Economy stonks v22, infrastonksture
- Thread starter rob mafia
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
lolz @ the cnbc 'young people's 50' index... and how the talking heads praise it...
because google and amazon are in it.
joe teranova, ladies and gentlemen (who just said to buy the same 2 stocks + ms/fb an hour ago).
because google and amazon are in it.
joe teranova, ladies and gentlemen (who just said to buy the same 2 stocks + ms/fb an hour ago).
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
i'd need to use an electron microscope to actually see that image, but if it's what i think it is and saw on wsb yesterday... yes, you should go back in time to last week and skip this rout. or buy 12/3 Ps
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2015
- Messages
- 18,128
- Reaction score
- 29,497
Weird it's huge on my computer screen, not sure why this only happens at work.
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2009
- Messages
- 28,983
- Reaction score
- 20,560
Are we due for a sell off? past due, way past due but it's clown world
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
it might be my script blockers or something. i never know why some/most (but not all, oddly) attachments are microscopic.
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2004
- Messages
- 19,055
- Reaction score
- 9,809
i dunno, man. seems like nearly everything outside of T. F. AGMAN has seen massive corrections. in a saner world, people would ditch them for pretty much anything else. especially with how some of them are just insane and pitching absolute nonsense (metaverse).
and now that i think about it, it's funny that cramer/cnbc hates on amd... while hyping the above stocks endlessly. amd is actually powering all of them except apple.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,361
- Reaction score
- 53,671
Well today is a good day. Not a single red name today.
MKC back over $90. Should have picked up more when it got into the $70's. My average cost per-share is about $82. I was waiting for an entry point with that one for a long, long time.
MKC back over $90. Should have picked up more when it got into the $70's. My average cost per-share is about $82. I was waiting for an entry point with that one for a long, long time.
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,361
- Reaction score
- 53,671
Fucking BZFD lol. Weird seeing shit like this traded.
All the shit I've looked at recently and thought, "this is something I'd short If I was going to short something," would have worked out if I did it.
HNST, OTLY, FXLV. Just garbage. And not good garbage like WM. Bad garbage. Oh, and of course, HOOD.
All the shit I've looked at recently and thought, "this is something I'd short If I was going to short something," would have worked out if I did it.
HNST, OTLY, FXLV. Just garbage. And not good garbage like WM. Bad garbage. Oh, and of course, HOOD.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 49,057
- Reaction score
- 58,178
It was up 8%, my calls were down 25%. UPS was up, my calls still got crushed.Even PENN went up today, how bout dat
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2012
- Messages
- 26,361
- Reaction score
- 53,671
IESC earnings have me feeling fine. Hopefully this turns out to be the hidden gem it looks to be.
Fourth Quarter 2021 Highlights
- Revenue of $484 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, an increase of 46% compared with $330 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020
- Operating income of $30.1 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, an increase of 109% compared with $14.4 million for the same quarter of fiscal 2020. Operating income for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020 included a goodwill impairment charge of $7.0 million and executive severance charges of $1.8 million
- Net income attributable to IES increased 54% to $22.4 million for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021, compared with $14.6 million for the same quarter of fiscal 2020; diluted earnings per share attributable to common stockholders of $1.07 for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2021 compared with $0.68 for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020. Net income attributable to IES for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020 included a goodwill impairment charge (net of noncontrolling interest) of $5.7 million and executive severance charges of $1.8 million, as well as a tax benefit of $3.3 million from the release of a valuation allowance on state deferred tax assets
- Adjusted net income attributable to IES (a non-GAAP financial measure, as defined below) increased 23% to $27.3 million for the fourth quarter of 2021 compared with $22.2 million for the same quarter of fiscal 2020; adjusted diluted earnings per share attributable to common stockholders (a non-GAAP financial measure, as defined below) increased to $1.30 for the fourth quarter of 2021 compared with $1.05 for the fourth quarter of fiscal 2020
- Remaining performance obligations of $713 million and backlog (a non-GAAP financial measure, as defined below) of $900 million as of September 30, 2021
- Revenue of $1.5 billion for fiscal 2021, an increase of 29% compared with $1.2 billion for fiscal 2020
- Operating income of $85.6 million for fiscal 2021, an increase of 71% compared with $50.1 million for fiscal 2020. Operating income for fiscal 2020 included a goodwill impairment charge of $7.0 million and executive severance charges of $1.8 million
- Net income attributable to IES increased 60% to $66.7 million for fiscal 2021, compared with $41.6 million for fiscal 2020; diluted earnings per share attributable to common stockholders of $3.15 for fiscal 2021 compared with $1.94 for fiscal 2020. Net income attributable to IES for fiscal 2021 includes tax benefits of $5.1 million related to the recognition of previously unrecognized tax benefits. Net income attributable to IES for fiscal 2020 included a goodwill impairment charge (net of noncontrolling interest) of $5.7 million and executive severance charges of $1.8 million, as well as tax benefits of $3.2 million related to the recognition of previously unrecognized tax benefits and $3.3 million from the release of a valuation allowance on state deferred tax assets
- Adjusted net income attributable to IES increased 45% to $78.4 million for fiscal 2021 compared with $54.2 million for fiscal 2020; adjusted diluted earnings per share attributable to common stockholders of $3.70 for fiscal 2021 compared with $2.54 for fiscal 2020
- Completed four acquisitions, adding to IES Residential's capabilities and market presence and expanding the geographic footprint and capacity of Infrastructure Solutions
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2010
- Messages
- 27,446
- Reaction score
- 40,525
Picked up some $ML at $3.67. I thought 5 was too low, thinks its way oversold. Who knows it might be a stupid play but will not be my first nor my last stupid play.
I have this stock $ENOB, that popped today. Owned it since 06/2020, and its up 260+% the last year. Sold half when around 150%, which now I am kicking myself for but profit is profit. They have some promising drugs in the pipeline, and little debt, but caveat emptor, most know my poor track record with Pharmas, so either this will be another shit one or I am due.
I have this stock $ENOB, that popped today. Owned it since 06/2020, and its up 260+% the last year. Sold half when around 150%, which now I am kicking myself for but profit is profit. They have some promising drugs in the pipeline, and little debt, but caveat emptor, most know my poor track record with Pharmas, so either this will be another shit one or I am due.
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2016
- Messages
- 3,514
- Reaction score
- 2,990
Theta killing it
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2013
- Messages
- 39,236
- Reaction score
- 36,056
Ontario Court of Appeal does not like Chamath apparently, orders him to pay 30 million USD.
https://betakit.com/extreme-venture...ihapitiya-lose-appeal-in-tinder-sale-lawsuit/
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca853/2021onca853.html
[9] The principal problem with the first part of the Palihapitiya Appellants' position is that it is dependent upon the Appellants' credibility. The trial judge rightly found the Appellants to be incredible witnesses whose sworn testimony was routinely contradicted by the written record. Moreover, Palihapitiya had an unusual habit in his public and private communications of bragging about significant aspects of his alleged misbehaviour but then inexplicably denying any misconduct on the witness stand.
[10] The second part of the submission is a straw man argument. The trial judge's conclusions were not grounded in her idiosyncratic moral values, nor did she require Palihapitiya to compromise his legitimate business interests. Instead, she applied well-established tort and corporate law principles to his conduct and made findings of illegality supported by the record. Counsel's submission that the Appellants' unethical and illegal behaviour should be excused as standard examples of corporate conduct is meritless. The trial judge, an experienced commercial judge, saw through this argument and reached the correct conclusion. In my view, if the Appellants' conduct was not the subject of adverse findings by her, the court would have communicated a message that there are few, if any, limits to corporate malfeasance. Such a message would have caused significant uncertainty in the Canadian business world.
on the facts of this case, where the Appellants have engaged in a litany of brazenly illegal acts and where their counsel elected not to offer any submissions on the point, I would order disgorgement of the total amount of the profits.
Indeed, Palihapitiya's private and public statements are inconsistent with his sworn evidence. I offer the following examples:
• On September 27, 2012 – just seven weeks after closing – Palihapitiya wrote an email to a friend regarding the acquisition of Xtreme Labs, boasting: “25% net cash margins, 100% YoY revenue growth – should do $35 – 40M next year. We bought it for $16M. Yum, yum!!!!”
• Palihapitiya spoke at a Town Hall for the Xtreme Labs employees shortly after closing. In his remarks, he talked about how the previous owners of the company were "douchebags," "fuckfaces" and "idiots that were counterproductive." He described how at the 11th hour, the company's ownership structure got "convoluted," and in his opinion, Varma and Madra "got taken advantage of." He said that "over the course of this last year, sort of instigating and pushing and prodding, we finally found the path to basically buy Xtreme and recapitalize it."
https://betakit.com/extreme-venture...ihapitiya-lose-appeal-in-tinder-sale-lawsuit/
https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2021/2021onca853/2021onca853.html
[9] The principal problem with the first part of the Palihapitiya Appellants' position is that it is dependent upon the Appellants' credibility. The trial judge rightly found the Appellants to be incredible witnesses whose sworn testimony was routinely contradicted by the written record. Moreover, Palihapitiya had an unusual habit in his public and private communications of bragging about significant aspects of his alleged misbehaviour but then inexplicably denying any misconduct on the witness stand.
[10] The second part of the submission is a straw man argument. The trial judge's conclusions were not grounded in her idiosyncratic moral values, nor did she require Palihapitiya to compromise his legitimate business interests. Instead, she applied well-established tort and corporate law principles to his conduct and made findings of illegality supported by the record. Counsel's submission that the Appellants' unethical and illegal behaviour should be excused as standard examples of corporate conduct is meritless. The trial judge, an experienced commercial judge, saw through this argument and reached the correct conclusion. In my view, if the Appellants' conduct was not the subject of adverse findings by her, the court would have communicated a message that there are few, if any, limits to corporate malfeasance. Such a message would have caused significant uncertainty in the Canadian business world.
on the facts of this case, where the Appellants have engaged in a litany of brazenly illegal acts and where their counsel elected not to offer any submissions on the point, I would order disgorgement of the total amount of the profits.
Indeed, Palihapitiya's private and public statements are inconsistent with his sworn evidence. I offer the following examples:
• On September 27, 2012 – just seven weeks after closing – Palihapitiya wrote an email to a friend regarding the acquisition of Xtreme Labs, boasting: “25% net cash margins, 100% YoY revenue growth – should do $35 – 40M next year. We bought it for $16M. Yum, yum!!!!”
• Palihapitiya spoke at a Town Hall for the Xtreme Labs employees shortly after closing. In his remarks, he talked about how the previous owners of the company were "douchebags," "fuckfaces" and "idiots that were counterproductive." He described how at the 11th hour, the company's ownership structure got "convoluted," and in his opinion, Varma and Madra "got taken advantage of." He said that "over the course of this last year, sort of instigating and pushing and prodding, we finally found the path to basically buy Xtreme and recapitalize it."
