SandRidge Energy News

[catch22]

I'm looking at investing some money in the stock market. (Some -- a small percentage of my overall cash).

Sandridge is trading at around 6... At 6 I can get a pretty good number of shares, and could make a decent return if it went up in value over the next year or so.

Does anyone see this as stable? Energy prices are up across the board, especially natural gas. And if the economy continues to improve, energy prices will continue to go up.

[AP]

I'm looking at investing some money in the stock market. (Some -- a small percentage of my overall cash).

Sandridge is trading at around 6... At 6 I can get a pretty good number of shares, and could make a decent return if it went up in value over the next year or so.

Does anyone see this as stable? Energy prices are up across the board, especially natural gas. And if the economy continues to improve, energy prices will continue to go up.

They're probably still somewhat undervalued. I bet it's a safe bet, but obviously wouldn't put all my eggs in that basket, or the energy sector for that matter.

[Teo9969]

Don't look at the number of shares you can buy.

Buying 5 shares of CLR and seeing it go up from ~$110 to $121, is no better or worse than buying ~90 shares of SD and seeing it go from $6 to $6.60.

Find a company you think is going to improve by a decent percentage and go with that company regardless of the stock price.

For comparison sake, CLR is at $109.82 and has had a 52 week low/high $72.35/$121.78 (-34.1%/+10.9%) and SD $4.52/$6.96 (-26.5%/+13.4%)

I'd go with CLR over SD for a variety of reasons: It's not nearly as volatile and still has a lot of upside. SD has been all over the map recently.

And if you're going to play with a volatile stock, I'd look into OEDV…it's been a favorite of a lot of Oklahomans.

Lastly, make sure you're ready to part with your money. Investing in individual stocks you *will* see your positions/account in the red…if you can't look at 25% loss and stick it out, then I'd avoid it altogether. The psychology is a lot trickier than I ever thought it would be. If you're anything like me, you'll be surprised by how greedy you can get and how well you can deal with losses.

I also don't know how trustworthy the market is at this very particular point in time. Lots of moving parts all over the world economy and I don't know that anything is really trustworthy, but least of all the stock market.

[catch22]

Well the number of shares is somewhat relevant. Trades cost 9.99 (with the firm I am using) so that is $20 added to my order (I will need a transaction fee to sell later so 9.99x2=20). 5 shares of CLR bought at 90 would have to be sold no less than $94.00 to break even. 100 shares of SD bought at 6.00 would have to be sold at $6.20 to break even.

[Teo9969]

You'ere not comparing apples to apples.

5 @ 90 = $400
100 @ 6 = $600

If you're investing in just one stock, the number of shares doesn't really matter.

[catch22]

My point is, the $20 overhead needs to be reflected in the stock price. Is a $4 increase of stock price a safe bet for 5 shares? With more shares of a cheaper stock, that $20 is spread out, where 100 shares would equal a $0.20 overhead per share.

I'm not disagreeing with you, CLR looks to be a sound investment, but I can't afford the number of shares to reduce my overhead per share. If that makes sense.

[zookeeper]

Well the number of shares is somewhat relevant. Trades cost 9.99 (with the firm I am using) so that is $20 added to my order (I will need a transaction fee to sell later so 9.99x2=20). 5 shares of CLR bought at 90 would have to be sold no less than $94.00 to break even. 100 shares of SD bought at 6.00 would have to be sold at $6.20 to break even.

Have you ever thought about changing brokers? Firsttrade is inexpensive and top-notch. Up to 100 trades are free the first 60 days and from then on, just $6.95. It adds up.

[Teo9969]

My point is, the $20 overhead needs to be reflected in the stock price. Is a $4 increase of stock price a safe bet for 5 shares? With more shares of a cheaper stock, that $20 is spread out, where 100 shares would equal a $0.20 overhead per share.

I'm not disagreeing with you, CLR looks to be a sound investment, but I can't afford the number of shares to reduce my overhead per share. If that makes sense.

If you invest $1000 regardless of what stock you invest in, your overhead is 2% (+1% for every additional selloff of your original position + tax liability), which means to break even you need to see at >2% gain in your stock. A $4 gain for a $100 stock is reasonable. A $4 gain for a $10 stock is typically not. It's obviously possible, there are periods of time where $250 stocks double over the course of a few months. So when you're buying one stock, it doesn't really matter if the price is $2.50 or $250, you just need to be confident that the price of that stock is going to increase by a percentage that you deem worthy of your investment.

The only difference is that you have more flexibility when it comes time to sell. With a 5 share stock, you can only sell in increments of 20%, with a 100 share stock you can sell in increments of 1%…but remember you'll be charged every time you sell, so you're likely to sell both of those off in equitable percentages (i.e. you're not going to sell 5% of a position at a time, given how much money it sounds like you're investing (under $10k)

I get the sense that if you're wanting to invest in SD, you want to have a chance for at least something like a 50% return. If you want a real chance at large growth, you either need to have some insight into why a stock is going to get a high rate of return, or you need to study up on some more risky small-cap or micro-cap stocks (like OEDV: The price right now is $1.14, and it has been back and forth between $0.90 and $1.80 for the last 2 years).

If you really just want to start investing in something to see conservative monetary growth and you want to buy individual stocks, you should look into some of the MLPs that disburse dividends >5% which can be tax free, and that also have a upside in share price. They're generally safer investments than a stock like SD.

[AP]

What are you looking for growth wise? Are you wanting something stable and conservative or something a little more risky with the potential to be big? Like Teo said, for the latter, small-cap is going to give you the best chance to make some money. It just kinda depends on what your goals are for investing your money. Many young people around our age are less risk averse than older investors and tend to go for the riskier small-cap, with the knowledge that if you do lose it now you have plenty of time to earn it back.

[catch22]

I'm looking to just balance my total money.

Right now I have about 60% in pure cash (as in physical bills in a safe).

I have about 30% of my total money in a 401k (That I am contributing to with a company match) and about 10% in various bank accounts.

I'm trying to move about 10-20% of my pure cash into stocks. Right now I am moving approximately 8% of my pure cash into the market, or would like to. I'd like to achieve a good ratio of slow-growth but stable stocks, and a little bit into riskier investments, which could potentially make money, but if they lost money would be a smaller exposure and hit.

While I love pure cash, the thought of being one natural disaster or short in a faulty wire away from losing 60% of my money is a little unnerving. And pure cash is losing value to inflation every day. Without using absolute numbers (and not trying to brag -- just trying to give some detail as to why I am trying to balance my exposure), I have a lot of cash bills saved (5 digits), and the more it grows the more worried I am about a robbery, fire, or tornado. And bank accounts are paying very little in interest.

[Teo9969]

I'm looking to just balance my total money.

Right now I have about 60% in pure cash (as in physical bills in a safe).

I have about 30% of my total money in a 401k (That I am contributing to with a company match) and about 10% in various bank accounts.

I'm trying to move about 10-20% of my pure cash into stocks. Right now I am moving approximately 8% of my pure cash into the market, or would like to. I'd like to achieve a good ratio of slow-growth but stable stocks, and a little bit into riskier investments, which could potentially make money, but if they lost money would be a smaller exposure and hit.

While I love jumping into my bed of pure cash, the thought of being one natural disaster or short in a faulty wire away from losing 60% of my money is a little unnerving. And pure cash is losing value to inflation every day. Without using absolute numbers (and not trying to brag -- just trying to give some detail as to why I am trying to balance my exposure), I have a lot of cash bills saved (5 digits), and the more it grows the more worried I am about a robbery, fire, or tornado.

It's still subject to theft, but I'd think you would want at least some of your overall portfolio to include precious metals (silver/gold/platinum) and might be a good direction to go for the time being. Since you already have 30% of your worth tied to the stock market via 401k, why not forego the slow-growth/stable stocks, gamble whatever you're willing to lose on a small/micro-cap stock or two, and then diversify the rest into different holdings.

You still have 100% of your money in the USD, and since real estate seems to be off the table, going precious metals or alternate currencies (many of the emerging market currencies just took a hit and may be a good buy right now) would help shelter your wealth from any loss in value of the USD. The market is not going to be shielded from a devalued dollar, and again, you're already in the market via your 401k.

And some may laugh at me, but you might also consider a life insurance policy, if you don't have one already. You're young, so they're cheap, and the whole-life policies in particular can build quite a bit of value.

Lastly, if you're committed to going with stocks, you might look into some mutual funds rather than buying single stocks, although I do like the MLP option.

[catch22]

It's still subject to theft, but I'd think you would want at least some of your overall portfolio to include precious metals (silver/gold/platinum) and might be a good direction to go for the time being. Since you already have 30% of your worth tied to the stock market via 401k, why not forego the slow-growth/stable stocks, gamble whatever you're willing to lose on a small/micro-cap stock or two, and then diversify the rest into different holdings.

You still have 100% of your money in the USD, and since real estate seems to be off the table, going precious metals or alternate currencies (many of the emerging market currencies just took a hit and may be a good buy right now) would help shelter your wealth from any loss in value of the USD. The market is not going to be shielded from a devalued dollar, and again, you're already in the market via your 401k.

And some may laugh at me, but you might also consider a life insurance policy, if you don't have one already. You're young, so they're cheap, and the whole-life policies in particular can build quite a bit of value.

Lastly, if you're committed to going with stocks, you might look into some mutual funds rather than buying single stocks, although I do like the MLP option.

Thanks for the help. I have never really been concerned about my money in the past, but as I am getting older and begin to grow and acquire assets, it's been looming on my mind to start investing/diversifying my overall value.

As my 401k is "untouchable" (in the sense that I have restrictions and penalties on my access to it (and would not access that money anyway unless it was a dire emergency)), I wanted to put some of my "touchable" money into something that has the chance to earn money while I am not using it, but still have access to it if I need it.

I haven't purchased anything yet, I still would like to invest some of my cash into stocks, just need to find the right one(s). But this is starting to go off topic now. Maybe could start a different thread.

[AP]

Lastly, if you're committed to going with stocks, you might look into some mutual funds rather than buying single stocks, although I do like the MLP option.

My next suggestion was going to be a mutual fund.

[PhiAlpha]

Not surprising, but news none the less. Definitely speaks to the inconsistency of the Miss Lime in Kansas.

http://m.newsok.com/sandridge-to-let...rticle/3946278


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[catch22]

Sandridge beat the street today in Q1 ER. $0.07 EPS v. $0.03.

Stock up 3.5% in after-hours trading, should easily pass 52 week high of $7.10 soon.

Conference call tomorrow morning to discuss earnings.

[OklahomaNick]

Was looking for a "Sandridge Business Practices" thread but could not find one.

Anyone have any insight or analysis on Sandridge's stock price right now? It's really undervalued, which makes me think it's a good value to buy, but that is also attractive for investors to buy the company cheap. Why is their stock so lagging?

[catch22]

Small cap energy stocks have been getting hit hard the past month or so.

If you can hold on to it for a few months to a year SD at this price is a good buy. If you are looking for short term action (Swing/momentum, etc.) it's a poor stock to own.
HK is also a good buy, it's been hammered down. It's similarly priced, and has some potential with the up and coming TMS (Tuscaloosa Marine Shale) play.

Disclosure: I don't have a position in SD. I'm long HK.

[onthestrip]

Sandridge's stock hit a 52 week high just a couple months ago and then the market took a dive. Im sure in the long run it will be fine, just will take some time for current management to clean up the prior messes. But Im not sure I have much faith in the market as a whole right now.

[NWOKCGuy]

Sandridge Exec to Lead New BP US Unit

[PhiAlpha]

Sandridge is continuing the vertical disintegration trend and is spinning off an MLP for its midstream and saltwater disposal business units. Likely a smart move, with all the water being produced in the northern part of the state, the new MLP could almost certainly pick up more business. It will also of course allow sandridge to focus on its E&P activities.

SandRidge to spin off wastewater business | NewsOK.com

[Plutonic Panda]

SandRidge delays earnings after SEC raises questions | News OK

[Scotty22]

Sandridge announced that they will be closing their Lariat Services company in the Permian fields. Sandridge will be continuing to operate in the area however the services subsidiary will shutter in that same area.

Not surprising considering the slowdown of other operators in that location.

[BillyOcean]

^^^^^

sd...dead company walking.

[Just the facts]

...but who is going to pay for the maintenance and operating costs of their park?

[ljbab728]

SandRidge Energy Corp. to close Texas office | NewsOK.com

SandRidge Energy Corp. said Monday it plans to close the Odessa, Texas, office of its subsidiary Lariat Services Inc., eliminating all 265 positions there.
Monday’s announcement does not affect the company’s exploration and production operations or its 1,132 SandRidge employees, Wilson said. Before the cuts, Lariot has 695 employees.