it.
EDIT: Quoted for emphasis because I know someone will soon pop in saying they make a living day trading.
Originally posted by: Naustica
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Or you can buy and sell on the ups and down and make some additional money.
Day trading is "generally" a losing game.
I don't play it.
EDIT: Quoted for emphasis because I know someone will soon pop in saying they make a living day trading.
Actually any kind of trading is hard. But day trading is extremely hard. Big problem people have in trading and especially day trading is that they try to force trades and trade too often. If you pick your spots and don't trade for the sake of trading, you can do pretty decent. I'm a failed trader. I was full time trader out of my home for almost 6 years. I mainly swing traded but occasionally day traded when opportunities presented itself. While I enjoyed my time trading full time, the pressure to constantly produce gets to you and restrict you in lot of ways. Now I've joined the working for a living crowd again, I find trading little easier as the pressure is off and my risk profile has changed. I trade mainly for fun now and of course to try to make money.
Originally posted by: CoBRaXT
Originally posted by: Naustica
Originally posted by: Lothar
Originally posted by: Capt Caveman
Or you can buy and sell on the ups and down and make some additional money.
Day trading is "generally" a losing game.
I don't play it.
EDIT: Quoted for emphasis because I know someone will soon pop in saying they make a living day trading.
Actually any kind of trading is hard. But day trading is extremely hard. Big problem people have in trading and especially day trading is that they try to force trades and trade too often. If you pick your spots and don't trade for the sake of trading, you can do pretty decent. I'm a failed trader. I was full time trader out of my home for almost 6 years. I mainly swing traded but occasionally day traded when opportunities presented itself. While I enjoyed my time trading full time, the pressure to constantly produce gets to you and restrict you in lot of ways. Now I've joined the working for a living crowd again, I find trading little easier as the pressure is off and my risk profile has changed. I trade mainly for fun now and of course to try to make money.
If I may ask, how did you do over that six year period?