Margin Isn't Dangerous & Why I'd Still Use It If I Had Less Than $25,000
Cash vs. Margin
TL;DR- Use Margin if you're trading securities and either above or below 25k. If you know how to size positions, it won't matter if you move $4,000 into a trade or $4,000,000. As long as you sized the position correctly. If you're limited to 3 trades, then take 3 PERFECT trades: https://imgur.com/a/SpPOERQ I see lots of people discussing contrasting ideas although they attempt to justify using both. Here are some things I see said and written frequently from people that doesn't add up for me:
"Use a cash account to avoid PDT" - (Totally fine, in some cases such as certain options traders. Not if you're trading securities.)
"Risk 1% of your account" - (So if your account is at $25,500, I risk ~$255 and if I lose 2R I'm below PDT. Doesn't sound too great to me if I were to lose the first 2 straight trades.)
"Margin is a double-edged sword" - (It's only dangerous if you don't set hard stops or size your positions correctly.)
"Never take on a trade that is worth more than your account" - (I can agree if you were swing trading but in terms of IntraDay trading, this is hindering your ability to grow your account. If you're risking $100 on a trade that costs less than your account value.. then $25 on a trade because of your account value.. then you're adding unneeded variables. Remember: "Consistency.")
If I were to go back to when I was below $25,000 some years ago. I'd still use a margin account while being limited to 3 trades per week. Here's why:
Formulas you have to know: Position size formula = Risk ÷ Stop Size Stop Size Formula = Entry - StopLoss
Stock ABC, Entry = $10.00 StopLoss = $9.90 StopSize = 10¢ Risk = $100 In Live Trading: $100 ÷ $0.10 = 1000 Shares 1,000 shares at $10.00 = $10,000 position
Stock XYZ, Entry = $385 StopLoss = $383.00 StopSize = $2.00 Risk = $100 In Live Trading: $100 ÷ $2.00 = 50 Shares 50 shares at $385 = $19,250 position. *$10,000 CASH account: CANNOT trade Stock XYZ and must wait 3 days for his entire account to settle after trading Stock ABC. If it was a margin account, they'd still be able to take 2 more trades this week. *$10,000 MARGIN account: CAN trade Stock XYZ and can trade both scenarios while still able to trade 1 more time in a 5 day rolling period.
Then the next point made is, "Just won't trade anything above $20".
Ok. great rebuttal, but why? Let's remember this: StopSizes aren't always directly correlated to the price of a stock. YES you're more likely to have a wider StopSize on a higher priced stock and a tighter StopSize on a lower priced stock. But remember this: 1¢ of slippage on 1,000 shares is 10% of his risk ($10)... It will be even more slippage if his stop loss market order is hit. Even a Sell-StopLimit order will have slippage within the amount you allow for when you enter a position. Stock XYZ would have to be slipped 20¢ just to equate the amount of slippage on Stock ABC.Highly liquid and available stocks such as AAPL, AMD, NVDA etc don't have 20¢ spreads. Not even 10¢. Rarely 5¢. Most of the time. Just a couple cents. Of course there could be more right out of the open but the spread in my years of experience is tightened within 2 minutes of the open. Yes, these small amounts in pennies do hold lots of merit if you're looking at having any longevity in this business, it WILL add up over the years.
Both trades have the same risk [in perfect world theory].
If both stop market orders were hit (StopLoss). Both traders would exit with a $100 loss on each. Although 1 trade required $10,000 in capital and the other trade required $19,250 in capital. Use margin. If I had to go back to when I had less than $25,000 in my account, I'd still do it the same way I did it with margin. I highly suggest using margin even if you’re limited to 3 trades per week. I get asked all the time when I began trading. If you watched my last video, I showed my first ever deposit with Scottrade (Old brokerage that was bought out by TDA a few years ago) in 2015 although I don't consider that's when I started trading because I didn't treat it the way I do today. I really consider myself starting as a trader in 2017 when I: •Wrote a business plan •Understood statistics •How to research. All this being said, slowly over time I noticed that I am taking less and less trades and increasing my risk size. Why? EV: Expected Value. - Margin has zero negative effect if you're sizing your positions the same every time. Margin allows you to take on more expensive positions that are showing your edge. Bonus: Being limited to 3 trades a week isn't fun, I remember that feeling from years ago. Just remember to take 3 perfect trades a week. Sometimes "Perfect Trades" don't work out in your favor while some subpar situations hit target. Some weeks you might take your 3 "Perfect Trades" by Tuesday. Some weeks you might take only 1 "perfect trade". If you follow my watchlists on Twitter (Same handle as my Reddit), I keep my Day Trading Buying Power transparent. Not always is it growing perfectly linear. And not always am I posting every single day because sometimes, my edge isn't there. Just because the market is open doesn't mean you HAVE to trade. My watchlists aren't littered with 15+ tickers. Rarely do they have more than 7. That may work for other traders, but for me, I demand quality. It's either there or it isn't. No reason to force a trade. I'd rather focus heavily on a few tickers rather than spread myself thin across multiple. Trading isn't supposed to be exhilarating or an adrenaline rush. It can be boring. I said that in the post I wrote back in April. Also if you make money, even if its just $20 in a month. Take that money out and buy something. Shrine it. Cherish it. You ripped that money out of WallStreet. Be proud of it. It takes a lot of courage to do this business. Realize that the P/L is real money. Sometimes even just buying a tank of gas or a book will help you realize that. Spend it from time to time. Get something out of your trading account. You may or not be trading for long, get something that is tangible to always remember the experience in case you don't last. Make it your trophy. That's all I've got for right now. Maybe I'll make another post or 2 before the year ends. I hit my 1 year full-time mark in September. Best wishes! -CJT2013
$PSTG: PURE STORAGE for them, PURE TENDIES for you
This is actually my first DD I've ever posted so fuck you and forgive me if this doesn't work out for you.I've been looking at $PSTG for a while now and if my buying power didn't get so fucked from my decision to buy 8/7 UBER puts, I would have been already all over this play. What had got me looking into Pure Storage was an unusual options activity alert. I've looked into this company before but didn't entirely understand what they do. Now after looking at them again, I'm still not exactly sure wtf they do....BUT I've gotten a better clue. Basically what I got from my research is that these guys fuck with "all-FLASH data storage solutions (enabling cloud solutions and other low-latency applications where tape/disk storage does not meet the needs)."......and ultimately what this all means to me is that these are the motherfuckers making those stupid fast laser money printers with the rocket ships attached. And that's something I'm interested in. Now, here is the DailyDick you all degenerates have all been fiending for: Fundamentally: PureStorage remains one of the few hardware companies in tech that is consistently growing double motherfucking digits, yet remains constantly cucked and neglected by investors (trading at 1.9x EV/Sales). https://preview.redd.it/ek7ugjsewnf51.png?width=1118&format=png&auto=webp&s=f9c7e72c95e450a105e44223937422d896eeeb21 The 36 Months beta value for PSTG stock is at 1.62. 74% Buy Rating on RH. PSTG has a short float of 7.28% and public float of 243.36M with average trading volume of 3.16M shares. This was trading at around $18 on Wednesday 8/5 when I started writing this and as of right now, it's about $17.33 💸 The company has a market capitalization of ~$4.6 billion. In the last quarter, PSTG reported a ballin'-ass profit of $256.82 million. Pure Storage also saw revenues increase to $367.12 million. IMO, they should rename themselves PURE PROFIT. As of 04-2020, they got the cash monies flowing at $11.32 million . The company’s EBITDA came in at -$62.81 million which compares very fucking well among its dinosaur ass peers like HPE, Dell, IBM and NetApp. Pure Storage keeps taking market share from them old farts while growing the chad-like revenue #s of 33% in F2019, 21% in F2020, and 12% in F1Q21. Chart of their financial growth since IPO in 2015: https://preview.redd.it/gwlmy82v4nf51.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=b6508cd5f641da4086b70d8b8007da034e982fd7 At the end of last quarter, Pure Storage had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $1.274B, compared with $1.299B as of Feb 2, 2020. The total Debt to Equity ratio for PSTG is recording at 0.64 and as of 8/6, Long term Debt to Equity ratio is at 0.64.Earning highlights from last quarter:
Revenue $367.1 million, up 12% year-over-year
Subscription Services revenue $120.2 million, up 37% year-over-year
GAAP operating loss $(84.9) million; non-GAAP operating loss $(5.4) million
Operating cash flow was $35.1 million, up $28.5 million year-over-year
Free cash flow was $11.3 million, up $29.0 million year-over-year
Total cash and investments of $1.3 billion
I bolded the Subscription Services Revenue bullet because to me that's a big deal. Pure Storage keeps them coming back with products such as Pure-as-a-service and Cloud Block Store and everybody knows that the recurring revenue model is best model. Big ass enterprises buy storage from vendors such as Pure Storage in the cloud to prevent vendor lock-in by the cloud providers. $$$ >!💰< What are Pure Storage's other revenue drivers? Well these motherfuckers also have the products to address the growth of Cloud storage as well as the products to drive the growth of on-prem storage. For on-prem data center, Pure sells Flash Array to address block storage workloads (for databases and other mission-critical workloads) and FlashBlade for unstructured or file data workloads. On-prem storage revenue is mainly driven by legacy storage array replacement cycle. https://preview.redd.it/01su6chrwnf51.png?width=1129&format=png&auto=webp&s=16e6a705f9392291bc0c3932c815802d9101365e So far, it seems like Pure Storage's obviously passionate and smart as fuck CEO has been spot on with his prediction of the flash storage sector's direction. Also seems like he's not camera shy either. Pure Storage's "Pure-as-a-Service and Cloud Block Store" unified subscription offerings is fo sho gaining momentum it. This shit is catching on with enterprises, both big and small. COVID-19 increased the acceleration of our digital transformation and the subsequent shift to the cloud. This increased demand in data-centers is going to drastically help Pure Storage's future top and bottom line. To top it off, NAND prices are recovering! (inferred from MU earnings). I expect Pure Storage to get some relief on the pricing front because of this which obviously in turn should improve revenues. PSTG's numbers look pretty good to me so far but are they a good company overall? Even when scalping and trading, I don't like to fuck with overall shitty companies so I always check for basic things like customer satisfaction, analyst ratings/targets, broad-view industry trends, and hedge fund positioning.. that sort of thing.Pure Storage stands out in all of these fields for me. https://preview.redd.it/4n0e5nve5of51.png?width=373&format=png&auto=webp&s=495416bb6f5a2dab77f3ac483ca4d9510b39037c Customers like Dominos Pizza and many others all seem to be happy AF with no issues. I can hardly even find a negative review online. Their products seems to be universally applauded. Gartner and other third party independent analysts also consider Pure Storage's product line-up some of the best in the industry. The industry average for this sector is a piss poor 65.Pure Storage has a 2020 Net Promoter Score of 86 https://preview.redd.it/3w51io8yvmf51.png?width=698&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f7d06825d0ad9d126216e5069af2f9c3636f86a Enterprises are upgrading their existing storage infrastructure with newer and more modern data arrays, based on NAND flash. They do this because they're forced to keep up with the increasing speed of business inter-connectivity. This shit is the 5g revolution sort to speak of the corporate business world. Storage demands and needs aren't changing because of the pandemic and isn't changing in the future. The newer storage arrays are smaller, consume less power, are less noisy and do not generate excess heat in the data center and hence do not need to be cooled like the fat fucks at IBM need to be. Flash storage arrays in general are cheaper to operate and are extremely fast, speeding up applications. Pure Storage by all accounts makes the best storage arrays in the industry and continues to grow faster than the old school storage vendors like bitchass NetApp, Dell, HPE and IBM. Pure Storage’s market share was 12.7% in C1Q20 and was up from 10.1% in the prior year - LIKE A PROPER HIGH GROWTH COMPANY.HPE, NetApp and IBM, like the losers they are, lost market share.According to blocksandfiles.com, AFA vendor market share sizes and shifts are paraphrased below:
“Dell EMC – 34.8% (calculated $766m) vs. 33.7% a year ago
NetApp – 19.3% at $425m vs. 26.7% a year ago
Pure Storage – 12.7% at calculated $279.7m vs. 10.1% a year ago
The Walt Disney Company (NYSE:DIS) es una compañía multinacional estadounidense dedicada principalmente a los medios de comunicación masivos y a la industria del entretenimiento. Su sede está en Burbank, California, EEUU. La compañía cotiza bajo el ticker DIS, en Nueva York, a un precio de US$ 127,44 al 23/8/2020. Goza de un tamaño prominente, teniendo 223 mil empleados y una capitalización de mercado de 230.292M de dólares. Disney integra el índice Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) desde 1991, y también integra el S&P 100 y el S&P 500. Evaluando más en detalle el desempeño de la acción, la acción cotiza US$ 127,44 al 23/8/2020. Hace aproximadamente un año, el 26/8/2019 la acción cotizaba a US$ 137,26 lo que representa una caída aproximada del 7,15% anual (TTM). La caída es mas pronunciada YTD, Disney cotizaba US$ 148,2 a principios de año, por lo que al día de hoy la caída seria del 14%. No obstante, la acción a recuperado bastante valor después de la caída pronunciada que sufrió en Febrero-Marzo, llegando a cerrar a US$ 85,76 el 23/3/20 (habiendo subido un 48% desde entonces). Es para destacar que desde dicha caída se vio un significativo incremento en el volumen operado del papel. Mirando brevemente las medias móviles, vemos que la cotización actual esta por encima del promedio de 30 días (US$ 122,73), del de 90 días (US$ 115,98) y de 200 días (US$ 124,12). Con respecto al mercado, al 25/8, desde comienzo de año Disney se desempeñó por debajo del S&P 500 (5,7%), y del DJIA (-2,15%), con desempeño de -12,42% YTD. La compañía fue fundada en 1923 por los hermanos Walt y Roy Disney. A lo largo de su historia, Disney se consolidó como líder en la industria de animación estadounidense y luego diversificó sus negocios dedicándose a la producción de películas live-action, televisión y parques temáticos. A partir de 1980 Disney creo y adquirió diversas divisiones corporativas, para penetrar en mercados que fueran mas allá de sus marcas insignia orientadas a productos familiares. Disney es conocida por su división de estudios cinematográficos (The Walt Disney Studios), que incluye Walt Disney Pictures, Walt Disney Animation Studios, Pixar, Marvel Studios, Lucasfilm, 20th Century Studios, Searchlight Pictures y Blue Sky Studios. Otras unidades y segmentos de la compañía son Disney Media Networks; Disney Parks, Experiences and Products y Walt Disney Direct-to-Consumer & International. A través de estas unidades, Disney posee y opera canales de televisión como ABC, Disney Channel, ESPN, Freeform, FX y National Geographic, así como también venta de publicidad, merchandising y música. También tiene divisiones de producción teatral (Disney Theatrical Group) y posee un grupo de 14 parques temáticos alrededor del mundo. Es evidente la complejidad de las operaciones de Disney, por lo que vale la pena ir un poco mas a fondo en la composición de los segmentos operativos de Disney, en base al reporte anual de 2019 (mas representativo que el ultimo reporte trimestral en medio de la pandemia), donde encontramos cuatro segmentos relevantes. El primer segmento, denominado “Media Networks”, compuesto principalmente por los canales domésticos de TV, este segmento generó 24.827M US$ de ingresos en 2019 (un 34,7% del total). El segundo segmento es el de “Parks, Experiences and Products”, compuesto por los parques temáticos, resorts y cruceros de las compañías, así como también de las licencias de los nombres, personajes y marcas de la compañía y de los productos de merchandising propios, este segmento reportó 26.225M US$ de ingresos en 2019 (un 36,66% del total, el segmento mas relevante de la compañía). El tercer segmento, es el de “Studio Entertainment” que contiene las operaciones de producción de películas, música y obras de teatro, así como también los servicios de post-produccion. Este segmento reportó 11.127M US$ (un 15,55% del total). El ultimo segmento, quizás el mas interesante es “Direct-to-Consumer & International”, donde además de contener las operaciones internacionales de TV y servicios de distribución de contenido digital como apps y paginas web, se incluyen las unidades de servicios de streaming de Disney, compuestas principalmente por Hulu, ESPN+ y Disney+. Este sector reporto ingresos por 9.349M US$ (un 13,07%, enorme incremento respecto del 5,6% que reportó en 2018). Respecto a la distribución territorial de las operaciones, es notorio el bagaje del mercado doméstico (EEUU y Canadá) donde concentraron en 2019 el 72,6% de las operaciones. Vale destacar también que hubo un incremento significativo interanual de las operaciones en los mercados de Asia-Pacífico (del 9,3% al 11,2%) y en Latinoamérica y otros mercados (del 3,09% al 4,61%). En lo que respecta a la política de dividendos de la compañía, encontré registros de pago constante de dividendos desde al menos 1989. El ultimo dividendo fue el 13/12, habiendo pagado $0,88 y arrojando un dividend yield anual de 1,2%. La compañía decidió omitir el dividendo semestral correspondiente al primer semestre de 2020 por la pandemia del COVID-19. Evaluando un poco la posición financiera de la empresa, a junio de 2020, según el balance presentado, Disney tenia activos corrientes por 41.330M US$ y pasivos corrientes por 30.917M US$, lo que resulta en un working capital (activos corrientes netos, activos corrientes menos pasivos corrientes) de 10.413 US$. El working capital entonces representa el 33,68% de los pasivos corrientes (Con lo cual, el current ratio es de 1,34 apreciándose una mejoría respecto del 0,9 reportado en septiembre 2019). En relación con la deuda de largo plazo, la podemos estimar en 70.052M US$ (borrowings + other long-term liabilities), dado que en septiembre 2019 la cifra era de 51.889M US$, vemos que sufrió un aumento considerable (en el orden del 35%). Respecto a los flujos de efectivo de Disney, vemos que en lo que va del año fiscal (septiembre 2019-junio 2020) Disney reportó flujo de efectivo por operaciones por 5949M US$, casi lo mismo que reportó para todo el año fiscal 2019 (5984M US$). Viendo la evolución de 10 años del CF de operaciones:
CF de operaciones (mill. USD)
Dif. Anual %
Viendo la evolución en 10 años del flujo de efectivo de operaciones, vemos que en 2019 hubo una drástica reversión de la tendencia al alza que se venia reportando (con un 58,14% de caída interanual). Esto se debe en parte a la política de adquisiciones de la empresa, que vemos reflejado en el flujo de efectivo por inversiones, equivalente en 2019 a -15.096M US$ (muy por encima del promedio de 2010-2018, equivalente a -4179,4M US$). En lo relativo a las ganancias de la compañía, para el Q2 2020 Disney reportó pérdidas por 4721M US$ (contra una ganancia de 1760M US$ para el Q2 2019). La situación se atenúa considerando las cifras para los últimos nueve meses (Q4 2019-Q2 2020), donde Disney totalizó perdidas por 1813M US$. No obstante, la situación del COVID-19 distorsiona nuestro análisis a largo plazo, por lo que para analizar la evolución interanual desde los últimos 10 años, utilizare los datos de los reportes anuales (datando el ultimo de septiembre 2019).
Net Income (mill. USD)
Dif. Anual %
Como se puede ver en el cuadro, pese al revés sufrido por las obvias complicaciones de la pandemia, el historial de ganancias de Disney es sólido. La compañía tuvo en los últimos 10 años, 2 años de contracción en las ganancias (2017 y 2019), pero en términos generales, las ganancias crecieron a una tasa promedio del 13,02% los últimos 10 años. Para evaluar el crecimiento general estos 10 años, si tomamos el promedio de los primeros 3 años (2010-2012) y el promedio de los últimos 3 (2017-2019), las ganancias de Disney crecieron un 125,8%. Mirando un poco de ratios, analizaré el EPS (Earnings Per Share) de la acción. Para el Q2 2020, Disney presentó un EPS negativo, de -2,61, contra un 0,98 obtenido en el Q2 2019. Refiriéndonos al desempeño pre-pandemia, el EPS promedio anual de los últimos 5 años fue de 6,3 y el ultimo EPS anual reportado (septiembre 2019) estaba ligeramente por encima, alrededor de 6,68. En lo respectivo al Price/Earning, el P/E (TTM) al valor de la acción del 23/8 es de -208,9. No obstante, si eliminamos la distorsión producto de la pandemia, calculando las ganancias promedio de los últimos 3 años (de acuerdo con los reportes anuales), es de 18,38, lo cual es un valor aceptable dada la coyuntura de los últimos años. En lo que respecta al Price-To-Book (P/B) ratio, el book value a junio 2020, es de 50, por lo que el P/B (siempre al precio del 23/8) es de 2,54, un valor razonable dados los promedios de los sectores en los que Disney tiene incidencia. El ultimo ratio a analizar es Price/Assets (P/E*P/B) que, (usando P/E con promedio de las ganancias de los últimos 3 años) arroja un valor de 46,68. Sobre el soporte institucional de la compañía, Disney tiene un apoyo considerable, calculado en el 66,42% del flotante en manos de instituciones. Los tenedores líderes son Vanguard con el 8,22%; BlackRock (NYSE:BLK) con el 6,32% y State Street Corporation (NYSE:STT) con el 4,19%. Otros tenedores significantes (1-2%) son Bank of America (NYSE:BAC), MorganStanley (NYSE:MS) y Bank of New York Mellon (NYSE:BK). En lo respectivo al management de Disney, la primera consideración importante es respecto al legendario CEO de la compañía, Robert “Bob” Iger, quien, en febrero de este año, después de posponerlo por años, decidió dar un paso al costado como CEO de la compañía, dejando a cargo al director del segmento de Parques y Resorts, Bob Chapek. Esto duró poco, y en abril Iger volvió a tomar las riendas de la compañía. No obstante, es altamente probable que, una vez estabilizado el panorama Iger retome su frustrado plan de dar un paso al costado. En lo relativo a la compensación, Iger cobró 47.525.560 US$, los executive officers una remuneración promedio de 11.319.422 US$ y el empleado promedio de Disney cobró 52.184 US$. Una cosa que llama la atención del balance de Disney (septiembre 2019), es el incremento notorio del goodwill (de 31.269M US$ a 80.293M US$, un aumento del 157%). No obstante, este incremento puede deberse a la política de fusiones y adquisiciones de la compañía. Disney viene llevando en los últimos años una política de adquisiciones relativamente agresiva, ideada por el CEO Bob Iger, de las cuales podemos destacar 4 o 5 operaciones clave, la primera de ellas fue la adquisición de Pixar, la famosa empresa de animación que había despegado bajo la conducción de Steve Jobs y Ed Catmull, en 2006 por 7,4MM US$ (de esa adquisición se beneficiaron sacando películas muy exitosas como Up, Wall-E, Ratatouille, Toy Story 3, etc.). Otra adquisición clave, fue la compra de Marvel en 2009 por 4MM US$ (La última de sus películas Avengers: Endgame, la más taquillera de la historia de Disney, vendió entradas por 3MM US$). En 2012, Disney compró Lucasfilm (histórica productora de Star Wars), por 4,05MM US$, y posteriormente anunció una muy lucrativa tercera trilogía de Star Wars. Por último, en marzo de 2019, Disney concretó la adquisición de 2oth Century Fox, en marzo de 2019, por la extraordinaria cifra de 73MM US$, sus resultados aún están por verse. Analizar la competencia de Disney es algo trabajoso, dado la variedad de sectores en los que se involucra y la falta de compañías que abarquen tantos sectores como Disney. Considero que la compañía que más se aproxima en cuanto a sus operaciones y al volumen de las mismas es Comcast (NASDAQ:CMSCA), si bien Disney compite con numerosas empresas en numerosos sectores, como podrían ser, por ejemplo Cedar Fair (NYSE:FUN) o Six Flags (NYSE:SIX) en el negocio de los parques temáticos; ViacomCBS (NYSE:VIAC) o Discovery Communications (NASDAQ:DISCA) en el negocio mediático; así como Netflix (NASDAQ:NFLX) o Amazon (NASDAQ:AMZN) en el negocio del streaming, sobre los cuales hablare más adelante. También compite con segmentos de negocios de conglomerados grandes como Sony (NYSE: SNE) o AT&T (NYSE:T). Observando a Comcast, el acérrimo rival, vemos que la capitalización bursátil es similar, siendo de 198.301M US$ para Comcast y de 234.538M US$ para Disney, así como los empleados, teniendo 190.000 (CMCSA) y 236.000 (DISN). El desempeño de ambas acciones es parejo, en términos generales Comcast tuvo mejor performance, sobre todo YTD (-3,47% contra -10,26%). En los márgenes y ratios también gana Comcast, supera ampliamente en gross margin (TTM) a Disney, con 56,78% contra 27,95% y en net margin (TTM) con 10,91% frente a un pobre -1,91%. El EPS (TTM) da 2,53 para Comcast contra -0,6 para Disney. Consecuentemente, Comcast pudo mantener un P/E positivo de 17,56. Si bien los números parecen positivos en la comparación para el lado de Comcast, me parece relevante destacar que lo mismo que fue su mayor ventaja comparativa (la composición de sus segmentos operativos), puede ser lo que la haga perder en la comparación a futuro, dada la absoluta supremacía que tiene la operatoria relacionada con la televisión, así como la falta de un segmento de negocios dedicado al streaming de video (sobre el cual también me referiré mas adelante). Para analizar el futuro, creo que es relevante hacer unas breves conclusiones sobre la actualidad. En primer lugar, los segmentos operativos mas afectados fueron el segmento de parques temáticos, resorts, etc. y el segmento de los estudios cinematográficos con lo cual los ingresos de Disney este último trimestre quedaron a cargo, principalmente, de los canales de TV (que sufrieron una breve baja del 2%) y de los servicios de streaming. Empezando por los sectores más afectados, respecto a la producción fílmica (Studio Entertainment), me parece que la situación no es crítica, claramente la situación de la pandemia redujo fuertemente los ingresos del sector (al haberse reducido lógicamente la asistencia a salas de cine). No obstante, el manejo del sector viene siendo exitoso hace años (en los últimos 2 años lanzaron 3 de las 4 películas más taquilleras de la historia de la compañía, Endgame, Infinity War, y el live-action de El Rey León), y no hay indicios de que esto vaya a cambiar en el futuro (hay un esquema de estrenos futuros interesante). En lo que respecta a los parques, las perspectivas no son tan buenas. La caída para el Q2 2020 fue del 85% en relación al Q2 2019. Es evidente que al haber una cuestión sanitaria de por medio, el turismo va a ser uno de los sectores mas afectados, habiendo sufrido una caída increíble en la primera mitad del año.  Actualmente, la actividad comercial de los parques temáticos está empezando a reanudarse, habiendo reabierto las operaciones en Walt Disney World en Florida, y estando a la espera de reabrir Disneyland en California, dada la incertidumbre de la pandemia. No obstante, la recuperación fue peor de lo esperado y a partir de Septiembre Walt Disney World recortará los horarios de sus parques. Asimismo, comparativamente, el desempeño de Universal Studios (propiedad de Comcast), parece ser mejor que el de Disney en esta reapertura. No obstante, es importante destacar el carácter de líder absoluto de Disney en este sector, con una competencia que difícilmente pueda igualar su posición, con lo cual si bien el desempeño en el corto plazo puede ser inferior al de la competencia, es altamente probable que recupere su posición dominante en el mediano-largo plazo. Es interesante ver, en tercer lugar, el segmento “Media Networks” que consiste principalmente en los canales de TV que Disney posee. Este sector no tuvo una caída significante (solo del 2% para el Q2 2020 en relacion al Q2 2019) en el corto plazo, pero en el largo plazo, es evidente que la tendencia del sector es a desaparecer. Las encuestas y reportes muestran un lento descenso año tras año de la audiencia, tanto de TV en vivo, TV diferida y radio. Con lo cual, a largo plazo, es previsible que este segmento sufra una disminución considerable en su volumen de operaciones. También es previsible (y así lo reflejan las encuestas), que el reemplazo de la TV tradicional sea protagonizado por los servicios de video streaming (VOD), es decir, por las operaciones del cuarto segmento (Direct-to-Consumer). Disney tiene hoy 3 servicios de streaming, Hulu, ESPN+, y Disney+ (ofrece los tres en un bundle que cuesta US$ 12,99). Como ya dijimos, el incremento de los ingresos por estos servicios durante el FY 2019 fue significante. Veamos la evolución de los subscriptores a estos servicios en lo que va del FY 2020 (es decir, Q4 2019, Q1 2020 y Q2 2020).
Investment Thesis: Why investing in POW.TO (Power Corporation of Canada) now is an investment in a future high market cap Wealthsimple IPO
I have seen some posts here wondering about the wisdom of investing in Wealthsimple's parent company, Power Corporation of Canada (POW.TO). I decided to look more into this, decided to post my investment thesis and research on why I, long-term, I have a very bullish view on Wealthsimple (and by extension POW.TO), and why I think this is equal to being an early stage investor in a Wealthsimple IPO.
Ownership: Power Corporation of Canada (POW.TO) (83.2% ownership)
AssetsUnderMangement: $5.4 billion, as of June 30, 2020 (4.9 billion in June 30, 2019)
Wealthsimple Invest (ETF Roboadvisor service), WS was one of the first-movers in this space in Canada and offered robo-advising as part of its initial product in 2015. WS claims to have largest digital investing presence in Canada (70% of the market) (reference).
Wealthsimple Cash, a savings account service
Wealthsimple Trade, a commission free trading app where users can buy and sell ~8,000 stocks and ETFs
Wealthsimple Crypto, a commission free cryptocurrency trading app, currently in beta
SimpleTax.ca, a free tax-return service used by ~1 million Canadians per year, acquired in late 2019
WS has had many successful rounds of funding and a vote of confidence from both its parent POW.TO and other multinationals investing in fintech.
Last year WS received a $100 million dollar investment led by Allianz X, the start up investor arm of German financial services giant Allianz
WS has had 7 total investing rounds, totalling $266.9 million (reference)
WS has been extremely aggressive in targeting growth areas. Wealthsimple’s CEO Mike Katchen has said he wants to position the company as a “full-stack” financial services company. Here are some of their current expansion areas:
UK and USA Expansion - in 2017, they started offering similar investing services in the UK and the US (reference and reference).
Socially Responsible ETFs - WS recently partnered with Mackenzie Investment to offer socially responsible ETFs with a social and environmental focus. Although probably not something that older investors care about, this is particularly important for younger investors who want to make sure their investments are socially responsible
Cryptocurrency - WS is currently testing a beta service of their cryptocurrency app, and offering fee-free cryptocurrency trading, similar to Wealthsimple Trade. Whatever your views of cryptocurrency (I'm of the view that I can in some cases be part of a portfolio to hedge against risk), it's here to stay. Earlier this month, WS was the first company in Canada to register with the Ontario Securities Exchange Commission (reference). My sense is that crypto will face increasing regulations and scrutiny in the coming years, which will be a good thing for WS which is a step ahead of the game (reference). Even Google is starting to look into relaxing its restraints on crypto (reference).
Other full-stack services - WS has been mum on what other services they might offer, but insurance, mortgages, and chequing accounts could be other areas of disruption. (Reference)
WS is run by young guys who have big ambitions and plans for the company. Sometimes there are CEOs with the intangibles that can really drive a company's growth, and from what I can glean, I think the company has a lot of potential here in terms of vision by its leaders. You can read more about the founders here
Michael Katchen, CEO, Background: Led product and marketing at a start up called 1000memories, a Y Combinator startup later acquired by Ancestry.com. Worked for McKinsey & Company.
Brett Huneycutt, COO, Rhodes Scholar... not much else I know about the guy
Quote sfrom CEO: Michael Katchen On being laughed out of the boardroom when he proposed his idea for Wealthsimple:
Within the last month, Wealthsimple has also opened an office in London. Katchen said a push into the European market is “possible” as its “ambitions are global,” but right now the Canadian and U.S. markets are “a lot to chew.” It is a far cry from the company’s early days: Katchen said he was “laughed out of the boardroom” for laying out a global vision for Wealthsimple at a time when they had just $1.9-million in funding and 20 users***.***“It’s a very personal mission of mine since I moved back from California, to inspire more Canadian companies to think big and to think internationally about the businesses that they’re building,” he said. (reference)
On Wealthsimple's growth in the next 10-15 years:
Wealthsimple has more than $5 billion in assets under management and 175,000 customers in Canada, the U.S. and U.K. He sees that reaching $1 trillion 15 years. “We’re just getting started,” he said. “Our plans are to get to millions of clients in the next five years.” (reference)
Brand Value and Design
Out of all the financial services company in Canada, WS probably has the most cohesive and smart design concept across its platforms and products. I see the value in Wealthsimple in not just the assets they have under management, but also the value of the brand itself. I mean, what kind of financial services company makes a blog post about their branding colour scheme and font choices? Also see: Wealthsimple’s advertisement earlier this year capturing 4 million views on Youtube. There also seems to be very strong brand awareness and brand loyalty amongst its users. I think a lot of users find WS refreshing as a financial services company because they cut through the "bullshit" and legalese, and try to simply things for the consumer. They also have their own in house team of designers and creative directors to do branding, design, and advertising, and this kind of vertical integration is generally unheard of in the financial services industry (reference).
Interestingly, the CEO’s ultimate goal is to take the company public. Therefore, I see an investment in POW.TO as being an early stage pre-IPO investor in WS (reference).
The goal is to get Wealthsimple to the size and scale to go public, something that Katchen said he’s “obsessed with.” While admitting that an IPO was still a few years down the road, Katchen already has a target of $20 billion in assets under administration (AUA) as the tipping point (the company recently announced $4.3 billion in AUA as of Q1 2019) (reference)
Ultimately, my sense is that a spun-out Wealthsimple IPO eventually be worth a lot, perhaps even more than POW.TO at some point. Obviously the company is losing money right now, and no where even close to an IPO, and there are still many chances that this company could flop. The best analogy that I can think of is when Yahoo bought an early stake in Alibaba (BABA) back in the early 2000s, and there came a point where their stake in BABA was worth more than Yahoo’s core business. I think an investment in POW.TO now is an early investment in WS before it goes public. (reference)
Expansion problems. In the UK, they reported significant losses and despite increasing users. (reference). The US is also an especially competitive space with lots of similar competitors.
The robo-advising, fintech space is highly competitive now, and the Big Five Banks and other investment/trading companies could easily start offering low-cost or commission free trading
Competitors such as Robinhood could also expand into the Canadian market and take out a huge chunk of WS's userbase
The X Factor
What I find particularly compelling about WS is they have aggressively positioned themselves to be a disruptor in the Canadian financial services industry. This is an area that has traditionally been thought to be a firewall for the Big Five Banks. There is also a generational gap in investing approaches, knowledge, and strategy, and I think WS has positioned itself nicely with first-time investors. My sense is that COVID-19 has also captured a huge amount of young adults with its trading app in the last few months, who will continue to use Wealthsimple products in the future. The average age of its user is around 34. As younger individuals are more comfortable with moving away traditional banking products, I think Wealthsimple’s product offering offers significant advantages over its competitors.
Power Corp is a Good Home
Currently POW.TO is trading at $26.30, down from its 52-week high of $35.15. I see an investment in POW.TO now as fairly low risk, and while WS grows, and there is also the added benefit of a high dividend stock. One of the most confusing things I found about Power Corp was its confusing corporate structure where there were two stocks, Power Financial Corp, and Power Corp of Canada. Fortunately, in Dec 2019, they simplified and consolidated the stocks, which also simplifies the holding structure of WS. I currently see POW.TO has a good stock to hold as well if you're a dividend holder, with a dividend of 6.86%. Also, POW.TO is patient enough to bide its time and let its investment in WS grow, unlike a VC that might want to sell it quick. For example, the reason why WS went with POW.TO instead of the traditional VC route is explained here:
Katchen has directly addressed the question of why he did not go the traditional VC route recently, saying: If you are a business that requires perhaps decades to achieve the vision you have, well, if you’re not going to be able to generate the kind of returns that venture needs is they will force you to sell yourself, they will force you to go public before you’re ready, or they will just forget about you because you’re going to be a write off. And so Katchen essentially flipped Wealthsimple to Power Financial. Power is well known as a conservative, patient, long-term investor. (https://opmwars.substack.com/p/the-wealthsimple-founders-before)
My belief is there is a huge unrecognized potential in POW.TO's massive ownership stake in WS that will be realized maybe 5-10 years down the road. I didn't really dive into the financials of POW.TO in relation to WS's performance, because the earnings reports do no actually say much about WS. I'm aware of the main criticisms that POW.TO is a mature company and dividend stock that has been trading sideways for many years, and the fact that WS is currently not a profitable company. I am not a professional investor, and this is just my amateur research, so I certainly welcome any comments/criticism of this thesis that people on this subreddit might have! (Please be gentle on me!).
[Comic Books/Batman] A Death in the Family, or: How DC Comics Let a Phone Vote Kill Robin.
DC Comics has published literally thousands of Batman comics in the character's eighty-odd years of existence, but few are more infamous than A Death in the Family, when DC let fans decide whether Jason Todd, the second character to use the identity of Robin, lived or died. An apology in advance: many primary sources for this drama have been lost to the annals of history: this was the 1980s, the Internet wasn't really a thing yet, so fan discussion around comics mostly took place in Usenet newsgroups and comic book letter columns, both of which are very difficult to find archives of today. I've reconstructed the story as best as I can, but I wish I could find more quotes from fans at the time. Also, SPOILER WARNING. There are unmarked spoilers for Batman comics from the 1980s below this line. Don't say I didn't warn you.
Who was Jason Todd?
Jason Todd was a character introduced in 1983's Batman #357 by writer Gerry Conway and artist Don Newton and under the auspices of editor Len Wein, as a replacement for Dick Grayson as Robin. Grayson had outgrown the pixie boots and scaly shorts of the Robin identity, and graduated to his own identity as Nightwing, over in The New Teen Titans. But Conway felt that Batman still needed a Robin, so Todd was born:
Gerry Conway (writer, Batman and Detective Comics, 1981-1983): I always felt that Batman worked really well with a sidekick like Robin. My interest in the character was the version of Batman as a detective, the version of Batman as a guardian of Gotham. This was prior, I believe, to the deep-dive into the “dark knight” kind of concept of Batman, so, for that end, the idea of a younger sidekick who could bring out a little more levity in the character seemed useful. But Dick Grayson as a character had grown into a young adult and was integral to the Teen Titans series, and had his own life and his own storylines that were developing separately from Batman, and [he] couldn’t really play that secondary role that I was interested in exploring. 
Todd was introduced as the son of two acrobats who had been murdered by Batman's enemy Killer Croc, in a striking similarity to Dick Grayson's origin written forty years prior. Todd would officially become the new Robin in Batman #368, published February 1984, and would continue to go on adventures (written by Conway and then by Doug Moench) with Batman until 1986's Batman #400. During this period, he's probably best remembered for a. being involved in a custody battle between Batman and a vampire, and b. getting the drop on Mongul in the classic Superman story "For the Man Who Has Everything" by writer Alan Moore and artist Dave Gibbons. But then the Crisis happened, and everything changed for Jason.
You don't have a comic book company for almost fifty years without running into some hurdles along the way, especially where characters and continuity are concerned. In 1954, psychologist Frederick Wertham published Seduction of the Innocent, a book asserting that comic books were harming the children of the day, causing them to turn into delinquents. As a result, the bustling superhero genre of comics at the time slowed to a crawl, with most of DC's (then known as National Periodical Publications) characters, such as the Green Lantern and the Flash, ceasing publication and being replaced with comics about talking animals, romance stories, and giant alien monsters. Just a few short years later, in October 1956, creators Robert Kangher and Carmine Infantino would introduce a new version of the Flash in Showcase #4, and the Silver Age of comics had begun. Eventually, the Golden Age Flash was reintroduced, and it was established that the Silver Age characters resided on Earth-One, while the Golden Age characters were from Earth-Two. Everything was fine and dandy, until DC decided things had become too confusing and that they needed to kill their multiverse. In 1986, DC published one of the very first comic crossover events - Crisis on Infinite Earths, an earth-shattering story that pitted almost every hero in company history against the threat of the Anti-Monitor. The outcome was that all the characters and stories from Earth-One, Earth-Two, and several other alternate Earths that had appeared over the years were consolidated into a single, streamlined universe, and with that came changes for several other characters, Jason Todd among them.
The New Jason Todd
After Crisis, new blood was in the Batman editorial offices. Former Batman writer Denny O'Neil had taken over as editor of the Batman family of titles, and he had a different opinion on Robin than that of Wein and Conway before him.
O’Neil: There was a time right before I took over as Batman editor when he seemed to be much closer to a family man, much closer to a nice guy. He seemed to have a love life and he seemed to be very paternal towards Robin. My version is a lot nastier than that. He has a lot more edge to him. 
In keeping with the desire for a darker, edgier Dark Knight (it was the 1980s, after all), this version of Batman debuted without a Robin by his side. Dick Grayson was still Nightwing, but Jason Todd was nowhere to be seen. This darker interpretation of Batman was only solidified once Frank Miller put his touch on the franchise with "Batman: Year One" in Batman #404-407, and the standalone graphic novel The Dark Knight Returns, the impact of which cannot be understated.
The Dark Knight Returns was a pivotal moment in the formation of what we would consider a recognizably “modern” incarnation of Batman, someone who is brooding and dark, a loner who isolates himself from society to obsessively carry out his one man crusade by any brutally violent means necessary. It was also an important milestone for comics a medium when it landed on top of the Young Adult Hardcover New York Times bestsellers list—a feat it only qualified for thanks to its release as a trade paperback in bookstores. For the first time, mainstream audiences were zeroing in on Batman, and not because of a popular TV show or serialized movies, but because of a comic book. 2
Immediately following "Year One," O'Neil asked writer Max Allan Collins to reintroduce Jason Todd as Robin into the continuity, in a storyline titled "Batman: The New Adventures" starting in Batman #408. The new Todd was a delinquent orphan, caught by Batman when he tried to steal the tires from the Batmobile and taken in and trained to be the new Robin. At first, the change was controversial among the fandom, especially given the wildly contrasting takes between Mike W. Barr's softer portrayal of the Dynamic Duo in Detective Comics and the harsher portrayal from creators such as Collins, Jim Aparo, and Jim Starlin (best known now as the creator of Thanos) in Batman. But nobody was clamoring for his death yet, and the intensity of debates around the new Jason Todd, fought out through comic book letter columns, were milder in comparison to those around whether there should be a yellow oval on the Batsuit or not.  Over the next few years, fan hatred for Jason began to grow, as the new incarnation of the character was not only a replacement for a highly beloved character, but also had a lot of anger issues to sort through. But then came the boiling point - Batman #424, written by Starlin and pencilled by Mark Bright, released October 1988. In that story, Todd confronts Felipe, son of a South American diplomat who was heavily involved in the cocaine trade. Batman reasons that, because Felipe has diplomatic immunity, there's nothing he can do to stop him, but Todd thinks otherwise. Felipe falls from a skyscraper to his death, leaving Batman to wonder: "did Felipe fall... Or was he pushed?" (Starlin, for what it was worth, hated Todd from the get-go, and specifically wrote this story to play to the controversy:
Starlin: In the one Batman issue I wrote with Robin featured, I had him do something underhanded, as I recall. Denny had told me that the character was very unpopular with fans, so I decided to play on that dislike. 
He had also tried to have Todd killed beforehand, of AIDS:
Well, I always thought that the whole idea of a kid side-kick was sheer insanity. So when I started writing Batman, I immediately started lobbying to kill off Robin. At one point DC had this AIDS book they wanted to do. They sent around memos to everybody saying “What character do you think we should, you know, have him get AIDS and do this dramatic thing” and they never ended up doing this project. I kept sending them things saying “Oh, do Robin! Do Robin!” And Denny O’Neill said “We can’t kill Robin off”. 
A Death in the Family
By 1988, though, O'Neil had changed his tune. Alan Moore and Brian Bolland's The Killing Joke had left longtime supporting character Batgirl crippled and confined to a wheelchair, to major praise from fans and critics alike, and there was blood in the water. Sales for Batman were at levels not seen for over a decade thanks to the works of Miller and Moore, Tim Burton's Batman feature film was on the horizon, far removed from the camp aesthetic of Adam West and Burt Ward and entirely Robin-free, and fan hatred for Todd was at an all-time high.
Jenette Kahn (publisher, DC Comics, 1976-1989; president, 1981-2003; editor-in-chief, 1989-2003) : Many of our readers were unhappy with Jason Todd. We weren’t certain why or how widespread the discontent was, but we wanted to address it. Rather than autocratically write Jason out of the comics and bring in a new Robin, we thought we’d let our readers weigh in. 
O'Neil and his team of editors brainstormed how they could remove Jason from the story, and the answer was clear: kill him, just as Starlin had suggested time and time again. Recalling the success of a 1982 Saturday Night Livesketch in which Eddie Murphy let viewers vote via phone on whether he would cook or spare a live lobester, O'Neil proposed a similar system to Kahn, who loved the idea. So, A Death in the Family began in Batman #426, written by Starlin and illustrated by Jim Aparo. When Jason receives word that his missing mother is alive, he follows a set of leads across the world to find her, only to discover that she was being blackmailed by the Joker. Jason's mother hands him over to the Clown Prince of Crime, and that's how Batman #427 ends. On the back cover of that issue, DC ran a full-page ad, proclaiming: "Robin Will Die Because the Joker Wants Revenge, But You Can Prevent It With a Telephone Call" and giving two 1-900 numbers: one to call to save Jason, and one to kill him. Two versions of issue #428 were written and drawn. One where Jason lived, and another, where he died. Both went into a drawer in O'Neil's desk, and the fans would choose which one would ever see the light of day. The fans went rabid. One letter, published in Batman #428, read as follows:
"Dear Denny, I heard some of what you are planning for "A Death In the Family" story line, including the phone-in number wrinkle, and I don't want to take any chances whatsoever. Kill him. Your pal, Rich Kreiner."
From 9:00 in the morning on Thursday, September 15, 1988 until 8:00 in the evening on Friday, September 16, fans could call in to either of the two numbers for fifty cents a call and cast their vote. In the end, the votes were tallied: 5,271 voted for Todd to survive, and 5,343 voted for him to die. By a margin of 72 votes, Robin died in the pages of Batman #428, beaten to death with a crowbar by the Joker. The image of Batman cradling Robin's dead body became immediately iconic.
Fan reaction to the story was mixed, despite the seeming fervor for Todd's death and the blood that was on their hands. The letters pages for Batman #430 (1, 2) show a mixture of celebration over Jason's death, remorse over individuals' decisions to vote for death, and hope that Robin's absence would lead to more mature Batman stories in the future. However, every issue of A Death in the Family was a best-seller, and a collected edition was rushed out in early December of 1988, only a week after the final issue in the arc was released to stores. But now that the fan feeding frenzy was (mostly) over, the media feeding frenzy had begun. You don't just kill Robin and get away with it without media attention. USA Today and Reuters ran articles on the story, and DC was besieged with interview requests from radio and TV stations.
O’Neil: I spent three days doing nothing but talking on the radio. I thought it would get us some ink here and there and maybe a couple of radio interviews. I had no idea—nor did anyone else—it would have the effect it did. Peggy [May], our publicity person, finally just said, “Stop, no more, we can’t do anymore,” or I would probably still be talking. She also nixed any television appearances. At the time, I wondered about that but now I am very glad she did, because there was a nasty backlash and I came to be very grateful that people could not associate my face with the guy who killed Robin. 
Internally at DC, there were suspicions that the vote had been rigged in some fashion.
O'Neil: "I heard it was one guy, who programmed his computer to dial the thumbs down number every ninety seconds for eight hours, who made the difference." 
But regardless of whether it was or not, Jason Todd was dead, and he would remain dead for as long as O'Neil stayed at DC - long enough for the phrase to be coined: "nobody in comics stays dead except for Uncle Ben, Bucky, and Jason Todd." But he wouldn't remain dead forever.
Jason would be succeeded by a new Robin, less than a year after his death. In a crossover storyline between Batman and New Titans written by Marv Wolfman and illustrated by George Perez and Jim Aparo, entitled "A Lonely Place of Dying", the character of Tim Drake would be introduced. Unlike Todd and Grayson before him, Drake would challenge the assumptions made about the character of Robin - he figured out Batman's secret identity on his own, and deduced that Batman needed a Robin by his side, to ensure he wouldn't take unneeded risks. Gone were the short pants of yesteryear - Drake wore a full-body suit with an armored cape, and was more of a detective than a fighter. He debuted to mixed reactions, although fans soon grew to love him under the pen of Chuck Dixon, who would be one of the major architects of Batman in the 1990s. Todd would get a second chance at life seventeen years later. In 2005, writer Judd Winick wrote the storyline "Under the Hood," published in Batman #635-641, 645-650, and Annual #25. There, it's revealed that Todd returned to life thanks to an alternate version of Superboy punching reality (it's comics, don't ask) and the aid of R'as al Ghul's Lazarus Pits, and donned the identity of the crime lord the Red Hood in his quest for revenge against the Joker. Todd, as the Red Hood, persists as a popular character today, a lasting symbol of Batman's failure, as he operates as a pragmatic vigilante, willing to take risks Batman isn't. More recently, in July 2020, DC announced a Death in the Family animated interactive feature film in the vein of Black Mirror's "Bandersnatch" - again, viewers can choose whether Todd lives or dies, among other options. Edit: fixed a typo.
You may have heard about off-shore tax havens of questionable legality where wealthy people invest their money in legal "grey zones" and don't pay any tax, as featured for example, in Netflix's drama, The Laundromat. The reality is that the Government of Canada offers 100% tax-free investing throughout your life, with unlimited withdrawals of your contributions and profits, and no limits on how much you can make tax-free. There is also nothing to report to the Canada Revenue Agency. Although Britain has a comparable program, Canada is the only country in the world that offers tax-free investing with this level of power and flexibility. Thank you fellow Redditors for the wonderful Gold Award and Today I Learned Award! (Unrelated but Important Note: I put a link at the bottom for my margin account explainer. Many people are interested in margin trading but don't understand the math behind margin accounts and cannot find an explanation. If you want to do margin, but don't know how, click on the link.) As a Gen-Xer, I wrote this post with Millennials in mind, many of whom are getting interested in investing in ETFs, individual stocks, and also my personal favourite, options. Your generation is uniquely positioned to take advantage of this extremely powerful program at a relatively young age. But whether you're in your 20's or your 90's, read on! Are TFSAs important? In 2020 Canadians have almost 1 trillion dollars saved up in their TFSAs, so if that doesn't prove that pennies add up to dollars, I don't know what does. The TFSA truly is the Great Canadian Tax Shelter. I will periodically be checking this and adding issues as they arise, to this post. I really appreciate that people are finding this useful. As this post is now fairly complete from a basic mechanics point of view, and some questions are already answered in this post, please be advised that at this stage I cannot respond to questions that are already covered here. If I do not respond to your post, check this post as I may have added the answer to the FAQs at the bottom.
How to Invest in Stocks
A lot of people get really excited - for good reason - when they discover that the TFSA allows you to invest in stocks, tax free. I get questions about which stocks to buy. I have made some comments about that throughout this post, however; I can't comprehensively answer that question. Having said that, though, if you're interested in picking your own stocks and want to learn how, I recommmend starting with the following videos: The first is by Peter Lynch, a famous American investor in the 80's who wrote some well-respected books for the general public, like "One Up on Wall Street." The advice he gives is always valid, always works, and that never changes, even with 2020's technology, companies and AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRMpgaBv-U4&t=2256s The second is a recording of a university lecture given by investment legend Warren Buffett, who expounds on the same principles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2MHIcabnjrA Please note that I have no connection to whomever posted the videos.
TFSAs were introduced in 2009 by Stephen Harper's government, to encourage Canadians to save. The effect of the TFSA is that ordinary Canadians don't pay any income or capital gains tax on their securities investments. Initial uptake was slow as the contribution rules take some getting used to, but over time the program became a smash hit with Canadians. There are about 20 million Canadians with TFSAs, so the uptake is about 70%- 80% (as you have to be the age of majority in your province/territory to open a TFSA).
Eligibility to Open a TFSA
You must be a Canadian resident with a valid Social Insurance Number to open a TFSA. You must be at the voting age in the province in which you reside in order to open a TFSA, however contribution room begins to accumulate from the year in which you turned 18. You do not have to file a tax return to open a TFSA. You do not need to be a Canadian citizen to open and contribute to a TFSA. No minimum balance is required to open a TFSA.
Where you Can Open a TFSA
There are hundreds of financial institutions in Canada that offer the TFSA. There is only one kind of TFSA; however, different institutions offer a different range of financial products. Here are some examples:
The Canadian big 5 bank branches and most other financial institutions offer a TFSA that allows you to buy mutual funds, hold cash, GICs, term deposits, and possibly ETFs. This is a good choice if you want guaranteed returns or diversified investing.
There are a number of on-line banks such as Tangerine, Simplii Financial, Oaken Financial, and many more that offer the TFSA.
The discount DIY brokerage arms of the big 5 banks give you more choices, including stocks, warrants, bonds and options. There are also standalone brokers like IBKR Canada, Questrade, Qtrade, and Virtual Brokers, among others, that offer this.
Some brokerages and financial advisors also offer TFSAs that give you these investment choices, in different formats such as:
Traditional brokerage, where a stockbroker invests your money (BMO Nesbitt Burns, RBC Dominion Securities and others)
Financial advisor who will invest your money according to a plan you put together with the advisor (TSI Network and many others)
"Robo" advisors such as Wealthsimple, RBC InvestEase, BMO SmartFolio, or Wealthbar
BMO's AdviceDirect, which is a semi-directed hybrid between standalone DIY investing and fully-advised investing, where you operate on a DIY basis but have access to a registered investment advisor (a live person) who can give you suggetions and advice.
Your TFSA may be covered by either CIFP or CDIC insuranceor both. Ask your bank or broker for details.
What You Can Trade and Invest In
You can trade the following:
GICS, mutual funds, term deposits
individual common and preferred stocks listed on an "approved exchange" which is the TSX, TSX-V, NASDAQ, NYSE, and about 20 other exchanges worldwide, but not the US OTC pink sheets. Many examples, such as Suncor, Linamar, Apple, any of the big banks, and many thousands of others, when you want to buy into an individual company
stock-like securities like REITS, ETFs and ETNs, including 2x and 3x leveraged
gold and silver certificates
cash of many countries (CAD/USD/EUGBP/AUD/NZD/JPY/CHF and many others)
government bills and bonds of most countries, subsovereigns like Canadian provincial bills and bonds, and most corporations
options that trade on the Montreal Exchange or various options exchanges in the USA and the rest of the word (see FAQ for details)
gold, silver bullion certificates
shares in certain private companies -- but consult your tax advisor on this
What You Cannot Trade
You cannot trade:
commodity futures contracts
option spread positions (see FAQ for details)
anything that requires a margin account, meaning, a special kind of account that allows you to borrow money directly from the broker against the assets you have in your account and the assets you intend to buy.
crypto (although there exist crypto ETNs that you can buy)
Again, if it requires a margin account, it's out. You cannot buy on margin in a TFSA. Nothing stopping you from borrowing money from other sources as long as you stay within your contribution limits, but you can't trade on margin in a TFSA. You can of course trade long puts and calls which give you leverage.
Rules for Contribution Room
Starting at 18 you get a certain amount of contribution room. According to the CRA: You will accumulate TFSA contribution room for each year even if you do not file an Income Tax and Benefit Return or open a TFSA. The annual TFSA dollar limit for the years 2009 to2012 was $5,000. The annual TFSA dollar limit for the years 2013 and 2014 was $5,500. The annual TFSA dollar limit for the year 2015 was $10,000. The annual TFSA dollar limit for the years 2016 to 2018 was $5,500. The annual TFSA dollar limit for the year 2019 is $6,000. The TFSA annual room limit will be indexed to inflation and rounded to the nearest $500. Investment income earned by, and changes in the value of TFSA investments will not affect your TFSA contribution room for the current or future years. https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency/services/tax/individuals/topics/tax-free-savings-account/contributions.html If you don't use the room, it accumulates indefinitely. Trades you make in a TFSA are truly tax free. But you cannot claim the dividend tax credit and you cannot claim losses in a TFSA against capital gains whether inside or outside of the TFSA. So do make money and don't lose money in a TFSA. You are stuck with the 15% withholding tax on U.S. dividend distributions unlike the RRSP, due to U.S. tax rules, but you do not pay any capital gains on sale of U.S. shares. You can withdraw *both* contributions *and* capital gains, no matter how much, at any time, without penalty. The amount of the withdrawal (contributions+gains) converts into contribution room in the *next* calendar year. So if you put the withdrawn funds back in the same calendar year you take them out, that burns up your total accumulated contribution room to the extent of the amount that you re-contribute in the same calendar year.
E.g. Say you turned 18 in 2016 in Alberta where the age of majority is 18. It is now sometime in 2020. You have never contributed to a TFSA. You now have $5,500+$5,500+$5,500+$6,000+$6,000 = $28,500 of room in 2020. In 2020 you manage to put $20,000 in to your TFSA and you buy Canadian Megacorp common shares. You now have $8,500 of room remaining in 2020. Sometime in 2021 - it doesn't matter when in 2021 - your shares go to $100K due to the success of the Canadian Megacorp. You also have $6,000 worth of room for 2021 as set by the government. You therefore have $8,500 carried over from 2020+$6,000 = $14,500 of room in 2021. In 2021 you sell the shares and pull out the $100K. This amount is tax-free and does not even have to be reported. You can do whatever you want with it. But: if you put it back in 2021 you will over-contribute by $100,000 - $14,500 = $85,500 and incur a penalty. But if you wait until 2022 you will have $14,500 unused contribution room carried forward from 2021, another $6,000 for 2022, and $100,000 carried forward from the withdrawal 2021, so in 2022 you will have $14,500+$6,000+$100,000 = $120,500 of contribution room. This means that if you choose, you can put the $100,000 back in in 2022 tax-free and still have $20,500 left over. If you do not put the money back in 2021, then in 2022 you will have $120,500+$6,000 = $126,500 of contribution room. There is no age limit on how old you can be to contribute, no limit on how much money you can make in the TFSA, and if you do not use the room it keeps carrying forward forever. Just remember the following formula: This year's contribution room = (A) unused contribution room carried forward from last year + (B) contribution room provided by the government for this year + (C) total withdrawals from last year. EXAMPLE 1: Say in 2020 you never contributed to a TFSA but you were 18 in 2009. You have $69,500 of unused room (see above) in 2020 which accumulated from 2009-2020. In 2020 you contribute $50,000, leaving $19,500 contribution room unused for 2020. You buy $50,000 worth of stock. The next day, also in 2020, the stock doubles and it's worth $100,000. Also in 2020 you sell the stock and withdraw $100,000, tax-free. You continue to trade stocks within your TFSA, and hopefully grow your TFSA in 2020, but you make no further contributions or withdrawals in 2020. The question is, How much room will you have in 2021? Answer: In the year 2021, the following applies: (A) Unused contribution room carried forward from last year, 2020: $19,500 (B) Contribution room provided by government for this year, 2021: $6,000 (C) Total withdrawals from last year, 2020: $100,000 Total contribution room for 2021 = $19,500+6,000+100,000 = $125,500. EXAMPLE 2: Say between 2020 and 2021 you decided to buy a tax-free car (well you're still stuck with the GST/PST/HST/QST but you get the picture) so you went to the dealer and spent $25,000 of the $100,000 you withdrew in 2020. You now have a car and $75,000 still burning a hole in your pocket. Say in early 2021 you re-contribute the $75,000 you still have left over, to your TFSA. However, in mid-2021 you suddenly need $75,000 because of an emergency so you pull the $75,000 back out. But then a few weeks later, it turns out that for whatever reason you don't need it after all so you decide to put the $75,000 back into the TFSA, also in 2021. You continue to trade inside your TFSA but make no further withdrawals or contributions. How much room will you have in 2022? Answer: In the year 2022, the following applies: (A) Unused contribution room carried forward from last year, 2021: $125,500 - $75,000 - $75,000 = -$24,500. Already you have a problem. You have over-contributed in 2021. You will be assessed a penalty on the over-contribution! (penalty = 1% a month). But if you waited until 2022 to re-contribute the $75,000 you pulled out for the emergency..... In the year 2022, the following would apply: (A) Unused contribution room carried forward from last year, 2021: $125,500 -$75,000 =$50,500. (B) Contribution room provided by government for this year, 2022: $6,000 (C) Total withdrawals from last year, 2020: $75,000 Total contribution room for 2022 = $50,500 + $6,000 + $75,000 = $131,500. ...And...re-contributing that $75,000 that was left over from your 2021 emergency that didn't materialize, you still have $131,500-$75,000 = $56,500 of contribution room left in 2022. For a more comprehensive discussion, please see the CRA info link below.
FAQs That Have Arisen in the Discussion and Other Potential Questions:
Equity and ETF/ETN Options in a TFSA: can I get leverage? Yes. You can buy puts and calls in your TFSA and you only need to have the cash to pay the premium and broker commissions. Example: if XYZ is trading at $70, and you want to buy the $90 call with 6 months to expiration, and the call is trading at $2.50, you only need to have $250 in your account, per option contract, and if you are dealing with BMO IL for example you need $9.95 + $1.25/contract which is what they charge in commission. Of course, any profits on closing your position are tax-free. You only need the full value of the strike in your account if you want to exercise your option instead of selling it. Please note: this is not meant to be an options tutorial; see the Montreal Exchange's Equity Options Reference Manual if you have questions on how options work.
Equity and ETF/ETN Options in a TFSA: what is ok and not ok? Long puts and calls are allowed. Covered calls are allowed, but cash-secured puts are not allowed. All other option trades are also not allowed. Basically the rule is, if the trade is not a covered call and it either requires being short an option or short the stock, you can't do it in a TFSA.
Live in a province where the voting age is 19 so I can't open a TFSA until I'm 19, when does my contribution room begin? Your contribution room begins to accumulate at 18, so if you live in province where the age of majority is 19, you'll get the room carried forward from the year you turned 18.
If I turn 18 on December 31, do I get the contribution room just for that day or for the whole year? The whole year.
Do commissions paid on share transactions count as withdrawals? Unfortunately, no. If you contribute $2,000 cash and you buy $1,975 worth of stock and pay $25 in commission, the $25 does not count as a withdrawal. It is the same as if you lost money in the TFSA.
How much room do I have? If your broker records are complete, you can do a spreadsheet. The other thing you can do is call the CRA and they will tell you.
TFSATFSA direct transfer from one institution to another: this has no impact on your contributions or withdrawals as it counts as neither.
More than 1 TFSA: you can have as many as you want but your total contribution room does not increase or decrease depending on how many accounts you have.
Withdrawals that convert into contribution room in the next year. Do they carry forward indefinitely if not used in the next year? Answer :yes.
Do I have to declare my profits, withdrawals and contributions? No. Your bank or broker interfaces directly with the CRA on this. There are no declarations to make.
Risky investments - smart? In a TFSA you want always to make money, because you pay no tax, and you want never to lose money, because you cannot claim the loss against your income from your job. If in year X you have $5,000 of contribution room and put it into a TFSA and buy Canadian Speculative Corp. and due to the failure of the Canadian Speculative Corp. it goes to zero, two things happen. One, you burn up that contribution room and you have to wait until next year for the government to give you more room. Two, you can't claim the $5,000 loss against your employment income or investment income or capital gains like you could in a non-registered account. So remember Buffett's rule #1: Do not lose money. Rule #2 being don't forget the first rule. TFSA's are absolutely tailor-made for Graham-Buffett value investing or for diversified ETF or mutual fund investing, but you don't want to buy a lot of small specs because you don't get the tax loss.
Moving to/from Canada/residency. You must be a resident of Canada and 18 years old with a valid SIN to open a TFSA. Consult your tax advisor on whether your circumstances make you a resident for tax purposes. Since 2009, your TFSA contribution room accumulates every year, if at any time in the calendar year you are 18 years of age or older and a resident of Canada. Note: If you move to another country, you can STILL trade your TFSA online from your other country and keep making money within the account tax-free. You can withdraw money and Canada will not tax you. But you have to get tax advice in your country as to what they do. There restrictions on contributions for non-residents. See "non residents of Canada:" https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/formspubs/pub/rc4466/rc4466-19e.pdf
The U.S. withholding tax. Dividends paid by U.S.-domiciled companies are subject to a 15% U.S. withholding tax. Your broker does this automatically at the time of the dividend payment. So if your stock pays a $100 USD dividend, you only get $85 USD in your broker account and in your statement the broker will have a note saying 15% U.S. withholding tax. I do not know under what circumstances if any it is possible to get the withheld amount. Normally it is not, but consult a tax professional.
The U.S. withholding tax does not apply to capital gains. So if you buy $5,000 USD worth of Apple and sell it for $7,000 USD, you get the full $2,000 USD gain automatically.
Tax-Free Leverage. Leverage in the TFSA is effectively equal to your tax rate * the capital gains inclusion rate because you're not paying tax. So if you're paying 25% on average in income tax, and the capital gains contribution rate is 50%, the TFSA is like having 12.5%, no margin call leverage costing you 0% and that also doesn't magnify your losses.
Margin accounts. These accounts allow you to borrow money from your broker to buy stocks. TFSAs are not margin accounts. Nothing stopping you from borrowing from other sources (such as borrowing cash against your stocks in an actual margin account, or borrowing cash against your house in a HELOC or borrowing cash against your promise to pay it back as in a personal LOC) to fund a TFSA if that is your decision, bearing in mind the risks, but a TFSA is not a margin account. Consider options if you want leverage that you can use in a TFSA, without borrowing money.
Dividend Tax Credit on Canadian Companies. Remember, dividends paid into the TFSA are not eligible to be claimed for the credit, on the rationale that you already got a tax break.
FX risk. The CRA allows you to contribute and withdraw foreign currency from the TFSA but the contribution/withdrawal accounting is done in CAD. So if you contribute $10,000 USD into your TFSA and withdraw $15,000 USD, and the CAD is trading at 70 cents USD when you contribute and $80 cents USD when you withdraw, the CRA will treat it as if you contributed $14,285.71 CAD and withdrew $18,75.00 CAD.
OTC (over-the-counter stocks). You can only buy stocks if they are listed on an approved exchange ("approved exchange" = TSX, TSX-V, NYSE, NASDAQ and about 25 or so others). The U.S. pink sheets "over-the-counter" market is an example of a place where you can buy stocks, that is not an approved exchange, therefore you can't buy these penny stocks. I have however read that the CRA make an exception for a stock traded over the counter if it has a dual listing on an approved exchange. You should check that with a tax lawyer or accountant though.
The RRSP. This is another great tax shelter. Tax shelters in Canada are either deferrals or in a few cases - such as the TFSA - outright tax breaks, The RRSP is an example of a deferral. The RRSP allows you to deduct your contributions from your income, which the TFSA does not allow. This deduction is a huge advantage if you earn a lot of money. The RRSP has tax consequences for withdrawing money whereas the TFSA does not. Withdrawals from the RRSP are taxable whereas they are obviously not in a TFSA. You probably want to start out with a TFSA and maintain and grow that all your life. It is a good idea to start contributing to an RRSP when you start working because you get the tax deduction, and then you can use the amount of the deduction to contribute to your TFSA. There are certain rules that claw back your annual contribution room into an RRSP if you contribute to a pension. See your tax advisor.
Pensions. If I contribute to a pension does that claw back my TFSA contribution room or otherwise affect my TFSA in any way? Answer: No.
The $10K contribution limit for 2015. This was PM Harper's pledge. In 2015 the Conservative government changed the rules to make the annual government allowance $10,000 per year forever. Note: withdrawals still converted into contribution room in the following year - that did not change. When the Liberals came into power they switched the program back for 2016 to the original Harper rules and have kept the original Harper rules since then. That is why there is the $10,000 anomaly of 2015. The original Harper rules (which, again, are in effect now) called for $500 increments to the annual government allowance as and when required to keep up with inflation, based on the BofC's Consumer Price Index (CPI). Under the new Harper rules, it would have been $10,000 flat forever. Which you prefer depends on your politics but the TFSA program is massively popular with Canadians. Assuming 1.6% annual CPI inflation then the annual contribution room will hit $10,000 in 2052 under the present rules. Note: the Bank of Canada does an excellent and informative job of explaining inflation and the CPI at their website.
Losses in a TFSA - you cannot claim a loss in a TFSA against income. So in a TFSA you always want to make money and never want to lose money. A few ppl here have asked if you are losing money on your position in a TFSA can you transfer it in-kind to a cash account and claim the loss. I would expect no as I cannot see how in view of the fact that TFSA losses can't be claimed, that the adjusted cost base would somehow be the cost paid in the TFSA. But I'm not a tax lawyeaccountant. You should consult a tax professional.
Transfers in-kind to the TFSA and the the superficial loss rule. You can transfer securities (shares etc.) "in-kind," meaning, directly, from an unregistered account to the TFSA. If you do that, the CRA considers that you "disposed" of, meaning, equivalent to having sold, the shares in the unregistered account and then re-purchased them at the same price in the TFSA. The CRA considers that you did this even though the broker transfers the shares directly in the the TFSA. The superficial loss rule, which means that you cannot claim a loss for a security re-purchased within 30 days of sale, applies. So if you buy something for $20 in your unregistered account, and it's trading for $25 when you transfer it in-kind into the TFSA, then you have a deemed disposition with a capital gain of $5. But it doesn't work the other way around due to the superficial loss rule. If you buy it for $20 in the unregistered account, and it's trading at $15 when you transfer it in-kind into the TFSA, the superficial loss rule prevents you from claiming the loss because it is treated as having been sold in the unregistered account and immediately bought back in the TFSA.
Day trading/swing trading. It is possible for the CRA to try to tax your TFSA on the basis of "advantage." The one reported decision I'm aware of (emphasis on I'm aware of) is from B.C. where a woman was doing "swap transactions" in her TFSA which were not explicitly disallowed but the court rules that they were an "advantage" in certain years and liable to taxation. Swaps were subsequently banned. I'm not sure what a swap is exactly but it's not that someone who is simply making contributions according to the above rules would run afoul of. The CRA from what I understand doesn't care how much money you make in the TFSA, they care how you made it. So if you're logged on to your broker 40 hours a week and trading all day every day they might take the position that you found a way to work a job 40 hours a week and not pay any tax on the money you make, which they would argue is an "advantage," although there are arguments against that. This is not legal advice, just information.
The U.S. Roth IRA. This is a U.S. retirement savings tax shelter that is superficially similar to the TFSA but it has a number of limitations, including lack of cumulative contribution room, no ability for withdrawals to convert into contribution room in the following year, complex rules on who is eligible to contribute, limits on how much you can invest based on your income, income cutoffs on whether you can even use the Roth IRA at all, age limits that govern when and to what extent you can use it, and strict restrictions on reasons to withdraw funds prior to retirement (withdrawals prior to retirement can only be used to pay for private medical insurance, unpaid medical bills, adoption/childbirth expenses, certain educational expenses). The TFSA is totally unlike the Roth IRA in that it has none of these restrictions, therefore, the Roth IRA is not in any reasonable sense a valid comparison. The TFSA was modeled after the U.K. Investment Savings Account, which is the only comparable program to the TFSA.
The UK Investment Savings Account. This is what the TFSA was based off of. Main difference is that the UK uses a 20,000 pound annual contribution allowance, use-it-or-lose-it. There are several different flavours of ISA, and some do have a limited recontribution feature but not to the extent of the TFSA.
Is it smart to overcontribute to buy a really hot stock and just pay the 1% a month overcontribution penalty? If the CRA believes you made the overcontribution deliberately the penalty is 100% of the gains on the overcontribution, meaning, you can keep the overcontribution, or the loss, but the CRA takes the profit.
Speculative stocks-- are they ok? There is no such thing as a "speculative stock." That term is not used by the CRA. Either the stock trades on an approved exchange or it doesn't. So if a really blue chip stock, the most stable company in the world, trades on an exchange that is not approved, you can't buy it in a TFSA. If a really speculative gold mining stock in Busang, Indonesia that has gone through the roof due to reports of enormous amounts of gold, but their geologist somehow just mysteriously fell out of a helicopter into the jungle and maybe there's no gold there at all, but it trades on an approved exchange, it is fine to buy it in a TFSA. Of course the risk of whether it turns out to be a good investment or not, is on you.
Remember, you're working for your money anyway, so if you can get free money from the government -- you should take it! Follow the rules because Canadians have ended up with a tax bill for not understanding the TFSA rules. Appreciate the feedback everyone. Glad this basic post has been useful for many. The CRA does a good job of explaining TFSAs in detail at https://www.canada.ca/content/dam/cra-arc/formspubs/pub/rc4466/rc4466-19e.pdf
Unrelated but of Interest: The Margin Account
Note: if you are interested in how margin accounts work, I refer you to my post on margin accounts, where I use a straightforward explanation of the math behind margin accounts to try and give readers the confidence that they understand this powerful leveraging tool.
Earning Plays for Dummies: $UA is Under Water (Basic TA & Obvious Catalysts)
TL;DR: $UA is taking on a lot of debt because of historically low retail sales causing near bankruptcy cash flow. Largest athletic apparel retailer or not, when the business isn't making money it's losing it. Taking on LARGE amount of debt, to raise cash, to keep the doors open is not the nail in the coffin, but it is damn near close. ER this Friday 7/31 could be a historic miss and future projections, margins, growth and competition will cause a sell off. Super BEAR: 7/31 $8.50-$9 Puts Conservative BEAR: 8/14 $7.50-$8 Puts
To Bearish Autists,
Alright retards, this DD is not done by a professional CFA, CPA or single employee LLC day trading firm. I'm a college grad, with a BS in Chemistry, and i'm 100% self taught on trading for the last 5 years. It's a hobby that pays for other hobbies, not a job and definitely not a thing i do without being informed. That being said heres my hypothesis.
$UA Has Struggled
This is no secret as many of us have brand name recognition of $UA and many of us own it. We know its not Nike and it's a step above Champions and other retail store brands, but it is simply the cost efficient/value brand for people that want quality and but aren't willing to pay Nike prices or get chafed nipples from the $WMT brand. It's become the largest athletic apparel brand in the US, with growth potential in China, signing one of the NBAs biggest star Steph Curry. Heres the problem, the company is facing increased competition and Covid may of burned down the house when they closed retailers. $UA helped prove there is a middle ground between $NKE and $WMT in quality and price, but they failed to build beyond that, and now $AMZN and other other brands have saturated the market. When i need workout clothes, i look online, a small part of $UA business model. I look for value, and although i'm not buying Nike i'm not buying $UA either. There are tons of other brands that provide the same quality cheaper, and i don't care about brand at they gym, just comfort. $UA failed to build a signature style, they got Steph Curry, but i never hear a 24 year old sneaker head dying over their new pair of shoes. They failed to push online channels of distribution, "have you been to their website?", and some compare their pandemic model to $LULU but they are completely different brands by quality, price and consumer segment. The companies lack of success could be bad marketing, they have the largest athletic apparel market share, but they can't turn a decent YOY earnings report. So it comes down to poor financial management and high levels of competition driving lower margins. In 2016 $UA was nearly $50/share and its lost billions YOY. Now it's facing an unpredictable pandemic, and record low revenue on a house of debt.
Important Factors for ER
The pandemic closed retailers and one of the largest retailers of $UA is Kohl's ($KSS). Because nearly 80% of the companies worth is in their merchandise revenue, this is a major hit. The other 20% is a licensee program that they get from selling the right to 3rd party manufacturers to make and sell the brand. They get revenue from licenses, but i'm not sure about royalties. This means that wholesale manufacturers could sell to other online retailers at a lower competitive rate than $UA if they are crafty enough, and their is supposedly low oversight on this. You can buy $UA on $AMZN but that doesn't mean you will be buying directly from $UA, and this could be true in open retail stores now. from 2017 to Q1 2020 online sales on $UA website have only grown 4%. $UA has had a tough time to have a direct to consumer channel over the past two quarters. The pandemic has lead to huge losses in retail sales, and the brands themselves. This leads us to our next subject.
DEBT DEBT & More DEBT
$UA Market Cap: $4.837 Billion Liabilities: $3.387 Billion (Q1 2020) Assets: $1.550 Billion (Q1 2020) Cash is KING and $UA is in desperate need of it with a recent convertible note offering that raised over $400 million dollars. I'm not a finance expert, but here's a snippet that explains the liquidity crunch.
As of March 31, Under Armour had just $959 million in cash. Now, it recently raised another $460 million or so in a convertible note, so its total liquidity is about $1.41 billion. But if it burns through $400 million over the next two quarters, the balance would fall to $600 million or so. At that point, the company would likely have to raise permanent equity and/or a mixture of equity and debt. Right now the company’s tangible book value per share (TBVPS) is just $1.02 billion, or $2.26 per share, according to data compiled by Seeking Alpha.>So, here is the problem: By the end of Q3, with another $800 million in FCF loses, the tangible book value will fall to $224 million or so, and the TBVPS will be just 49 cents per share. If that’s the case, there is no way that UA stock would still be trading at $9.28 per share, where it was earlier this week.-InvestorsPlace (Mark Hake)
Simply put they need to be frugal and cut cost to prevent bankruptcy. this is shown further in the last two weeks when $UA announced they will sell their running/social app, MyFitnessPal. They also sought to break a sponsorship deal with UCLA to conserve cash (nearly $20mil/year). The price tag for MyFitnessPal in 2015 was $425million, i don’t think $UA will have a easy time getting anyone to buy it, much less gain on the investment. Also the sponsorship deal isn’t broken, yet, and if they do it may come with a huge monetary penalty....exactly what they want to avoid. This weeks earnings report will announce a huge amount of new liabilities along with massive reductions in revenue expectations. This is the most important part of the ER this week.
Good news this week for $UA is that they won a branding lawsuit in China this week...against a competitor that you nor I have and will never hear of. China is a very interesting component in the American economic and political world. They are a huge market, but politically they are neither our ally nor our foe. India will give us the same problem in 10-15 years. With increased tensions between DC and Beijing the risk of tariffs and american companies suffering are on the rise, especially retail and manufacturing. However, China presents a huge growth opportunity to whichever lucky retailers and brands can bribe the right officials and not get caught. $UA is one of those lucky companies, but they are competing in a tough sector. Nike, Adidas, New Balance, a zillion new brands that nobody has heard of and of course knock offs. I lived in Shanghai for a year in college, and theirs “Fake mall” everywhere selling the new Jorban’s and Rolex’s and of course $UA and the Chinese government will never stop it because they don’t practice fair trade practices, at least correctly. 30% of revenue for $UA is international business including several asian and european countries and Australia. China could eventually be more of a cash cow than the US for $UA. The international opportunity is real, but $UA may never see the light at the end of the tunnel due to this dark period of financial ruins and a competitive marketplace.
The ER for $UA is going to be devastating as it has been in quarters past. you’d be insane to think any differently as the company has only seen worse and worse circumstances with little navigational correction. The only thing that could prevent a total 15-25% downside is some sort of good news. What possible good news could they have, i personally can’t think of any if they are being honest and don’t give BS projections like $TSLA. IF you think of any, or i’m missing any honest upside to this ER please comment.
EPS: -0.4$ (Big miss) Revenue: $536mil (Near miss) Revenue is key, but the Cash flow and added liabilities will be the dagger.
A LITTLE TA & CHART PRICE ACTION
6 month Daily candle The price of $UA has been hovering around $6.40 & $10.60 for nearly 5 months. $UA has found a solid support at $8.25 and has an upward channel trend, and this has been a very slow recovery relative to other retail brands. RSI is inching toward overbought. MACD is unsure of the last two months progression and is looking to swing one way or the other after the ER, my bet is down. i expect that $UA will continue on trend nearing $10.60, if the stock price does not fall below the three day trend line(Lilac) then i will wait until thursday afternoon to buy the Puts for the morning ER Call. IF it falls below the lilac line before thursday afternoon i expect my downward channel to be correct and i purchase puts immediately. Still pondering my strategy for entry and optimizing the return, between there two option ideas. Super BEAR: 7/31 $9-$9.50 Conservative BEAR: 8/14 $7.50-$8 Puts $UA has a great value product. It has not done a good job financially due to massive oversight in fiscal management, not creating a better direct to consumer interface, and not being competitive enough in a market with stagnant margins and retail competition that can undercut and or be more popular than the other with celebrities and fashion. $UA is not $LULU, and its drowning in debt with no end in sight. Their model has failed, and their leadership has failed. I suspect retail traders who know $UA by name recognition are propping this up, not understanding their in trouble. As soon as institutional money abandons so will the pocket investors, not to poke fun at you retards. But hey, i may just be a fucking retard. P.S. - IF $UA goes under, or is bought out, which athletic apparel company gains the most? My guess is $NKE (long) or $AMZN. Edit: 7/27 today the SEC notified $UA that they will enforce action against the company for accounting practices seen as fraudulent in 2016 and 2017. It keeps getting worse. Edit: 7/30 today will most likely be the best opportunity to get cheap 10-20% OTM puts for Friday’s earning call. The stock is shrugged off SEC notices to top executives and a gloomy prediction for earnings. But the market isn’t rational right now, if it ever is, and the stock is looking to squeeze out of its channel past $10.60, and people will take profit before the crash after ER. Edit: 7/30 AH. 2500 shares pushed the stock up nearly 4%...still expecting big downward projection come morning. Bought 8/14 $8.50 puts this AM. Edit: 7/30 AH. 10,000 volume pushed the stock up 10% when it moves 1-2% on 5-7 million volume days. I smell stock manipulation by an insider who want to distract from the ER. Result: AH high of $12.80 and down to $10.25 pre market, I didn’t expect price action to play such a large role in this ER. Final: watching for 8/14 $8 put, won’t hold till expire most likely. AH/PM on 7/31 was wild and ruined the lotto for 7/31. I’m convinced it was manipulated, why else would a stock increase 25% AH before earnings and drop 27% thereafter from the AH high...in the first hour of trading...they wanted the stock to have buffer and show a new price action target/action...should of dropped below $9 but $9.49 from $12.80 high at least validates my opinion to some degree. $9.31 new support for monday, may blow past support channel at $8.90 and then drop to $8.20 soon after. OR there could be a retracement to the idiotic $12.81. All in all Lost 1% of my account on a yolo, truly retarded. Daily Candles 1min candles - Note AH pump...
Background: Sunpower produces the world's most efficient solar PV panels. As a sector, solar's growth has been absolutely insane (just look at how the IEA has underestimated it every single year for the past decade), and it's only going to keep skyrocketing as governments launch economic stimulus packages in the hundreds of billions (€750 billion already on deck for the EU, which has the world's most ambitious climate targets, plus individual European countries on their own / eventually the Green New Deal in the US when Green becomes the new Orange). Sunpower is set to spin off its solar pv manufacturing business, Maxeon, this Friday. Maxeon will produce its solar PV panels (the Chinese fund TZS is taking a 30% stake for $300 million - valuing Maxeon at $1 Billion - and SPWR shareholders will own the remaining 70%) and then Sunpower will operate as a stand-alone residential and commercial solar energy services company (i.e., like Sunrun). The point is to allow the market to more accurately value both parts of the company: the current market cap is like $2 billion, whereas Maxeon is going to be valued at $1 billion alone at the moment of spinoff. Sunpower will have exclusive license to Maxeon solar panels in the US for the next 2 years. Anyone who owns Sunpower as of Friday will, on August 27, receive 1 share of Maxeon for every 8 shares they own of Sunpower. Long term catalyst (the revaluing): With Maxeon spun off, what's left of Sunpower is basically the same business as Sunrun (RUN): residential and commercial solar services. Basically, the market doesn't like conglomerates, and the manufacturing side is much lower margin than the solar services side, so the market has been valuing Sunpower far less than Sunrun. Sunpower is valued at 1x sales whereas Sunrun is valued at 6x sales. This is nuts, especially given that Sunpower beat its latest earnings estimates on both revenue and profit, and Sunrunmissed its latest earnings estimates on revenue and profit. In the long term, Sunpower should absolutely be revalued to the same price:sales ratio as Sunrun, which means there is huge upside. Short term catalyst (the squeeze): There are more shares sold short than available shares that trade on the market. Far more. Here's why: SPWR has 170 million shares. Total (the oil giant) owns 90 million shares of SPWR (because they know oil is fucked and that solar is the future). Nasdaq shows that other institutional holders (ETFs like TAN and mutual funds, etc) own 41.5% of the outstanding stock, or 70.5 million shares. So far we are at 90 million + 70.5 million = 160.5 million. 170 million - 160.5 million = 9.5 million. Ok? But there are 25 million shares sold short, while the total available float of shares is just ~9.5 million. Total sure as shit is not selling its 90 million. And most of the institutions holding big positions are not trading shops and hedge funds, they are holding as a part of ETF indices or mutual funds, so they aren't just going to sell their shares either. When SPWR starts seriously progressing upwards, the shorts are going to be hella, hella fucked, because there aren't enough shares at all for them to all cover their positions. SPWR Price target: $55
2020 Offseason Review Series: The Seattle Seahawks
Seattle Seahawks – 2020 Offseason Review Series
I. Basic Information
Seattle Seahawks – 45th Season, Eleventh under Pete Carroll, Ninth under Russell Wilson Division: NFC West 2019 Record: 11-5
Second in NFC West
Won Wild Card Weekend @ Eagles (17-9)
Lost Divisional Round @ Packers (23-28)
Welcome to the 2020 Offseason Review Series for the Seattle Seahawks. I hope you all are safe, healthy, that the scourge that is gripping the country does not affect you in the future. Like everyone, I want us all to maximize our potential to watch the NFL this year, so lets all do our part – wear a mask, wash your hands, don’t touch your face, avoid sick people, and encourage everyone you know to do the same as well. With that said, lets get into this eleven thousand post proper. After two years of rebuilding “turning” the roster since Pete Carroll jettisoned the Legion of Boom after the 2017 campaign collapsed, the Seahawks entered into the 2020 Offseason with a high bar to satisfy. They have one of the top two quarterbacks in the NFL (the most important position in sports) in Russell Wilson, the best MLB in the NFL in Bobby Wagner, both of whom are on track to be immortalized in Canton when they retire. They have two WRs that would soon be ranked in the NFL Top 100 – Tyler Lockett (65) and DK Metcalf (81). They have their head coach and general manager locked up for two more seasons. The pressure is on to make a deep playoff push sooner rather than later – Pete is the oldest head coach in the NFL and Wagner is on the wrong side of 30. The issues that plagued the roster seemed easily identifiable and solvable: (1) find additional players to rush the passer; (2) fix the offensive line (a common refrain for as long as I’ve drafted this post); and (3) increase competition for the right cornerback position. Everything looked on track to solve those issues as well – the Seahawks entered into the offseason with four picks in the first 3 rounds, including two second round picks and SIXTY MILLION in cap space… enough to sign, as Russell Wilson called for at the NFL Pro Bowl, a couple more superstars to put the team over the top. What did the Seahawks do with those picks and that money? That is what we are here to discuss.
III. Coaching Changes
The Seahawks made more changes than usual to the coaching staff than in most of the years that I’ve been writing this column. Most of those changes are localized to the bottom of the coaching roster, as the Seahawks return all six of their Director or higher members of the front office, and all three coordinator positions. Interesting and relevant changes are summarized below:
Addition – Alonzo Highsmith, Personnel Executive. Highsmith, who learned under Ted Thompson with John Schneider, logged 19 seasons with the Green Bay Packers player personnel department. By 2012, Highsmith was a Senior Personnel Executive for the Packers, and spent two years with the Browns from 2018-2019 as the Vice President of Player Personnel. He was let go when the Browns cleaned out Freddie Kitchens and John Dorsey. Highsmith worked with the team as a consultant for the 2020 draft and was hired full-time in June.
Addition – Steve Hutchinson, Football Consultant. The former first-round pick and soon-to-be Hall of Fame inductee also started work with the team in 2020, scouting offensive line talent at the Senior Bowl before being hired on full time to learn the scouting and player personnel ropes.
Addition – Aaron Curry, Defensive Assistant/Linebackers. Aaron Curry was a part-time assistant with the linebacker group last season, but was hired full-time for 2020. His LinkedIn states that he is responsible for quality control.
New Position – Brennan Carroll, Run Game Coordinator. Brennan Davis, son of Pete Carroll, has come a long way since Carroll hired him to serve as assistant offensive line coach back in 2015 with no background in coaching offensive linemen. The use of Run Game and Passing Game Coordinator has not been seen since the days of Bevell and Cable, when both of them split play calling duties. It remains to be seen how much impact Pete’s nepotism in promoting his son will have on the team, but it remains a point of concern, considering under Brennan, the offensive line has been a dumpster fire. Fortunately, when your father is the head coach you can fail upwards quite easily.
New Position – Austin Davis, Quarterbacks Coach. Austin Davis received a promotion from Offensive Assistant because Dave Canales (the previous QB coach) was promoted to Passing Game Coordinator. Austin Davis is still the most recent non-Russell Wilson QB to enter a regular season game (back in 2017!), and now he has to coach Russell Wilson, whom he backed up.
Retirement – Pat Ruel, Assistant Offensive Line Coach. The ten-year Seahawks vet and 47-year offensive line coach finally hung up his whistle, presumably because of COVID-19 related risks right before training camp was set to commence. Ruel is 69 and probably at high-risk for serious complications if he would catch the disease. Ruel was one of Pete’s USC coaches that followed him from college to the pros when he was hired.
IV. Free Agency (Players Lost/Cut)
The loss of Al Woods and Quinton Jefferson will be felt – as both played surprisingly well for the Seahawks even though the line itself, as a collective, was probably close to the worst in the NFL. Over 14 games, Jefferson had 3.5 sacks (second for the team overall), had 10 QB hits, had four tackles for loss, recovered a fumble, and deflected three passes. Al Woods did yeoman’s work for the Seahawks, providing a run-stopping solution on early downs when teams chose not to run at Clowney (for good reason), but still managed to recover two fumbles, rack up 32 tackles, and generate three tables for loss and a QB hit. Both have not been satisfactorily replaced, as discussed later. Taking a step back, one of the things that stands out to me over the many years that I’ve written this post and illustrates how far the Seahawks have fallen in terms of talent is that they used to be so loaded that their castoffs would go on to be starters for other teams. Players like Benson Mayowa, Spencer Ware, Jaye Howard, Robert Turbin all come to mind as players who were drafted and later released by the Seahawks when they were really rolling that went on to have successful careers elsewhere. Looking at the list above, most are not homegrown talent, and out of those that are – Fant, Ifedi, Thompson, and Britt… could we say that it is likely that any of them have a high likelihood of success elsewhere? Maybe Fant, but that is probably wishful thinking at best. The Seahawks are quite threadbare in terms of starting caliber depth players, which is partially due to the disastrous drafting done by Pete and John from 2013-2017. Gone are the days when the Seahawks releases would get swooped up right after release or snapped up on the waiver wire. V. Free Agency (Players Re-signed)
V. Free Agency (Players Re-Signed)
The highlight of the Seahawks re-signings was Jarran Reed. Reed was re-signed before free agency started to a 2 year, $23m contract that included a $10m signing bonus and $14.1m guaranteed (essentially the entire first year). However, after the contract details came out – he essentially signed a one-year deal because if he does not perform, he can be released with no dead cap in 2021. Everyone else was signed to minimum or RFA deals.
VI. Free Agency (New Players Signed or Acquired)
The first signing that Seattle made was to sign Greg Olsen to a one-year, $7 million contract. Olsen, who is now 35, has developed some injury concerns after logging nine straight seasons where he played every game, only playing in 16 games total between the 2017 and 2018 seasons and missing two games in 2019. With a longer than usual offseason with no OTAs, Olsen said that this offseason has been a dream for him, as he was able to give his body extra time to rest and recover. Brandon Shell signed a two-year, $11 million deal with the Seahawks, who signed George Fant to replace him. Shell played RT for the Jets, and had a 63.6 grade by PFF for the 2019 season, as he allowed seven sacks, and committed five penalties. He looks to be a marginal at best upgrade over former-RT Germain Ifedi, who committed thirteen penalties and allowed six sacks. Ifedi’s 2019 PFF grade was 56.2. BJ Finney signed a two-year $5.9 million deal. Finney looks to compete for spots at Center for the team. His main competition will be Joey Hunt, so perhaps he could be penciled in as the starter. He has played at other interior O-line spots as well, so his versatility and experience will be key in an offseason shortened by COVID. Pete Carroll, having exhausted all of the 2013 NFL first round reclamation projects, now turns to the 2015 NFL draft, bringing in known bust Cedric Ogbuehi, who signed a 3.3m one-year deal. Ogbuehi has not played more than 200 snaps in the past two seasons, looks to compete in what could be his last chance to make it in the NFL. Instead of re-signing Clowney or making a splash move to bolster the pass rush, the Seahawks brought back two former Seahawks – Bruce Irvin and Benson Mayowa in free agency. Bruce Irvin, who turns 33 this season, had career high sacks (8.5) for Carolina. His one-year contract is worth $5.5 million. Mayowa, who just turned 29, had career high sacks for Oakland (7.0). Mayowa’s one-year contract is worth $3 million. Carlos Hyde signed a 1-year, $2.75m contract in May to provide depth just in case Chris Carson and Rashaad Penny cannot start the season. Hyde underwent surgery in February to repair a torn labrum, but should be ready to start the NFL season.
VII. Free Agency Cost Roundup
Coming into Free Agency, the Seahawks had around $60 million in cap space to use as they saw fit. By the end of free agency, they had spent $53.4 million of that on new or returning players:
Jarran Reed $9.35m
Greg Olsen $6.9m
Bruce Irvin $5.9m
B.J. Finney $3.5m
Brandon Shell $3.475m
Quinton Dunbar $3.421m
Jacob Hollister $3.259m
Benson Mayowa $3.018m
Mike Iupati $2.5m
Cedric Obuehi $2.237m
Joey Hunt $2.1m
Branden Jackson $2.1m
David Moore $2.1m
Neiko Thorpe $887,500
Luke Willson $887,500
Phillip Dorsett $887,500
Chance Warmack $887,500
VIII. 2019 Draft + Grades
A. Draft Analysis
After Free Agency, the Seahawks entered into the 2019 NFL Draft with four picks in the first three rounds (three natural picks plus the Chiefs 2nd Round Selection at 64 because of the Frank Clark trade in 2019). With basket of riches that the team had rarely had, expectations were high that the Seahawks would address at least one of their two still-glaring needs in the offseason – offensive and defensive play in the trenches in the first round. At this point, the Seahawks believed they had solved their cornerback issue by trading for Quinton Dunbar, who had not been arrested yet – leaving two clear holes with a few chances to fill them. Let’s look at how desperate the Seahawks needed to be when it came to the trenches. Pro Football Focus ranked the Seahawks at 27th in terms of Offensive Line play following the 2019 regular season. The Seahawks gave up 48 sacks of Russell Wilson, his second highest total in his career, and the seventh straight that he had been sacked 41 times or more. On defense, the Seahawks were tied for second-lowest in terms of sacks in 2019, with only the 5-11 Dolphins having less. According to Pro Football Reference, the Seahawks only generated some form of pressure 19.3% of the time, good for 28th in the NFL and gave up 6.0 yards per play (6,106 yards on defense, total), good for a tie for second worst in the NFL. Yet, what position did they end up drafting with their most significant piece? A non-rush, inside linebacker. This was after they currently pay Bobby Wagner 18m APY (the Seahawks current MLB), retained WILL LB K.J. Wright for another year (costing the team $10,000,000 against the cap), brought in Bruce Irvin to play SAM LB on early downs (locking down all three LB spots for 2020), and drafted a Linebacker (Cody Barton) in the 2019 third round (the previous year!) to serve as the heir apparent to Wright. Where does Brooks see the field? Did we really spend a first rounder to burn a year of cheap club control to serve as a backup? While the Seahawks did make some good draft choices following the LB pick, spending a 1st round selection on a player that won’t immediately see the field in some capacity (with two, maybe three inked in starters ahead of him) is not a decision that should be lauded in any capacity.
B. First Round, Pick Number 27: Jordyn Brooks, LB, Texas Tech
This will become a broken record by the time you finish reading this post – but for Brooks, I like the player, but hate the cost and the thought process behind it. Brooks is an old school, run stopping, TFL-generating thumper LB. He rarely misses tackles. He had 20 TFLs. The Seahawks were absolutely horrendous at stopping the run last year (full details later in this post). It makes sense. He generates momentum stopping hits and has good burst to chase down the ball carrier. However, he isn’t going to be as great as Logan Wilson or Patrick Queen in dropping into a zone in coverage or picking up a TE or the RB for man coverage. Queen’s hips are more fluid, and Wilson is much more of a ballhawk. Brooks demonstrated some coverage ability in 2018, but expecting him to cover TE monsters like Kittle on the 49ers or Higbee/Everett on the Rams seems like a recipe for getting burned. In a division with modern high-powered offenses under young head coaches, I wonder about the value of the oldest head coach in the NFL drafting an old-school LB when the league is evolving. Brooks will always be compared to Queen especially, as he was drafted right after him by the Ravens.
C. Second Round, Pick Number 48: Darrell Taylor, DE, Tennessee
As much as I did not like the Brooks pick, I love the Darrell Taylor pick. I just hate that the Seahawks had to give up a third rounder to go get him, even though the Seahawks have a pretty good track record when they trade up for a player (Tyler Lockett, DK Metcalf, Jarran Reed, Michael Dickson) Love the player, hate the cost. Taylor is as close to a prototypical LEO that existed in the 2020 NFL draft, which was not full of twitched up DEs outside of Chase Young at the top. He has the burst off the edge that the Seahawks have been missing since Frank Clark was traded. Taylor has all of the potential to develop into an amazing edge rusher, but he is not refined enough to be expected to succeed right away. Indeed, when I watched his film and not his highlights where he was able to obliterate non-NFL level talent (seriously, watch him obliterate Mississippi State’s walk-on LT #79), he was routinely stonewalled by the cream-of-the-crop SEC tackles, like Georgia’s Andrew Thomas and Isaiah Wilson and Alabama’s Jedrick Wills, which does not bode well for the next level. However, if Pete and the rest of the coaching staff can sharpen his physical gifts, he could develop into a monster. He will also need to demonstrate that he can reliably stop the run to be a true three-down lineman for the Seahawks.
D. Third Round, Pick Number 69: Damien Lewis, OG, LSU
I thought the Seahawks got a steal when Damien Lewis was still around in the third, as I had a second-round grade on him. Lewis is a mauler that opened up huge holes in the run game and still provided value in the passing game, especially having to face the five and four-star monsters that most SEC teams have at DT. When LSU were pushing to go undefeated at the end of the year, Lewis was the best guard in college football from Week 11 onwards according to PFF. He didn’t stop there, as Lewis destroyed everyone at the Senior Bowl, winning almost 70% of his 1v1 drills according to PFF. While it will be hard for Lewis to fight his way into a starting role with no rookie mini-camp, no OTAs, and limited padded practices in training camp, I would not be surprised if Lewis was the starter by 2021.
E. Fourth Round, Pick Number 133, Colby Parkinson, TE, Stanford
Colby Parkinson is a physical freak. Dude stands at 6’7”, has a 32.5 inch vertical jump, and has 33” arms – a massive catch radius. He has stated that he plans to play at 260 pounds, adding around eight more pounds onto his frame. While his straight line speed is nothing that jumps off the page at 4.77 seconds in the 40 yard dash, he was a red-zone nightmare. His hands are amazing, as he did not drop a single pass in 2019. 48 targets, 48 catches. He wasn’t much of an in-line blocker, but he was willing and gave effort. His stock was sky high coming into 2019 after catching seven touchdowns, but poor QB play from Stanford lowered his stock considerably, especially as he only managed to catch one TD in 2019. If he had seven touchdowns again in 2019, I think he’s an early third rounder. He looked to be an interesting prospect for the Seahawks but broke a bone in his foot while working out, which required surgery. With the Seahawks tight end room looking crowded, it looks like Parkinson might have to “red-shirt” the year on the PUP list.
F. Fourth Round, Pick Number 144, DeeJay Dallas, RB, Miami
Dallas is a Pete Carroll running back – he runs angry. He wants to get into contact, and push through. Former teammate of Seahawks RB Travis Homer, Dallas will fight Homer for a role as the #3 RB behind Carson and Hyde with Penny starting the year on PUP. Dallas will also compete for special teams, likely on the coverage unit. Dallas was also a converted WR, so has a lot of tread left on his tires and could be a weapon out of the backfield, something that has been lacking for Pete Carroll’s RBs since Marshawn Lynch departed for the first time. Dallas doesn’t have the home run hitting speed that Penny brought to the team, but he has enough to hit a crease and make a big 10-20 yard gain.
G. Fifth Round, Pick Number 148, Alton Robinson, DE, Syracuse
The Seahawks love taking risks on physical gifts. Alton Robinson is a player that has all of the tools (prototypical size, length, power and speed), but had significantly underwhelming tape and a lot of off-the-field concerns. Robinson is a speed rusher that has a ton of juice off the snap and the hips to bend around the corner. If you watch his highlights, he looks like a first or second round pick. His flashes when he turns it on are everything that you want in a speed pass rusher. However, at this point, all he has is the speed rush, as his power moves are nonexistent. Watching his tape further illustrates his inability to re-direct inside as well, where he also looks disinterested (and sometimes outright loafs around) when not called to pass rush – especially if the ball carrier runs away from his side of the line. It must also be brought up that he was arrested and charged with second-degree felony robbery in 2016 (which led to his offer to Texas A&M being pulled) and alleged to have been involved in another similar robbery in 2015. The 2016 charges were later dropped in 2017.
H. Sixth Round, Pick Number 214, Freddie Swain, WR, Florida
Freddie Swain is a slot WR brought in to compete with Dorsett, Ursua, and others. He also looks to factor in as a kick/punt returner with his 4.4 speed. He isn’t the best route runner, but he made up for that with good hands and RAC ability. With the Seahawks spots after Lockett and Metcalf at #1 and #2 wide open for competition, Swain will get chances to carve out a spot for himself if he can quickly demonstrate that he can be reliable for Wilson.
I. Seventh Round, Pick Number 251, Steven Sullivan, TE/WR, LSU
Pete Carroll loves big targets. He’s always kept a big target around at the bottom of the WR depth chart, whether it’s Chris Matthews, Jazz Ferguson, or Tyrone Swoopes… if you’re big, you might have a shot in Seattle to stick around for a bit. While Pete and John already brought in Colby Parkinson, the Seahawks couldn’t resist doubling up and getting Sullivan, who is the definition of grit. His length (35.5 inch arms), explosiveness (36.5” vert, 4.6 40), and hands are intriguing tools. --------
I try to be realistic when it comes to the Offseason Review Series, because it is too easy for any writer to predict a successful campaign with homer goggles and the excitement (and subsequent dopamine hit) from offseason acquisitions. I myself have done so in the past – you only need to read my 13-3 prediction in 2017, a year where the team actually collapsed to 9-7. Thus, even when the Seahawks acquire elite talent, I have to take into account whether or not they can quickly fit into the scheme or if the coaching staff will try to force a square peg into a round hole. Who could have predicted that the Seahawks would try to make Jimmy Graham block when he was an elite pass catcher and red zone threat? It took Pete Carroll three years to figure that out! The Seahawks came into the offseason with two big holes on the roster, but had the potential to make this offseason one to rival 2013 when they put themselves over the top by adding two of the best pass rushers in free agency to add to the one pass rusher they already had. They had the money to be aggressive, but chose to patiently wait for Clowney and let the rest of the market pass them by. They also chose to completely re-build the offensive line in what turned out to be a COVID-shortened offseason, and their timidity in the defensive line market cost them the ability to sign proven, plug-and-play talent like Jack Conklin. Instead, the Seahawks frittered away their $60m nest egg on unproven and reclamation projects. Thus, both sides of the trenches are still gaping holes on the roster, and time will only tell if Russell Wilson can captain this ship and still make magic happen or if those holes in the vessel turn out to be on or below the waterline, and the season sinks. Time will only tell. I'd like to give a shout-out to Seahawks Twitter and the Seahawks Discord for being consistently awful, /NFL_Draft for hosting some of the best draft conversation, PlatypusOfDeath for hosting this thing, and all of you for reading it. Link to Hub.
• We use survey data from 2015 to examine the financial literacy and other characteristics of US investors with non-retirement investment accounts (both advised and self-directed) – focusing on investors who have margin approval from their brokerages or margin-trading experience (i.e., investors who have ever purchased securities on margin). The booming stock prices in the first half of 2015 encouraged margin trading activities, which caused the margin position to skyrocket. By June 2015, it more than doubled its value from the beginning of the 2015. However, when the stock market crashed between July and August of 2015, the margin trading activities also crashed. When margin bets go sour, investors are forced to quickly pay back huge amounts of cash, or liquidate their trading accounts. Buying on margin is incredibly risky, but has become commonplace among ... The trading operating profit margin improvement was the result of careful pricing and significant cost reductions which were partly reinvested in promotional and marketing activities to generate future growth. Zone AOA. Sales of CHF 14.3 billion, 0.5% organic growth, -0.1% real internal growth; 18.4% trading operating profit margin, -80 basis ... Margin trading is the act of borrowing funds from a broker with the aim of investing in financial securities Marketable Securities Marketable securities are unrestricted short-term financial instruments that are issued either for equity securities or for debt securities of a publicly listed company.
Published on Nov 10, 2015. GST45 How to start a New Margin Scheme Database. ... What is a Margin Account? What is Margin Trading? - Duration: 10:02. Financial Education 151,965 views. Published on Oct 8, 2015. Most investors have heard of margin trading, but exactly what is it and why would an investor want to use it? --~-- Today I tell your how I lost over $147,000 stock market trading. Part of it was when i went crazy and started stock trading on Margin in 2015. Another part of it was when I invested in a ... How to calculate margin calls and margin account balances. ... 2015. How to calculate margin calls and margin account balances ... Margin Trading 101: How It Works - Duration: 7:02. Trading Quotes 2,015 ... Margin of Safety - Seth Klarman's 10 Rules for Investing Success - Duration: 14:32. Invest with Sven Carlin, Ph.D. 24,922 views. 14:32. RAY DALIO Best Trading And Life ...