RCL Stock

[Jimbo]

40 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

That's the issue of waiting till things "stabilize" or "improve", you've missed a big swing already.

I thought most said it would go below $20, wait, I thought you even said that?

[Wahed]

1 minute ago, Jimbo said:

I thought most said it would go below $20, wait, I thought you even said that?

It did go below $20 last week.  

 

Or are you talking about again?

[Jimbo]

24 minutes ago, RETNAVY1996 said:

Will have to see how the down swing goes when they cancel another 30 days of cruises.

Makes you wonder why they waited this long doesn't it..............Sending crew home but only canceled cruise through March 31st? Where is the logic in that?

[Jimbo]

1 minute ago, Wahed said:

It did go below $20 last week.  

 

Or are you talking about again?

Yes

[ed01106]

36 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

That's the issue of waiting till things "stabilize" or "improve", you've missed a big swing already.

 

47 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Up to $33 now, what's up with that? I should have bought when it was down at $20..........Could have made a quick $1300 on a 100 shares

Maybe.  

 

The upswing is based on optimism that with Trumps backing to end social distancing the cruise lines will resume normal operations on April 11.

 

If they don’t the stock will swing back down. 

 

And while Trump certainly has the power to shut down the cruise lines.  He doesn’t have the power to start them up.  If Trump days open up the cruise lines but the caribbean countries say no.  There is no caribbean cruises.  If Trump says yes, but the governor of Florida says we aren’t allowing cruise ships to use Florida ports than many cruises are canceled.  Even if Trump waives the PSA and Alaska want cruise ships but the West Coast governor say no, than no Alaskan cruises.  Trump’s desire to end this after 15 days won’t restore the med cruise season.  

 

I see the jump as irrational optimism, not a missed opportunity.  

 

[Wahed]

6 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Yes

Ah.  One of those.

 

I'll dip out.  Thanks for playing.

[Jimbo]

3 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

 

Maybe.  

 

The upswing is based on optimism that with Trumps backing to end social distancing the cruise lines will resume normal operations on April 11.

 

If they don’t the stock will swing back down. 

 

And while Trump certainly has the power to shut down the cruise lines.  He doesn’t have the power to start them up.  If Trump days open up the cruise lines but the caribbean countries say no.  There is no caribbean cruises.  If Trump says yes, but the governor of Florida says we aren’t allowing cruise ships to use Florida ports than many cruises are canceled.  Even if Trump waives the PSA and Alaska want cruise ships but the West Coast governor say no, than no Alaskan cruises.  Trump’s desire to end this after 15 days won’t restore the med cruise season.  

 

I see the jump as irrational optimism, not a missed opportunity.  

 

Oh well could have made money twice, buying at $20, reselling now at $34.........and then buying again when it sinks back toward $20............I need to be a day trader I guess.......

[Biker19]

13 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

I thought most said it would go below $20, wait, I thought you even said that?

I'm providing a blow-by-blow, I try to stay away from specific predictions. RCL stock was below $20 for a good portion of the day last Wed.

[ed01106]

17 minutes ago, Jimbo said:

Oh well could have made money twice, buying at $20, reselling now at $34.........and then buying again when it sinks back toward $20............I need to be a day trader I guess.......

I am not a day trader nor market timer.  But I don’t like the fundamentals of investing in a nonoperational corporation that is bleeding money with no clear time frame to resume generating revenue.

[yogimax]

24 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

 

The upswing is based on optimism that with Trumps backing to end social distancing the cruise lines will resume normal operations on April 11.  

 

Sacrificing lives for the economy (as the Lt. Governor of Texas suggested!)

 

How sad!

[Ocean Boy]

29 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

I am not a day trader nor market timer.  But I don’t like the fundamentals of investing in a nonoperational corporation that is bleeding money with no clear time frame to resume generating revenue.

Especially a nonoperation corporation that offers a nonessential product. Not to mention it offers a product with the potential to put people at risk if it were to become operational too soon.

[RoyalC]

Markets are insane, that is for sure. Remember, most of the gains are from people not investing their own money. Easy to do and play the game. Money Flow index was around 4 only Wednesday and starting to show turn after Trump announced bailout (loans) last Wednesday. Another shot yesterday with 2 billion loan and follow through today. Media trying to play it like it is stimulus hopes. That is baked in. They just look for excuses to create a headline. Curious to see where it goes from there. Was looking for mid single digits on RCL. These ships are going nowhere for a long time- no ports to go to for one. 

Edited March 24, 2020 by RoyalC

[ed01106]

10 minutes ago, yogimax said:

Sacrificing lives for the economy (as the Lt. Governor of Texas suggested!)

 

How sad!

There does need to be some balance.

 

 We could save over 30,000 lives a year by banning all automobile traffic.  But the economic consequences would be devastating and we as a society have chosen that we would rather have the cars and attempt to reduce the death toll with airbags than completely shut down society.

 

Extreme examples:

 

The same balance needs to be taken with Covid 19, if shutting down for two weeks will save tens of millions of lives than it is worth it.

 

If preventing 50,000 people in their 80s from dying a year or two premature requires shutting down for 9 months driving the country into a depression worse than 1929, the we should let them die, just like we do with auto victims.  

 

Obviously we are somewhere in between those two examples.  But as trade offs go, cruise ships have proven to be the antithesis of social distancing and offer only minor benefits to society.  They should remain closed even after schools reopen and other portions of society begin to return to normal.

 

 For example, I would allow professional sports to begin competing in front of cameras and a TV audience well before I would allow a return of thousands into a stadium.  I would open stores well before permitting gatherings such as NYE in Times Square.  There does need to be some balance.  

[Mallefiscent]

29 minutes ago, yogimax said:

Sacrificing lives for the economy (as the Lt. Governor of Texas suggested!)

 

How sad!

 

At first it can seem heartless, but it really isn't.  What do you think will happen to people if the economy tanks?  How many people will lose their health insurance and not be able to get their meds?  How many of those people will show up to the ER, because they don't have anywhere else to turn?   Then they won't be able to pay their hospital bill and the hospitals will close due to lack of funds. How many people will be out of work and take their own lives?  How much of an increase in domestic violence will there be?  How much more crime will occur, because people feel desperate?  There are so many more variables that are harder to quantify.  

[Jimbo]

4 minutes ago, ed01106 said:

There does need to be some balance.

 

 We could save over 30,000 lives a year by banning all automobile traffic.  But the economic consequences would be devastating and we as a society have chosen that we would rather have the cars and attempt to reduce the death toll with airbags than completely shut down society.

 

Extreme examples:

 

The same balance needs to be taken with Covid 19, if shutting down for two weeks will save tens of millions of lives than it is worth it.

 

If preventing 50,000 people in their 80s from dying a year or two premature requires shutting down for 9 months driving the country into a depression worse than 1929, the we should let them die, just like we do with auto victims.  

 

Obviously we are somewhere in between those two examples.  But as trade offs go, cruise ships have proven to be the antithesis of social distancing and offer only minor benefits to society.  They should remain closed even after schools reopen and other portions of society begin to return to normal.

 

 For example, I would allow professional sports to begin competing in front of cameras and a TV audience well before I would allow a return of thousands into a stadium.  I would open stores well before permitting gatherings such as NYE in Times Square.  There does need to be some balance.  

Just where that balance is going to be drawn is the billion $$ question.............

[Jam0610]

 What your betting on here is RCL does start sailings in April.. I don't see how. Even if ships were staffed and ready to sail, too many ports closed. Airlines cutting back, stay in place orders in most states. Layoffs will reduce disposable income. Retired guests may be pushed off by health restrictions. 

Agree price will fall.

[Biker19]

5 minutes ago, Jam0610 said:

What your betting on here is RCL does start sailings in April..

I think most traders are looking a bit further ahead than that.

[RoyalC]

3 minutes ago, Biker19 said:

I think most traders are looking a bit further ahead than that.

Probably are but they can't see the future any better than us. May is done too.

[CruisingNole]

1 hour ago, ed01106 said:

There does need to be some balance.

 

 We could save over 30,000 lives a year by banning all automobile traffic.  But the economic consequences would be devastating and we as a society have chosen that we would rather have the cars and attempt to reduce the death toll with airbags than completely shut down society.

 

Extreme examples:

 

The same balance needs to be taken with Covid 19, if shutting down for two weeks will save tens of millions of lives than it is worth it.

 

If preventing 50,000 people in their 80s from dying a year or two premature requires shutting down for 9 months driving the country into a depression worse than 1929, the we should let them die, just like we do with auto victims.  

 

Obviously we are somewhere in between those two examples.  But as trade offs go, cruise ships have proven to be the antithesis of social distancing and offer only minor benefits to society.  They should remain closed even after schools reopen and other portions of society begin to return to normal.

 

 For example, I would allow professional sports to begin competing in front of cameras and a TV audience well before I would allow a return of thousands into a stadium.  I would open stores well before permitting gatherings such as NYE in Times Square.  There does need to be some balance.  

 

Terrible, terrible comparison. Are you kidding me?

 

Last I checked, automobile accidents weren't contagious. 

[ALWAYS CRUZIN]

1 hour ago, yogimax said:

Sacrificing lives for the economy (as the Lt. Governor of Texas suggested!)

 

How sad!

I think you are incorrect. It has to do with the money RCL was able to borrow the other day. 

[RoyalC]

RCL Stock is down 14% already off today's high. Bear markets are a wild ride. Could be a massive

short cover, who knows. Need real-time data. Still gonna wait this thing out for all the reasons

being mentioned on this board. Sure RCL can pass time with their borrowing, but what happens

after that? Another 2 billion? 

[yogimax]

1 hour ago, ed01106 said:

 We could save over 30,000 lives a year by banning all automobile traffic.  But the economic consequences would be devastating and we as a society have chosen that we would rather have the cars and attempt to reduce the death toll with airbags than completely shut down society.

Here's what Dr.  Fauci, the preeminent authority in the field, said in regard to this illustration coming from the White House...

 

"That's totally way out," Fauci said. "I don't think with any moral conscience you could say why don't we just let it rip and happen and let X percent of the people die."

[ed01106]

23 minutes ago, CruisingNole said:

 

Terrible, terrible comparison. Are you kidding me?

 

Last I checked, automobile accidents weren't contagious. 

Automobile accidents are not contagious.  But that is not relevant.  

 

What is relevant is that as a society we need to balance risk of death or injury with economic considerations, basic liberties and other aspects of living. A nation wide ban on cigarettes would likely save more lives over the next ten years than the total number of deaths that will occur as a result of Covid 19. But we aren’t going to do that.  

 

I am not advocating an immediate ending of social distancing.  But we do need to have a rational process for finding a middle ground.

 

However, we really can’t rationally and intelligently begin that discussion until we seriously ramp up the testing and get a handle on who is actually infected.  The absolutely best way to control this is not shutting down entire states, but very early detection and isolation of those that are contagious. 

[mark290]

1 hour ago, ed01106 said:

There does need to be some balance.

 

 We could save over 30,000 lives a year by banning all automobile traffic.  But the economic consequences would be devastating and we as a society have chosen that we would rather have the cars and attempt to reduce the death toll with airbags than completely shut down society.

 

Extreme examples:

 

The same balance needs to be taken with Covid 19, if shutting down for two weeks will save tens of millions of lives than it is worth it.

 

If preventing 50,000 people in their 80s from dying a year or two premature requires shutting down for 9 months driving the country into a depression worse than 1929, the we should let them die, just like we do with auto victims.  

 

Obviously we are somewhere in between those two examples.  But as trade offs go, cruise ships have proven to be the antithesis of social distancing and offer only minor benefits to society.  They should remain closed even after schools reopen and other portions of society begin to return to normal.

 

 For example, I would allow professional sports to begin competing in front of cameras and a TV audience well before I would allow a return of thousands into a stadium.  I would open stores well before permitting gatherings such as NYE in Times Square.  There does need to be some balance.  

Auto example is wrong on so many levels. Transportation deaths would still occur no matter how you choose to travel. Bicycle, horse, plane, skateboard, walk, camel...deaths would occur with all these.

[ed01106]

Just now, mark290 said:

Auto example is wrong on so many levels. Transportation deaths would still occur no matter how you choose to travel. Bicycle, horse, plane, skateboard, walk, camel...deaths would occur with all these.

But all are safer than driving.  And flattening the curve is not about reducing the number of people who die.  It is about spacing out the number of people who die over a longer period of time.

 

And I am not advocating everyone leave their house this afternoon.  I am saying that we need to have some balance between the economics and disease control.  Shutting down the country for months will have consequences that could be far worse than the disease.  Desperate people turn to crime to obtain basic needs, layoffs result in people losing health care and dying of other medical issues, etc.