Do you always have a limit order going?

Here's the kind of thing I do. I read about a promising gene therapy for sickle cell. It was announced days ago and the price of bluebird bio Inc (BLUE) already went way up (I don't mind an-hour-after-the-story up but not days-later up), which isn't bad if a cure actually happens but I don't rely on that, so I didn't buy. But studies are ongoing and future announcements could help the entire industry and investing in an industry fund is safer anyway. Health care changes are coming to the US, so I looked for an international or foriegn biotech fund and I found SBIO. That's high too, so I set an alert for when the price drops (trigger type: Price falls below $24.00, Note: Add cash to acct, set limit order to buy at 23). I set that limit based on this chart which seems predictable enough. I wouldn't wait for big biotech news to drive up the price before selling but that possibility is one reason I bought. I'd probably sell between $24 and $25.
 

Attachments

  • SBIO-fund.jpg
    SBIO-fund.jpg
    39.4 KB · Views: 17
I am kind of with Car-guy. I do enjoy the thrill of trading and see value in the downs as well as the ups. It has done one amazing thing. I no longer have any desire to play slots or casino table games.

When you can gain or lose $2000 in a day in stocks, putting $0.25 in a slot machine to have a tiny chance at winning a progressive "jackpot" of $51 just isn't fun.

I now walk into a casino just to use the bathroom and eat at the cheap buffet on our RV trips.

It's funny you say that since it seems to be happening to me too. I still go to the casinos but not nearly as often as I had been going. I seem to be able to get my "fix" by playing the market. I don't have to leave home and sit in a smoky room full of obnoxious people and it's definitely been much more lucrative. There are tradeoff's however. I do miss the free drinks and honestly, I'd much rather watch the cocktail waitress (well some of them) rather than Stuart Varney. :)
 
Last edited:
Here's the kind of thing I do. I read about a promising gene therapy for sickle cell. It was announced days ago and the price of bluebird bio Inc (BLUE) already went way up (I don't mind an-hour-after-the-story up but not days-later up), which isn't bad if a cure actually happens but I don't rely on that, so I didn't buy. But studies are ongoing and future announcements could help the entire industry and investing in an industry fund is safer anyway. Health care changes are coming to the US, so I looked for an international or foriegn biotech fund and I found SBIO. That's high too, so I set an alert for when the price drops (trigger type: Price falls below $24.00, Note: Add cash to acct, set limit order to buy at 23). I set that limit based on this chart which seems predictable enough. I wouldn't wait for big biotech news to drive up the price before selling but that possibility is one reason I bought. I'd probably sell between $24 and $25.
At the core you are speculating. Sure, you mask it well by putting out technical analysis, but there's no real investing homework behind it. You're not looking at the business behind it; you're merely hoping to hit big on some idea. I've been there. Fortunately, I only lost $3700 on $4000 on two small investments in businesses I was sure were bound to take off based on single big ideas without knowing anything about the fundamentals behind the businesses themselves. A relatively inexpensive lesson.

You'll win some. You'll lose more. There's little about anything I've read in your strategies that leads me to believe you'll be a consistently good "stock picker", because if you look at those who've gone on to great, sustained investing success by picking stocks, they look at core fundamentals and buy with the intention of holding. What you're doing is something millions have done before. A few have gotten lucky, the vast majority do not and end up right where they started or worse after exhausting several years' worth of energy.

I'm reminded of the story a friend of mine told me back in 2005. We were co-workers; he joined the Navy a few years after I did. He told me stories of living on a boat in Mexico for a year after great success as a day trader in 1998-2000. He'd made a fortune of nearly $150 million.

But he kept going, and eventually lost all of it. Literally, every cent. He started over by going to Officer Candidate School, re-married, etc.

What struck me about his story was not his overwhelming success followed by the fall, it was his attitude about it. When I asked him if he thought day-trading and technical market analysis was smart, he said, "How many people do you know that made $150 million in less than two years?"

I said, "The same number of people who I know who lost $150 million in six months."

That pretty much ended the conversation.

You're going to be biased to focus on your wins and rationalize away your losses. In the end, you're going to be better off if you'd become a value investor (if you must buy individual stocks) or indexer. You're walking a path millions have walked before you, and only a few have succeeded, often just for the short run.

As ERD said, this is likely falling on deaf ears. Good luck!
 
You're not looking at the business behind it...if you look at those who've gone on to great, sustained investing success by picking stocks, they look at core fundamentals and buy with the intention of holding.

The business behind it is biotech. I'd prefer that it was specifically genetic engineering but I couldn't find a fund specifically on that and I'd have to resort to individual stocks. Genetic engineering is the future and to a smaller extent the present and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. This is the kind of fund that should work long term, but I feel it's probably represented decently enough in my index funds and other funds I have, so I bought it based on the extra little push it may get from recent developing news.

And I've found that graph to be unusually consistent and predictable. I eventually want to see if I could set search parameters to find that kind of even volatility that lasts mid to long term.
 
I bought into this trap for many years in my younger days. My investing life is so much better with the lazy 3-fund portfolio. I just have better things to worry about.
 
I'd suggest if you were considering actively trading, that you actually set up a portfolio and test out your thoughts for 6 months to 1 year. Literally create a fake portfolio on many of the websites like Google finance or Yahoo finance - and many others, and start with whatever amount you have now as cash in the account. Remember, it's not real money. Then buy/sell and record the transaction fees as you go - most of the brokers have lowered their transaction fees recently, I know for one Fidelity has lowered theirs down to $4.95/trade. If you are up well above the major indexes, then consider trying it with only a portion of your real investment account(s).

One thing I've noticed is that you have to get above $4k-$5k before actively trading to get decent returns, mostly because you can buy more shares. After all, if the transaction fee is say $6.95/trade, you have to double that because you'd be buying and then possibly selling, and divide by the number of shares you can buy. If you can afford to buy only 10 shares the stock has to go up by $1.39 just to break even after transaction fees. If you can buy 100 shares of the stock, then the stock only has to go up $0.14 in order to break even.

Good luck either way!

+1 about the setting up a test portfolio and give that a trial run to see if the system works.

Somehow though, my bet is that Boho won't do that as my vibe is he's more for the "thrill of the trade and timing" than actually applying a system and recording the results.
 
Genetic engineering is the future and to a smaller extent the present and I don't think anyone disagrees with that.
- If "everyone agrees" that a certain thing is the hot ticket, then don't you think the price has already been bid up by "everyone" to reflect that? The "sureness" of the "sure thing" is already baked into the price. And then when you add in the "pilers on" who go where they see others going, you can see why the price may be >more< than high enough already.
 
In micro cap bio there is always the chance you can get that "one and done" stock.

It happened very recently with Pharmacyclics, a micro biotech that was on the ropes and down to a $2 share price. They then had a major breakthrough and a short while later sold out to AbbVie for $261 a share.

So you have $20,000 of this stock, you wake up the next morning and your account says $2,610,000.

You then have a heart attack and never get to ER.
 
- If "everyone agrees" that a certain thing is the hot ticket, then don't you think the price has already been bid up by "everyone" to reflect that? The "sureness" of the "sure thing" is already baked into the price. And then when you add in the "pilers on" who go where they see others going, you can see why the price may be >more< than high enough already.

I don't believe the market is...what's the word...totally efficient or something. I believe there's a window of a couple of hours or more to take advantage of news affecting a stock (I saw a study on this). I do believe the price gets "more than high enough" on news like this, then it drops. BLUE already dropped from the spike. It probably has more dropping to do but I like to get in on things earlier than this.

I believe there's a long term window of opportunity too. Recent news indicates that the ultimate jump in prices due to a drug passing all trials is somewhat closer and biotech stocks will rise beyond what they are now even though people expect it.
 
Last edited:
The business behind it is biotech. I'd prefer that it was specifically genetic engineering but I couldn't find a fund specifically on that and I'd have to resort to individual stocks. Genetic engineering is the future and to a smaller extent the present and I don't think anyone disagrees with that. This is the kind of fund that should work long term, but I feel it's probably represented decently enough in my index funds and other funds I have, so I bought it based on the extra little push it may get from recent developing news.



And I've found that graph to be unusually consistent and predictable. I eventually want to see if I could set search parameters to find that kind of even volatility that lasts mid to long term.



Not the sector. The business. What is their financial situation? Are they heavily leveraged? Do they have more than one iron in the fire? How do they make money? How do they spend money? Where do they stand in their sector? Are they well positioned if their primary bet doesn't pay off? Can they absorb losses? For how long?

You're not looking at the business behind your bets, and I think you're going to get burned in a big way. It's pure speculation.
 
Not the sector. The business. What is their financial situation? Are they heavily leveraged? Do they have more than one iron in the fire? How do they make money? How do they spend money? Where do they stand in their sector? Are they well positioned if their primary bet doesn't pay off? Can they absorb losses? For how long?

You're not looking at the business behind your bets, and I think you're going to get burned in a big way. It's pure speculation.

For the business of BLUE I looked at the data I can get from Fidelity, including what Analysts say, though they may not have considered the most recent news that I considered. But as I said, I decided to set an alert for SBIO which is an ETF (ALPS MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS ETF).
 
For the business of BLUE I looked at the data I can get from Fidelity, including what Analysts say, though they may not have considered the most recent news that I considered. But as I said, I decided to set an alert for SBIO which is an ETF (ALPS MEDICAL BREAKTHROUGHS ETF).

Could I ask what that recent news was and why the analysts wouldn't consider it?
 
My experience is that a great technological trend/business idea does not necessarily mean that a company attempting to take advantage of that trend/idea will be a good company. Some managers are capable of executing, others are not. (Think of all the PC makers there were at one time) By the same token, the fact that a company is a good company does not necessarily mean its stock is a good investment. Perhaps all the potential good news is already baked into the stock and there is only downside risk -- a crisis of rising expectations.

Ultimately, you can't just say "Genetic engineering is the wave of the future. Blue does genetic engineering. Therefore BLUE is a good investment." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

What you really need to do is read every last thing you can find about BLUE and its competitors in the industry, until you are an expert in what that company does and how that industry operates. For example, you should read every 10K and 10Q, including all the attachments. Who are its major customers? What is the likelihood that it could lose a key customer? Does it enjoy pricing power? What are its margins? What is its capital structure? What are its debt payments and coverage ratios? How close is it to its covenant limits? When does its next round of debt mature? Can it roll the debt? How much does it spend on R&D compared to its competitors? Where does it stand with respect to necessary regulatory approvals? What patent protection does it have? Who are the managers and what is their history? Who else holds the stock? Does someone have controlling position? What is their agenda? If everything goes right, how much is your expected gain? If one thing goes wrong, how much is your expected loss? What if two things go wrong? Or three? What is the probability of each of these things happening? How do all these things compare to its competition?
 
Last edited:
My experience is that a great technological trend/business idea does not necessarily mean that a company attempting to take advantage of that trend/idea will be a good company. Some managers are capable of executing, others are not. (Think of all the PC makers there were at one time) By the same token, the fact that a company is a good company does not necessarily means its stock is a good investment. Perhaps all the potential good news is already baked into the stock and there is only downside risk -- a crisis of rising expectations.

Ultimately, you can't just say "Genetic engineering is the wave of the future. Blue does genetic engineering. Therefore BLUE is a good investment." Maybe it is, maybe it isn't.

What you really need to do is read every last thing you can find about BLUE and its competitors in the industry, until you are an expert in what that company does and how that industry operates. For example, you should read every 10K and 10Q, including all the attachments. Who are its major customers? What is the likelihood that it could lose a key customer? Does it enjoy pricing power? What are its margins? What is its capital structure? What are its debt payments and coverage ratios? How close is it to its covenant limits? When does its next round of debt mature? Can it roll the debt? How much does it spend on R&D compared to its competitors? Where does it stand with respect to necessary regulatory approvals? What patent protection does it have? Who are the managers and what is their history? Who else holds the stock? Does someone have controlling position? What is their agenda? If everything goes right, how much is your expected gain? If one thing goes wrong, how much is your expected loss? What if two things go wrong? Or three? What is the probability of each of these things happening? How do all these things compare to its competition?

+1
That's what I believe.

When I figured that out is when I decided this cr@ps too much like work.
 
Could I ask what that recent news was and why the analysts wouldn't consider it?

bluebird bio Announces Publication of Case Study on First Patient with Severe Sickle Cell Disease Treated with Gene Therapy in The New England Journal of Medicine

It's not that they wouldn't consider it if they knew about it. I just don't know if the information from the analysts is up to date enough. If it says "as of March 4" I think that just means it's the latest ratings available, not that the analysts looked at news from recent days.

With important studies in progress, The Motley Fool says "revenue and earnings aren't particularly important for the biotech at this stage." The news trumps it all.

I've been researching my theory that the success of one biotech company helps biotech stocks in general. The biotech fund I want to buy hasn't been around long so I checked what happened with FIDELITY SELECT BIOTECHNOLOGY (FBIOX) when two new drugs became available. I tried searching for new genetic engineering drugs.

January 31, 2012 - "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Kalydeco (ivacaftor) for the treatment of a rare form of cystic fibrosis (CF) in patients ages 6 years and older who have the specific G551D mutation in the Cystic Fibrosis Transmembrane Regulator (CFTR) gene."

FBIOX rose sharply from Feb. 1 to Mar 1, 2012.

December 23, 2016 - "The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today approved Spinraza (nusinersen), the first drug approved to treat children and adults with spinal muscular atrophy (SMA), a rare and often fatal genetic disease affecting muscle strength and movement."

FBIOX rose sharply on Dec. 23, 2016.
 
Last edited:
I'd suggest if you were considering actively trading, that you actually set up a portfolio and test out your thoughts for 6 months to 1 year. Literally create a fake portfolio on many of the websites like Google finance or Yahoo finance - and many others, and start with whatever amount you have now as cash in the account. Remember, it's not real money. Then buy/sell and record the transaction fees as you go - most of the brokers have lowered their transaction fees recently, I know for one Fidelity has lowered theirs down to $4.95/trade. If you are up well above the major indexes, then consider trying it with only a portion of your real investment account(s).

One thing I've noticed is that you have to get above $4k-$5k before actively trading to get decent returns, mostly because you can buy more shares. After all, if the transaction fee is say $6.95/trade, you have to double that because you'd be buying and then possibly selling, and divide by the number of shares you can buy. If you can afford to buy only 10 shares the stock has to go up by $1.39 just to break even after transaction fees. If you can buy 100 shares of the stock, then the stock only has to go up $0.14 in order to break even.

Good luck either way!

As a follow-up of my own post, an example of a transaction that I did was purchasing SNAP @ $24.xx and then setting a sell order at $29.xx to cover the transaction fees AND increase that portfolio by 17%. That happened within 3 hours, and I don't care that I didn't hit the bottom for the day or the top for the day either. There are several things that you want to have in place before considering doing something like that.
 
At the core you are speculating. Sure, you mask it well by putting out technical analysis, but there's no real investing homework behind it. You're not looking at the business behind it; you're merely hoping to hit big on some idea. I've been there. Fortunately, I only lost $3700 on $4000 on two small investments in businesses I was sure were bound to take off based on single big ideas without knowing anything about the fundamentals behind the businesses themselves. A relatively inexpensive lesson.

You'll win some. You'll lose more. There's little about anything I've read in your strategies that leads me to believe you'll be a consistently good "stock picker", because if you look at those who've gone on to great, sustained investing success by picking stocks, they look at core fundamentals and buy with the intention of holding. What you're doing is something millions have done before. A few have gotten lucky, the vast majority do not and end up right where they started or worse after exhausting several years' worth of energy.

I'm reminded of the story a friend of mine told me back in 2005. We were co-workers; he joined the Navy a few years after I did. He told me stories of living on a boat in Mexico for a year after great success as a day trader in 1998-2000. He'd made a fortune of nearly $150 million.

But he kept going, and eventually lost all of it. Literally, every cent. He started over by going to Officer Candidate School, re-married, etc.

What struck me about his story was not his overwhelming success followed by the fall, it was his attitude about it. When I asked him if he thought day-trading and technical market analysis was smart, he said, "How many people do you know that made $150 million in less than two years?"

I said, "The same number of people who I know who lost $150 million in six months."

That pretty much ended the conversation.

You're going to be biased to focus on your wins and rationalize away your losses. In the end, you're going to be better off if you'd become a value investor (if you must buy individual stocks) or indexer. You're walking a path millions have walked before you, and only a few have succeeded, often just for the short run.

As ERD said, this is likely falling on deaf ears. Good luck!

I think it's a matter of understanding when one should hold up. If I were to have $150M in my accounts (or for that matter $3M), I would seriously setup my accounts to spin off 3%/year and invest in a combination of low risk (40%), medium risk (40%), and high risk (20%) investments to ensure that my money would far outlive me.
 
I think it's a matter of understanding when one should hold up. If I were to have $150M in my accounts (or for that matter $3M), I would seriously setup my accounts to spin off 3%/year and invest in a combination of low risk (40%), medium risk (40%), and high risk (20%) investments to ensure that my money would far outlive me.


Most people here would do that, but most people here wouldn't gamble the way this guy did to ever get to $150M. There's a confidence/arrogance there that was borne of success. He believed he could just keep going, and even afterward, I'm not sure he understood what had happened.
 
OK, start posting your trades in real time. We'll keep score.

-ERD50

"Buy 200 Shares of URBN Limit at $24.60"

We'll see if it gets down to that. Urban Outfitters' problem seems to be industry wide coupled with ugly dresses. Poor projections for 2017. Way, way down now and I can't imagine it not coming up, especially in 2018.
 
"Buy 200 Shares of URBN Limit at $24.60"

We'll see if it gets down to that. Urban Outfitters' problem seems to be industry wide coupled with ugly dresses. Poor projections for 2017. Way, way down now and I can't imagine it not coming up, especially in 2018.

You'll need to put this in terms of % of your portfolio. If you end up making a nice, quick profit on this (though it looks like you are thinking more long term possibly? 2018?), it doesn't mean much if 80% of your portfolio was sitting around in cash, or other investments that didn't beat the market.

It helps to keep a trading account isolated, avoid any transfers in/out, expect maybe right at year end/start to keep it 'pure'.

Good Luck!

-ERD50
 
I'm convinced you guys are being trolled by OP. Lots of chum in the water and he's getting lots of action. It's entertaining for all involved....I guess
 
I'm convinced you guys are being trolled by OP. Lots of chum in the water and he's getting lots of action. It's entertaining for all involved....I guess

If this includes my last post about the trade, please be specific. Is my reasoning poor?
 
I'm convinced you guys are being trolled by OP. Lots of chum in the water and he's getting lots of action. It's entertaining for all involved....I guess

Probably, but you never know. But I've given up trying to convince him of anything, after all, I would probably lose to him in a game of Rock Paper Scissors, so what's the point?

But I may comment, or ask him to do more work. As you say, a little entertainment. Very little <rim-shot> .

-ERD50
 
I'm convinced you guys are being trolled by OP. Lots of chum in the water and he's getting lots of action. It's entertaining for all involved....I guess

With 200 shares traded at $24.60 that's less than 5k. I thought we were talking about some money. Or did he drop a zero?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom