Goldman Sachs (GS) Offering Possible 20.92% Return Over the Next 23 Calendar Days

Goldman Sachs's most recent trend suggests a bullish bias. One trading opportunity on Goldman Sachs is a Bull Put Spread using a strike $190.00 short put and a strike $180.00 long put offers a potential 20.92% return on risk over the next 23 calendar days. Maximum profit would be generated if the Bull Put Spread were to expire worthless, which would occur if the stock were above $190.00 by expiration. The full premium credit of $1.73 would be kept by the premium seller. The risk of $8.27 would be incurred if the stock dropped below the $180.00 long put strike price.

The 5-day moving average is moving up which suggests that the short-term momentum for Goldman Sachs is bullish and the probability of a rise in share price is higher if the stock starts trending.

The 20-day moving average is moving up which suggests that the medium-term momentum for Goldman Sachs is bullish.

The RSI indicator is at 67.97 level which suggests that the stock is neither overbought nor oversold at this time.

To learn how to execute such a strategy while accounting for risk and reward in the context of smart portfolio management, and see how to trade live with a successful professional trader, view more here


LATEST NEWS for Goldman Sachs

A Dark Alley in China's Credit Market Suddenly Getting Rough
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 09:31:58 +0000
(Bloomberg) — One of the most opaque areas of China’s credit markets involves the practice of companies buying their own bonds. That may soon get a lot tougher, contributing to financing difficulties that are already bedeviling the nation’s policy makers.At issue is a sharp increase in scrutiny by financial institutions of the collateral that their counterparties offer up in the repurchase market, a crucial channel for short-term funding. If the debt sold by issuers that indirectly purchased a portion of their own bonds — which could account for as much as 8% of China’s corporate bonds, according to Citic Securities Co. — is shunned, that will squeeze liquidity for a swathe of the nation’s businesses.Despite regulators’ actions to prevent any seizing up in the repo market and short-term collateralized lending between banks, some institutions still moved to avoid riskier securities. The moves have showcased the fragility of confidence toward borrowers that lack state backing in a financial system still dominated by state-sector banks.For firms that obtained funding via unorthodox methods, conditions may become particularly challenging. One of those practices is known as structured issuance, where a company will transfer cash to an asset manager to buy a slice of the bonds the company is itself selling. The manoeuvre helps give the appearance of greater demand for its securities and stronger ability to obtain funding. What could make the practice untenable is if asset managers can no longer use those securities held in custody as collateral for repos.“Since some repo transactions have defaulted recently, it is unclear whether companies can continue to borrow money from the structured issuance method, said Meng Xiangjuan, chief fixed-income analyst at SWS Research Co. in Shanghai. “If it stops, some issuers will certainly face difficulties operating their business normally, and their debt-repayment pressure will rise,” she said.CHINA DEFAULT WATCH: Three More Companies Missed PaymentsWhile the practice of self-financing a portion of bond issuance is well known among credit analysts and ratings companies, observers have been loath to name the firms involved, making this a particularly murky part of China’s debt market. Citic Securities, for its part, hazarded a total of about 1.5 trillion yuan ($218 billion) worth of securities outstanding that were sold in part via structured issuance.A shock takeover of Baoshang Bank Co., a city commercial lender linked with conglomerate Tomorrow Group, has had cascading effects. One of the readily quantifiable ramifications has been to raise the funding costs for lower-rated banks, as seen in the rates on their negotiable certificates of deposits.Another impact has been the shock to confidence after regulators warned that Baoshang’s interbank creditors might face losses. They have since had to fight a rearguard action to encourage banks to sustain their interbank and repo operations, and the People’s Bank of China has had to pump liquidity into money markets to avert any systemic upset.Concern became so great that the China Foreign Exchange Trading System, an arm of the PBOC, set up a procedure for the orderly resolution of defaulted repo transactions, pledging to conduct anonymous auctions of the bonds used as collateral — a move that hides the name of the counterparty that defaulted.“The government has been taking measures proactively to avoid systemic risk” in the interbank market, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. economists including Zhennan Li, wrote in a note Tuesday. Even so, “in coming months, the macro environment looks set to remain complicated, and macro policy more challenging, and we think the probability of a rise of financial stress will remain relatively high,” they wrote.Regulators’ actions have averted a broader surge in premiums for lower-rated borrowers, such as local government financing vehicles that analysts say account for a portion of structured issuance. But strategists remain concerned that the days of such an unconventional fund-raising strategy may be numbered if the securities are no longer accepted as collateral for financial transactions.“In the short run, companies that rely on structured issuance definitely have to sell bonds at higher yields to attract investors,” said Brian Lou, portfolio manager from UBS Asset Management in Shanghai. “Everyone knows the funding chain is really fragile after the Baoshang Bank seizure, and the most important task for institutional investors right now is to allocate assets better and improve risk management.”(Updates the charts.)To contact Bloomberg News staff for this story: Tongjian Dong in Shanghai at tdong28@bloomberg.net;Qingqi She in Shanghai at qshe@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Neha D'silva at ndsilva1@bloomberg.net, Christopher Anstey, Lianting TuFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

These Are the Japanese Companies That Pay Executives Best
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 03:24:19 +0000
(Bloomberg) — It’s official — SoftBank Group Corp. is Japan’s most generous employer, at least when it comes to executive pay.Six of the country’s 10 biggest salary packages last fiscal year were offered by SoftBank, according to a report from Tokyo Shoko Research Ltd. SoftBank Group Vice Chairman Ronald Fisher topped the list with 3.27 billion yen ($31 million) in the period ended March 31. Toyota Motor Corp. director Didier Leroy, the highest-paid non-SoftBank executive, ranked No. 5, while Sony Corp. Chief Executive Officer Kenichiro Yoshida was 8th.SoftBank founder Masayoshi Son has a history of paying top dollar to attract high-profile executives. Former SoftBank President Nikesh Arora still holds Japan’s all-time record with the 10.3 billion yen package he received in fiscal 2016, according to the report. Since then, Son’s hunt for global talent accelerated as he launched a $100 billion Vision Fund to invest in the world’s biggest technology companies. SoftBank paid a total of 9.1 billion yen in compensation to six lieutenants last year.Key Insights:SoftBank Group Chief Operating Officer Marcelo Claure ranked second with 1.8 billion yen. Claure, who also heads Sprint Corp. in the U.S., was named EVP in July. He also heads SoftBank’s $5 billion technology fund focused on Latin America. Ken Miyauchi, head of SoftBank’s domestic telecom operation, was third with 1.23 billion yen, followed by Simon Segars, head of its ARM Holdings Plc chip unit, with 1.1 billion yen.Former Goldman Sachs Group Inc. executive and SoftBank Group Chief Strategy Officer Katsunori Sago earned 982 million yen in the sixth place. Rajeev Misra, who heads the Vision Fund, earned 752 million yen.Son’s own salary remained modest at 229 million yen, according to a company filing in May. The billionaire controls a roughly 22% stake in SoftBank, which alone is worth about 2.3 trillion yen.Toyota paid Leroy a little over 1 billion yen. Sony CEO Yoshida made 847 million yen, 6% less than his pay last year.Chip equipment maker Tokyo Electron Ltd. was the most frequent name on the list as nine of its executives made the top 30, earning a collective 5 billion yen. Chief Executive Officer Toshiki Kawai ranked 7th with 925 million yen.To contact the reporter on this story: Pavel Alpeyev in Tokyo at palpeyev@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Edwin Chan at echan273@bloomberg.net, Colum MurphyFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

If Loeb Likes Breakups, Another Target Awaits
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 21:00:06 +0000
(Bloomberg Opinion) — Dan Loeb wants to split up Sony Corp. to enhance its value. The company isn’t the only household name in Japanese electronics that might benefit from the treatment.Panasonic Corp. shares have dropped more than 40% over the past 12 months after a partnership with Tesla Inc. disappointed; the company forecast earnings will decline; and a restructuring plan put forward last month failed to convince investors. The firm is trading on a multiple of 3.8 times enterprise value to Ebitda, compared with a five-year average of 4.6 times.Loeb’s Third Point LLC has called for a spinoff of Sony’s semiconductor business, aiming to reduce the stock’s so-called conglomerate discount – the situation where a company is valued at less than the sum of the different businesses it owns. It’s an analysis that could equally be applied to Panasonic.Last month, the Osaka-based company released a mid-term plan that will increase its number of divisions to seven from four. Panasonic aims to shift its focus away from the automotive business, which is struggling under the shadow cast by the difficulties in its relationship with Tesla. The electronics maker also announced a series of partnerships and alliances, and estimated restructuring costs of about 90 billion yen ($840 million), according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.Analysts say Panasonic still doesn’t have a coherent strategy, and investors clearly want more change. So could a breakup be the solution?The answer from a sum-of-the-parts analysis is a clear: maybe. If Panasonic listed all its business segments separately and they traded at the mid-point of their peer-group ranges of between 4 times and 9 times enterprise value to Ebitda, then the combined value would be 2% higher than the company’s current market capitalization of about $20 billion. At the high end of the ranges, Panasonic could increase its value by as much as 32%. At the low end, though, there’s a similar amount of downside.(1)Analysts in Japan have questioned Loeb’s proposal for Sony. While they lauded his effort to improve the company’s valuation, they also cast doubt on whether the activist investor’s proposals were feasible or made strategic sense. A Sony split may unlock value now but, as my Bloomberg Opinion colleague Tim Culpan asked, what’s the vision for the future? As Sony analysts have pointed out, Loeb has reversed course since 2013, when he recommended that the company sell part of its film unit.This uncertainty is precisely where a breakup proposal may make sense for Panasonic, though. Pulling apart its various businesses – grouped broadly under appliances, automotive and industrial systems, connected solutions and eco solutions – would enable investors to put their money where they see value and growth prospects, without being encumbered by laggard businesses.For instance, sales for the connected solutions segment rose 6.9%(2) in the 2019 fiscal year, helped by the Tokyo Olympics in 2020 and growing demand from businesses to help automate tasks. Itochu Techno-Solutions Corp., which competes in a similar business, is trading on a forward price-earnings ratio of 23 times.Panasonic thought the automotive business would drive its profitability over the past three years. Even here, running the unit separately could create more value. Panasonic has teamed up with Toyota Motor Corp. and already has partners other than Tesla. With demand for electric cars and the pace of adoption being reassessed, the company could take time to leverage its technology advantage. In the process, the segment’s rising fixed costs won’t weigh down other more profitable businesses. In fact, investors might give a standalone battery business a higher valuation, as they’ve done with South Korean battery-makers Samsung SDI Co. and LG Chem Ltd.Analysts at Credit Suisse AG downgraded the stock on Friday, noting that they see “no signs of a rebound in earnings in the near term,” and that it was unclear how the company and its profit would look after the restructuring. Earnings at the auto business, where the analysts earlier saw potential for sales growth, is unlikely to improve over the medium term, they said.There are additional reasons why a breakup should be considered. For one, the government is incentivizing spinoffs with tax breaks. Meanwhile, domestic institutional investors are becoming more activist: The rejection rate for takeover defense measures has risen over the past six years to 80.5% from 40%, according to Goldman Sachs. That’s close to the 85% rate for foreign investors.Panasonic has some thinking to do. Loeb, meanwhile, might just have a new target. –With assistance from Elaine He. (1) Sum-of-the-parts analysis for Panasonic is based on FY2019 operating profit for each segment and used the following assumptions:1. Average enterprise value to earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortization for peer group of each segment.2. A range of two times above and below average multiple.(2) Includes exchange-rate effects.To contact the author of this story: Anjani Trivedi at atrivedi39@bloomberg.netTo contact the editor responsible for this story: Matthew Brooker at mbrooker1@bloomberg.netThis column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.Anjani Trivedi is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering industrial companies in Asia. She previously worked for the Wall Street Journal. For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com/opinion©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Buy General Mills (GIS) Stock Ahead of Q4 Earnings?
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 17:23:05 +0000
General Mills (GIS) will report its Q4 and fiscal 2019 earnings results before the market opens on Wednesday, June 26.

BofA, PNC Seen as Stress-Test Winners, Capital One as Losing
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 13:42:24 +0000
(Bloomberg) — The first round of the latest Federal Reserve stress tests, released last Friday after the market closed, was well received by Wall Street analysts, who said the results generally topped expectations.Bank of America Corp., PNC Financial Services Group and trust banks BNY Mellon Corp., Northern Trust Corp. and State Street Corp. were seen as relative winners, while the Fed’s harsh view of credit cards led to disappointment for Capital One Financial Corp.All eyes now turn to Thursday’s Comprehensive Capital Analysis and Review, known as CCAR, for banks’ capital plans.The biggest banks were mixed in early Monday trading, with BofA rising as much as 0.4%, Citigroup Inc. gaining as much as 0.2%, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. rallying as much as 1.2%, Wells Fargo & Co. dropping as much as 1% and JPMorgan Chase & Co. up 0.2%.Here’s a sample of the latest commentary:Morgan Stanley, Betsy GraseckAn “easier stress test is a positive for this week’s more important CCAR test,” Graseck wrote in a note. All 11 of Morgan Stanley’s covered banks passed, with Northern Trust, Goldman Sachs Group Inc., State Street, BNY Mellon, and Citigroup screening well versus Morgan Stanley’s capital return expectations. Capital One is most at risk.Citi, Keith HorowitzThe results offer a “green light for higher capital return for most banks,” Horowitz wrote in a note. He forecasts a total payout of 103% versus 97% last year, as banks look to be “on solid footing” on the Dodd-Frank Act stress test (DFAST) results.Citi views State Street Corp., PNC Financial Services Group, Northern Trust Corp., Bank of America Corp. and BNY Mellon Corp. as among those best positioned to exceed Street payouts. The results also imply that Capital One’s total payout will improve, though there’s risk buybacks will trail consensus estimates.Goldman, Richard RamsdenResults were “modestly better than expected,” as loss rates improved across trading and all loan categories, except for card and other consumer lending, Ramsden said in a note. Banks, with the possible exception of Capital One, look to be able to meet consensus estimated payouts.Goldman attributes increased card losses to “higher stress to unemployment relative to last year, as well as higher stress on subprime card due to a Fed methodology change.” Commercial real estate loss rates were most improved, though in-line with the 2016-2017 average loss rate. Trading losses fell across the banks to $80 billion from $105 billion, with State Street and BofA seeing the biggest improvement.Credit Suisse, Susan Roth Katzke“Manageable stress” for large-cap U.S. banks means that “more manageable stress capital buffers should follow,” Katzke wrote in a note. DFAST results indicate banks “have sufficient capacity for expected capital returns.”JPMorgan, Vivek JunejaThe results show an “increase in capital cushion at most of the large U.S. banks, and all of our banks remain well positioned to continue to return sizable amounts of capital.”Bloomberg Intelligence, Alison Williams, Neil Sipes“A solid pass across the largest U.S. banks, including units of foreign banks, in annual Dodd Frank Act stress tests should generally support payout plans, in our view. U.S. banks stressed capital ratios held above required minimums for participating banks. Stressed CET1 ratios were broadly better than in year-ago tests — with the exceptions being Northern Trust and the U.S. unit of UBS.”Atlantic Equities, John HeagertyThe results “once again underline the robustness of the large U.S. banks’ balance sheets,” Heagerty wrote in a note. BofA “appears to do very well in 2019,” while Goldman also fared better than last year. “With these results, it’s difficult to see any objections arising to submitted capital returns.”KSP Research, Kevin St. PierreThe results were better than expected, with “widespread improvement in minimum CET1 ratios and sizeable cushions to allow for consensus capital return expectations,” St. Pierre wrote in a note.St. Pierre called Wells Fargo, BofA and PNC “relative winners,” as each saw “significant increases in CET1 minimums and large buffers to accommodate above-consensus capital return if they were aggressive in their ask.” Capital One was “the relative loser,” due to the Fed’s harsh view on cards.Recommends buying bank stocks, as they’re “a compelling value,” while cautioning that “investing around CCAR results has been ineffective.”Macquarie, David KonradU.S. banks under Macquarie coverage “performed well,” with higher minimum capital levels in every category except the leverage ratio for Wells Fargo. Lower loan loss rates and trading losses helped to improve capital ratios, while assumed growth rates in RWAs (risk-weighted assets) were lower. Trading and counter-party losses dropped, led by an “abnormally large” decline for BofA.Sees potential upside for Goldman Sachs and PNC with CCAR, while BofA and Wells Fargo “also shine.” Those two have the most excess capital above stressed requirements, and may report the strongest buybacks, with a total payout ratio of 146% for Wells and 112% for BofA.RBC, Gerard CassidyDFAST demonstrated that “under a supervisory severely adverse economic scenario … the U.S. banking industry’s capital levels can withstand massive losses and still remain above well capitalized levels.”KBW, Brian KleinhanzlThe results were “less stressful than the prior year,” as banks “saw stress losses declining and modest improvements in net income before taxes.” As a result, only one bank, JPMorgan Chase & Co., “seems at risk of not meeting our capital return expectations.”KBW expects “fewer surprises in CCAR results on Thursday, which is a modest positive for the group overall.”Raymond James, David LongLong sees BNY Mellon and State Street as winners, “given the wide spread between their projections and the Fed’s.” He also sees BofA as a winner, as their results pave the way for them to increase the dividend payout closer to peers, and as “stock repurchases remain an attractive use of capital at current levels.”(Updates share trading in fourth paragraph.)To contact the reporter on this story: Felice Maranz in New York at fmaranz@bloomberg.netTo contact the editors responsible for this story: Catherine Larkin at clarkin4@bloomberg.net, Steven FrommFor more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

Be Sociable, Share!

Related Posts

 

MarketTamer is not an investment advisor and is not registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority. Further, owners, employees, agents or representatives of MarketTamer are not acting as investment advisors and might not be registered with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory.


This company makes no representations or warranties concerning the products, practices or procedures of any company or entity mentioned or recommended in this email, and makes no representations or warranties concerning said company or entity’s compliance with applicable laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, regulations promulgated by the SEC or the CFTC. The sender of this email may receive a portion of the proceeds from the sale of any products or services offered by a company or entity mentioned or recommended in this email. The recipient of this email assumes responsibility for conducting its own due diligence on the aforementioned company or entity and assumes full responsibility, and releases the sender from liability, for any purchase or order made from any company or entity mentioned or recommended in this email.


The content on any of MarketTamer websites, products or communication is for educational purposes only. Nothing in its products, services, or communications shall be construed as a solicitation and/or recommendation to buy or sell a security. Trading stocks, options and other securities involves risk. The risk of loss in trading securities can be substantial. The risk involved with trading stocks, options and other securities is not suitable for all investors. Prior to buying or selling an option, an investor must evaluate his/her own personal financial situation and consider all relevant risk factors. See: Characteristics and Risks of Standardized Options. The www.MarketTamer.com educational training program and software services are provided to improve financial understanding.


The information presented in this site is not intended to be used as the sole basis of any investment decisions, nor should it be construed as advice designed to meet the investment needs of any particular investor. Nothing in our research constitutes legal, accounting or tax advice or individually tailored investment advice. Our research is prepared for general circulation and has been prepared without regard to the individual financial circumstances and objectives of persons who receive or obtain access to it. Our research is based on sources that we believe to be reliable. However, we do not make any representation or warranty, expressed or implied, as to the accuracy of our research, the completeness, or correctness or make any guarantee or other promise as to any results that may be obtained from using our research. To the maximum extent permitted by law, neither we, any of our affiliates, nor any other person, shall have any liability whatsoever to any person for any loss or expense, whether direct, indirect, consequential, incidental or otherwise, arising from or relating in any way to any use of or reliance on our research or the information contained therein. Some discussions contain forward looking statements which are based on current expectations and differences can be expected. All of our research, including the estimates, opinions and information contained therein, reflects our judgment as of the publication or other dissemination date of the research and is subject to change without notice. Further, we expressly disclaim any responsibility to update such research. Investing involves substantial risk. Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, and a loss of original capital may occur. No one receiving or accessing our research should make any investment decision without first consulting his or her own personal financial advisor and conducting his or her own research and due diligence, including carefully reviewing any applicable prospectuses, press releases, reports and other public filings of the issuer of any securities being considered. None of the information presented should be construed as an offer to sell or buy any particular security. As always, use your best judgment when investing.