531–540 of 554 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a YC idea there somewhere. Especially when a lot of family offices are looking at wealth preservation over volatility.
What is YC about it? It's called a predatory private student loan.
It doesn't matter that I'm the one collecting interest instead of the bank--I've still set that student up to go forth and play zero sum games until they're out of debt, which is the kind of thing I'm wishing for a way to avoid.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Well if a stock market crash triggered by this is realistic (which I agree is), doesn't it make sense to hold a bit of GME for insurance What is the reasoning here? Are you under the impression GME wouldn't crash right alongside the market? This isn't BTC or gold we're talking about. It's just another stock.
Presumably the crash would occur after the GME price skyrockets and shorts (and then their brokers and clearing houses) go broke trying to close the short positions. The insurance pays up if they buy your share. Do you have another idea how it could end?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There is nothing special about being short more than 100%, they short shares that are borrowed multiple times. But it also means the “long” interest is more than 200%. Even if you own equivalent of 100% of float there are still other shares that can be used to cover. The only issue starts if someone has lent out more than 100% of float and tries to simultaneously recall all of them.
How is that, it means (within the statement made)the stock is lent multiple times if a stock can be lent multiple times then that’s no different from a naked no borrowing short b) if it lent to multiple people it’s owned by none
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, it’s an incentive to encourage buying by reducing the commitment.
It does seem to have that effect. It also seems to have other effects. And it seems to be mostly other effects. If funding companies requires all those effects, it seems legitimate to question whether it's a net benefit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem to have that effect. It also seems to have other effects. And it seems to be mostly other effects. If funding companies requires all those effects, it seems legitimate to question whether it's a net benefit.
I would take you more seriously if you spoke more concretely. What other effects, specifically? I’ll give you one: it distributes wealth by letting the common man invest in highly valuable companies rather than limiting it to just wealthy people profiting from entrepreneurship. I’ll bet you you and people like you wouldn’t be too happy if only the original founders of companies like Apple, Facebook, Google and their…
It's probably best you don't take me seriously. I don't have any strongly held opinions about any of it. Maybe I'll develop some, but I'm just trying to figure it out for now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It does seem to have that effect. It also seems to have other effects. And it seems to be mostly other effects. If funding companies requires all those effects, it seems legitimate to question whether it's a net benefit.
I would take you more seriously if you spoke more concretely. What other effects, specifically? I’ll give you one: it distributes wealth by letting the common man invest in highly valuable companies rather than limiting it to just wealthy people profiting from entrepreneurship. I’ll bet you you and people like you wouldn’t be too happy if only the original founders of companies like Apple, Facebook, Google and their…
You have to ask your self, who are these people that have gotten extremely wealthy from Amazon? How did they contribute to generating that wealth? From where does the wealth come from that they are profiting from?
Now some of that wealth goes to hedge funds and workers see some of it in their 401(K) and what not. But if the alternative is that non of these people that invested in Amazon got extremely wealthy from it... They just got their investment’s worth and a little extra (like a proper loan would). And the wealth generated by Amazon would stay within the company, let’s be a little ideological here and imagine that this wealth would actually be used to pay workers what they deserve. Don’t you think the workers would get more from that deal, perhaps they could use that extra money to open up a saving account, perhaps they could pay it in social security.
Anyways I really don’t see in what possible world the existence of the stock market can benefit workers. It just does not seem to work out mathematically.
To use the Occam’s razor here... If you have to invent epicycles to explain your case, perhaps the simpler explanation is true. This stock market + 401(K) + hedgefuns + etc. seems to me just to be a bunch of epicycles, and money is actually simply being siphoned away from the value generated by the workers into rich folks that use the stock market for that endeavor.
I see two possibilities here:
a) The stock market is a predatory lending scheme
b) The stock market is a pyramid scheme
Either way the stock market should crash and burn
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't argue with that. It's called growth opportunities. But don't you think that a business losing customers quarter after quarter is a bad sign? Or that having a debt bigger than it can afford? etc. Let me say this, you cannot ignore the fundamentals until you can... (e.g., GME)
I would counter with the fact that humans ignore - either by their own accord, or through the unjustified belief that things will continue to be the way they were - the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. Case in point, who in their right mind thought a bunch of self proclaimed smooth brains would hold and not panic against ladder attacks and FUDs? The smooth brains hav…
I do agree that fundamentals (for whatever it means) are not sufficient for success. In the end of the day, investments are based on speculations about the future. The reason the fundamentals matter is that they provide some guidance for your speculations. The basis which you can build your narrative upon. Sometimes they can mislead you, often things happen you missed or couldn't predict (e.g., a pandemic), etc.
Finally, I also agree (if that's what you meant) that some narratives people follow are not based on fundamentals, but rather based on their biases or whatever someone else may have told them. But if you ask me such investments fail more often than not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a YC idea there somewhere. Especially when a lot of family offices are looking at wealth preservation over volatility.
What is YC about it? It's called a predatory private student loan.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would counter with the fact that humans ignore - either by their own accord, or through the unjustified belief that things will continue to be the way they were - the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. Case in point, who in their right mind thought a bunch of self proclaimed smooth brains would hold and not panic against ladder attacks and FUDs? The smooth brains hav…
I agree that humans ignore the views that do not support the narrative they decided is true or they deem unlikely. I'm not following how is that relevant. I do agree that fundamentals (for whatever it means) are not sufficient for success. In the end of the day, investments are based on speculations about the future. The reason the fundamentals matter is that they provide some guidance for your speculations. The basi…
That is the argument, the hedge funds made a bet and had already decided the outcome, my argument is simply that they ignored the bull thesis because they had already decided the outcome. They also ignored the possibility of getting royally forked up. If main street figured it out, somebody else could have as well, and Michael Burry did.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We all know why it hasn't. Do you really believe it will last forever? or even 6 months from now? People are trying to make money. Once the momentum slows down the big sell off will start and nobody would be able to stop it. Not DFV or even the biggest troll of all, mr. Elon Musk.
Forever is a long time. No, I do not believe it will last forever, or even six months. I do believe it will last at least one more week, though, yeah. And I'm putting money where my mouth is. The best part in all of this is that you're free to short it if you disagree. See where that leads you.
Never shorted a stock in my life. Not going to start now. I cannot predict when this will stop. Nither can you. What currently holds everything together is the unknown. People don't know who, when, and how the shorter s are going to close their positions. Once things will clear out I predict it's gonna be the beginning of the end.
Just to be clear. I don't think it will crash to nothing any time soon. It will keep trading much higher than what it was pre this saga. When I say crash I mean down around 70-80% from its current value of $330.