- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Stocks...
Posted on 5/2/10 at 8:07 pm to RedStickBR
Posted on 5/2/10 at 8:07 pm to RedStickBR
So what is the best site to use for running stock screeners? I currently use Scottrade but I don't find there screener is too good.
1
Posted on 5/2/10 at 8:27 pm to LSU1018
Posted on 5/2/10 at 8:30 pm to RedStickBR
Very nice, thanks!
Posted on 5/2/10 at 8:41 pm to LSU1018
CEL seems like a good buy right now. I am kind of worried about how much debt they have. They are oversold right now and have increased revenue and profit the last couple of years.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 9:02 pm to LSU1018
Could be good for a trade just due to how oversold it is. I agree their Cash Flow to Debt Ratio is way too low for my liking though. And P/B is a whopping 30. If they had a low PEG, I'd consider placing less emphasis on the low OCF/D and high P/B, but their PEG is 1.05, meaning they're still just a tid bit overvalued, even after the huge drop CEL has recently seen.
The only saving grace I see for CEL as a longer-term hold is the fact that they are expected to realize 11.59 in earnings for FY'10, giving them a Forward P/E of 2.62, which is quite low. However, this is down from FY'09, and the highest they traded in FY'09 was around 36 bucks, so on lower earnings this year, there's no reason to think they'd get that high or higher.
Revs have increased Y/Y but so have expenses. Further, revs are decreasing Q/Q while expenses are increasing Q/Q. I think 30 bucks is a fair value for CEL. Again, though, it could be good for a quick in-and-out due to its oversold status and the gap on the chart around 32.50.
The only saving grace I see for CEL as a longer-term hold is the fact that they are expected to realize 11.59 in earnings for FY'10, giving them a Forward P/E of 2.62, which is quite low. However, this is down from FY'09, and the highest they traded in FY'09 was around 36 bucks, so on lower earnings this year, there's no reason to think they'd get that high or higher.
Revs have increased Y/Y but so have expenses. Further, revs are decreasing Q/Q while expenses are increasing Q/Q. I think 30 bucks is a fair value for CEL. Again, though, it could be good for a quick in-and-out due to its oversold status and the gap on the chart around 32.50.
This post was edited on 5/2/10 at 9:04 pm
Posted on 5/2/10 at 9:18 pm to LSU1018
LSU1018, check out PTNR, a competitor to CEL. I think it's the better bet, although it's still nothing great.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 9:25 pm to RedStickBR
Yea I was definitely looking at it more for short term because of how oversold it was. It does pay a nice dividend though if you were to keep it for the long term. I think I may play it short term (about a month or so) b/c more than likely people will buy it going into the dividend.
ETA: PTNR looks pretty close, probably a little better than CEL... this industry in Israel must need a lot of debt to do business.
They are both oversold right now. Both could be good short term plays. I'm not sure either would be a safe long term play though with how much debt they have.
ETA: PTNR looks pretty close, probably a little better than CEL... this industry in Israel must need a lot of debt to do business.
They are both oversold right now. Both could be good short term plays. I'm not sure either would be a safe long term play though with how much debt they have.
This post was edited on 5/2/10 at 9:32 pm
Posted on 5/2/10 at 9:48 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
Ha, man, even the guy who wrote the book is giving a grey answer to the question
I was thinking the same thing, but I was going to throw it out before I went against the big dog.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 9:51 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Do you think you can pester him for a more definitive answer? I replied to the other one, but no reply back yet.Posted on 5/2/10 at 9:57 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
Do you think you can pester him for a more definitive answer? I replied to the other one, but no reply back yet.
I actually scoured the internet looking for a formula that would explain it and I can't even find that.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:17 pm to TheHiddenFlask
Yeah, I just need someone to tell me whether it measures direction through covariance, or not, and whether you should use correlation to measure direction instead as a more "pure" measure, or not. I didn't think it was THAT complicated of a question to be honest.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:24 pm to kfizzle85
Yeah, I really need an answer to this because the only metric you can find on any broker or financial website, or at least the ones I've come across, is Beta. These mediums don't quantify correlation much so it seems.
If we can get a working definition of Beta, that would be a huge win for the money board.
If we can get a working definition of Beta, that would be a huge win for the money board.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:33 pm to RedStickBR
Follow up answer:
Even though we already know that, he isn't answering my question about the effect of dividing covariance (correlation) by standard deviation, according to at least one professor, you guys are correct and I am dumb.
quote:
So there is no need to look at a correlation coefficient for determining the direction of the deviation? A beta of 2 means that if the market goes up 3%, the stock will go up 6%, and if the stock goes down 3%, the stock will go down 6%?
quote:
Right. Correlation is built in the beta.
Even though we already know that, he isn't answering my question about the effect of dividing covariance (correlation) by standard deviation, according to at least one professor, you guys are correct and I am dumb.
This post was edited on 5/2/10 at 10:34 pm
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:43 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
1. My initial view: Betas close to 1 move in same direction as market. Betas far away from 1 are less likely to move in same direction, with those being far below 1 being less volatile than general market, and those being far above 1 being more volatile than general market.
2. Fizz's view: Beta is only determinative of volatility, not direction. Beta of 1 will be more likely to move by same percentage as general market. Beta far below 1 will move at a percentage less than the market moves, but in either direction. Beta far above 1 will move at a percentage greater than the market moves, but in either direction.
3. Wiki view: Any positive Beta value moves in same direction as market. Beta value of 2 moves in same direction as market, but twice as much. Beta value of .5 moves in same direction as market, but half as much. Beta value of -2 moves in opposite direction as market, but twice as much. Beta value of -.5 moves in opposite direction as market, but half as much.
So is it safe to say View 3 is correct? And to control for stocks who won't move down if market sells off, I should be looking for stocks with Beta value close to 0?
This post was edited on 5/2/10 at 10:45 pm
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:46 pm to RedStickBR
Yeah, I don't know that what I was suggesting is practical to begin with, absent a giant database. Beta might be the best you can do, regardless of whether I am right or wrong in my interpretation.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:49 pm to RedStickBR
I guess so, even though there is contradictory evidence elsewhere. Unless Chance says that's wrong, then I will go ahead and accept that definition. I have less faith in this prof than I do in Chance.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:53 pm to kfizzle85
I still think the topic is worthy of some research. Two finals to go then it's beta 101 for me. Amazing there is so much contradiction out there on the topic.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:55 pm to RedStickBR
At the least, it was a nice mental exercise and potentially un-complicates [for me] beta into being a more meaningful/holistic measurement.
Posted on 5/2/10 at 10:58 pm to RedStickBR
Here is a screen for stocks below 10 bucks with Betas between 0 and 0.5, sorted from low-to-high PEs:
LINK
And here is one with no restriction on price but with negative Betas. Interestingly, there are only 72 out of all the stocks which trade on either AMEX, NYSE, or Nasdaq. May be good to get into a couple of these in anticipation of a selloff by the general market and as a hedge against other big board plays:
LINK
LINK
And here is one with no restriction on price but with negative Betas. Interestingly, there are only 72 out of all the stocks which trade on either AMEX, NYSE, or Nasdaq. May be good to get into a couple of these in anticipation of a selloff by the general market and as a hedge against other big board plays:
LINK
Posted on 5/2/10 at 11:00 pm to kfizzle85
quote:
At the least, it was a nice mental exercise and potentially un-complicates [for me] beta into being a more meaningful/holistic measurement.
Yes, I agree. I now have a much better working understanding of the Beta coefficient. Trial-and-error is the best way to learn, IMO. Instead of now just having a textbook definition of what Beta is, we also know what it's not. That is progress my friend.
Page 16 of 26
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News