What is Margin Trading? Definition of Margin Trading ...

How the TFSA works

(Updated August 9th, 2020)


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:


The second is a recording of a university lecture given by investment legend Warren Buffett, who expounds on the same principles:


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:


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:

What You Cannot Trade

You cannot trade:

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 to 2012 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.

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.


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.

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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. TFSATFSA direct transfer from one institution to another: this has no impact on your contributions or withdrawals as it counts as neither.
  8. 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.
  9. Withdrawals that convert into contribution room in the next year. Do they carry forward indefinitely if not used in the next year? Answer :yes.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. 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.
  24. 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.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. 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.
  28. 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.
  29. 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.

How Margin Loans Work - a Primer

submitted by KhingoBhingo to CanadianInvestor [link] [comments]

The Mouthbreather's Guide to the Galaxy

The Mouthbreather's Guide to the Galaxy
Alright CYKAS, Drill Sgt. Retarded TQQQ Burry is in the house. Listen up, I'm gonna train yo monkey asses to make some motherfucking money.

“Reeee can’t read, strike?” - random_wsb_autist
Bitch you better read if you want your Robinhood to look like this:
gainz, bitch

Why am I telling you this?
Because I like your dumb asses. Even dickbutts like cscqb4. And because I like seeing Wall St. fucking get rekt. Y’all did good until now, and Wall St. is salty af. Just google for “retail traders” news if you haven’t seen it, and you’ll see the salty tears of Wall Street assholes. And I like salty Wall St. assholes crying like bitches.

That said, some of you here are really motherfucking dense & the sheer influx of retardation has been driving away some of the more knowledgeable folks on this sub. In fact, in my last post, y'all somehow managed to downvote to shit the few guys that really understood the points I was making and tried to explain it to you poo-slinging apes. Stop that shit yo! A lot of you need to sit the fuck down, shut your fucking mouth and listen.
So I'm going to try and turn you rag-tag band of dimwits into a respectable army of peasants that can clap some motherfucking Wall Street cheeks. Then, I'm going to give you a mouthbreather-proof trade that I don't think even you knuckleheads can mess up (though I may be underestimating you).
If you keep PM-ing me about your stupid ass losses after this, I will find out where you live and personally, PERSONALLY, shit on your doorstep.
This is going to be a long ass post. Read the damned post. I don't care if you're dyslexic, use text-to-speech. Got ADHD? Pop your addys, rub one out, and focus! Are you 12? Make sure to go post in the paper trading contest thread first.

  1. Understand that most of this sub has the critical reading skills of a 6 year old and the attention span of a goldfish. As such, my posts are usually written with a level of detail aimed at the lowest common denominator. A lot of details on the thesis are omitted, but that doesn't mean that the contents in the post are all there is to it. If I didn't do that, every post'd have to be longer than this one, and 98% of you fucks wouldn't read it anyway. Fuck that.
  2. Understand that my style of making plays is finding the >10+ baggers that are underpriced. As such, ALL THE GOD DAMN PLAYS I POST ARE HIGH-RISK / HIGH-REWARD. Only play what you can afford to risk. And stop PM-ing me the second the market goes the other way, god damn it! If you can't manage your own positions, I'm going to teach your ass the basics.
  3. Do you have no idea what you're doing and have a question? Google it first. Then google it again. Then Bing it, for good measure. Might as well check PornHub too, you never know. THEN, if you still didn't find the answer, you ask.
  4. This sub gives me Tourette's. If you got a problem with that, well fuck you.

This shit is targeted at the mouthbreathers, but maybe more knowledgeable folk’ll find some useful info, idk. How do you know if you’re in the mouthbreather category? If your answer to any of the following questions is yes, then you are:
  • Are you new to trading?
  • Are you unable to manage your own positions?
  • Did you score into the negatives on the SAT Critical Reading section?
  • Do you think Delta is just an airline?
  • Do you buy high & sell low?
  • Do you want to buy garbage like Hertz or American Airlines because it's cheap?
  • Did you buy USO at the bottom and are now proud of yourself for making $2?
  • Do you think stOnKs oNLy Go uP because Fed brrr?
  • Do you think I'm trying to sell you puts?
  • If you take a trade you see posted on this sub and are down, do you PM the guy posting it?
  • Do you generally PM people on this sub to ask them basic questions?
  • Is your mouth your primary breathing apparatus?
Well I have just the thing for you!

Table of Contents:
I. Maybe, just maybe, I know what I’m talking about
II. Post-mortem of the February - March 2020 Great Depression
III. Mouthbreather's bootcamp on managing a position – THE TECHNICALS
IV. Busting your retarded myths
VI. The mouthbreather-proof trade - The Akimbo
VII. Quick hints for non-mouthbreathers

Chapter I - Maybe, just maybe, I know what I’m talking about
I'm not here to rip you off. Every fucking time I post something, a bunch of dumbasses show up saying I'm selling you puts or whatever the fuck retarded thoughts come through their caveman brains.
"hurr durr OP retarded, OP sell puts" - random_wsb_autist
Sit down, Barney, I'm not here to scam you for your 3 cents on OTM puts. Do I always get it right? Of course not, dumbasses. Eurodollar play didn't work out (yet). Last TQQQ didn't work out (yet). That’s just how it goes. Papa Buffet got fucked on airlines. Plain retard Burry bought GME. What do you fucking expect?
Meanwhile, I keep giving y'all good motherfucking plays:
  1. 28/10/2019: "I'ma say this again, in case you haven't heard me the first time. BUY $JNK PUTS NOW!". Strike: "11/15, 1/17 and 6/19". "This thing can easily go below 50, so whatever floats your boat. Around $100 strike is a good entry point."
  2. 3/9/2020: "I mean it's a pretty obvious move, but $JNK puts."
  3. 3/19/2020, 12pm: "UVXY put FDs are free money." & “Buy $UVXY puts expiring tomorrow if we're still green at 3pm. Trust me.”
  4. 3/24/2020: “$UUP 3/27 puts at $27.5 or $27 should be 10-baggers once the bill passes. I'd expect it to go to around $26.”
And of course, the masterpiece that was the TQQQ put play.
Chapter II. Post-mortem of the February - March 2020 Great Depression
Do you really understand what happened? Let's go through it.
I got in puts on 2/19, right at the motherfucking top, TQQQ at $118. I told you on 2/24 TQQQ ($108) was going to shit, and to buy fucking puts, $90ps, $70ps, $50ps, all the way to 3/20 $30ps. You think I just pulled that out of my ass? You think I just keep getting lucky, punks? Do you have any idea how unlikely that is?
Well, let's take a look at what the fuckstick Kevin Cook from Zacks wrote on 3/5:
How Many Sigmas Was the Flash Correction Plunge?
"Did you know that last week's 14% plunge in the S&P 500 SPY was so rare, by statistical measures, that it shouldn't happen once but every 14,000 years?"
"By several measures, it was about a 5-sigma move, something that's not "supposed to" happen more than once in your lifetime -- or your prehistoric ancestors' lifetimes!
"According to general statistical principles, a 4-sigma event is to be expected about every 31,560 days, or about 1 trading day in 126 years. And a 5-sigma event is to be expected every 3,483,046 days, or about 1 day every 13,932 years."

On 3/5, TQQQ closed at $81. I just got lucky, right? You should buy after a 5-sigma move, right? That's what fuckstick says:
"Big sigma moves happen all the time in markets, more than any other field where we collect and analyze historical data, because markets are social beasts subject to "wild randomness" that is not found in the physical sciences.
This was the primary lesson of Nassim Taleb's 2007 book The Black Swan, written before the financial crisis that found Wall Street bankers completely ignorant of randomness and the risks of ruin."
I also took advantage of the extreme 5-sigma sell-off by grabbing a leveraged ETF on the Nasdaq 100, the ProShares UltraPro QQQ TQQQ. In my plan, while I might debate the merits of buying AAPL or MSFT for hours, I knew I could immediately buy them both with TQQQ and be rewarded very quickly after the 14% plunge."
Ahahaha, fuckstick bought TQQQ at $70, cuz that's what you do after a random 5-sigma move, right? How many of you dumbasses did the same thing? Don't lie, I see you buying 3/5 on this TQQQ chart:
Meanwhile, on 3/3, I answered the question "Where do you see this ending up at in the next couple weeks? I have 3/20s" with "under 30 imo".

Well good fucking job, because a week later on 3/11, TQQQ closed at $61, and it kept going.
Nomura: Market staring into the abyss
"The plunge in US equities yesterday (12 March) pushed weekly returns down to 7.7 standard deviations below the norm. In statistical science, the odds of a greater-than seven-sigma event of this kind are astronomical to the point of being comical (about one such event every 160 billion years).
Let's see what Stephen Mathai-Davis, CFA, CQF, WTF, BBQ, Founder and CEO of Q.ai - Investing Reimagined, a Forbes Company, and a major fucktard has to say at this point:

"Our AI models are telling us to buy SPY (the SPDR S&P500 ETF and a great proxy for US large-cap stocks) but since all models are based on past data, does it really make sense? "
"While it may or may not make sense to buy stocks, it definitely is a good time to sell “volatility.” And yes, you can do it in your brokerage account! Or, you can ask your personal finance advisor about it."
"So what is the takeaway? I don’t know if now is the right time to start buying stocks again but it sure looks like the probabilities are in your favor to say that we are not going to experience another 7 standard deviation move in U.S. Stocks. OTM (out-of-the-money) Put Spreads are a great way to get some bullish exposure to a rally in the SPY while also shorting such rich volatility levels."
Good job, fuckfaces. Y'all bought this one too, admit it. I see you buying on this chart:
Well guess what, by 3/18, a week later, we did get another 5 standard deviation move. TQQQ bottomed on 3/18 at $32.73. Still think that was just luck, punk? You know how many sigmas that was? Over 12 god-damn sigmas. 12 standard deviations. I'd have a much better chance of guessing everyone's buttcoin private key, in a row, on the first try. That's how unlikely that is.
"Hurr durr you said it's going to 0, so you're retarded because it didn't go to 0" - random_wsb_autist
Yeah, fuckface, because the Fed bailed ‘em out. Remember the $150b “overnight repo” bazooka on 3/17? That’s what that was, a bailout. A bailout for shitty funds and market makers like Trump's handjob buddy Kenny Griffin from Citadel. Why do you think Jamie Dimon had a heart attack in early March? He saw all the dogshit that everyone put on his books.



Yup, everyone got clapped on their stupidly leveraged derivatives books. It seems Citadel is “too big to fail”. On 3/18, the payout on 3/20 TQQQ puts alone if it went to 0 was $468m. And every single TQQQ put expiration would have had to be paid. Tens or hundreds of billions on TQQQ puts alone. I’d bet my ass Citadel was on the hook for a big chunk of those. And that’s just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other blown derivative trades out there.

Y’all still did good, 3/20 closed at $35. That’s $161m/$468m payoff just there. I even called you the bottom on 3/17, when I saw that bailout:

"tinygiraffe21 1 point 2 months ago
Haha when? I’m loading up in 4/17 25 puts"
Scratch that, helicopter money is here."
"AfgCric 1 point 2 months ago
What does that mean?"
"It means the Fed & Trump are printing trillions with no end in sight. If they go through with this, this was probably the bottom."

"hurr durr, it went lower on 3/18 so 3/17 wasn't the bottom" - random_wsb_autist
Idiot, I have no way of knowing that Billy boy Ackman was going to go on CNBC and cry like a little bitch to make everyone dump, so he can get out of his shorts. Just like I have no way of knowing when the Fed decides to do a bailout. But you react to that, when you see it.
Do you think "Oh no world's ending" and go sell everything? No, dumbass, you try to figure out what Billy's doing. And in this case it was pretty obvious, Billy saw the Fed train coming and wanted to close his shorts. So you give the dude a hand, quick short in and out, and position for Billy dumping his short bags.
Video of Billy & the Fed train

Here's what Billy boy says:
“But if they don’t, and the government takes the right steps, this hedge could be worth zero, and the stock market could go right back up to where it was. So we made the decision to exit.”
Also, “the single best trade of all time.” my ass, it was only a 100-bagger. I gave y’all a 150-bagger.
So how could I catch that? Because it wasn't random, yo. And I'm here to teach your asses how to try to spot such potential moves. But first, the technical bootcamp.

Chapter III. Mouthbreather's bootcamp on managing a position – THE TECHNICALS

RULE 1. YOU NEVER BUY OPTIONS AT OPEN. You NEVER OVERPAY for an option. You never FOMO into buying too fast. You NEVER EVER NEVER pump the premium on a play.
I saw you fuckers buying over 4k TQQQ 5/22 $45 puts in the first minutes of trading. You pumped the premium to over $0.50 dudes. The play's never going to work if you do that, because you give the market maker free delta, and he's going to hedge that against you. Let me explain simply:

Let's say a put on ticker $X at strike $50 is worth $1, and a put at strike $51 is worth $2.
If you all fomo in at once into the same strike, the market maker algos will just pull the asks higher. If you overpay at $2 for the $50p, the market maker will just buy $51ps for $2 and sell you $50ps for 2$. Or he'll buy longer-dated $50ps and sell you shorter-dated $50ps. Max risk for him is now 0, max gain is $1. You just gave him free downside insurance, so of course he's going to start going long. And you just traded against yourself, congrats.

You need to get in with patience, especially if you see other autists here wanting to go in at the same time. Don't step on each other's toes. You put in an order, and you wait for it to fill for a couple of seconds. If it doesn't fill, AND the price of the option hasn't moved much recently, you can bump the bid $0.01. And you keep doing that a few times. Move your strikes, if needed. Only get a partial fill or don't get a fill at all? You cancel your bid. Don't fucking leave it hanging there, or you're going to put a floor on the price. Let the mm algos chill out and go again later.

RULE 2. WATCH THE TIME. Algos are especially active at x:00, x:02, x:08, x:12, x:30 and x:58. Try not to buy at those times.
RULE 3. YOU USE MULTIPLE BROKERS. Don't just roll with Robinhood, you're just gimping yourself. If you don't have another one, open up a tasty, IB, TD, Schwab, whatever. But for cheap faggy puts (or calls), Robinhood is the best. If you want to make a play for which the other side would think "That's free money!", Robinhood is the best. Because Citadel will snag that free money shit like no other. Seriously, if you don't have a RH account, open one. It's great for making meme plays.

RULE 4. YOU DON'T START A TRADE WITH BIG POSITIONS. Doesn't matter how big or small your bankroll is. If you go all-in, you're just gambling, and the odds are stacked against you. You need to have extra cash to manage your positions. Which leads to
RULE 5. MANAGING YOUR WINNERS: Your position going for you? Good job! Now POUND THAT SHIT! And again. Move your strikes to cheaper puts/calls, and pound again. And again. Snowball those gains.
So you bought some puts and they’re going down? Well, the moment they reach $0.01, YOU POUND THOSE PUTS (assuming there’s enough time left on them, not shit expiring in 2h). $0.01 puts have amazing risk/return around the time they reach $0.01. This is not as valid for calls. Long explanation why, but the gist of it is this: you know how calls have unlimited upside while puts have limited upside? Well it’s the reverse of that.
Your position going against you? Do you close the position, take your loss porn and post it on wsb? WRONG DUMBASS. You manage that by POUNDING THAT SHIT. Again and again. You don't manage losing positions by closing. That removes your gainz when the market turns around. You ever close a position, just to have it turn out it would have been a winner afterwards? Yeah, don't do that. You manage it by opening other positions. Got puts? Buy calls. Got calls? Buy puts. Turn positions into spreads. Buy spreads. Buy the VIX. Sell the VIX. They wanna pin for OPEX? Sell them options. Not enough bankroll to sell naked? Sell spreads. Make them fight you for your money, motherfuckers, don't just give it away for free. When you trade, YOU have the advantage of choosing when and where to engage. The market can only react. That's your edge, so USE IT! Like this:

Example 1:
Initial TQQQ 5/22 position = $5,000. Starts losing? You pound it.

Total pounded in 5/22 TQQQ puts = $10,824. Unfortunately expired worthless (but also goes to show I'm not selling you puts, dickwads)
Then the autists show up:
"Hahaha you lost all your money nice job you fucking idiot why do you even live?" - cscqb4
Wrong fuckface. You see the max pain at SPX 2975 & OPEX pin coming? Sell them some calls or puts (or spreads).

Sold 9x5/20 SPX [email protected], bam +$6,390. Still wanna pin? Well have some 80x5/22 TQQQ $80cs, bam anotha +$14,700.

+$21,090 - $10,824 = +$10,266 => Turned that shit into a +94.85% gain.

.cscqb4 rn

You have a downside position, but market going up or nowhere? You play that as well. At least make some money back, if not profit.

Example 2:

5/22, long weekend coming right? So you use your brain & try to predict what could happen over the 3-day weekend. Hmm, 3 day weekend, well you should expect either a shitty theta-burn or maybe the pajama traders will try to pooomp that shite on the low volume. Well make your play. I bet on the shitty theta burn, but could be the other, idk, so make a small play.

Sold some ES_F spreads (for those unaware, ES is a 50x multiplier, so 1 SPX = 2 ES = 10 SPY, approximately). -47x 2955/2960 bear call spreads for $2.5. Max gain is $2.5, max loss is 2960-2955 = $5. A double-or-nothing basically. That's $5,875 in premium, max loss = 2x premium = $11,750.
Well, today comes around and futures are pumping. Up to 3,014 now. Do you just roll over? You think I'm gonna sit and take it up the ass? Nah bros that's not how you trade, you fucking fight them. How?
I have:
47x 2960 calls
-47x 2955 calls

Pajama traders getting all up in my grill? Well then I buy back 1 of the 2955 calls. Did that shit yesterday when futures were a little over 2980, around 2982-ish. Paid $34.75, initially shorted at $16.95, so booked a -$892 loss, for now. But now what do I have?

46x 2955/2960 bear calls
1x 2960 long call

So the fuckers can pump it. In fact, the harder they pump it, the more I make. Each $2.5 move up in the futures covers the max loss for 1 spread. With SPX now at ~3015, that call is $55 ITM. Covers 24/46 contracts rn. If they wanna run it up, at 3070 it's break-even. Over that, it's profit. I'll sell them some bear call spreads over 3050 if they run it there too. They gonna dump it? well under 2960 it's profit time again. They wanna do a shitty pin at 3000 today? Well then I'll sell them some theta there.
Later edit: that was written yesterday. Got out with a loss of only $1.5k out of the max $5,875. Not bad.
And that, my dudes, is how you manage a position.

RULE 7 (ESPECIALLY FOR BEARS). YOU DON'T KEEP EXTRA CASH IN YOUR BROKER ACCOUNT. You don't do it with Robinhood, because it's a shitty dumpsterfire of a broker. But you don't do it with other brokers either. Pull that shit out. Preferably to a bank that doesn't play in the markets either, use a credit union or some shit. Why? Because you're giving the market free liquidity. Free margin loans. Squeeze that shit out, make them work for it. Your individual cash probably doesn't make a dent, but a million autists with an extra $1200 trumpbucks means $1.2b. That's starting to move the needle. You wanna make a play, use instant deposits. And that way you don't lose your shit when your crappy ass broker or bank gets its ass blown up on derivative trades. Even if it's FDIC or SIPC insured, it's gonna take time until you see that money again.



Do you think the market can go up forever? Do you think stOnKs oNLy Go uP because Fed brrr? Do you think SPX will be at 5000 by the end of the month? Do you think $1.5 trillion is a good entry point for stonks like AAPL or MSFT? Do you want to buy garbage like Hertz or American Airlines because it's cheap? Did you buy USO at the bottom and are now proud of yourself for making $2? Well, this section is for you!
Let's clear up the misconception that stonks only go up while Fed brrrs.

What's your target for the SPX top? Think 3500 by the end of the year? 3500 by September? 4000? 4500? 5000? Doesn't matter, you can plug in your own variables.

Let's say SPX only goes up, a moderate 0.5% each period as a compounded avg. (i.e. up a bit down a bit whatever, doesn't matter as long as at the end of your period, if you look back and do the math, you'll get that number). Let's call this variable BRRR = 0.005.

Can you do the basic math to calculate the value at the end of x periods? Or did you drop out in 5th grade? Doesn't matter if not, I'll teach you.

Let's say our period is one week. That is, SPX goes up on average 0.5% each week on Fed BRRR:
2950 * (1.005^x), where x is the number of periods (weeks in this case)

So, after 1 month, you have: 2950 * (1.005^4) = 3009
After 2 months: 2950 * (1.005^8) = 3070
End of the year? 2950 * (1.005^28) = 3392

Now clearly, we're already at 3015 on the futures, so we're moving way faster than that. More like at a speed of BRRR = 1%/wk

2950 * (1.01^4) = 3069
2950 * (1.01^8) = 3194
2950 * (1.01^28) = 3897

Better, but still slower than a lot of permabulls would expect. In fact, some legit fucks are seriously predicting SPX 4000-4500 by September. Like this dude, David Hunter, "Contrarian Macro Strategist w/40+ years on Wall Street". IDIOTIC.

That'd be 2950 * (BRRR^12) = 4000 => BRRR = 1.0257 and 2950 * (BRRR^12) = 4500 => BRRR = 1.0358, respectively.

Here's why that can't happen, no matter the amount of FED BRRR: Leverage. Compounded Leverage.

There's currently over $100b in leveraged etfs with a 2.5x avg. leverage. And that's just the ones I managed to tally, there's a lot of dogshit small ones on top of that. TQQQ alone is now at almost $6b in AUM (topped in Fed at a little over $7b).

Now, let's try to estimate what happens to TQQQ's AUM when BRRR = 1.0257. 3XBRRR = 1.0771. Take it at 3XBRRR = 1.07 to account for slippage in a medium-volatility environment and ignore the fact that the Nasdaq-100 would go up more than SPX anyway.

$6,000,000,000 * (1.07^4) = $7,864,776,060
$6,000,000,000 * (1.07^8) = $10,309,100,000
$6,000,000,000 * (1.07^12) = $13,513,100,000
$6,000,000,000 * (1.07^28) = $39,893,000,000.

What if BRRR = 1.0358? => 3XBRR = 1.1074. Take 3XBRRR = 1.10.
$6,000,000,000 * (1.1^4) = $8,784,600,000
$6,000,000,000 * (1.1^8) = $12,861,500,000
$6,000,000,000 * (1.1^12) = $18,830,600,000
$6,000,000,000 * (1.1^28) = $86,526,000,000

And this would have to get 3x leveraged every day. And this is just for TQQQ.

Let's do an estimation for all leveraged funds. $100b AUM, 2.5 avg. leverage factor, BRRR = 1.0257 => 2.5BRRR = 1.06425

$100b * (1.06^4) = $128.285b
$100b * (1.06^8) = $159.385b
$100b * (1.06^12) = $201.22b
$100b * (1.06^28) = $511.169b

That'd be $1.25 trillion sloshing around each day. And the market would have to lose each respective amount of cash into these leveraged funds. Think the market can do that? You can play around with your own variables. But understand that this is just a small part of the whole picture, many other factors go into this. It's a way to put a simple upper limit on an assumption, to check if it's reasonable.

In the long run, it doesn't matter if the Fed goes BRRR, if TQQQ takes in it's share of 3XBRRR. And the Fed can't go 3XBRRR, because then TQQQ would take in 9XBRRR. And on top of this, you have a whole pile of leveraged derivatives on top of these leveraged things. Watch (or rewatch) this: Selena Gomez & Richard H. Thaler Explaining Synthetic CDO through BLACKJACK

My general point, at the mouth-breather level, is that Fed BRRR cannot be infinite, because leverage.
And these leveraged ETFs are flawed instruments in the first place. It didn't matter when they started out. TQQQ and SQQQ started out at $8m each. For the banks providing the swaps, for the market providing the futures contracts, whatever counter-party to whatever instrument they would use, that was fine. Because it balanced out. When TQQQ made a million, SQQQ lost a million (minus a small spread, which was the bank's profit). Bank was happy, in the long run things would even out. Slippage and spreads and fees would make them money. But then something happened. Stonks only went up. And leveraged ETFs got bigger and more and more popular.
And so, TQQQ ended up being $6-7b, while SQQQ was at $1b. And the same goes for all the other ETFs. Long leveraged ETF AUM became disproportionate to short AUM. And it matters a whole fucking lot. Because if you think of the casino, TQQQ walks up every day and says "I'd like to put $18b on red", while SQQQ walks up and says "I'd only like to put $3b on black". And that, in turn, forces the banks providing the swaps to either eat shit with massive losses, or go out and hedge. Probably a mix of both. But it doesn't matter if the banks are hedged, someone else is on the other side of those hedges anyway. Someone's eating a loss. Can think of it as "The Market", in general, eating the loss. And there's only so much loss the market can eat before it craps itself.

If you were a time traveller, how much money do you think you could make by trading derivatives? Do you think you could make $20 trillion? You know the future prices after all... But no, you couldn't. There isn't enough money out there to pay you. So you'd move the markets by blowing them up. Call it the Time-travelling WSB Autist Paradox.

If you had a bucket with a hole in the bottom, even if you poured an infinite amount of water into it, it would never be full. Because there's a LIQUIDITY SINK, just like there is one in the markets.
And that, my mouth-breathing friends, is the reason why FED BRRR cannot be infinite. Or alternatively, "STONKS MUST GO BOTH UP AND DOWN".


On Jan 14, 2020, I predicted this: Assuming that corona doesn't become a problem, "AAPL: Jan 28 $328.3, Jan 31 $316.5, April 1 $365.7, May 1 $386, July 1 $429 December 31 $200."
Now take a look at the AAPL chart in January. After earnings AAPL peaked at $327.85. On 1/31, after the 1st hour of trading, when the big boys make moves, it was at $315.63. Closed 1/31 at $309.51. Ya think I pulled this one out of my ass too?
Yes you can time it. Flows, motherfucker, flows. Money flow moves everything. And these days, we have a whole lot of RETARDED FLOW. Can't even call it dumb flow, because it literally doesn't think. Stuff like:

  • ETF flows. If MSFT goes up and AAPL goes down, part of that flow is going to move from AAPL to MSFT. Even if MSFT flash-crashes up to $1000, the ETF will still "buy". Because it's passive.
  • Option settlement flows. Once options expire, money is going to flow from one side to another, and that my friends is accurately predictable from the data.
  • Index rebalancing flows
  • Buyback flows
  • 401k passive flows
  • Carry trade flows
  • Tax day flows
  • Flows of people front-running the flows

And many many others. Spot the flow, and you get an edge. How could I predict where AAPL would be after earnings within 50 cents and then reverse down to $316 2 days later? FLOWS MOTHERFUCKER FLOWS. The market was so quiet in that period, that is was possible to precisely figure out where it ended up. Why the dump after? Well, AAPL earnings (The 8-K) come out on a Wednesday. The next morning, after market opens the 10-Q comes out. And that 10-Q contains a very important nugget of information: the latest number of outstanding shares. But AAPL buybacks are regular as fuck. You can predict the outstanding shares before the market gets the 10-Q. And that gives you EDGE. Which leads to


Are you one of those mouthbreathers that parrots the phrase "buybacks are just a tax-efficient way to return capital to shareholders"? Well sit the fuck down, I have news for you. First bit of news, you're dumb as shit. Second bit:

On 1/28, AAPL's market cap is closing_price x free_float_outstanding_shares. But that's not the REAL MARKET CAP. Because the number of outstanding shares is OLD AS FUCK. When the latest number comes out, the market cap changes instantly. And ETFs start moving, and hedges start being changed, and so on.

"But ETFs won't change the number of shares they hold, they will still hold the same % of AAPL in the index" - random_wsb_autist

Oh my fucking god you're dumb as fuck. FLOWS change. And the next day, when TQQQ comes by and puts its massive $18b dong on the table, the market will hedge that differently. And THAT CAN BE PREDICTED. That's why AAPL was exactly at $316 1 hour after the market opened on 1/31.

So, what can you use to spot moves? Let me show you:
Market topped on 2/19. Here’s SPY. I even marked interesting dates for you with vertical lines.

Nobody could have seen it coming, right? WRONG AGAIN. Here:

In fact, JPYUSD gave you two whole days to see it. Those are NOT normal JPYUSD moves. But hey maybe it’s just a fluke? Wrong again.

Forex showed you that all over the place. Why? FLOWS MOTHERFUCKER FLOWS. When everything moves like that, it means the market needs CASH. It doesn’t matter why, but remember people pulling cash out of ATMs all over the world? Companies drawing massive revolvers? Just understand what this flow means.
The reversal:
But it wasn’t just forex. Gold showed it to you as well. Bonds showed it to you as well.
Even god damn buttcoin showed it to you.
And they all did it for 2 days before the move hit equities.

You see all these bankruptcies that happened so far, and all the ones that are going to follow? Do you think that’s just dogshit companies and it won’t have major effects on anything outside them? WRONG.
Because there’s a lot of leveraged instruments on top of those equities. When the stock goes to 0, all those outstanding puts across all expirations get instantly paid.
Understand that Feb-March was a liquidity MOAB. But this will end with a liquidity nuke.
Here’s just HTZ for example: $239,763,550 in outstanding puts. Just on a single dogshit small-cap company (this thing was like $400m mkt. cap last week).
And that’s just the options on the equity. There’s also instruments on etfs that hold HTZ, on the bonds, on the ETFs that hold their bonds, swaps, warrants, whatever. It’s a massive pile of leverage.
Then there’s also the ripple effects. Were you holding a lot of HTZ in your brokerage margin account? Well guess what big boi, when that gaps to 0 you get a margin call, and then you become a liquidity drain. Holding long calls? 0. Bonds 0. DOG SHIT!
And the market instantly goes from holding $x in assets (HTZ equity / bonds / calls) to holding many multiples of x in LIABILITIES (puts gone wrong, margin loans, derivatives books, revolvers, all that crap). And it doesn’t matter if the Fed buys crap like HTZ bonds. You short them some. Because when it hits 0, it’s no longer about supply and demand. You get paid full price, straight from Jerome’s printer. Is the Fed going to buy every blown up derivative too? Because that's what they'd have to do.
Think of liquidity as a car. The faster it goes, the harder it becomes to go even faster. At some point, you can only go faster by driving off a cliff. THE SQUEEZE. But you stop instantly when you hit the ground eventually. And that’s what shit’s doing all over the place right now.
Rewatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hG4X5iTK8M
And just like that fucker, “I’m standing in front of a burning house, and I’m offering you fire insurance on it.”

Don’t baghold!
Now is not the time to baghold junk. Take your cash. Not the time to buy cheap crap. You don’t buy Hertz. You don’t buy USO. You don’t buy airlines, or cruises, or GE, or motherfucking Disney. And if you have it, dump that shit.
And the other dogshit that’s at ATH, congrats you’re in the green. Now you take your profits and fucking dump that shit. I’m talking shit like garbage SaaS, app shit, AI shit, etc. Garbage like MDB, OKTA, SNAP, TWLO, ZM, CHGG etc.
And you dump those garbage ass leveraged ETFs. SQQQ, TQQQ, whatever, they’re all dogshit now.
The leverage MUST unwind. And once that’s done, some of you will no longer be among us if you don’t listen. A lot of leveraged ETFs will be gone. Even some non-leveraged ETFs will be gone. Some brokers will be gone, some market makers will be gone, hell maybe even some big bank has to go under. I can’t know which ones will go poof, but I can guarantee you that some will. Another reason to diversify your shit. There’s a reason papa Warrant Buffet dumped his bags, don’t think you’re smarter than him. He may be senile, but he’s still a snake.
And once the unwind is done, THEN you buy whatever cheap dogshit’s still standing.
Got it? Good.
You feel ready to play yet? Alright, so you catch a move. Or I post a move and you wanna play it. You put on a small position. When it’s going your way, YOU POUND DAT SHIT. Still going? Well RUSH B CYKA BLYAT AND PLANT THE GOD DAMN 3/20 $30p BOMB.

Chapter VI - The mouthbreather-proof play - THE AKIMBO
Still a dumbass that can’t make a play? Still want to go long? Well then, I got a dumbass-proof trade for you. I present to you THE AKIMBO:

STEP 1. You play this full blast. You need some real Russian hardbass to get you in the right mood for trading, cyka.
STEP 2. Split your play money in 3. Remember to keep extra bankroll for POUNDING THAT SHIT.
STEP 3. Use 1/3 of your cash to buy SQQQ 9/18 $5p, pay $0.05. Not more than $0.10.
STEP 4. Use 1/3 of your cash to buy TQQQ 9/18 $20p, pay around $0.45. Alternatively, if you’re feeling adventurous, 7/17 $35p’s for around $0.5.
STEP 5. Use 1/3 of your cash to buy VIX PUT SPREADS 9/15 $21/$20 spread for around $0.15, no more than $0.25. That is, you BUY the 21p and SELL the 20p. Only using Robinhood and don’t have the VIX? What did I just tell you? Well fine, use UVXY then. Just make sure you don’t overpay.

Chapter VII - Quick hints for non-mouthbreathers
Quick tips, cuz apparently I'm out of space, there's a 40k character limit on reddit posts. Who knew?

  1. Proshares is dogshit. If you don't understand the point in my last post, do this: download https://accounts.profunds.com/etfdata/ByFund/SQQQ-historical_nav.csv and https://accounts.profunds.com/etfdata/ByFund/SQQQ-psdlyhld.csv. Easier to see than with TQQQ. AUM: 1,174,940,072. Add up the value of all the t-bills = 1,686,478,417.49 and "Net other assets / cash". It should equal the AUM, but you get 2,861,340,576. Why? Because that line should read: NET CASH = -$511,538,344.85
  2. Major index rebalancing June 22.
  3. Watch the violent forex moves.
  4. 6/25 will be red. Don't ask, play a spread, bag a 2x-er.
  5. 6/19 will be red.
  6. Not settled yet, but a good chance 5/28 is red.
  7. Front run the rebalance. Front-run the front-runners of the rebalance too. TQQQ puts.
  8. Major retard flow in financials yesterday. Downward pressure now. GS 180 next weeks looks good.
  9. Buy leaps puts on dogshit bond ETFs (check holdings for dogshit)
  10. Buy TLT 1/15/2021 $85ps for cheap, sell over $1 when the Fed stops the ass rape, rinse and repeat
  11. TQQQ flow looks good:

Good luck. Dr. Retard TQQQ Burry out.
submitted by dlkdev to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Why I believe too many SPOs are barking up the wrong tree and what I think they can do better

Yet another opinion about which stake pools to choose or why the system currently is broken/unfaicentralizing? No, but an attempt to find a more positive approach.

For the impatient, here's a way too short and exaggerated TL;DR:
I think SPOs should consider to stop selling their stake pool as if it's a commodity like rice and instead rather start building a solid identity for their pools.

I have spent quite some time scanning through, pooltool.io , CardanoStakePools and cardano including the comments in the last couple of days, initially to see if I can find a stake pool that I like better.
Here's what I observed:
Even if you cover most or all of the above points, I won't know why you bothered setting up a pool. Sometimes it's clear that you want to make money, sometimes it's clear that you want to be nonprofit. Most of times it's stated that the pool cares about Cardano, which separates that pool from the very small minority of the pools being operated by actors that also operate mining/staking pools of other coins.
So what do I think you're doing wrong then? I get the impression that most times I get told what the SPO thinks I want to hear: Obviously I must be interested in earning as much as possible and if not I must want the ADA I'm missing out on going to a good case, right? That's not necessary what they try to tell but that's at least for me the message I hear.
And they are putting their money where their mouth is, they give up margin or they spend on top hardware/cloud service for top security and they invest countless hours on keeping the pool safe and running.
...and they stay often unrecognizable if one would anonymize the names and take away the pictures and layouts from the websites, just leaving the bare information about the pool.

Most pools are very good at explaining what they are doing (and let's face it they are essentially all doing the same in different flavours) and sometimes they are quite good in explaining how they are doing it. There's very few pools out there that describe why they do what they do, which is awesome, yet it could often use some more conciseness.

Too abstract and you don't understand what I'm getting at? I would neither, here's an example how I can express myself:
"I care about Cardano, I've been invested in it since 2017. Since Shelley has been released, it seems that there's some centralization happening on the pools, which I don't like. I want many small pools to be successful. I'm writing this post because I want Cardano to be successful and gain money from it."
Sounds kind of bland, no? Could have been written by anyone and is probably not very relatable. Let's try again:
"I want to provide meaningful inputs, so that others are enabled to do the same and so we can make the world a better place. Furthermore I want to create value with what I do, encourage personal growth and make sure that what I do is not at the expense of others. Learning about Cardano, I realized that their aim to decentralize financial identity and push power to the edges is well in line with my core values, which is why I really care about it being successful in changing the world. I noticed that many pools seem to run in the wrong direction in my opinion and I at least want to attempt to help them getting better in promoting their pools and becoming successful, so that not a small elite of pools creates an oligarchy in the long run. Very often I can tell that there is a very good motivation behind a pool but there's no way to be sure because it's not communicated clearly and I'd be happy if this would change and the power gets properly pushed to the edges."
I started with why I do things and then transitioned to how I want to get things done and underlined it by what I do, why I'm invested in Cardano.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide which of the above statements is more convincing that the actor behind it has an honest motivation and is not in for the greed.

For the SPOs who are not solely in the game to make money (I feel that's the majority), I invite you to ask yourself: What seems more trustworthy to you:
Someone telling you what they care about decentralization and their actions being in line with that or someone telling you the same but then they also do some of the following: aggressive marketing with entry treats e.g. 0% margin, giveaways; dropping pool tickers left and right without proper context or multiplying their pools?
On the flip side: Which customer do you trust more to stick around when things would go sideways:
The one who joined your pool even though you don't have the best ROS but your ideals resonated with them or the one who delegated because you did a giveaway? And how confident are you about your delegated stake staying in your pool if you have to cut the x% donated for the good cause for some time to be able to cover your costs?

I'm not advocating to give up those diversifying strategies altogether and I'm not saying that no one should donate part of their ROS but that one should be very aware of which trade offs those strategies carry and maybe consider making them a supporting aspect of why you are running a pool rather than your main selling point. It would seem to me that way you're less endangered of commoditizing your pool. And let's be frank: The commodity market has only space for a few, not everyone can have the highest efficiency, especially not when we want to be globally spread.

That being sad, if your are only in for the money and you run a pool because you think that Cardano is going to be the best cow to milk in the crypto environment. Please don't let me distract you, that's absolutely legitimate and to be expected too, go do your thing and good luck with competing in the unforgiving battlefield of the commodity market.

To give credit: That's not all just my ideas I'm mainly applying what I learned in a video, well in the according book but oh well: Check it out if you're curious -> Simon Sinek: Start with Why
And as an end thought: Maybe a pools selling point is not ROS or blocks per epoch but trust, they are the guardians of Cardano after all.
submitted by unasinni to cardano [link] [comments]

The Pay to Win model in EDH: Where it is, where it isn't, and hopefully some information on how to navigate it.

To be entirely clear this is effectively a long winded reply to This post https://www.reddit.com/EDH/comments/hr0ckz/is_edh_pay_to_win/
I saw a lot of anecdotal 'I lose a lot and my deck costs X arbitrarily large amount of money' or 'I beat big money decks all the time with my budget brew' etc. which I find don't clear up any of the confusion, negative feelings or anything around the expense of playing this format.
In my 3rd game of EDH I beat a guy who played exclusively lands that cost more than my entire deck. Why? because it was for-fun deck without a serious way to win outside of one jank combo involving [[Nicol Bolas, Dragon-God]] and [[Obliterate]], all faircasted. Anecdotal I know, but that's exactly the point. Everyone has stories like this, probably from both sides and all apropos of effectively nothing.
Now we've gotten the anecdotes out of the way let's talk about what Budget actually does mean for each area of expense as I see them in Mana Bases, Synergy/Tuning, and Power Level respectively.

Mana Bases: If I pulled every tap land out of a budget list and replaced them with original duals, shocks etc. the deck would get better and win more. Full stop. Doesn't actually matter what the rest of the deck consists of outside of truly extenuating circumstances like a deck designed to only kill itself 'fur teh lulz' and other related nonsense. Being equal or ahead on turns, in this case defined by how much mana you can spend, is a huge deal. I can't tell you what the most important turn in our format is, but if a player goes tap land on 1, tap land on 2, their turn 2 is equivalent to the rest of the table's turn 1 and so on. Obviously the cycle breaks once the player plays a basic, but then that doesn't actually do anything about the opportunity cost they've given up till that point.
Let's say player one goes 'tap land, pass'. Player two pays two life into overgrown tomb, casts a sol ring and a simic signet. Even if player one also has those cards in hand they're an entire turn behind the player who went after them just off one land switch.
There's also a case to be made for mana rocks, which are a huge part of EDH. If player one has cluestones and player two has signets and amulets, player 2 is going to default to being ahead, which once again will win or lose games, hence making the deck objectively more powerful or objectively weaker based on how much money the player had in it.

Synergy/Tuning: A deck with more money in it simply can be better tuned than a deck without. Say I go to build [[Korvold]] but I don't have money for any of his combos. Korvold is a strong commander, sure. Lots of synergy, powerful individual effect, deck engine, great card. You can build a functional and actually pretty powerful mid level deck, strong at all points in the game, good interaction, threat generation...or you can [[Dockside Extortionist]] [[Temur Sabertooth]] on 4 with interaction up and win the game on the spot in what is also a mid level deck that didn't lose anything meaningful for that inclusion. If 30 bucks for the dockside is outside your price range, well tough shit. (Korvold plays more combos than this of course, hell he has a cEDH variant even. This example is meant as just that: an example.)
And similarly a deck with higher synergy and more powerful cards per slot has to devote less of their deck to that synergy, allowing for more interaction, silver bullets and protection. For instance having tutors. If I play [[Vampiric Tutor]] [[Demonic Tutor]] and [[Diabolic intent]] My deck is instantly more streamlined and has more open positions as those cards each stand in for literally everything else, meaning I don't have to devote extra slots for critical mass of each relevant thing. I'm sure there are actual numbers on how this works. I don't have them handy and I'm not a math guy so I'm not going to tell you something stupid like 'you get 9 extra slots since you can sub in 3 tutors for each of 3 different generic pieces important to your deck'. The point still stands.
Similarly 2 card combos and value engines vs 3 card combos/engines and so on up the list. Easier to assemble and take less space, hence making the deck stronger.

Power Level: Or I suppose more accurately I should say power cap. To put it shortly none of what I've listed above this point actually stops you from playing and potentially winning games, that is up to a certain degree. As power level increases the margin for sub-optimal deck 'choices' decreases. Now I know people aren't a fan of powerscaling, but just bear with me for a minute on this one.
  1. At a jank power level you can get away with whatever you like. Tuning doesn't really matter, people are playing to do fun and stupid things. You can be turns behind, you can have minimal interaction or protection, dumb wincons etc. budget can't really constrain you from playing in this section of the format.
  2. At low power budget also isn't a serious concern. Even if your opponent is ahead of you it's not likely their card quality is high enough to really punish early weakness, strats are pretty fragile and yours can be too without taking a huge loss. Of course pubstompers who suck at magic but have a whole bunch of money to throw at it can and will ruin games, but that's their problem not being good enough to contend with people on their deck's level, and if they feel the need to pubstomp they probably suck hard enough you can get one over on them anyhow with good play.
  3. Mid power is where the problems start to set in, and they set in hard. 'Mid power' as a concept is really problematic anyhow. Too many people, especially high money players, seem to think their deck falls in this range so it produces wildly imbalanced matchups. Sometimes your taplands will be fine, other times once you get back from your missing turns the entire table will be too far ahead and you'll get run over in the crossfire. Mitch from the Commander's Quarters proves decks can certainly be built to compete at 'mid power' as ill defined as it is, but you're not gonna win a ton of games against people who went through the trouble of tuning their decks to do something, or the same thing as yours with a higher budget. High money, intentionally undertuned decks will be less of a problem, but that mostly only works with a playgroup. If you're sitting down at your LGS most people turned up to get their wins at your expense as opposed to produce a fun night for the table on equal ground.
  4. I'd say it's quite difficult to produce a truly high power budget deck. I'm sure it's doable, but once you start to see more serious staples popping up consistently and as card quality across the board increases it's less and less likely that you'll be able to participate in a meaningful way. A super tuned budget deck will definitely get people on the lower end of high power some amount of the time, but then high power also includes weakenonmeta cEDH decks and players that are just going to smoke you. Good luck budgeting your way through 'untuned' [[Golos]], [[Najeela]] and someone who actually knows how to pilot the [[Gitrog Monster]] Combo.
  5. cEDH: You know the answer to this, you don't need my input or explanation. I can't tell you anything other than 'hah, fuck no'. You best get the all mighty power of that Inkjet my boy.
Playing around it: So what can you as a budget player do to get around this sort of problem? Watch the commander's quarters, trade as much as you can, and get that game up. I'm sure you knew all that already, it's just nice to reiterate sometimes. If you have a playgroup or are getting one together be sure to discuss power level extensively and make sure you have a meta that works for everyone. I'd like that to be possible at an LGS, but the ones I've been to lately have too many people and not enough community for that to work. If you are playing at your LGS, just have the conversation as best you can to find a group that works.
And what can you as a non-budget player do about all this? Carry a second less expensive or less tuned deck alongside your main, communicate effectively with your playgroup table about what they're playing, and play in your deck's power level not in your skill level. Had a guy come into a casual game with a tuned infect list for [[Cazur]] and [Ukkima]], oneshot the second strongest player at the table on turn 3, then have nerve to complain when the remaining 2 people quite correctly ganked him with everything they had and took him out. Don't be that guy. Get better, don't become a pubstomper.
Thank you for reading and I hope this was somehow helpful.
submitted by M4dW0rld22 to EDH [link] [comments]

Day trading on margin. How does it work???

I have been day trading for some time in a cash account and I have been considering applying to upgrade to a margin account. I’ve been googling for the last few hours trying to find an answer to a specific margin question with a frustrating lack of resolution. Bear with me.
Let me first start by saying that I know what margin is and I fully understand the PDT rule. The answer that I am looking for is not an explanation of what they mean (which is all I got from google). I am trying to understand the effect of my buying power after having already completed a day trade.
I read somewhere that margin can cover all of my trade if, of course, I choose to use only margin and if I have the margin buying power to do so. I’m not sure if this is true and if it isn’t true, please someone let me know, but if it is true what is my buying power after my following example...
Hector is an active trader and he has an account with $25k cash and a 4:1 margin. So obviously $100k buying power. Hector buys 25 shares of ABC at $1,000 per share totaling $25,000 and he chooses to fund 100% of this purchase with margin. 30 minutes later he sells his position for $1,100 per share. A profit of $2,500. Later that day he spots another trade opportunity. What is his buying power for that second trade? Is it $75k because he already used $25k of his initial $100k buying power? Or is it still $100k because he didn’t use any of his actual cash to fund the original trade?
I’m sorry if this is a stupid question or asked in a very drawn out way but there seems to be no easy way to ask this.
submitted by Chance_The_Fapper69 to Daytrading [link] [comments]

This rally is a mirage, we are only in the beginning stages of this recession

TL;DR at the bottom
Hi guys, with the market rallying 20% from its "bottom", many people are expressing the sentiment that we should buy back into the market again because the "fed" or the "government" won't allow stocks to crash.
We will for sure see unprecedented actions taken by the fed and the government because they have both the motive and the political capital to enact such policies. However, I think this is a misguided reason to believe the market is currently making its "real" rally.
I am not not a permabear nor am I a permabull. I just try to objectively analyze the facts, apply a healthy dose of margin of safety, and then see if my conclusions are actionable.
For example, I posted my thesis on why we will enter a serious global economic downturn on Feb 9th 10 days before it happened. At the time we were at the height of the biggest bull market in our history, and I had gotten a lot of attacks on my thesis leading up to me consolidating my thoughts:
I continued adding more thoughts on things like the potential efficacy of Chloroquine 2 weeks before Trump announced it in a press conference and the media picked up on it, the potential collapse of American oil producers before the price war happened, casinos going under, helicopter money, bailouts, etc all before they were announced or the markets priced them in here:
And finally I talked about an upcoming inflection point coincidentally moments before Trump first announced Chloroquine/Hydroxychloroquine and 2 trading days before the "bottom" of the market:
So I'm perfectly happy to make bearish calls or bullish calls, they are dependent variables of independent and unbiased analysis. I hope I made a reasonable case for why I am not personally biased (although, for the sake of humanity, I do wish for progress and prosperity of course).
I think the market rally is largely a mirage, and we are not getting correct pricings. The rally is probably driven by two main sources:
So the capital displacement is relatively simple: If you're seeking shelter in "risk free" investments that has some yields, you're now competing with a buyer (federal reserve) that prints hundreds of billions up to whatever it wants. They're literally squeezing out capital from the finite treasuries.
If you want riskier high quality corporate bonds, the fed will be there.
If you want even equities, you're going to face competition for them in the future. At least that's what former chairwoman Jenet Yellen recently said about the possibility of expanding their powers to buy equities.
So money is getting squeezed into a smaller and smaller relative portion of the financial markets, and the artificial demand is driving yields down and prices up. I could write a whole thread about this, but let's stick with the explanation of price movement.
The second main reason for the recent rally is from institutional investors who are incorrectly modeling earnings/yield of equities. So the logic here is: trillions are injected into the economy (fiscal injections), those trillions will become earnings for companies at some multiplier of the original stimulus over x amount of time, and if we add this number to the unstimulated estimated earnings, we can model future earnings.
My issue with this model, is on two main assumptions:
The first assumption is the length of disruption caused by the threat of this virus.
This virus is not going to stop its serious disruption of behavior from economic actors. Especially not in a country like the US where the majority of people have a massive financial disincentive to seek out healthcare. Here's my logic:
For months I've been praising the governments and response of South Korea, Singapore, and Taiwan. With Taiwan being the absolute best at handling the virus. However, I have also been using them as my leading indicators for how the virus will progress and affect economic actors. What I have seen developing lately is not good.
Singapore is now calling for a shutdown, after they initially did a herculean job of containing their outbreak. I had hoped that they would develop procedures (that we can copy) needed to run an open economy while the threat of the virus looms in the background. But that is not what has happened. Instead, we are seeing growing numbers of new clusters forming, and quickly getting out of control. They are tightening and shutting down their economy rather than opening up more. This is our leading indicator. A government far more responsible and effective than us is resorting to shutting down.
Taiwan is faring better, but only because of their prohibitive ban on almost all foreign travelers (this is obviously devastating to their tourism sector and broader economy). Their economy and society remains open, with many if not most people having hardly any interruptions to their lives (aside from mask wearing). They are one of only 3 countries where all children are still going to school. However, even their economy is faltering as they try to balance the prohibitive actions needed to contain the virus and the economic need to keep things open. They are proposing an unprecedented stimulus/rescue package to bolster their economy. And I think it's a safe assumption that if they ever do open up to foreign travelers again, especially with covid19 having proliferated as it already has, then they will have to deal with massive outbreak clusters all over their island.
South Korea, which has probably the relatable and relevant model for us to copy, has recently extended its social distance campaign. South Korea is a far larger nation than Singapore or Taiwan. They have a climate similar to Seattle/New York. They had a major outbreak in Deagu but didn't shut their country down. They never even banned Chinese travelers, yes, they had Chinese tourists in their country while the outbreak was happening. They were among the first to widely use Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine as a treatment for Covid19. They had among the lowest fatality rates. They contained their outbreak without shutting the whole country down.
Even South Korea can't truly return to normal and open their economy up.
So why, in our incredible American exceptionalism hubris, and far less competent leaders, do we believe we're going to come anywhere close to normalcy in the near future?
Let's look at the next assumption, that fiscal stimulus would end up as earnings for companies. There's no doubt some will end up as earnings, but only a small fraction of what is being modeled by those on Wall Street.
The average American don't even have $1000 in emergency funds, do we expect them to return to their normal consumption habits when they risk having hospital bills multiples of $1000 just from walking past the wrong person? Do you think Americans, as much as they love to spend, aren't going to put some of that stimulus check in their emergency funds rather than contribute it to the earning of some companies? Sure, there will be some "forced" spending of the money (food and necessities), but if anyone is modeling the multiplier effect from previous data, then they really don't appreciate how different this virus makes things. Even in the GFC, laid off people didn't really worry about the heightened threat of being hospitalized.
Finally, some investors believe the Fed and the government literally will do anything to keep the numbers up. If this is true, you should be buying silver (or gold), not stocks.
Monetary actions can be reversed relatively easily. They are far more dynamic tools. Fiscal actions are not. You put money in the hands of spenders, that money is gonna circulate. And you really don't have an easy way of reversing that. If we think the government is going to keep handing out stimulus checks, grants to businesses, and other fiscal stimulus, then the inflation predicted from the GFC will come true for this crisis.
The fall out of inflation will be difficult to truly understand. But I do think inflation will be disruptive enough to the economy that inflation hedge assets will outperform other assets at least in the short term. For example, if inflation goes to 5%, who's going to lend to companies for less than inflation? With costlier debt, equity yield goes down, and again, what investor wants yields less than inflation? Inflation is going to cause all kinds of disruptions. I think the disruptions will come down to less liquidity (credit will vanish with uncertain inflation) and higher economic friction (less efficiency).
So if the response to why the market has to go up is continuous fiscal (and some monetary) actions to prop up spending and earnings, then the question is how will fiscal actions be reversed? How do we get that money out after things go back to "normal"?
I think if we see equities rise from here, it'll be reflective of inflation rather than inflation-adjusted earnings. Silver would be the play here.
I have a lot more thoughts on this, especially on the time it takes to turn the gears of the financial system and why the inertia is moving us deeper into global recession, not out of it, but I'm running out of time and must end here.
TL;DR this is a fake rally, and if anyone really expects prices to continue rallying, buy silver instead
submitted by Starcraftduder to StockMarket [link] [comments]

Magical Songstress vs Blood Scientist

Magical Songstress vs Blood Scientist
With the addition of my last (real) post that was about Warfarin (WFR), we now have enough details to fully take on the question people asked many moons ago and even now. Who is better at buffing their allies? And since it’s always depends, then when and why do each bested the other? In this post I will trying my best to justify all of the possible comparison and rig it in a way so that Sora win………what
Terrible banner below
Horrendous photoshop skills confirmed
To read more about them, I have made dedicated post for each. You can read more about Warfarin and Sora there.
Anyway, first thing first. We can get the general stuff out of the way. Stats, and all of the miscellaneous sh…enanigans. And to do that, we need to lay out the assumptions.


For all numbers used for comparing purposes, we will be talking in E2 Lv30 with full trusts and pot 1 for all parties involved, since it’s a typical stopping range. WFR and Sora’s respective S1 will be compare at level 7. However, for their respective S2, we will be comparing them at M3 for most of the time, since the purpose of this post is to mainly compare buffs and shit, that and I don’t think anyone actually M3 their S1.
For that assumption,
WFR’s stats would be: 1424 HP, 516 ATK, 109 DEF, 19 costs, 2.85s attack interval, and 0 RES.
Sora’s stats would be: 1141 HP, 349 ATK, 228 DEF, 7 costs, no interval, and 0 RES.
And if anyone get dragged in the example later on will probably just get calculated later.
Quick table for summaries
WFR Sora
Profession Medic Supporter
Age At least 100 Ouch stop hitting okay fine sorry put the chair down
Healing power - 100% of her ATK every 2.85s to 1 person in her range - Has the 2nd highest ATK stats among medics, 5th when counting supporters as well. - 10% of her attack every second to everyone in her range, doesn’t affected by attack rate whatsoever - Has the 4th, 3rd, 2nd lowest ATK of the game at E0, 1, 2 respectively
Range A 3x4 range with WFR on the middle of the 3-tiles-edge 2 tiles away from Sora at any direction (Similar to Texas’ S2 area)
Survivability (HP, DEF, RES…) Average HP and DEF, and no RES among medics and supporters Below average HP, 0 RES, but highest DEF among all ranged operators in the game quality steel microphone confirmed
Cost to deploy 19 7
Base skills Helps medic complete masteries faster Restore morale for everyone in the room faster and Trade Post faster
Method to support allies (aside from healing) 3 ways: Talent and 2 skills Only 2: her 2 skills
Now to the explanation.
- The class classification is not going to be important… most of the time, however, when we’re talking hard content options, Medics tends to get a worse treatment compare to Supporters. In CM or CC with different risks, Medics do get banned specifically when it’s due, whereas Supporters usually don’t (except for 2-2 CM, and some future CC maps). Maps that has a certain inhibition (ban, x3 costs…) to Medics are more often seen than map that inhibit Supporters, is what I’m saying.
- Their healing power is also drastically different. WFR is a single target medic (which does get higher ATK to compensate), whereas Sora, first of isn’t even a healer, second, she heals in an AoE. Even AoE medics can only heal 3 allies at once, but Sora? She sings away, restoring HP to up to 12 allies in her range, plus herself. That’s actually enough for a whole squad + support unit, when WFR can only fit 12 people in her range including herself. Although, good luck finding a map that does allow you to do that (and even in AF-8, you still face the deployment limit of 9). For a quick number comparison, WFR heals 516 HP every 2.85s to one ally, as in 181 HP/s (or HPS I guess) to only 1 person. Sora in comparison get 34.9 HPS but to all ally. The breakpoint then is 181/34.9 = 5.19 → 6 allies before WFR’s heals become worse than Sora’s. That’s actually pretty hard to do, which means Sora will lose to WFR when it comes to healing, hey wait a minute Sora isn’t even a medic though, so that’s pretty natural.
There is a silver lining, because Sora doesn’t necessary “heal”, she can restore HP to unhealable target. That means she can heal Hellagur, Vulcan, Utage, all summons, including Magellan’s Soaring Dragons, Mayer’s Meeboos, Deepcolor’s Tentacle, Nightingale’s Phantom, and of course any future addition of these type of units.
But wait, there’s more in chapter 6. With the appearance of chill and frozen debuff, the healing rate of WFR can get shafted. Sora healing rate does not get affected by attack rate reduction, or heck even stun or frozen, so for those case, Sora can have an easy time healing whereas WFR wouldn’t, even if Sora’s healing is bad. Except…
- Sora’s range is far worse than WFR’s. Even if Sora can heal while stunned/frozen, her reach to allies is worse. At most Sora can only heal allies 2 tiles away from her, whereas WFR can reach up to 4 tiles ahead of her (though she can’t reach 2 tiles from her side nor behind). This allows WFR to have a little bit more flexibility in deployment location.
- Their HP are also not that high, WFR’s 1424 HP vs Sora’s 1141. Sora's HP loses out by quite a lot, but Sora’s DEF doubled WFR’s, 228 vs 109. Considering both has 0 RES, that means Sora’s pretty good at surviving physical damage, whereas WFR is better at surviving magical damage. Though of course, none should be primarily used to tank ranged attack, unless the enemies’ ranged attacks are much weaker compare to the melee, so you can choose to alleviate some of the pressure off your melee operators, but then you have to divide your healing to more people, which actually is something that Sora needs to catch up to WFR’s HPS.
- Sora cost way less than WFR, to basically compensate for what she couldn’t compete against WFR. If you remember from my Sora post, her cost is the lowest in the game bar the robots (and Gravel full pot pfff).
- Their base skills fill different roles…I wouldn’t say much here since it’s not the focus of this post nor is there any real way to compare them. WFR trains other medics faster, Sora supports her fans and M O N E Y.
- Both of their skills can support their allies. If you haven’t noticed it yet though, both of Sora and WFR’s skills are similar. Their first skill causes a large heal, and their second skill increases ally’s ATK (Sora’s first skill has something else but shhhh). WFR then, win this comparison because she has her talent that grants SP to ally in her range whenever an enemy die in her range. More SP means faster skill charge rate, which lead to more damage overall from operators, and more SP also allows WFR to use her skills faster, which lead to more support than Sora.
That’s a bit too much for general comparison. Let’s go a little bit more into specific skills comparison.

Showdown: First skill

Sick Microsoft Paint skills
I'm not going to full details of what each skill does again, but to summarize: WFR’s first skill heal an ally that is under 50% HP for an additional 19% of their max HP. So basically for WFR’s next heal, she heals for 516 + 19% of the healed ally’s max HP. Sora’s first skill on the other hand, expands her normal range and increase her regen much further. Sora’s new range is equal to Saria’s S2 healing range, and her regeneration is now 349 * 70% = 244.3 HPS (it’s going to be 349 if you decided to M3 this skill but what psycho actually do that itwasajokecalmdown).
Strictly for healing (and assuming WFR’s S1 activated constantly), these skills now change their respective HPS. WFR’s HPS is now (516 + 19% of the ally’s max HP) / 2.85 = (181 + 6.6666% of ally max HP) HP/s. The % number looks fishy, it’s like they intentionally let the 19% there :thonkang: Anyway, the new break point between them is now 244.3 = 181 + 6.6666% max HP, with that max HP is (oh god I spent 4 years studied engineer in university to do gaming math) 949.5 max HP. Very few operators have that low max HP to begin with, except for maybe Haze, 1-2* ops, some 3* ops, and CC risks. If you tiptoe the heal between 2 allies, that increase the max HP limit to 244.3 = (181 + 6.6666% maxHP)/2, which lead to the new needed max HP to…4614. That’s… really bad for WFR now. As soon as WFR needs to heal 2 allies or more, she loses to Sora’s. Wait a minute, there’s this small part in my WFR’s post (which was pointed out by a commenter actually) that WFR’s S1 reset her healing animation (it wouldn’t cause her healing to be continuous though) between 2 allies so WFR win out again. If you have a third ally (or more), however, Sora wins with her S1 active. When we hit 3 or more allies that need strong healing at once, you may as well go train your operators stronger before attempting it again, WFR will never be able to keep up, especially because she can only hold 3 charges which can run out faster than 7s from Sora’s S1. (But there’s a twist which will be present later)
The utility of Sora’s phase shifting all enemies in her range can also be important. In my old Sora’s post, I stated that this skill is perfect for reset when things go wrong. She can guarantee healing while stopping enemies from doing the thing that force your operators to need healing to begin with. It’s a bit hard to quantify in numbers but keep that in mind for general usage. HOWEVER, unlike WFR’s S1, a skill that is perfect to buy time for your allies with massive healing, Sora’s S1 completely phase them out, not allowing them to cause harm or be harmed. This is bad because WFR’s skill does not do that, which means you can eliminate this threat even before her 3 charges is used up. Where for Sora’s case, after her skill is over, she loses her massive healing rate, while the enemy that cause the need for a massive heal is still there because you couldn’t kill him when this skill is up. This is the thing I said back in her post, that this skill can be used to buy enough time for round 2, and one thing I only slightly implied was that, if your ops lose this round 2, there’s no comeback.
Which lead to another thing, because Sora isn’t a bona fide healer, in order to use Sora in the field, you’re basically forced to bring an actual medic first, which will cost you an additional deploy limit. Or, you can use Saria along with her (personally duped as the Soaria combo), who already more than enough filled the role of a medic. As in, Saria alone sometime couldn’t fulfill completely the entire role of a medic, but if you add Sora, they both would (unintentional Sora’s S2 showcase).
The change in Sora’s range can swing the comparison as well, but then, it’s apple and orange, as WFR has a long frontal reach, while Sora has large surrounding reach, which including behind her. It does allow Sora to reach her allies easier, but it’s something that WFR can already done most of the time.
One last thing is that Sora’s skill has a really terrible duration, with a terrible cooldown, even if her talent activated, when compare to WFR’s S1. 60SP to use for only 7 seconds is a huge downside, but for that strong effect, it may seem like a balanced(?) decision.
And with that comes the knock out attack from WFR, because Sora’s skill is a “use once, go recharge” type of skill, while WFR can hold 3 charges, it means that WFR’s can just use 1 or 2 charges and be fine. What that signify is that Sora need to fully commit her skill to perform whatever role she needs of that skill, while because WFR’s can store 3 charges (4 if you’re psychopath), she has no real need to commit. If another threat shows up within 60 seconds (or 30s if Sora managed her talent), Sora cannot do anything else for that. We did said earlier that if there’s a lot of allies need strong healing in range, Sora is stronger, but that won’t be like that most of the time. Heck, even if WFR use all 3 charges, she can still restore 1 more charge to use faster than Sora, needing only 4 healing intervals, which can also combine with WFR’s talent which cover half a charge each proc. (Fun fact: both talents recover half the SP required for their S1, that is all).
This has been pointed out many times before, but that just mean Sora isn’t meant to be a healer, which according to the game she already is not. But she could catch up in a few scenarios, one being hardcore AoE heal, the other being countering attack speed debuff (whether it’s an actual attack speed debuff, or just stunned or frozen, which results in attack rate become 0).
Well, now we’re at the section that is the reason why this post was made

Showdown: Second skill

More sick Paint skill
The question has been asked many times.>! I also asked myself many times “Was it worth it to S2M3 both of their skills?” The answer is heck yea!<. But jokes aside, between the two, when will each do better? I will attempt to justify as most cases as possible, except for the few most specific lineups that mainly exists for memes. Now you may say we only buff allies when we do meme, but nobody made that the rule. Believe it or not, you can unironically use buffer (no plural though, because even that’s meme territory even for me) for normal run.
With how strong WFR’s normal healing is due to her high ATK, you can actually use her S2 for runs that never require a strong healing. WFR is perfect for adding just the minimum required healing while providing more to the team with her SP and ATK boost.
First off, WFR always beat Sora with her SP granting talent, so we’ll stop mention that for the rest of this post. WFR’s talent is more consistent (50% from Sora is still quite reliable, but as soon as it doesn’t work once, you’ll remember it), and it can also help allies.
Second off, ally operators who have high attack speed, multi hits, multi targets, AoE, and high skill multipliers all works really well with their buff. But since those thing works for both WFR and Sora’s skill, there’s no winning here. Just remember that those things work amazing with these attack buffs.
Third off, back to 3 points ago. Because WFR can heal and buff at the same, she can transcend from her boring important medic role to a supporter, whereas for Sora, she can’t really do vice-versa. But as I mentioned a while back, Medics tend to get ban more in harder contents, while Supporters have slightly less occasion where they would receive such treatment. In Contingency Contract, you can technically not pick the risks, but it’s there. I heard future CC does have risk that ban Supporters, but again the ban is still at a lower frequency than Medics.
Fourt…nvm I’m getting tired of this. Next, we’ll go further on how much each skill increases their allies’s ATK. There’s our main discrepancy between the 2 buffs, because one increases a flat number of ATK to allies, while the other increases a percentage of damage to an ally. Sora basically give an additional 349 ATK to everyone in her range, while WFR increases their ATK by an additional 90% of their base. This is also worth mentioning again because these ATK buffs only stack additively, not multiplicatively. Anyway, so the break-even point is pretty clear, any operators whose 349 is 90% of their ATK value. That is basically any operator at 387.(7) ATK, which is pretty low. Very few operators have lower damage, and those that do don’t do DPS role (Defenders, Robots, Medics…) except Ranger. Ranger with Sora buff will destroy enemies…or just drones idk.
The turnaround is of course not on 1 ally, but more. If Sora can only boost about 45% of her allies’ damage, then boosting 2 allies is enough to compromise using her instead of WFR who boost for 90% to one ally, 30% with 3, and so on. The more allies Sora boosts, the more she leaves WFR in the dusts. This is actually even better because of 2 reasons. First is again the total % boost of Sora’s buff for multiple allies, the more allies in her range, the better her buff becomes. Second is about the same setup but for healing, since Sora needs more allies to catch up with WFR's healing, and since WFR is mainly use as a healer, you’d need to put your allies in WFR’s range as well. If you do that, then her HPS reduced and the RNG start to affect your buff. The more allies need WFR’s heal, the less consistent her buff become while Sora gain many many chance to catch up.
But WFR won’t go down without a fight, I already devised a way to work around her RNGesus back in her highlights post. Essentially, you can work around the selection of the buff simply by having a win-win situation, instead of putting Cuora in her range, put a strong AoE guard instead, to the point where whoever it randomed to, it’s not a bad choice at all. An extreme form of that strat is to put only 1 person in WFR’s range, which is what most people would default to. That is not wrong, but that would also mean you’re removing her normal role, aka medic, and also because of how large WFR’s range is, in order to have only 1 person in her range, a large area need to be cleared out, OR, if you have WFR face a different angle, then her talent would start to not function properly. Regardless, controlling WFR’s buff can be easy, however it is limiting at time.
There’s also the fact that WFR actually buff 2 persons, not just 1. WFR always buff herself first and foremost. Sora for some reason doesn’t do that. Because the ATK buff is determined before her skill actually start and stay there for the whole duration, i.e. if Sora has an amount of ATK at the time she uses this skill and then getting more (or less) ATK while the skill is already running, the ATK buff wouldn’t change. With that condition in mind, I think Sora S2 could buff herself, effectively x2 her healing during the skill with nothing else change. Though it will still not be that good for healing, it’s still better. Anyway, WFR buffs herself during this skill, which means WFR heals for much stronger during it. That can mean you don’t necessarily need her first skill if you only need it for a certain strong and threatening enemy that only comes periodically. Again, the fact that WFR is a strong medic is helping massively in this buffing war, which has nothing to do with healing lel. But the buff does affect WFR herself, which means Sora need double the amount of ally needed to match up with WFR again. Strictly for buffing allies though, Sora can still easily outbuff WFR.
Sora does have a different approach to buffing comparing to WFR. When I said about making a formation that WFR wouldn’t buff any one that you don’t want, it’s kinda implied that all of them will be DPS because WFR’s buff only target one person and they should generally be DPS, which means that all that are in WFR’s range can deal strong damage. Remember an argument back in their healing skill? That Sora have to all in her skill to heal? Well joke’s on WFR now because she’s the one all in her buff. Sora can buff anything in her range, no discrimination. That means she can buff Defenders, Supporters, Specialists, Medics while also buffing any DPS in her range. That results in the fact that you can now have a stronger heal output as well as the fact that you don’t have to ignore any low DPS allies in her range like WFR would. AND, the fact that Sora’s buff works better the lower your ally’s attack are. As a result of all those little tidbits, what Sora can do is to boost the effectiveness of everyone in her range, regardless of their role. Whereas, for WFR, because of the all-in nature of her buff, you’d almost want to boost a strong DPS instead, like, would you want to use WFR’s buff on a medic? (just for funsies I once full buff Perfumer and when her S2M3 is active she got about 78 HPS regen globally) Yes I M3'd Perfumer's S2
As for how long these buffs last, WFR’s only lasts 15s, whereas Sora’s lasts for double that. This may matter when their respective cooldown is different, as well as the talent that is functionally different as well. Because WFR’s talent always affect herself, it’s more reliable than Sora’s talent who only works 50% of the time. Their respective recharge rate would probably be hard to quantify, as one requires the luck of the draw, and one require enemies’ death. So Sora’s buff lasts twice as long as WFR’s, which could work better for a longer fight period, but if it’s a long fight period, there’s also the chance for WFR’s to reset her skill again with her talent, which means it's kinda a draw.
Let’s see, what else do we have… The rest are just small little advantages. Sora has more DEF and lower cost, which means she’s good for early physical ranged unit bait (or if you’re a madman like me, AF-5 and AF-8, or against stun snipers in OF, she can hold her ground quite fine). The smaller tidbits like Sora constantly heal regardless of any attack rate affliction mentioned earlier, which is fine against attack speed debuff and stuns, BUT, it also works against attack speed buffs (Angelina, Silence, Aak…), so you win some, you lose some.
There’s something quite important to note though, is that no dumbass actually M3 any of these 2 abilities, at least before they have a strong roster normally (the classic “DPS over Enablers” argument). So, how about we assume just normal skill level 7 instead? The only argument that would change is the buff damage and the break-even point after all. Assuming E1 Lv50, we’ll have WFR with only 60% ATK buff, and Sora with 90% of her ATK. From just that, you can already see a huge jump from SL7 to M3 for WFR’s buff, but barely any improvement for Sora’s, the only other improvement for Sora’s M3 is an additional 10s to her skill, which is quite a lot, from 20s at Lv7 to 30s at M3. With that said, the priority to M3 Sora’s skill is mainly to increase duration, not for more buff power. However, Sora at this level has 308 ATK, which translates to 277.2 ATK to allies. The breakpoint with WFR however, becomes 462 ATK. That raises the ceiling to those that Sora can buff better than WFR could by quite a margin, AND, it’s still 5s longer than WFR’s, AND, that's just for one person. What to draw from that is, Sora is really strong for boosting in the early game, with only a little bit of investment for both her and your other operators, as she is better the lower your allies' ATK are, while WFR is slower in the early game (except for the healing, which carried the argument again), but a far better ceiling cap in later parts of the game. But then again, in the early game, Sora will find it harder to win the "just bring another DPS" argument, so even if her buffs are better, her heals are worse, and the resources to get her to at least skill level 7 with a decent level can be put for another DPS and do the job at least equally to her.

Summary (?)

Anyway, here’s some conclusions. WFR wins the talent support, raw single target buff, stronger heal during buff, but all-in one-person buffing, and limited operators’ role in range. Sora has the stronger total buff the more people she buffs but the potency per person depends on their ATK value, less potent range, less utility outside of buff but no discriminating buff, work less effective than her counterpart when there’s more enemies you need to fight, or when RNGesus abandoned you. Sora can buff slightly better with lower investments (both herself and allies) but have lower ceiling cap. Again, it’s always important to note that the fact that WFR can fill 2 roles, Medic and Supporter, mainly carried her entire arguments against her opponent. Sora cannot solo heal any map, and therefore strictly limited her role to only Supporter, even if you use Sora’s S1, then she now has a strong heal, but with a terrible cooldown for a low duration, so it still can’t be used for solo healing. Her last usage of S1 is to stop the enemies, which WFR could never do. But then again, if Sora need her S1, then she can’t use her S2 to buff allies, while for WFR case, she can still use S2 and still have strong healing, as a result of how her skills works.

Anyway, how was this post? Hopefully nothing biased nor rigged…maybe. What's your takes/arguments on this, assuming only between them and not "just add another DPS"? I'll edit the post if it's a great argument that I glossed over or forgot about or just didn't know and then act like I totally knew it already. There could be a lot more for this type of post as well (Shamare vs Pramanix, etc.) though not anytime soon I guess.
As for my other writing series, I’m still thinking about a candidate for the next one, maybe between Glaucus, Platinum, Cliffheart, Skyfire(?), or Shirayuki I guess (I'm still trying to find Swire smh). A bit effy with things now as I need to escape unemployment, but I also need actual motivation (okay maybe poverty is a good motivation I guess). Hope to see you guys next week.
submitted by Windgesang_ to arknights [link] [comments]

I'm finalizing my portfolio for this year.

It's been a while since I made a big post. Lots of people are still messaging me about the energy sector post, especially for the ENPH tip, so I'm here to show my portfolio. I don't own all companies yet, this is partially hypothetical. I'm holding on to a reasonable cash position for a possible new downturn, but I have starting positions in most companies and will DCA.
I will try to keep it summarized, as I have done quite a lot of analysis on each of them. I'll draw the main picture and give the most important arguments for my choices, but I'm not expanding too much. If you're interested, you can DM me to talk about them more.
Let me start by saying I'm a growth investor. I always look for a combination of growth with a great track record, if possible at a reasonable price. There are exceptions as you will see below, but the main balance stays the same. I'm not a defensive investor, but no aggressive one either. My timeline is 2-5 years at least (due to a possible start of a small business), but I would gladly hold on to these companies 10+ years.
TLDR; For you guys not interested in my portfolio, I've added a short list of interesting smaller cap companies at the end, most of them trading at decent values.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
This one is becoming a blue chip, but has more than enough growth potential to live up to those high valuations. Preferred by gamers and beating their biggest competitor in the CPU market hard. While AMD and INTC were close competitors at the beginning of the 21st century, INTC took the lead by a lot. Since 2017, they introduced 7nm CPU's and GPU's and they are closing the gap fast. Not only are their chips more performant, they are also cheaper. Market cap $60B vs $261b.
Those next generation chips lead them to new partnerships, often beating INTC. Microsoft, a long time Intel customer, began using AMD chips in their Surface laptops. Lenovo using AMD for their new servers. Nvidia started using the chips in their AI products. AMD is also used by Apple's high-end laptops, while Intel (used in the budget range) will probably get replaced by Apple chips made in-house. Apart from laptops, AMD has government contracts to deliver supercomputers in 2021/2023 and they are used in both PS and XBOX consoles, to give a few examples.
For the CPU market, AMD is destined to take over, but they're also taking on NVDA for their GPU's. They have been catching up for years and in 2019 they finally made a better performing GPU in the $350-400 price range. There is a possibility to gain GPU market cap since NVDA has been pushing their prices due to the lack of competition. Therefore, with AMD stepping up their game, they need to give up market share or lower their margins.
Assets over liabilities are x1.88. Cash to debt ratio well above industry average, debt to EBITDA well below IA. ROE 17.12% and ROIC 28.06%. Earnings were growing fast before Covid (125% in Q3, 78% in Q4). Yes they're overvalued, but with their future outlook, I would always buy below $49.
Now that they are done catching up, the question is, will they outperform in the future. To gain more market share of Nvidia, they need to be better, not equally good. AMD also needs to control the heating better, as it is one of their long term problems.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Fintech companies like SQ and PYPL are a great investment. However, a lot of big companies will (and already did) implement online financial services. MA is able to easily work with multiple of those companies and they're using their global presence pretty well, that's why they're my pick for the fintech industry.
They launched Mastercard Accelerate last year, implementing those online paying platforms and letting start-ups take advantage of their global presence to grow and transform very fast. Last year they acquired Ethoca (managing e-commerce fraud) and Vyze (platform to connect merchants with multiple renders, giving them the opportunity to get those financial needs for start-ups). MA is basically helping start-ups to grow faster, which will result in more financial transactions in the future.
Last but not least, they like to focus on expanding to countries where there isn't much competition yet. They are expanding their exposure to Middle East and Africa, working with local networks and e-commerce platforms. They are in a strong position to capitalize those regions in the future and take on market leader Visa even more.
They get compared a lot to Visa, so I'll expand on that subject a bit as well. While V is focussing on performance and speed, MA plays the cyber security card. They are already working on ways to implement cryptocurrency and Mastercard tend to have more growth potential vs stability from market leader Visa. While V is in the lead, MA is more widely used by fintech companies, which shows potential take-over in the future. Next to their credit services, they also own debit service Maestro, which is widely used in Europe.
Returns as high as 150% (ROE) and 60% (ROIC). Very large margins and perfectly stable balance sheet. High EPS growth YoY, 53% and 42% in the last two years. Quick ratio 1.87. V has more assets and even bigger margins, however MA wins in returns and cash. In terms of more growth, I like to focus on those last numbers more.
It's a blue chip at a $300B market cap. Their growth potential might be limited, although I see them as one of the better picks between blue chips.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I already talked about solar energy in another post, so I'm gonna skip the explanation. As some of you know my choices were ENPH and SEDG, so I'll explain a bit about why I choose ENPH here. Mainly it's because of their financials, so I'll dive that straight away.
Quick ratio - 2.35 vs 1.74
ROE - 142.94% vs 21.51%
ROIC - 85.51% vs 25.81%
Net margin - 25.81% vs 10.28%
However I think SEDG balance sheet is a lot better and safer, ENPH is working on their future more efficient. They are paving the way smoothly with bigger margins and return on investments. Although SEDG might be the better pick right now, ENPH will be the better one in a short while. ENPH is also a bit less overvalued and their PEG ratio is lower, which makes them the better pick to get in right now.
Diving into the products as well, ENPH just has the better and more efficient product. Their micro inverters are more durable (20 vs 12 years) and give the chance to increase or decrease the amount of solar panels easily, depending on your personal situation.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
I'm not a big fan of biotech companies, but these guys have my attention. Not because they're working on Covid vaccines, but because of two reasons. First one is them getting back-up from Gilead Sciences. That's the push they needed to start operating worldwide, increasing their potential market cap. Now that they have the cash from GILD, they can keep on buying interesting divisions and increase their growth. While having almost no long term debt, they are set pretty well with about $4 billion extra in cash.
Second, they have multiple medicines in later trial phases, with Filgotinib as their biggest one. They had a setback on those results, but the company is very confident, giving an opportunity to get them at a decent price. I wouldn't be surprised if they partner up with another big pharmaceutical company in the metabolic disease section.
High PE (84 vs 44 average), but PEG ratio is 1.2. Quick ratio 9.28. ROIC 75.91% and ROE 7%. Became profitable this year with 16.25% net margin. 38.7% YoY EPS growth.
Like all biotech players, there's a lot depending on medicines getting through phase trials and being commercialized. If Filgotinib will fail, their stock will obviously fall. However since they are backed by a big US giant, they can commercialize the product faster and on a bigger global scale if trials succeed. That's what gives them the advantage in comparison to other biotech companies for me.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
This one has got me doubting a lot. I've taken them off and put them back on my list multiple times, but eventually I decided to keep them at least 2 years to see how they will evolve into streaming.
Biggest advantage they have on their competitors is they basically have a monopoly on kids entertainment. Kids are growing up with electronic devices and content, so they're creating customers at a very young age. That's how Coca Cola used to work. They targeted 14-16 year olds, dumping loads of money into advertising which resulted in life long customers, as people didn't change cola brands often.
Disney+ is a big hit and they won't get so much competition from other streaming services as Netflix and Roku will. They have one of the strongest defined brands out there and they know perfectly how to build and maintain their company. It's also still unclear how sports with public will evolve, but it's certain streaming will become even bigger after Covid. Therefore their money-losing ESPN acquisition could even turn into a moneymaker.
I can't really say great things about their financials. ROE is 12.67%, above 10% is decent. Assets over liabilities are x1.85 and debt to equity is 0.61. You could apply the saying "too big to fail' here, but that's about it. The bad financials are mainly caused by their big investment to streaming of course and they're working on it hard. They doubled their cash position, increasing their quick ratio from 0.75 to 0.89.
I would say financials are their weak point here. They still have to go through some bad weather this and next year I would say. Them doubling their cash position in Q1 was soothing, as I see it being the biggest issue for the future. It might be better to wait it out and keep an eye on them for next year, but I wanted to take a position already. Not higher than 8% of my portfolio though.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
They don't really an introduction I guess. 2nd biggest player for cloud services with Azure. Naming Satya Nadella as CEO and making the transition from hardware to software in 2014 were the best decisions they could've made. Acquired the government contract with Pentagon, however there's still uncertainty about it. In short, Amazon is claiming they were about to win the contract, but Trump criticizing the company would've lead to calling off the deal. For me, that's probably the main reason why MSFT didn't fly as high as their fellow cloud competitors yet.
Assets over liabilities x1.67. ROE and ROIC respectively at 43.82% and 28.88%. Quick ratio of 2.88, 0.65 debt to equity and 1.86 cash to debt. Decent financials, great returns. Talking about blue chips, I would say MSFT is still fairly valued with a PEG ratio just below industry average. Also paying a small dividend.
The Pentagon contract allegations could be pretty negative for the company. They will probably not come back on their decision, cause if they do, MSFT will claim they already made big investments towards them and things will just keep on dragging on. Even without the contract, MSFT should be a 10 year hold while buying on dips.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Haven't read a lot about them here on Reddit, but they're a very decent investment. Basically, they buy properties from cannabis companies and leases them back to the sellers, giving them the cash they need to grow faster and IIPR keeps the long term advantage of renting out those properties. They need to buy about 6-8 properties a year to keep their growth rate going and they already bought 7 this year. They still have a lot of cash ready to take advantage of the crisis.
Not only are they 20% undervalued right now, they have a lot more growth potential after that and on top of it, they pay close to 5% dividend. I'm not a big fan of betting on the best cannabis company for the future, but IIPR is a great buy to have exposure in that industry. It doesn't happen very often I come across a company that combines growth potential with a high dividend, but IIPR does.
Quick ratio 6.75, cash to debt 2.8 (while REITs have an 0.07 average). Net margins 13% above average. Assets over liabilities x4.88. Annual EPS growing by more than 150% and about 41% in the last quarter before Covid. They just missed Q1 estimates, but it was only an 8% drop from Q4, performing way better than other REITs.
IIPR has held a lot of new investment rounds, diluting shares. Of course extra capital will result in higher growth and will eventually be positive in the long run. There has been a drop in these last few days due to the announcement of selling 1 million more shares soon. I would look at it as an opportunity to get an even better price on them.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
It's the only company I don't own yet. I can't force myself to invest more than $140 per share for them, although I really like their business model. A lot of people are skipping doctors visits these days, going straight away to get medicines and counting on the advice of pharmacists. A lot of times, there's more examination needed.
Not only do I see them succeeding in their field, I see them as an essential part of the automation of the pharmacy industry. It's a useful tool in emergencies, giving advice and deciding how serious the condition is, if (fast) medical care is needed. Teladoc will also play a role in insurance and giving the employers a checking tool. 98.9% of their shares are owned by institutions.
In terms of profitability and returns, not great of course. They are estimated to get profitable in 2023. Great balance sheet, assets over liabilities x2.66. Quick ratio 6.14, cash to debt 1.06, debt to equity 0.48.
It's hard to see if a company is well managed before they are profitable. Their moat isn't very narrow, however I feel being one of the first ones gives you a big advantage in this field.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
Gonna keep this one pretty short, there has been enough posts about Donkey Kong. For me, the most important factor for choosing them in this industry is their fantasy sports section. They are widely popular and that division will only get more interesting while online gambling, and especially in-game betting, gets more and more legalized in the US.
Although they realized major revenue growth in 2019, they almost doubled their earnings loss. Main reason of course having to develop their platform and system. Good thing is, their technology is highly scalable, meaning they margin will grow massively while expanding in to more states and countries. Not many ratios available yet, so that's about the only financial information I own atm.
The only negative I see is their pretty wide moat, so this one should be monitored more closely in the future. But for now, they have the momentum and are one of the most popular choices, great investment.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
As many of you know, two great companies (UTC and RTN) merged together in April. While United focussed on aircraft engines (Pratt & Whitney), Raytheon manufactured weapons, military and commercial electronics. They always delivered advanced technologies and them gaining multiple government contracts in the last decade is confirmation of their performant products.
Raytheon will continue to grow their leadership in different segments. Because of their diversity, they seem perfectly in place to grow even more into an aerospace & defense giant. Engines, aerostructures, avionics, sensors, cybersecurity and other software solutions are just a few examples of their working fields.
With a PE ratio of 13.58 and PB ratio of 1.41, this is probably the most undervalued stock in my portfolio. Assets over liabilities x1.43. The rest of their financials isn't that great. UTC was carrying a lot of debt, but because of the merger, it will be better balanced as RTN was only carrying $2 billion net debt. If they can decrease their debt and optimize their merger, they are set to be the new number one in defense.
It's still unclear how the merger will work out financially and logistically. In theory, they should be very well armed (pun intended) to take on LMT as market leader. Their exposure to commercial aircrafts is also a big threat, but it's less of an issue because they can make up with their other practices.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
As you can see, I've tried to get the best blue chips with still some growth potential and stable growth companies together. Since a lot of companies already got mentioned on this forum, I'll include a bonus round of interesting companies I came across during my search for the best companies. I didn't include them in my portfolio mainly because I feel the chance of them succeeding and living up to their future potential is more risky than others. For you looking for higher risk, higher reward, check out these companies below.
-- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- -- --
So, that's about all I have to share. This will also be my last big post a while. Analyzing stocks has been my main occupation for the last three months, but it's time to work on opening up the hotel and bar again. I hope some of you get something out of this. I'm not a professional so always check again for yourself. I'm gonna hold on to these companies for a while now. Will add some extra capital at the beginning of 2021, so you could expect another big post about my newest findings then. For now, I'm gonna take a break from following the market day in day out and enjoy the weather a bit more.
Have a good one!
submitted by CapitalC5 to stocks [link] [comments]

What is Margin Call?  How to trade with IG - YouTube What is Margin Money? Detailed Example Explanation Оf The Basic Concepts Of Margin Trading What is Margin Trading? Margin Trading kya Hota hai ... Buying stocks on margin explained - benefits and risks.

Trading on margin is nothing more than buying stock with debt. If you have a margin account with a brokerage, you may borrow funds from the brokerage firm to finance all or part of a trade. When you do this, there is a margin requirement, meaning that you must have a certain amount of equity (such as cash or securities) on deposit with the ... Margin trading is a way for magnifying user's profit by introducing leverage in spot trading. However, it adds to user's risks as well. Because the price of digital assets fluctuates greatly, users must fully understand the risks of margin trading and use it with caution. Margin trading involves buying and selling of securities in one single session. Over time, various brokerages have relaxed the approach on time duration. The process requires an investor to speculate or guess the stock movement in a particular session. Margin trading is an easy way of making a fast buck. Margin Explanation. Initial Margin ... he or she will receive a margin call to top up his margin account so as to meet the initial margin requirement. Example Let’s assume we have a speculator who has $10000 in his trading account. He decides to buy August Crude Oil at $40 per barrel. Each Crude Oil futures contract represents 1000 barrels ... For example, 1:400 leverage means you can control 400 times the amount of your margin deposit. This is called “leverage,” and it’s the way forex traders can control large amounts of currency. It’s important to remember that high leverage is a double-edged sword that allows you to quickly earn profits while exposing you to fast and ...

[index] [625] [271] [685] [789] [473] [33] [643] [580] [359] [272]

What is Margin Call? How to trade with IG - YouTube

--~-- What is Margin is a question many retail investors ask along with what is a margin account and what is margin trading. Today I am going to tell you wha... In this video, we will introduce you to the basic concepts that are necessary for margin trading on the https://50x.com exchange. Video about cryptocurrency ... Have you always wondered what it means to trade on margin? In this video, you’ll learn what margin trading is and if it is a strategy that could help you ach... What is margin trading? What is a margin? What is the difference between a cash account and a margin account? In episode #34 of Real World Finance we dive de... This is a great explanation of the stock market for beginners, along with the risks of margin trading and the benefits. Want to signup for a TRADEPRO subscription and experience the edge? https ...