Registered User Joined: 3/24/2006 Posts: 72
|
Fundamentally, a long-term long, but short-term? I can't quite read it as well. Shorted the stock when it broke support at 45, covered some Friday, am debating about to cover rest of my position soon-ish.
Anybody have any TA opinions?
|
|
Gold Customer
Joined: 11/11/2006 Posts: 359
|
enkidu: Not a lot to fall in love with on this one. The industry as a whole is at the August low and the Diceman VIX for the industry and the stock is at an oversold position. Given the recent extremely high volume and the angle of the drop for the last month, we may be seeing a blowout bottom with some recovery.
No joy from the usual indicator buy signals. DavidJohnHall has a neat bottom-feeder buy indicator, but It has not yet triggered. Tobydad's method has not triggered yet, either.
However, the blessed thing IS moving up and thats the best way for a stock to show strength,particularily on Friday.
Best guess? I believe it will bounce for a while, maybe to the last resistance level at $42.00'ish.
Of no particular interest to anybody, I have been considering BAC, which is in a similiar position.
Best of Luck
Mammon
|
|
Registered User Joined: 3/24/2006 Posts: 72
|
Hrm, I should play around with the indicators published by our illustrious TA guys then. I'll take a look and check it out. Thanks for the advice!
|
|
Registered User Joined: 12/21/2004 Posts: 902
|
As much as I love and depend upon TA, I would be leery right now of making any moves on anything in the financial sector depending upon technical analysis - I think as a sector is just too much subject to external news shocks right now and that any information or inferences gleaned from TA will only be meaningful or reliable until the next shoe drops.
Definitely not for the faint of heart. Just my opinion...
|
|
Registered User Joined: 5/1/2007 Posts: 158
|
Agree with hohandy. Financials are short term oversold, which can lead to a nice bounce, and C, WFC, BAC etc. do not appear to be dead cats. However, CFC is behaving as a cat that has burned 8 lives plus or minus one. Oh, and any company that names Robert E Rubin as chair makes me nervous. It could be at a bottom, but I hink we still have about 9 months of financial shocks ahead. And ETFC? Wish I had the foresight to buy the $8 puts Friday.
What drives me crazy is the certainty that some big traders have better quant info than I do, so I can't say if C is fairly valued at $33.57, undervalued, or overvalued. At least there is a difference of opinion in the matter.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 11/7/2007 Posts: 49
|
What really makes you thing that C is a long term long. I would then to disagree and think that C is a long term short. Pehaps a short term (depending on the definition of short) long.
Just by looking at its chart it is clear in all frames the there is substantial down side
1 - in the daily
Notice above on the daily that stochastics are set to go - but on the daily a small bump can take care of that, and volume is not supportive at this point
Here on the 3 day chart - it is as clear as water and our short is as open and alive as it could be
But don't let me hold you - look at the longert time frames below being the 13 and 60 days and see if that is clear enough for you.
Lets just zoom out a little bit this 60day frame (remember each candle contains 60 days).
Just by looking at the stochastics on this 60 day frame should be clear that the cycle is not finished.
On top of that the fundamental side supporting this stock should confirm our theory unless some wallstret crook or goverment bails them out, which is very possible.
I would say 20 level before any higher high.
Hope it helps
|
|
Registered User Joined: 3/24/2006 Posts: 72
|
Thanks to all the insightful comments... I think I'm done having cold feet. :)
Fundamentally I've always believed C to be in the too-big-to-fail (or rather, too many vested interests to fail) camp, and from working in the industry a bit I would say their debt skeletons are most likely out of the closet given new management (since new management wants to manage expectations appropriately and has diminished incentive for covering up a predecessor's failure), but I haven't been able to pick a "value bottom" really. The P/E of this outfit has become low enough that I worry of a bounce, but I think fear has not been priced in adequately just yet.a
I am fundamentally concerned with the macroeconomic effects of shrinking credit upon all sorts of financial instruments and lending and don't see that resolving quickly even with governmental bailing-out (if that is even possible). Trust in the financial services sector has been broken, and even USD currency holder have their faith in the dollar betrayed by a backhanded tax of inflation/devaluation. I think many signs point to things going down yet even further, and until that faith can be restored I'll probably maintain my puts (DIA, QQQQ, C, JPM, MTG, RDN).
|
|
Registered User Joined: 10/7/2004 Posts: 166
|
C too big to fail?
Maybe, but certainly not too big to hang around and dribble sideways perhaps down some more.
It will need a catalyst to get it going again and earn the premium it once had. In the meantime it unexciting company that just stands there eating the food (your capital) and drinks the punch (the profits) at the party you are trying to have.
JMHO
|
|
Registered User Joined: 9/25/2007 Posts: 1,506
|
Do you think that we could have possibly seen the effects of any more than the first 4 bars of this graph ... reflected in the reports/releases that we have gotten from any of the financials so far ?
I understand the the average "reset" is increasing the mortgage payment by about 40% ....
If this increase causes a default ... it still takes months to show up in the financial intstituion's numbers as it goes through the process of collection, foreclosure, etc ...
Citigroup and Merril will both have new CEOs that will want to get ALL of the bad news out ... while they can still blame it on the "old guy" ....
And I doubt seriously that they will wait on the next earnings report ... I wouldn't ...
I'd "let it all hang out" .... as quickly as possible ...
|
|
Registered User Joined: 12/7/2004 Posts: 393
|
IMO, without some sort of bailout, letting it "all hang out" could bury a few of these financial institutions and panic the entire market.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 9/25/2007 Posts: 1,506
|
QUOTE (laphill) IMO, without some sort of bailout, letting it "all hang out" could bury a few of these financial institutions and panic the entire market.
Then so be it ...
If these instituions or "the market" was so short-sighted as to fail to realize what MUST be the eventual end to these types of activities ...
Then they all deserve what they get ...
A little "panic" every now and then ... is a healthy thing ...
A "bailout" is just forcing those with enough intelligence than to get involved with this crap ... to pay for the mistakes of those that didn't act wisely ...
The M-LEC superfund that BofA, Citi, and J P Morgan are proposing ... is just another way to shift the losses from their balance sheet ... to a place where the Fed will inevitably step in to support ...
Devaluing all of our currency in the process ...
|
|
Registered User Joined: 12/7/2004 Posts: 393
|
Realitycheck, I could be wrong but I believe a more pragmatic solution will prevail.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 9/25/2007 Posts: 1,506
|
QUOTE (laphill) Realitycheck, I could be wrong but I believe a more pragmatic solution will prevail.
Well ...
I'm quite certain that the beneficiaries of said solution ... will deem the solution to be pragmatic ...
|
|
Registered User Joined: 3/1/2005 Posts: 34
|
The FED has been pumping cash into the financial system to help stabilize things. With the volatility in here we would consider an option straddle, or if buying a long cover it with a married put. We like to use limit orders to pick them up at discounts-at the low price limit are of the recent noise. As a result the "dollar" ($FRN actually) has been diving to new lows.
If you insist on doing shorts in here with much of the damage done to C, be sure you cover it with married calls.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 10/7/2004 Posts: 2,126
|
Well here we go again - barely 2 weeks after and C over $4 down from my posting.
C too big to fail? Just tell me how many dinosaurs fell down in yr 2000 and are still down. Technology got hit the hardest then. Is it possible that financials will be the ones this time? After all they are the ones who caught their own fingers out of greed.
My book hasn't changed a bit for this one.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 10/7/2004 Posts: 2,126
|
Like I said until someone bail them out, which just ocurred today.
Abu Dhabi investments just injected 7.5 billions so C can see the light. The stock didn't respond in great cheer, but of course they don't want to make it to obvious. I believe some futher down side is in for the short term, but nonetheless 7.5 billions have changed the picture here.
Be carefull with your shorts here from now on. Dirty hands are playing with your cash.
Take care.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 10/7/2004 Posts: 2,126
|
By the way, I forgot to say that apparently since some big hedge fund is betting against the subprime mess - you should probably expect more than a hand full of funds to come forward and do just the same. This in turn may move the finacials up for a while - lets call it a rebound. But I do not think it will last long - the funds will take their profits when the fools are jumping aboard and that will be the end of it. That is whay edge funds do - they have the resource to change the tone, and they use them to profit.
They would need a lot more cash to cover this mess.
Good luck.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 10/7/2004 Posts: 2,126
|
Yeap I think this below will tell you half of the story - but that is half more than none.
By Mark Bloudek
When I look at this deal it is quite interesting. First of all, it must be understood that this is effectively an equity deal because of the mandatory conversion provision. From the limited information I have been able to retrieve, it seems that Citigroup ( C) is selling just under 5% of the company for approximately $5.7 bln. Why is it not the $7.5 bln that it is getting from the investors? Because Citi will have to pay interest on the $7.5 bln for just over two years, which will come out to approximately $1.8 bln. $7.5 - $1.8 = $5.7.
By my estimate, Citigroup has basically issued restricted equity (to be officially issued in two-plus years) at a price per share around the mid 20's when you take into account the 11% interest it is paying on the $7.5 bln. Additionally, Citi does get the benefit of using $7.5 bln now instead of only getting $5.7 bln now (if it had just done a straightforward equity deal), while paying $1.8 bln over the next two-plus years in interest.
All in all, this deal is a tough deal for Citi in my opinion because it smells like desperation. But don't be confused about the 11%. It is clear since the deal has mandatory conversion prices that the 11% interest rate is basically a discounting mechanism for the conversion price, which is why I say the equity was effectively issued in the mid 20's. It also must be noted that doing a convertible may have certain tax advantages for Citi instead of doing a straight equity deal in the 20's.
|
|
Registered User Joined: 9/25/2007 Posts: 1,506
|
But ... they were up 46 whole cents today ... nevermind that they're down 27 bucks off of their high ... roughly 48% ...
Like I said in the post above ... we've only seen the effect of the first couple of bars ...
If they're "struggling" now .... they'll be in an iron lung ... or maybe even a pine box ... by the time this is done ...
|
|
Guest-1 |