Good time to buy AIB or BOI shares???

Slutmonkey57b · 19-10-2008 6:15pm

Selling a stock at a peak doesn't require anyone to buy it at a peak? Wow. You mean you can sell your stock without anyone else buying it? Amazing stuff. Which broker sells these magic shares? Where do I sign up for this? I assume you don't mean that this is under-informed part of the post.

I trust brokers to be able to tell me what's going on in the market six months ago. Anything else is (often ill-informed) speculation based on what the rest of the sheep are doing.
Case in point:
http://www.editorsweblog.org/multimedia/2008/09/us_tribune_blame_googlebot_for_united_ai.php

Stock plummets 70% because brokers don't bother to check the validity of a google news story and go on a massive panic selling spree based on what they see the other sheep brokers doing.

Given how easy it is to fix horse races, yes, betting on horses is at least as scientific as underinformed betting on whether stocks are going up or down in the current climate.

pocketdooz · 20-10-2008 9:02am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Selling a stock at a peak doesn't require anyone to buy it at a peak? Wow. You mean you can sell your stock without anyone else buying it? Amazing stuff. Which broker sells these magic shares? Where do I sign up for this? I assume you don't mean that this is under-informed part of the post.

I trust brokers to be able to tell me what's going on in the market six months ago. Anything else is (often ill-informed) speculation based on what the rest of the sheep are doing.
Case in point:
http://www.editorsweblog.org/multimedia/2008/09/us_tribune_blame_googlebot_for_united_ai.php

Stock plummets 70% because brokers don't bother to check the validity of a google news story and go on a massive panic selling spree based on what they see the other sheep brokers doing.

Given how easy it is to fix horse races, yes, betting on horses is at least as scientific as underinformed betting on whether stocks are going up or down in the current climate.

No personal offense meant - but it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't really understand much about the subject. Maybe you should start by learning about market makers, exchange liquidity, stop losses, company fundamentals etc.

Your references to horse racing and google stories and blogs are just ridiculous.

eden_my_ass · 20-10-2008 10:16am

DJDC wrote: »

Idiotic Post. Good traders play the markets, not some underlying fundamental that decides prices. Technical analysis could be BS but if enough traders use it to take positions, well then its something that has to be taken into account.Likewise if fear has taken everywhere why go long on equities? The only moron around here is you, theres a lot more positions people can take then delta 1 long positions in equities.

There is value out there in some shares because they are essentially approaching ATM call options.

No need for nasty names now, we're all entitled to our say, sorry if I hit a nerve. Technical Analysis is all well and good, but lets face it, it was the very fact that we've more bad traders than good that overinflated many markets, and ok maybe it was my bad to post a general comment in a bank specific thread but I stand by what I said about emotion in the markets. Case in point your anger at my post, why anger, I didn't insult you, your family or kick your dog....people need to sit back and be cold and calculating, the fact that even in this simple thread that hasn't happened goes to prove the point. And then we're to take advice from the same hotheads? As pocketdooz said I didn't even post my take on whether to invest or not, I simply pointed to a far wiser head than mine, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to do by the way, since at least we all know whos giving the advice, not like here!

DJDC · 20-10-2008 10:21am

No need for nasty names now, we're all entitled to our say, sorry if I hit a nerve. Technical Analysis is all well and good, but lets face it, it was the very fact that we've more bad traders than good that overinflated many markets, and ok maybe it was my bad to post a general comment in a bank specific thread but I stand by what I said about emotion in the markets. Case in point your anger at my post, why anger, I didn't insult you, your family or kick your dog....people need to sit back and be cold and calculating, the fact that even in this simple thread that hasn't happened goes to prove the point. And then we're to take advice from the same hotheads? As pocketdooz said I didn't even post my take on whether to invest or not, I simply pointed to a far wiser head than mine, which I think is a perfectly valid thing to do by the way, since at least we all know whos giving the advice, not like here!

I think you missed my point. I didnt like the way you were insinuating that people who didnt go long on equities were somehow being scaremongered into their decision.I am saying its a rational decision based on the likelihood of what decisions other traders are going to make.

eden_my_ass · 20-10-2008 10:32am

DJDC wrote: »

I think you missed my point. I didnt like the way you were insinuating that people who didnt go long on equities were somehow being scaremongered into their decision.I am saying its a rational decision based on the likelihood of what decisions other traders are going to make.

We're a society who live and thrive on communication, the majority of modern society live under the influence of the mass media, whose controlling powers we're not many of us aware of. Sounds like I'm starting a conspiracy theory there, but I'm not, take the Eircom flotation as a case in point where people were emotionally played to invest, technical analysis went out the window mainly cause a lot of those who got involved wouldn't know a pie chart from an apple crumble

To think the same human weaknesses aren't causing this current crisis is ignoring the obvious, and all I'm saying is that if you want to talk about the banks being a bad buy, maybe show your analysis to say that they are now STILL overpriced and not likely to rise in the coming months or years...I don't deny they're in a ****e state some of them but put a measure on that and then see whether they're a definite no-no. After that though, let people back whatever they want, its their cash to lose at the end of the day

Time Magazine · 20-10-2008 11:53am

DJDC wrote: »

The only moron around here is you

Glad to see the two of you have cleared the air a bit, but attack the post and not the poster. We're all grown-ups so hopefully we can take a strong attack on our points but, similarly, hopefully we can all still be polite.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Long story short: in order for one person to be a smart investor, someone else has to be a moron. Buy low, sell high, requires someone else to sell low, buy high. Or have some people forgotten that? Buying stocks is not that much more scientific than betting on horses. Only bet with money you can stand to lose.

Long story short: you're wrong. Slutmonkey Enterprises is currently trading at 10c a share, based on its claims that it's going to invent a new way of travelling from Dublin to Paris. If, in a week's time, it reveals that it has successfully invented a teleporter, it is now a far richer company than it was last week. Its profits are going to soar. Its share price will rise.

Nothing moronic at all.

Baird · 20-10-2008 1:33pm

The stock markets are not a zero sum gain, they create wealth for people. This does
not mean that someone has to lose money for other to gain. A bull run everyone can
gain, a bear run everyone loses in some shape or form.
For someone to say that if someone makes money going long that someone has to be
short honestly hasnt a clue what they are talking about.
Slutmonkey57b to be honest i would be embarrassed if i posted something along the
lines of what you just said.

Slutmonkey57b · 20-10-2008 7:41pm

pocketdooz wrote: »

No personal offense meant - but it seems pretty obvious to me that you don't really understand much about the subject. Maybe you should start by learning about market makers, exchange liquidity, stop losses, company fundamentals etc.

Your references to horse racing and google stories and blogs are just ridiculous.

Questions then:

Did the story linked above actually occur?
Is it accurate or inaccurate?
Does it show brokers in a positive or negative light?

You can be dismissive of it all you like, but it still happened. Traders saw a story on Bloomberg, picked from Google, auto-harvested from a smalltown nobody paper where a peon intern hit the wrong button, and didn't take a couple of seconds to check the date on the original article, and a company had its stock price tanked as a result. The stock market is not as scientific, analytical, or well researched as the people who make a living working in it like to make out. Ultimately, it's more about sentiment and watching what the rest of the herd are up to. I understand perfectly that someone who works in the financial industry is not likely to admit that, but I don't expect them to.

The stock market relies on idiots and sheep doing what you expect them to do, in order for the system to work. Bookies are well aware of this phenomenon. Guys that fix races don't have to worry about it at all.

daveirl · 20-10-2008 7:59pm

This post has been deleted.

woodseb · 21-10-2008 9:22am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Questions then:

Did the story linked above actually occur?
Is it accurate or inaccurate?
Does it show brokers in a positive or negative light?

it happened all right but the reaction in the market was entirely rational given the facts - bloomberg is a trusted news source and they were at fault not the market. Traders cannot afford to check the source of every headline and need to react instantly to new facts - it's called the efficient market. your example proves absolutely nothing about sentiment and your other statements also show you have a poor understanding of the market tbf

Baird · 21-10-2008 9:26am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Questions then:

Did the story linked above actually occur?
Is it accurate or inaccurate?
Does it show brokers in a positive or negative light?

You can be dismissive of it all you like, but it still happened. Traders saw a story on Bloomberg, picked from Google, auto-harvested from a smalltown nobody paper where a peon intern hit the wrong button, and didn't take a couple of seconds to check the date on the original article, and a company had its stock price tanked as a result. The stock market is not as scientific, analytical, or well researched as the people who make a living working in it like to make out. Ultimately, it's more about sentiment and watching what the rest of the herd are up to. I understand perfectly that someone who works in the financial industry is not likely to admit that, but I don't expect them to.

The stock market relies on idiots and sheep doing what you expect them to do, in order for the system to work. Bookies are well aware of this phenomenon. Guys that fix races don't have to worry about it at all.

Paranoid much?
The stock market is not behaving rationally at the moment, why would it?
The worlds financial system almost collapsed and still hasnt been fully fixed.
People are irrational and paniced and for good reason.
In that climate people make rash and stupid decisions.
Does that mean its gambling and that people who invest in shares are punters?
Just because you dont understand how something works, and you obviously dont, donest give you the right to tear it to pieces.
If markets didnt work then why are they the main source of wealth creation
in ecomonies for over 100 years?
I dont see paddypower or william hill enabling companies to finance themselves any time soon :rolleyes:

Slutmonkey57b · 21-10-2008 9:51pm

woodseb wrote: »

it happened all right but the reaction in the market was entirely rational given the facts - bloomberg is a trusted news source and they were at fault not the market. Traders cannot afford to check the source of every headline and need to react instantly to new facts - it's called the efficient market. your example proves absolutely nothing about sentiment and your other statements also show you have a poor understanding of the market tbf

Traders cannot afford to check facts before making decisions about buying and selling? Over something minor like a product announcement, that would make sense. A company that's only just come out of chapter 11 suddenly re-files and nobody on the floor thinks to get some phone monkey intern to check the details before going on a panic sell?

You can call it "efficient" if you like. What it is is an example of the what I stated above - the people making decisions in the markets are not the intelligent, thoughtful, analytical types they like to make themselves out to be. All those college degrees and years of practical experience on the trading floors meant sweet f.a. The sheep saw something and panicked. No thought, no analysis, no checking, no understanding of what was actually going on with the company they were trading. Just blind "Everybody's selling! Get out now!" panic.

Baird wrote: »

Paranoid much?
The stock market is not behaving rationally at the moment, why would it?
The worlds financial system almost collapsed and still hasnt been fully fixed.
People are irrational and paniced and for good reason.
In that climate people make rash and stupid decisions.
Does that mean its gambling and that people who invest in shares are punters?
Just because you dont understand how something works, and you obviously dont, donest give you the right to tear it to pieces.
If markets didnt work then why are they the main source of wealth creation
in ecomonies for over 100 years?
I dont see paddypower or william hill enabling companies to finance themselves any time soon :rolleyes:

a) My point was never that the stock market does not create wealth, or that it does not fulfil its function - it was that the stock market is not the sophisticated, well analysed tool finance workers like to pretend it is.

If only there were some pertinent recent example of how badly the financial institutions, traders, and economists actually understood what was going on in the companies they were buying and selling stock in.... something that showed that really, naked shorting, quants, and derivatives weren't being looked at as closely as they might have been... some example of, say, a big financial institution that all the analysts would have told you a year ago was as safe as houses, that crashed and disappeared, taking the analysts by surprise because they hadn't actually done the digging and homework they should have....

b) Companies can finance themselves any way they choose. The stock market is simply a handy point of interaction between people with money and people with a need. The reason the market has an advantage is that Company A looking for finance doesn't have to run around asking for it. This doesn't mean that the people doing the buying and selling have any real clue what's going on.

Paddypower and William Hill aren't going to finance anybody, but isn't it a good thing that those bastions of free market economic theory, China, OPEC, and forced Nationalisation are around to provide buyers for all these potentially ****ed companies.....

c) You seem to be quite happy to re-iterate my point that the market is *currently* behaving irrationally. I would state that had it *ever* been behaving rationally, Lehman and the like would have been flagged a long time ago, if not from the beginning.

You all seem to assume that my scorn is directed at the concept of the market. It isn't.

It's aimed at the people who in the current climate are saying "buy this, sell that, don't buy that, sit on your hands here, go long on whatever", as though they had done some sort of sophisticated analysis that would back them up. The truth is that they haven't a clue for the most part, they're guessing based on hunches, previous experience, whatever spurious analysis they can pull out of their arse to back them up, and most important of all, what the rest of the sheep are doing.

Like I said before, bet ("invest") what you can afford to lose on whatever seems like a reasonable horse ("company") based on what you know. Don't assume especially given what has happened over the past 6 months that because you got advice from a tipster ("qualified professional")`that that advice is sound. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. If you're not sure, don't bet.

If these tipsters were half as clever or knowledgeable as they think they are, they wouldn't have been collectively caught with their pants down, swinging their todgers in the wind and having to be bailed out with taxpayer's money.... would they?

daveirl · 21-10-2008 10:02pm

This post has been deleted.

Slutmonkey57b · 21-10-2008 10:23pm

daveirl wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really? Because the big fund managers have been doing a *bang up job* keeping their eye on the ball? I don't think so. As one Lehman staffer put it "Those ****ers upstairs pulled our pants down".

daveirl · 21-10-2008 10:27pm

This post has been deleted.

pocketdooz · 22-10-2008 8:30am

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Long story short: in order for one person to be a smart investor, someone else has to be a moron. Buy low, sell high, requires someone else to sell low, buy high. Or have some people forgotten that? Buying stocks is not that much more scientific than betting on horses. Only bet with money you can stand to lose.

This was your initial post that caused a bit of a sharp reaction from some people (myself included). It is just incorrect. No question about it.

Your more recent posts explain yourself clearly - it sounds like you do have pretty storng opinions about the market, traders etc.

To be honest, your posts are quite funny for me to read - they are so twisted but I suppose it's futile trying to change your mind.

Your points are not thought out - a bit of socialism, mixed in with university-level conspiracy theories and a whole dose of 'blame the big guys'

I'm guessing you don't have any experience working or studying finance and garner most of your info from leftist blogs, tabloids and papers like the Onion. Each to their own I suppose.

That's the beauty of Boards though - that people like you and I, with totally different views and outlooks on large topics of discussions, can come on and share our views.

Slutmonkey57b · 22-10-2008 6:52pm

pocketdooz wrote: »

Your points are not thought out - a bit of socialism, mixed in with university-level conspiracy theories and a whole dose of 'blame the big guys'

I'm guessing you don't have any experience working or studying finance and garner most of your info from leftist blogs, tabloids and papers like the Onion. Each to their own I suppose.

Your analysis of my opinion is almost as well founded as your analysis of my sources then.
As I haven't posed any socialist propaganda here (other than to state that the bastions of free market theory are having to be bailed out by socialist or protectionist organisations like governments and monopolistic trade cabals), or conspiracy theories (other than to state that most people are mindless sheep and brokers are morons), or "blamed the big guys" (other than to point out that the big guys have comprehensively outed themselves as being to blame for the whole shambles), I can only congratulate you for proving my central point for me:
People working in the financial markets aren't as intelligent, well-informed, analytical, or clever as they like to make themselves out to be to the public at large. And getting one to admit they're wrong, or that they haven't a clue, is largely impossible.

professore · 22-10-2008 7:04pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually,
You must of got really lucky there or got approved a month or two ago. IIB have gotten rid of their tracker rates. IIB are in so much trouble that there is a take over and they are changing their name to KBC at the end of the month. So check that out if you want.

Incorrect - IIB are a subsidiary of KBC for quite a while now. They also have insurance on any mortgages they provided in recent years over 80% LTV (forced to by KBC). By the way KBC is the biggest bank in Belgium and Luxembourg.

professore · 22-10-2008 7:09pm

Baird wrote: »

The stock markets are not a zero sum gain, they create wealth for people. This does
not mean that someone has to lose money for other to gain. A bull run everyone can
gain, a bear run everyone loses in some shape or form.
For someone to say that if someone makes money going long that someone has to be
short honestly hasnt a clue what they are talking about.
Slutmonkey57b to be honest i would be embarrassed if i posted something along the
lines of what you just said.

For someone to BUY a share someone has to SELL one. If it goes up, the BUYER wins, if it goes down the SELLER wins. Simple. BTW it's a zero sum game. Of course if you take options, futures etc into account it gets more complicated, but basic equities work like this.

daveirl · 22-10-2008 9:14pm

This post has been deleted.

woodseb · 22-10-2008 9:30pm

professore wrote: »

For someone to BUY a share someone has to SELL one. If it goes up, the BUYER wins, if it goes down the SELLER wins. Simple. BTW it's a zero sum game. Of course if you take options, futures etc into account it gets more complicated, but basic equities work like this.

Let me explain it this way:

I buy a stock for $5 and sell it after a year at $10, the stock then rises to $11 in the next year

who has won? who has lost? :rolleyes:

pocketdooz · 22-10-2008 10:19pm

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

Your analysis of my opinion is almost as well founded as your analysis of my sources then.
As I haven't posed any socialist propaganda here (other than to state that the bastions of free market theory are having to be bailed out by socialist or protectionist organisations like governments and monopolistic trade cabals), or conspiracy theories (other than to state that most people are mindless sheep and brokers are morons), or "blamed the big guys" (other than to point out that the big guys have comprehensively outed themselves as being to blame for the whole shambles), I can only congratulate you for proving my central point for me:
People working in the financial markets aren't as intelligent, well-informed, analytical, or clever as they like to make themselves out to be to the public at large. And getting one to admit they're wrong, or that they haven't a clue, is largely impossible.

I rest my case . . .

.

Idu · 23-10-2008 1:44pm

professore wrote: »

For someone to BUY a share someone has to SELL one. If it goes up, the BUYER wins, if it goes down the SELLER wins. Simple. BTW it's a zero sum game. Of course if you take options, futures etc into account it gets more complicated, but basic equities work like this.

Ridiculous. This assumes that the two people on either side of the transaction are linked all the way to when both get rid of their share. When the original buyer wants to sell his share it doesnt have to be the original seller that buys it back

Bytheway · 03-11-2008 9:52pm

pocketdooz wrote: »

I agree 100 %

FTSE, S&P, DJIA and ISEQ ETF's

Hello pocketdooz
could you elaborate on ETFs with FTSE, ISEQ, S&P500 , i have been looking at ETC which seem to be all in $ ?
Which would you prefer ETF or ETC and why ?

I went on London stock exchange site and looked up ETF and there are literally hundreds ?
How do you choose which one ? Are there ETF & ETC in every market ?
Sorry for all the questions but I'm trying to get my head around them

daveirl · 03-11-2008 10:11pm

This post has been deleted.

jack90210 · 19-11-2008 11:19am

rugbyman wrote: »

I really enjoy learning about the theory and scientific stuff from Pocketdooz, Janets on clubs, Stepbar(lying low at moment) and Mr Mc Williams.

there are lots of people asking the same questions and they may not have read the earlier threads.

Some weeks ago i gave my opinion that there were fortunes to be made in all of this mayhem and being scientific was not the way to go.

With my childrens savings I invested 4,500. In week one I made a profit of 1200 euro.approx. ( bought Bof I at 4.40 sold at 5.60)

two weeks later i reinvested half the original amount in the same share at 3.96 and sold 36 hours later for 5.26 , a gain after costs of approx 500.

when they fell back to 3.89 I re invested 2 k and bought another 500 shares.
Sold them today at 4,72, realising a gain of ..83 per share , around 300 euro after costs and taxes.

I bought 1,000 shares in Ryanair at 2.38, failed to sell when up 600,then 500, but will do when they reach that again.
Overall, my portfolio(scoff if you like) is up from 4,500 to 6,500 in eight weeks. reach for the abacus and see what % return that is.
Tonight it is almost all back in cash

Guys who probably dont post on Boards have made hundreds of times more than I have. a Roller coaster can occasionally be a good ride.

So did you lose your shirt as I predicted? You probably won't own up to it anyway.

rugbyman · 19-11-2008 12:36pm

hello jack, i was surprised at your comment some time ago. I must re read my post to see if I did not ezxplain that I had made and banked about 1800 with a stake of 4000 euro.

however i now own up that that 1800 is now covering the potential loss on my 2,900 shares in b o I costong on average 1.95 each.

Good time to buy AIB or BOI shares???

Comments