Use access key #2 to skip to page content.

IBDvalueinvestin (99.62)

Its becoming really annoying not being able to rate stocks under $100M

Recs

9

June 26, 2009 – Comments (13)

I keep finding huge bargains caused by the recession which sent many stocks under $100M and now are not pickable.

An example is today with DAVE , I wanted to rate it but couldn't

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ae?s=DAVE

13 Comments – Post Your Own

#1) On June 26, 2009 at 10:49 AM, mustbepatient (29.66) wrote:

IBD, I agree wholeheartedly.  Many of the companies I buy with real money are growing and have good financials but have market caps < $100mm.  The lack of Canadian stocks is a big problem too.  It's frustrating how different my CAPS portfolio is from my real portfolio.

On the flip side, I think CAPS would be improved if they disallowed pink-sheet stocks.  The logic behind excluding financially stable $50mm companies but including pink-sheet junk eludes me.

Report this comment
#2) On June 26, 2009 at 11:00 AM, Entrepreneur58 (37.10) wrote:

They probably want to avoid pumping of thinly traded stocks.  My guess.

Report this comment
#3) On June 26, 2009 at 11:03 AM, catoismymotor (< 20) wrote:

Amen, and pass the MXC.

Report this comment
#4) On June 26, 2009 at 11:04 AM, dudemonkey (37.87) wrote:

I mean, and this is a crazy thought here, but you can buy them in your real portfolio.  Who cares what your CAPS score is if you're making money?

Report this comment
#5) On June 26, 2009 at 11:18 AM, anticitrade (99.65) wrote:

This discussion seems to surface periodically.  I would also like to buy a lot more of these smal cap companies.  However, I think it would open the door to additional "gaming" of the CAP scores. Since the transaction costs of buying and selling small cap companies is greater in real life, and transaciton costs are not simulated in the caps game.

I think it would be good if you could have maybe 10%-20% of your picks in these companies.

The counter argument is "CAPS scores are meaningless anyway".  Despite the obvious short comings of the caps system, it remains vitally important to the website.  Without some sense of credability, the community aspect would have little if any value.  Additionally, if you think CAPS scores are meaningless what would the benefit be of adding these small cap picks in the first place?

Report this comment
#6) On June 26, 2009 at 11:33 AM, nottheSEC (80.97) wrote:

I have a compromise for all using your combined logiic 

There are established Pink sheets and OB stocks like Nestles, Nintendo etc but ok...maybe 10%-20% of your picks in these companies.

I think that on stocks under 100m but not under 50M with price...maybe 10%-20% of your picks in these companies.

ETF of any kind maybe 10%-20% of your picks in these companies.

Report this comment
#7) On June 26, 2009 at 11:41 AM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

I'm not sure dudemonkey was saying scores are meaningless.  I don't know his previous position on the matter, but I believe he was just advising to make money in real life first before worrying about the CAPS score.

Report this comment
#8) On June 26, 2009 at 11:48 AM, IBDvalueinvestin (99.62) wrote:

My Point is that you can't buy bargains in the caps system.

So maybe it should allow stocks that had mkt caps above $100M at anytime during a 1yr period. This way if it falls below that threshold , you can still pick it.

2008 gave us numerous bargains of stocks that were over $250M mkt cap but were not pickable at their cheapest values of our lifetime because they went under $100M

Thats really sad because I could have rated some really good stocks that went up over 3 fold since then.

Report this comment
#9) On June 26, 2009 at 12:11 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

Micro caps tend to be my favorite stocks and I feel your pain.  I heard in a thread long ago that they were throwing around the idea of MicroCAPS.  I believe some in the TMF circle thought it was unfair to be able to load up your picks with companies with market caps of 20M which could go up tenfold.  I actually tend to agree.  Whether it's by skill or by luck, the people choosing the right micro caps would destroy everyone else pretty badly. 

I think TMFJake or someone would know more on this issue.

Report this comment
#10) On June 26, 2009 at 12:33 PM, anticitrade (99.65) wrote:

bullishbabo - As is often the case, I communicated my thoughts poorly.  I was not trying to argue against any previously posted comment, but merely respond to the comments my commment may have illicited. (Clear as mud?)

Report this comment
#11) On June 26, 2009 at 12:41 PM, TMFBabo (100.00) wrote:

anticitrade, I just read your comment again and I think I think you put it correctly; I just messed up.  Anyway, I think we should either be able to load up 100% of our portfolios of these micro caps or not at all.  It would get too complicated to have only 10% or 20% restrictions on such stocks. 

I also believe that with trading online, despite horrific bid/ask spreads that I see on a stock quote, I find that I'm able to set my limit somewhere in the middle and buy some micro caps for decent prices without paying too much of a premium.  That is, of course, assuming a minimum level of liquidity.  I've seen some 10M market cap stocks with decent liquidity and 100M market cap stocks with terrible liquidity...so I guess it depends on the stock.

Report this comment
#12) On June 27, 2009 at 11:12 PM, IBDvalueinvestin (99.62) wrote:

DAVE insider has been loading up on shares all June, you think he has clues on DAVE's earnings this qtr? Anything at .22 or better could send this stock to $10/shr. Remember AM the other day? from $6 to $10+ in 24 hours.

  http://www.filing4.com/company/1021270/transaction/

Report this comment
#13) On June 29, 2009 at 9:07 AM, IBDvalueinvestin (99.62) wrote:

can someone provide a list of stocks under $100M that have soared over 300% since March lows.

Report this comment

Featured Broker Partners


Advertisement