Long on IBM?

[Trader_Dave]

Open for discussion..

IBM also said it had allocated an extra $5 billion to buy back shares — the largest such purchase in its history,

Is it fair to assume that when a large highly weighted company announces an aggresive buy-back scheme, stock will generally go up? Historically I've seen it occur with other large companies on numerous occasions.

Some could say that IBM have had some tough times lately but maybe this approach will see the stock rise?

I'm not certain, but just because IBM release details about a share buy-back scheme, they are not legally obliged to go through with it....hence inflating the stock price? Highly unlikely, but like I said, purely open for discussion.

Price looks good to me to go long...but then again, I dont trade.

30 Day chart attached.

Trader_Dave

 

[FetteredChinos]

a long to test 84-85 resistance would be a good trade IMHO.

i see a bounce from here in the Dow, so i would expect the techs to at least lead the way from here.

 

[Trader_Dave]

There is a second way to interpret the buyback and that is that the company hasnt got a clue what to do with the money it has laying around. In a major bull move such fundamental news releases are inline with the cycle which is up and are interpreted ina bullish manner. Does the decline look like part of a bull market move?

Trying to spot the long entrance for this stock, at this time, in its present path, is best left for confirmation unless you are an intra techtrader.

In a majorr bear move which is inline with the whole declining market I suggest accounting fundamental long plays to be at best dangerous.

Point taken.... this is the sort of reasoning that made me decide to open the post.
Thanks.

 

[shortrank]

Ibm In Long Squeeze

According to our quantitative system, IBM has few short positions on the stock, hence, most are long.

With the negative price action, the majority who are long must be at risk. I guess the traders are having a field day. See the analysis below from our quantative system.

I would re-think this one...