301–310 of 638 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, because capitalism in it's purest form would never have companies form monopolies and lobby governments for favorable legislation.
Is there even a government under true capitalism or is it more like the lunar anarchy described in „the moon is a harsh mistress“?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the inclusion rules are basically "these are the hard limits that specify which stocks are eligible, unless someone really big and lucrative comes along, in which case it's whatever and we'll just adjust the rules to make them eligible"?
Not quite, you can get them changed if you’re willing to announce to everyone that your stock is wildly overvalued and is going to crash.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bond price is an outcome of lenders judging, not a cause. Lenders have already judged.
Of course. But you have a bond buyer who can put their thumb on the scale, and has shown willingness to do so. That buyer also tried to interfere in (succeeded in interfering in) the business of law firms that worked for anti-Trump causes, has directly interfered in the renewable energy market to benefit its backers, etc. What is to say that SpaceX and Oracle won't get these benefits? (Government buying bonds, trashi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Shorts can go down to -1000% and beyond.
Not true: Depending on product and regulatory regime, for distinct trader/customer groups there may be distinct rules. And if you are buying an instrument where you can lose more than you invested, the approach maybe wrong? :-)
This is precisely why shorting can lose more than you "invest", because you're not buying an instrument, you're selling it with the intent (or promise, depending on what kind of instrument it is) to buy it back later, hopefully at a lower price.
The risk is unbounded.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, rational or not, anybody that put a significant life savings into early TSLA and kept it there is retirement money rich now. Lots of rational people kept shorting, thinking sanity would prevail, and ended up losing bigly.
It is hard to estimate how rational the market is.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bond price is an outcome of lenders judging, not a cause. Lenders have already judged.
Of course. But you have a bond buyer who can put their thumb on the scale, and has shown willingness to do so. That buyer also tried to interfere in (succeeded in interfering in) the business of law firms that worked for anti-Trump causes, has directly interfered in the renewable energy market to benefit its backers, etc. What is to say that SpaceX and Oracle won't get these benefits? (Government buying bonds, trashi…
After all, if you truly believe what you say with conviction, the sensible thing to do would be to buy up as many SpaceX bonds as you can if you think they're so undervalued.
Which is all sorts of backwards. Debt has liquidation preference over equity. And equity market say spacex has trillion+ of supposed equity buffer before it cuts into debt value
If the equity market says something that must make it true. Markets have never gotten valuations wrong
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>QQQ and /NQ or /MNQ futures are the most popular instruments for getting exposure. QQQ tracks the Nasdaq 100. It's an index fund. If the index includes a new ticker, then QQQ has to buy it. Buying QQQ doesn't seem like going out of one's way. I don't understand your comment. "ETFs and chill" is a very common investment strategy.
And who is forced to buy QQQ?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, the inclusion rules are basically "these are the hard limits that specify which stocks are eligible, unless someone really big and lucrative comes along, in which case it's whatever and we'll just adjust the rules to make them eligible"?
"Lucrative" is not really the word you are looking for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an investor in SpaceX but I don't think shorting stocks at IPO should be allowed. The market should be given time to settle on a price, and it's unlikely that anyone needs to short it on day 1 for hedging. It's purely price speculation. Yeah, I know why people _want to_ (betting), but it doesn't serve a broader economic purpose.
Why is line go up price discovery acceptable, but line go down price discovery not? If the shares are trading, you should be able to short, it’s arbitrary to disallow it. It is quite literally a part of the market settling on a price. (under the assumption your broker is managing their risk if your losses from a short position potentially exceeds capital available for liquidation if the trade moves against you)
Elon Musk is politicized so you're going to have people wanting to short against him, for reasons other than it being seen as a rational and sound investment strategy. This is one reason brokers tend to restrict this activity to certain types of investors who are more able to appreciate the risks, to say nothing of baseline necessities like needing a margin account to cover potential losses. Shorting is just very different than buying a stock.