This is a question that came to me from a player in The Competitive Edge Competition so I thought I’d share this tip with everyone playing.
The question was, “if I have 100 bitcoins in my competition account and the collateral in my account is being 48% utilised, how much currency can I trade?”
The answer is that while stock and futures trading commits your collateral to securing trades.
Currency Switch IS based on movement of collateral. The full amount of your collateral can being moved from cryptocurrency to fiat and back again. Regardless of what trades that collateral is securing!
So you are not eating into your collateral when you place Currency Switch trades. You are getting another bite of the profit apple. Clever traders can move collateral around taking advantage of currency moves the whole time they are stock / futures trading.
Most people tend to trade one thing, stock, futures or currency, so this elegant functionality is underutilised. But Currency Switch makes it possible to place 2:1 currency trades – BTC / USD, BTC / GBP, BTC / EUR and BTC / CHF.
By Marcie D Terman – Communications Director
September 6, 2016 London
No not the character in that painful ballet movie played by Natalie Portman, but the meme that drifts by just beyond our next trade. Everyone is convinced they can see her coming. But in actual fact, no one can.
Notice that almost all of the brokers offering mainstream stock trading into the bitcoin market support only a dozen or so markets. The reason for this is that they do not place trades into the market on behalf of their customers and charge a commission. Instead, to make a profit they make a bid / offer spread on the market being traded that is roughly around the live price in the market at that point in time. And that spread is much wider than the actual market.
For instance, I’m looking at the S&P future which you can trade on our platform. Right now it has a bid / offer spread of 25 ticks. That’s the live market. Having a peek at one of the bitcoin CFD brokers at the same time I can see a bid / offer spread was 80 ticks. First Global charges a fixed commission. They change their spread based on market volatility.
But if you bear with me for a moment I will point out something even more off putting at play.
Let’s say their trading customers have 5,000 shares of the S&P that are long and 10,000 shares of the S&P that are short. The 5000 longs and 5000 shorts cancel each other out. If the market goes up, the longs make the money the shorts lose. Well, what happens to the extra 5000 shorts? They’re losing money right? But there is no actual trade in the live market, so when the shorts close their positions at a loss the broker pockets that money.
What happens in the same situation if the market goes the other way? There are 5000 extra longs making money. From where does that money come from? It comes from the broker’s proprietary account. And that’s ok. It mostly works out because they work on the premise that most traders lose money. (Sucks doesn’t it?) They only hedge in the market when they perceive that volatility is rising and therefore there is something to worry about. This makes their business very cost efficient because they have practically no cost of service delivery…
Because there are no real trades out there.
And that’s why they can only offer a limited number of contracts. They need to aggregate trading around a limited number of markets, so their customers are trading against one another.
And that works most of the time, but…
This is what happens when THE BLACK SWAN swims by…
And just to be clear, let me provide a hypothetical scenario that might help you understand the point I am making which clearly shows that market prediction is not possible.
Let’s say everyone is bearish of Tesla and Elon Musk secretly plans a trip to the moon and tragically dies during the launch of his personal mooncraft. (Do these brokers even offer Tesla? Not sure, but it is just as possible with any company where an unexpected event pushes the market beyond what people expect.) But let’s say there are 10,000 Tesla shorts and everyone buys back their shares at once to cash in on the big win concerning Mr. Musk’s untimely demise. And each one makes 10,000 USD on their trade. That’s a loss of 100,000,000 dollars or 172,413 bitcoins (at Friday’s prices.) Do you think the bitcoin CFD broker is sitting on that kind of war chest? Even at 500 times leverage, that represents a loss of 200,000, Would they be able to cough that sum up and continue to meet their other market obligations? Who knows?
Over time they have put some protections in around this issue. But there is a reason mainstream brokerages do NOT do this and this practice is illegal in many jurisdictions. Ultimately I believe this is the real reason that most brokers in the bitcoin space do not say who they are. If something goes terribly wrong, they will slip away and their customers will pay for it.
Looking critically at the aftermath of the great DAO heist of 2016
June 23, 2016 Geneva / London / Hong Kong
By Gavin Smith, Chief Executive, First Global Credit
Anyone interested in cryptocurrency and innovative use of the Blockchain cannot help having heard about the most egalitarian expression of this technology, Ethereum. And anyone interested in the progress of Ether as a DIY cryptocurrency must be familiar with how Ethercoin is being used as the basis of DAOs or decentralized autonomous organizations. DAO is a method for making investment decisions where choices are made by collective agreement not by fund directors.
There already have been a few DAOs but the first one with any traction has been created by German startup, slock.it. Slock.it has members of the Ethereum project team Simon Jentzsch and Stephan Tual on its board. The DAO concept is based on a set of smart contracts that represent investment opportunities presented to the DAO ‘collective’ of investors. Along with buying tokens to the DAO comes the right to vote on which opportunities the DAO takes a position in. The view being that decisions made by consensus will be more profitable as the intelligence of all the investors is behind the selection. Investment utopic dream?
That dream turned into a nightmare last Thursday with news that of the $150m invested in the slock.it DAO at least $60m has been withdrawn by a “hacker” who exploited a vulnerability in the script that governed distributions from the DAO.
The flaw that is at the root of the DAO security problem is based on what first appears to be the strength of the Ether model with its embedded scripting language. Ether permits individuals or organizations to develop powerful smart contracts with complex behaviours. Unfortunately, this flexibility goes hand in hand with the risk that the implementation of a particular solution is not well thought through. This leaves customers of the smart contract (or in this case DAO) at risk of faulty contract implementation with weak security.
This risk has always been played down by the prime movers of the Ethereum project but the fact that the management of Slock.it is also made up of some of the core development talent of the Ether project proves that this risk is not only valid but also not easily overcome – after all, if these developers can’t get the security model right how are others supposed to?
This issue, however, pales into insignificance when compared to the much larger concern … what happens now that the hack has been discovered?
One proposed response to the hack is to roll back the Ether Blockchain – while appearing attractive at first, this route, if taken, has far reaching consequences for Etherium’s future.
Nobody condones the siphoning of funds from the DAO but it should be remembered that this project was highly experimental and participants took part in something that was largely untested with significant risks.
The strength of a public blockchain, which Ether claims to be, has always been the irreversible characteristic of any transaction. Once a transaction has been confirmed it cannot be unwound by any individual or group – this is the very strength of Bitcoin and why attempts to replicate Bitcoins’ benefit structure using private blockchains is a flawed premise – while private blockchains provide benefits of efficiency for member organisations to transact business together without holding counterparty risk, they are by nature limited in their scope, not designed to ‘include’ but exclude participants. In other words they are designed to benefit the “elite few” who run the private blockchain, for instance a select number of banks who wish to extend their cartel with greater efficiency but no benefit to the greater public.
If the Ethereum Project decides to roll back the Ethereum blockchain they simply confirm the charge that is often levelled at Ethereum – it is not a public blockchain at all but a private blockchain developed to move control of the financial industry from one set of hands into another, benefiting Vitalik Butterin and his buddies.
While many would argue that there is no harm in rolling back transactions that were a deliberate exploitation of a weakness in Slock.It’s implementation of the scripting language. You don’t have to dig too deeply to recognise the flaw in this logic.
Is the Ethereum Project going to roll back all future hacks – or just those involving members of the inner circle? What constitutes a hack? One of the proposed uses of Ether smart contracts is an exchange (say for Bitcoin) – If the smart contract incorrectly makes multiple sales at a low price which people identify and exploit – will those transactions be rolled back as well?
Perhaps a smart contract takes place between 2 organisations, one of which is inside the favoured circle of the Ethereum Project – let’s say they decide they don’t like the terms and want it rolled back – does their request get actioned while the other organization foots the bill?
What quickly becomes apparent is that once you lose the irreversible characteristic of the transaction; When it is no longer an independent network that confirms transactions you no longer have a trustless P2P network – you have crony capitalism and you are simply perpetrating the worst characteristics of the old world financial industry order.
This event represents a critical decision point in Ethereum’s evolution. Do they go down the route of a distributed P2P network with irreversible transactions (which probably means abandoning proof of stake in favour of proof of work) or do they go down the route of a private blockchain with control retained by the select few?
For our part the First Global Credit company will continue to allow holders of Ethereum to use it as collateral for stock and futures trading but, for the time being, our Smart Contract work will remain focussed on Bitcoins’ capabilities. Ethereum, for us, is still a work in progress which we will continue to monitor with interest.
Why bitcoin and public blockchains trump trusting the banks
This article was published on the April 11, 2016 on the Finance Magnates website
By First Global Credit CEO Gavin Smith
Government and commercial banks have been using both overt and covert strategies to devalue and if possible halt the adoption of public blockchain technology. The outward face ranges from the cautious acceptance of digital currencies by the UK and Hong Kong to the downright protectionist strategy of New York State through the Bitlicensing laws.
The covert strategies are typified by a three pronged approach: (1) Exploit any opportunity to denigrate bitcoin regardless of accuracy usually based on the stability of bitcoins or legitimacy of use. For instance, linking bitcoins to terrorism or drug purchase. (2) Broadcast generalised statements supporting the idea that private blockchains have all the benefits of the public blockchains and that banks are better custodians of the public’s welfare than the inexperienced organizations driving public blockchain development. (3) Then into this framework, publicize specific initiatives like RSCoin, a centrally controlled digital currency created by the Bank of England. The claim is being made that RSCoin is a panacea that will solve all the problems that have shadowed banks over the past decade.
While RSCoin does show some incremental improvements to the transaction flow currently in use in the conventional banking industry, it lacks many of the benefits offered to the public by a genuine, independent digital currency. However, this is not what is being broadcast by the media, who in all probability lack an understanding of the relationship between central and commercial banks, which is why RSCoin does nothing to change what has gone on in the banking industry over the past decade. For instance, in a recent article published in the Business Section of The Telegraph it has been claimed that RSCoin will “erode the exorbitant privilege enjoyed by commercial banks of creating money out of thin air under a fractional reserve system.” The same article also claims that RSCoin would allow Central Banks to “turn the money tap on and off with calibrated precision.”
The problem with these arguments is that, if examined critically, they are in direct conflict. How exactly is it proposed that RSCoin would facilitate the Central Bank “Turning On” the liquidity tap? By pumping money into the hands of the public? Of course not – it would be pumped (as happens now) into the coffers of the Commercial Banks in the form of government subsidized loans which would enhance their ability to make loans with their customers’ money. This is the very definition of fractional reserve banking and what the supporters of RSCoin claim it will prevent. It is the collusion (for want of a better word) between the Central and commercial banks that is created through the current use of the ‘money tap’ that should be at issue, not the precision of that ‘tap.’
RSCoin is new technology being built to support a flawed system that ultimately burdens the tax payer and distorts saving and investment markets (ask any pensioner who has been forced to survive on near zero interest rates over the past 10 years). It is policy, not precision or technical superiority that is the problem that needs addressing to dis-intermediate commercial banks. It is therefore no wonder that commercial banks are jumping on board to support RSCoin which can be viewed as a wonderful way to maintain the status quo while showing a public face that appears to support a new ‘fairer’ type of banking.
The information cited in the paragraphs above can be verified through a variety of sources for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional_reserve_banking#Criticisms_of_fractional-reserve_banking. That is why it is the duty of those of us who have an in-depth understanding of the relationship between central and commercial banks to make that information available to the general public to encourage a dispassionate assessment of initiatives like RSCoin.
Public Digital Currency, such as bitcoin, has no tap for the Central Bank to turn on or off. Commercial Banks would be forced to manage their affairs more in line with their customer’s best interests because there is no Central Bank spigot to pump liquidity into an organisation that has behaved imprudently with their customer’s funds.
The very fact that this is the case would force banking regulators to ensure that banks had sufficient short term capital to meet customer demands and disengage from risky business areas which, because the public purse can be called upon to bail out the banks, are nothing more than “Heads we win – Tails you lose” speculation with customer money.
Who can tell if fiat currencies will continue to dominate regular day to day transactions? But the fact that there is an alternative store of value for customers that is independent of Central Bank / Commercial Bank influence is a positive factor and something that is completely lost with centrally controlled digital currency.
These are some of the touchpoints that having public blockchains will affect:
- Central banks will no longer have the flexibility to manipulate money supply in a way that disadvantages the tax paying public.
- Central banks will no longer be able to force interest rates to zero; there is a growing bitcoin money market that enables savers to achieve a return on their bitcoins even when fiat interest rates have been driven into negative territory.
- Commercial banks will no longer be provided with a free pass to borrow from the tax payer at 0% while charging those same tax payers 7% to 39.9% on retail borrowing.
Public blockchains will have the ultimate effect of forcing banks to behave as genuine commercial entities instead of being part of a monopolistic, protected industry as is currently the case.
About Gavin Smith:
With a financial service background that spans almost 3 decades and a career that covers both options market making in the pits of London’s LIFFE Exchange to managing the hedging strategies of one of the world’s largest metal traders, Gavin Smith bring vision as well as hard won expertise to the digital currency markets. Gavin’s in-depth understanding of financial markets coupled with a commitment to becoming a driving force in the creation of the digital currency capital market give him a unique voice in the debate about the development of public blockchains and the bitcoin capital market.
About First Global Credit:
First Global Credit is the world’s first Finance Company that brings the profit opportunities existing in mainstream markets within the reach of digital currency holders. With a presence in Geneva, London and Hong Kong, the company has been founded by risk management specialist Gavin Smith and Financial Data Security Company Director Marcie Terman. Smith and Terman head a team with over 35 years’ collective experience building and managing trading and back office systems for world-class trading companies and banks operating in London and Geneva.
The objective is to become a market leader in the Bitcoin Capital Market by providing services that accept bitcoin as a valuable asset that can be used to generate a return. We deliver these services with a focus on customer care not generally found in digital currency companies. First Global is committed to assisting our customers meet their financial objectives for their digital currency portfolios. Our systems are built using bank grade technology and security and are housed in Financial Grade Tier III Data Centres with failover capability. Our processes are designed to assure the privacy of our customers alongside the security of their assets.
To sign up for an account go to: https://www.firstglobalcredit.com/register.aspx
March 3, 2016 Geneva / London / Hong Kong
First Global Credit, the first company allowing bitcoin holders to trade mainstream stocks announced that in February $2.2m worth of stock and currency trading took place on the website. This represents a new high in the amount of trading handled through the site which set its last record in November of 2015 when $1.8m worth of stock trading took place on the site.
“There is no doubt that the number of trading opportunities in the stock market right now has helped stimulate trading,” stated First Global Communications Director Marcie Terman. “But the number of people using the site to increase the value of their bitcoin holdings has been steadily increasing over the past 6 months as well. That has also contributed to First Global’s performance in February.”
Following on from the news about achieving new highs with stock market and currency trading, First Global will be add commodity futures trading to the website on Monday, March 7th. “This will be another first for the digital currency market,” says Terman. “We are committed to bringing the same kinds of choices fiat currency investors have to the digital currency marketplace. I am really looking forward to seeing how people utilize the platform in the coming months. Whether we will end up with people who are skilled only in stock or currency trading or if the majority of our customers will trade across the full range of market choices.”
Also In March the company will start promoting a new trading competition which is designed to not only introduce new traders to the platform but also to reward the best players with positions in the coveted Private Trading Group. The Private Trading Group is a network of talented traders that are either given access to fully funded trading accounts (in the case of competition winners) or a part funded account for those accepted by CV into the trading program. The Private Trading Group is one way for talented traders to start generating a live track record so that they can be included when we open the Star Trader Tracking Portal later in 2016. “Star Traders will be able to publish their live results in a portal designed to introduce profitable traders to people who hold bitcoin but lack trading ability.” Continues Terman. “The Star Trader portal is another example of how First Global adds value to the digital currency market.”
Can the blockchain avert the next financial meltdown?
By Gavin Smith, CEO First Global Credit
February 29, 2016 Geneva / London / Hong Kong
As this year’s Academy Awards celebration draws to a close, it seemed an opportune time to take a closer look at the dysfunction on display in one of the nominees for Best Picture, “The Big Short,” which was based on Michael Lewis’ book of the same name. Lewis’ book, and the movie it inspired, related the story of the subprime mortgage crisis in the United States. Essentially, a series of opaque and illiquid financial instruments were sliced and diced into a series of increasingly complex derivatives, the notional value of which ended up being many times greater than the size of the underlying mortgages. When homeowners, who were the people responsible for paying the underlying mortgages, defaulted on those mortgages, investors in these derivatives (collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), CDOs-squared, synthetic CDOs, credit default swaps, etc.) lost a lot of money. Those who sold these derivatives short (Michael Burry et al) made a lot of money.
To understand this at a very high level, consider a pivotal scene in the movie: Steve Carrell’s character goes to see a contact at S&P (played by Melissa Leo). In the course of speaking with her, he learns that S&P basically gives an investment bank whatever rating it wants for a CDO issue, because if S&P did not cooperate with the bank, the bankers would simply go down the street to one of S&Ps competitors. The system was rotten to the core, and was intermediated by humans doing very human things.
So what could have prevented this? One theory is that had blockchain-enabled smart contracts been used in the financial system, there would have been fewer opportunities for misbehavior by market participants. Now, this is a fairly bold claim, and a robust analysis of why this might be the case is beyond the scope of this brief article. Nonetheless, let’s review what smart contracts are:
- Smart contracts are pieces of computer code, the logic of which replicates the logic of contractual clauses. If I sign a contract with you in which I agree to sell you 10 apples at $1 per apple, and you refuse to pay me, then I have to seek redress through the courts. A smart contract, on the other hand, could contain code which, should the payment terms not be complied with, would automatically penalize you.
- This kind of self-enforcement reduces transaction costs. In the example above, the transaction costs include the cost of litigating through civil courts to seek redress and compensation in the event of a contract breach.
- Smart contracts reside on a blockchain, which if correctly implemented, would allow a real-time auditing of who owns what side of a given trade.
- Smart contracts would allow for real time pricing of even illiquid securities, since all of the transactions (including those transactions that create derivatives from underlying assets) would be fully auditable: you would know who owned what tranche of a CDO, who issued which mortgages that made up the AAA, AA, A, etc., tranches of the CDO, and, even, if the system were designed well, which homeowner signed which mortgage documents.
Perhaps most importantly, since all of this would be software-based, you would have no middlemen (or women) looking to create ever more complex derivatives. Creating derivatives of derivatives (so-called CDOs-squared or –cubed, etc.) does two things: (1) it makes the financial system more complex and opaque, and (2) it creates more income potential for bankers and traders. Since people aren’t good at policing themselves, in the absence of any system which prohibits people from making more money, complexity, opacity, and illiquidity are the result.
As long as people keep paying their mortgages, this system works more or less OK. But, as Burry and others suspected, just because housing prices went up for a while, didn’t mean that they would go up forever. Borrowers got overextended, lost their jobs, and defaulted on their mortgages. Because those mortgages were then packaged into CDOs, which themselves were packaged into other derivatives, no one knew what anything was worth and banks couldn’t unload their positions in these derivatives very easily.
So smart contracts seem to be one possible solution to the problem of misaligned incentives and opaque financial instruments. By removing much of the human element, and replacing people with code, we are presented with an opportunity to create a clear, objective framework for the pricing of financial assets and enforcement of contractual obligations.
In fact, in January 2016, American Banker, which is a trade paper for the financial services industry, published a short article discussing this very issue. Quoting from the article:
…what if you could program [bitcoin] transactions to occur at preordained times, under set circumstances, and even involving a preregistered group of multiple counterparties?
And what if you could use similar technology to preprogram transactions such as the payout of a derivative or other security, all done through a public ledger system such as blockchain without the risk of intervention or the inefficiency created by the involvement of an intermediary counterparty agent?
To make this a bit more concrete, here’s an article from CoinDesk, which demonstrates how a smart contract would work. Essentially, the contract is a series of IF-THEN-ELSE statements, which are familiar to anyone with a rudimentary knowledge of programming. In the example given in this article, we have the following logic rendered into computer code:
IF payment of 1000 USD in bitcoin is made to BobbyRick by Term 1’s expiration date, THEN Term 1 is completed AND is recorded as completed in the blockchain. If those clauses are met, then the counterparty’s (walkerdavefun) escrow is released. OTHERWISE, Term 1 FAILED, AND is recorded as failed in the blockchain. THEN the escrow is released to BobbyRick.
All of this is obviously much more efficient than standard contract breaches, which, as discussed earlier, need to be remediated through human-controlled and –operated civil or criminal courts. Thus, software-based smart contracts provide a compelling and exciting opportunity for those interested in making a fairer and less opaque financial system.
The latest news round up for trade-able items on the First Global Credit platform, covering:
- Biogen Idec
- Darden Restaurants
- HCA Holdings
Biogen Idec, Inc (NASDAQ:BIIB)
Shares of Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB) rose by 3.5% in the past week and 1.11% for the last 4 weeks. In the past week, the shares has outperformed the S&P 500 by 3.85% and the outperformance increases to 5.32% for the last 4 weeks.
Biogen Inc. (NASDAQ:BIIB) witnessed a decline in the market cap on Friday as its shares dropped 1.28% or 3.8 points. After the session commenced at $294.8, the stock reached the higher end at $299.8222 while it hit a low of $293.05. With the volume soaring to 2,790,223 shares, the last trade was called at $293.37. The company has a 52-week high of $480.18. The company has a market cap of $65,393 million and there are 222,903,110 shares in outstanding. The 52-week low of the share price is $254.
Biogen Inc. has dropped 1.28% during the last 3-month period. Year-to-Date the stock performance stands at -13.57%.
Darden Restaurants, Inc (NYSE:DRI)
Shares of Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE:DRI) rose by 8.19% in the past week and 13.37% for the last 4 weeks. In the past week, the shares has outperformed the S&P 500 by 8.56% and the outperformance increases to 18.1% for the last 4 weeks.
Darden Restaurants, Inc. (NYSE:DRI) rose 7.04% or 4.11 points on Friday and made its way into the gainers of the day. After trading began at $59.63 the stock was seen hitting $63.04 as a peak level and $59.48 as the lowest level. The stock ended up at $62.5. The daily volume was measured at 8,070,285 shares. The 52-week high of the share price is $67.694197 and the 52-week low is $51.160158. The company has a market cap of $8,009 million.
Darden Restaurants, Inc. has dropped 10.33% during the last 3-month period. Year-to-Date the stock performance stands at 10.25%.The company shares have rallied 6.6% in the past 52 Weeks. On July 23, 2015 the shares registered one year high of $75.6 and one year low was seen on November 10, 2015 at $53.38. The 50-day moving average is $57.78 and the 200 day moving average is recorded at $66.45. S&P 500 has rallied 3.51% during the last 52-weeks.
Facebook, Inc (NASDAQ:FB)
Goldman Sachs reiterated their buy rating on shares ofFacebook Inc in a report released on Tuesday morning. The brokerage currently has a $125.00 price objective on the social networking company’s stock.
FB has been the subject of a number of other research reports. Vetr upgraded Facebook from a buy rating to a strong-buy rating and set a $99.55 price objective for the company in a research report on Monday, August 24th. Cantor Fitzgerald reiterated a buy rating on shares of Facebook in a research report on Friday, September 18th. Piper Jaffray upped their price objective on Facebook from $146.00 to $155.00 and gave the company an overweight rating in a report on Thursday, November 5th. JMP Securities upped their price objective on Facebook to $130.00 and gave the company an outperform rating in a report on Thursday, November 5th. Finally, Argus upgraded Facebook from a hold rating to a buy rating and set a $115.00 price objective for the company in a report on Thursday, October 15th. Two research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, four have given a hold rating and forty-seven have assigned a buy rating to the company. Facebook currently has a consensus rating of Buy and an average price target of $120.22.
Shares of Facebook opened at 104.04 on Tuesday. The stock has a 50 day moving average price of $105.59 and a 200 day moving average price of $94.72. Facebook has a 12-month low of $72.00 and a 12-month high of $110.65. The firm has a market capitalization of $294.22 billion and a P/E ratio of 104.46.
Gold edged up on Monday, adding to sharp gains from the previous trading session, as weakness in the dollar and equities helped the metal recoup some losses from last week’s US interest rate hike.
Concern that demand for bullion will take a hit from the rate hike continues to cast a shadow, and is expected to limit any rally in gold, which does not pay interest.
Spot gold had ticked up 0.3% to $1,069 an ounce 3.39am GMT, adding to the 1.4% gain on Friday.
“We believe trading conditions will start to thin out but that does not mean trading ranges will necessarily narrow,” INTL FCStone analyst Edward Meir said.
Liquidity would start to drop as trading entered the last two weeks of the year.
“Given the uninspiring chart patterns, we have to suspect that the path of least resistance remains lower still for the precious group as a whole, exacerbated by a stronger dollar and a more aggressive Fed,” Mr Meir said.
The metal attracted some safe-haven bids on Friday after global equity markets fell sharply as slumping oil prices raised concern about slower growth, while the dollar slipped against the yen on views that the Bank of Japan may not ease policy as much as expected.
But the outlook for the dollar is bullish as the Fed is set to increase rates further next year.
Gold’s rally on Friday followed Thursday’s 2% loss, the metal’s biggest single-day drop in five months, as the Federal Reserve raised US interest rates for the first time in nearly a decade.
For more go to: http://www.bdlive.co.za/markets/2015/12/21/gold-inches-higher-but-dollar-expected-to-cap-gains
HCA Holdings, Inc (NYSE:HCA)
HCA Holdings, Inc. has lost 2.76% during the past week and dropped 4.38% in the last 4 weeks. The shares are however, negative as compared to the S&P 500 for the past week with a loss of 2.43%. HCA Holdings, Inc. has underperformed the index by 0.39% in the last 4 weeks. Investors should watch out for further signals and trade with caution.
HCA Holdings, Inc. witnessed a decline in the market cap on Friday as its shares dropped 0.42% or 0.27 points. After the session commenced at $64.31, the stock reached the higher end at $65.6 while it hit a low of $64.18. With the volume soaring to 5,548,784 shares, the last trade was called at $64.47. The company has a 52-week high of $95.489. The company has a market cap of $26,282 million and there are 407,667,700 shares in outstanding. The 52-week low of the share price is $43.91.
HCA Holdings, Inc. has dropped 21.61% during the last 3-month period. Year-to-Date the stock performance stands at -12.15%.The company shares have dropped 13.99% in the past 52 Weeks. On July 14, 2015 the shares registered one year high of $95.49 and one year low was seen on August 24, 2015 at $43.91. The 50-day moving average is $67.81 and the 200 day moving average is recorded at $80.53. S&P 500 has rallied 3.51% during the last 52-weeks.
LinkedIn Corp (NYSE:LNKD)
Gerstein Fisher boosted its stake in shares of LinkedIn Corp by 2.3% during the third quarter, according to its most recent 13F filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). The hedge fund owned 1,135 shares of the social networking company’s stock after buying an additional 26 shares during the period. Gerstein Fisher’s holdings in LinkedIn Corp were worth $216,000 as of its most recent filing with the SEC.
Other large investors also recently modified their holdings of the company. Jennison Associates boosted its stake in shares of LinkedIn Corp by 0.3% in the third quarter. Jennison Associates now owns 6,390,275 shares of the social networking company’s stock valued at $1,214,983,000 after buying an additional 19,651 shares in the last quarter. Saturna Capital boosted its stake in shares of LinkedIn Corp by 30.2% in the third quarter. Saturna Capital now owns 112 shares of the social networking company’s stock valued at $21,000 after buying an additional 26 shares in the last quarter. Finally, Baker Avenue Asset Management boosted its stake in shares of LinkedIn Corp by 47.8% in the third quarter. Baker Avenue Asset Management now owns 3,092 shares of the social networking company’s stock valued at $588,000 after buying an additional 1,000 shares in the last quarter.
Shares of LinkedIn Corp opened at 225.80 on Monday. The company has a 50 day moving average price of $243.20 and a 200 day moving average price of $212.11. LinkedIn Corp has a one year low of $165.57 and a one year high of $276.18. The company’s market cap is $29.60 billion.
This report will point out recent opportunities available exclusively to First Global customers because they benefit from the value stored in bitcoins while harnessing the value that comes from trading profitable stocks and stock markets.
Bitcoin value increase – from a low of $346 USD to a high of $407 USD – 18% increase
Opportunity #1: Newmont Mining Corporation
Company: Newmont Mining Corporation
Stock Value increase: 17.65%
Stock increase + bitcoin increase: 35.35%
Leveraged 3x + bitcoin increase: 70.95%
Leverage 5x + bitcoin increase 106.25%
Opportunity #1: Newmont Mining Corporation
Stock Value Increase: 20.49%
Stock increase + bitcoin increase: 38.19%
Leveraged 3x + bitcoin increase: 79.17%
Leveraged 5x + bitcoin increase: 120.15%
|If you are not taking advantage of the opportunity to maximize the value of your bitcoin portfolio by using them as collateral to trade stocks, ETFs and commodity futures, verify your account today. Contact email@example.com with any questions you have about unleashing the power stored in your bitcoins.|
The latest news round up for trade-able items on the First Global Credit platform, covering:
- Cisco Systems
- Eli Lilly
- HCA Holdings
- Sanderson Farms
Apple, Inc (NASDAQ:AAPL)
Pacific Crest reiterated their buy rating on shares ofApple Inc. (NASDAQ:AAPL) in a research note published on Monday morning.
Apple opened at 118.28 on Monday. The firm’s 50-day moving average price is $117.50 and its 200 day moving average price is $118.98. Apple has a 52 week low of $92.00 and a 52 week high of $134.54. The company has a market capitalization of $659.45 billion and a PE ratio of 12.83.
Apple last posted its quarterly earnings data on Tuesday, October 27th. The iPhone maker reported $1.96 EPS for the quarter, topping the consensus estimate of $1.88 by $0.08. During the same period last year, the business earned $1.42 EPS. The company earned $51.50 billion during the quarter, compared to the consensus estimate of $51.02 billion. The firm’s quarterly revenue was up 22.3% compared to the same quarter last year. Equities research analysts expect that Apple will post $9.85 earnings per share for the current fiscal year.
A new research suggested that cryptocurrency Bitcoin is set to become the sixth largest reserve currency in the next 15 years. CNBC said U.K.-based Magister Advisors, which conducted the research, interviewed thirty of the cryptocurrency industry insiders across the globe regarding Bitcoin’s reserve currency status. Magister Advisors is known in the industry as a technology mergers and acquisitions adviser.
In a press release, Magister Advisors partner and research leader Jeremy Millar said, “We have now reached a fork in the road with bitcoin and blockchain. Bitcoin has proven itself as an established currency. Blockchain, more fundamentally, will become the default global standard distributed ledger for financial transactions.”
Blockchain, by definition, is a system that allows the distribution of cryptocurrencies while being able to guarantee and verify the transactions.
On the other hand, Valuewalk noted that the research also showed the industry’s take on Bitcoin’s volatility. According to the research participants, close to 90% of Bitcoin owned is due to speculative investment as opposed to using it for commercial transactions.
Cisco Systems, Inc (NASDAQ:CSCO)
Shares of Cisco Systems, Inc. (NASDAQ:CSCO) have earned a consensus recommendation of “Buy” from the thirty-seven analysts that are currently covering the company. Four equities research analysts have rated the stock with a sell rating, eight have issued a hold rating and twenty-five have issued a buy rating on the company. The average 1 year price objective among brokers that have covered the stock in the last year is $32.62.
A number of research firms have recently commented on CSCO. Vetr lowered Cisco Systems from a “strong-buy” rating to a “buy” rating and set a $30.88 price objective for the company. In a research note on Tuesday, December 1st. SunTrust began coverage on Cisco Systems in a research report on Tuesday, November 24th. They set a “buy” rating and a $32.00 price target on the stock. William Blair reiterated a “buy” rating on shares of Cisco Systems in a report on Monday, November 23rd. Zacks Investment Research cut Cisco Systems from a “hold” rating to a “sell” rating in a research note on Tuesday, November 17th. Finally, Guggenheim reaffirmed a “hold” rating on shares of Cisco Systems in a research report on Sunday, November 15th.
Shares of Cisco Systems traded down 0.200% during trading on Monday, reaching $27.425. The company’s stock had a trading volume of 10,166,993 shares. The stock has a market cap of $139.21 billion and a P/E ratio of 14.588. The stock’s 50-day moving average is $27.98 and its 200-day moving average is $27.66. Cisco Systems has a 12-month low of $23.03 and a 12-month high of $30.31.
Eli Lilly (NYSE:LLY)
Equity research analysts at Deutsche Bank’s equities division increased Eli Lilly’s stock from “Hold” to “Buy” on Monday, 7 December. The analysts at Deutsche Bank have a price target of $99.0 on LLY or 14.29% more upside.
Out of 19 analysts covering Eli Lilly and Company, 14 rate it “Buy”, 0 “Sell”, while 7 “Hold”. This means 67% are positive. $121 is the highest target while $82 is the lowest. The $97.53 average target is 17.05% above today’s ($86.14) stock price. Eli Lilly and Company was the topic in 21 analyst reports since July 23, 2015 according to StockzIntelligence Inc. Barclays Capital upgraded the stock on December 1 to “Overweight” rating. Leerink Swann maintained the shares of LLY in a report on November 12 with “Outperform” rating. Finally, Cowen & Co maintained the stock with “Outperform” rating in an August 24 report.
About 3.40M shares traded hands. Eli Lilly and Co (NYSE:LLY) has risen 18.58% since May 4, 2015 and is uptrending. It has outperformed by 19.65% the S&P500.
HCA Holdings, Inc (NYSE:HCA)
The shares of HCA Holdings, Inc. traded with a loss of -0.13 points or -0.19% in the most recent session. The shares last traded at $67.25. As per the trading info, the shares saw $50.23 million in upticks and lost $48.04 million in downticks, resulting in a net money flow of $2.19 million. The up/down ratio for the day was measured at 1.05. For the week, the shares had posted -3.17%.From the block trade data available, the total upticks were valued at $6.23 million and the total downticks were valued at $0.68 million, thereby putting the up/down ratio at 9.12. The net money flow for the block transaction was $5.55 million.
During the last several months other analysts have commented on the company rating. In the latest statement by the brokerage house, Cantor Fitzgerald maintains its outlook on HCA Holdings, Inc. The current rating of the shares is Buy, according to the research report released by the firm. The brokerage firm lowers the price target from $105 per share to $95 per share. The rating by the firm was issued on October 28, 2015.
LinkedIn Corp (NYSE:LNKD)
LinkedIn Corp was upgraded by investment analysts at Vetr from a “hold” rating to a “buy” rating in a research report issued to clients and investors on Monday. The brokerage presently has a $247.01 price objective on the social networking company’s stock. Vetr‘s target price suggests a potential upside of 5.31% from the stock’s current price.
A number of other equities analysts have also recently commented on the stock. Nomura assumed coverage on shares of LinkedIn Corp in a research report on Friday. They issued a “buy” rating and a $290.00 target price for the company. Citigroup Inc. boosted their price target on LinkedIn Corp from $240.00 to $271.00 in a research note on Friday, November 13th. RBC Capital reissued a “buy” rating on shares of LinkedIn Corp in a research note on Wednesday, November 11th. MKM Partners upped their price objective on LinkedIn Corp from $285.00 to $310.00 and gave the company a “buy” rating in a research note on Tuesday, November 10th. They noted that the move was a valuation call. Finally, Piper Jaffray reiterated an “overweight” rating and issued a $287.00 target price (up from $240.00) on shares of LinkedIn Corp in a report on Thursday, November 5th. Seven research analysts have rated the stock with a hold rating, thirty-four have assigned a buy rating and two have given a strong buy rating to the company’s stock. The company has a consensus rating of “Buy” and a consensus target price of $274.83.
Sanderson Farms, Inc (NASDAQ:SAFM)
Shares of Sanderson Farms, Inc. rose by 2.59% in the past week and 6.59% for the last 4 weeks. In the past week, the shares have outperformed the S&P 500 by 2.52% and the outperformance increases to 6.97% for the last 4 weeks.
Sanderson Farms, Inc. is up 14.22% in the last 3-month period. Year-to-Date the stock performance stands at -8.36%.The company shares have dropped -19.39% from its 1 Year high price. On Dec 8, 2014, the shares registered one year high at $95.67 and the one year low was seen on Aug 25, 2015. The 50-Day Moving Average price is $70.48 and the 200 Day Moving Average price is recorded at $71.98.
During the last several months other analysts have commented on the company rating. CLSA upgrades its rating on Sanderson Farms, Inc. Analysts at the CLSA have a current rating of Outperform on the shares. The shares were previously rated Underperform. The rating by the firm was issued on December 3, 2015.
Shares of Sanderson Farms, Inc. ended Friday session in red amid volatile trading. The shares closed down 0.08 points or 0.11% at $75.55 with 661,806 shares getting traded. Post opening the session at $76.01, the shares hit an intraday low of $74.41 and an intraday high of $76.23 and the price vacillated in this range throughout the day. The company has a market cap of $1,693 million and the number of outstanding shares have been calculated to be 22,413,429 shares. The 52-week high of Sanderson Farms, Inc. is $95.67 and the 52-week low is $64.13.
Twitter, Inc (NYSE:TWTR)
Twitter, Inc. surged 0.12% during the last session. The last traded price was up 0.03 points at $25.05. The data for the fund flow suggests that the net intraday money flow was $(-3.6) million. The fund value in upticks was recorded to be $2.75 million and in downticks, it was found to be $6.35 million. The up/down ratio for the day was measured to be 0.43. For the week, the shares have seen a percentage change of 0.12%.A block trade of $(-4.12) million in net money flow was also recorded during the day. For the block, the combined worth of upticks was $0 million and that of downticks was $4.12 million. The block tradeoff had the up/down ratio of 0.
Shares of Twitter, Inc. ended Monday session in red amid volatile trading. The shares closed down 0.56 points or 2.24% at $24.46 with 16,872,129 shares getting traded. Post opening the session at $24.99, the shares hit an intraday low of $24.13 and an intraday high of $25.16 and the price vacillated in this range throughout the day. The company has a market cap of $16,705 million and the number of outstanding shares have been calculated to be 682,946,650 shares. The 52-week high of Twitter, Inc. is $53.49 and the 52-week low is $21.01.