Margin Calculator - TTCM - Traders-Trust - Start Trading Now

I paid $1000 for an Adam Khoo investing course so you don't have to! (Summarized in post)

Lesson one is "stock basics" summarized: (2 videos) for every buyer there's a seller, for every seller there's a buyer, fear and greed drives prices, what fundamental analysis means, what technical analysis means.
lesson 2 is ETFs summarized: (video 1) Bull markets are opportunities, bear markets are bigger opportunity's, Bear markets never last, always followed by bull market. (video 2) The market is volatile in the short term in the long term it always goes up, what an ETF is, different types of ETF indexes. (video 3) Expands on the different types of ETFs (bonds, commodities etc). (video 3) A 35min video on dollar cost averaging lol. (Video 5) summarizing the last 4 videos.
Lesson 3 is Steps to investing summarized: (video 1) A good business increases value over time, a valuable business has higher sales, earnings and cashflow. (video 2) invest in businesses that are undervalued or fairly valued, stocks trade below its value because investors have negative perception of the company
lesson 4 Financials summarized (all 4 videos) where to find financials, how to use a website (Morning Star) to screen stocks, how good is the company at making money, Look for companies that have growing revenue, check growth profit margin and net profit margin of company compared to industry.
Lesson 5 Stock Valuation summarized (2 videos) go here: https://tradebrains.in/dcf-calculato and look at what the calculator is asking for, go to Morning Star find the needed numbers that are required, bam you got the intrinsic vale.
Lesson 6 Technical Analysis summarized: (all 4 videos) What are candles sticks, what do they mean, support and ceilings, consolidation levels.
Lesson 7 The 7 step formula summarized: (3 videos) See what I wrote in lesson 3 and lesson 5.
lesson 8 Winning portfolio summarized summarized: (video 1) Diversify, keep portfolio balanced, different sectors (video 2) More sectors, Dividends (video 3) More on sectors, more on dividends, what are different stock caps (large cap, small cap etc)
Lesson 9 finding opportunities summarized: (video 1) see lesson 3, (video 2) creating a watch list,monitor news, company announcements, stock price, financials
Lesson 10 psychology of success summarized: (2 videos) basically: common sense.
Lesson 11 Finding a broker summarized: (1 video) look at fees and commissions, see minimum deposit, check margin rates, make sure it has a good trading platform.
I just saved you 18 hours and $1000.
submitted by swagbasket34 to investing [link] [comments]

Former investment bank FX trader: some thoughts

Former investment bank FX trader: some thoughts
Hi guys,
I have been using reddit for years in my personal life (not trading!) and wanted to give something back in an area where i am an expert.
I worked at an investment bank for seven years and joined them as a graduate FX trader so have lots of professional experience, by which i mean I was trained and paid by a big institution to trade on their behalf. This is very different to being a full-time home trader, although that is not to discredit those guys, who can accumulate a good amount of experience/wisdom through self learning.
When I get time I'm going to write a mid-length posts on each topic for you guys along the lines of how i was trained. I guess there would be 15-20 topics in total so about 50-60 posts. Feel free to comment or ask questions.
The first topic is Risk Management and we'll cover it in three parts
Part I
  • Why it matters
  • Position sizing
  • Kelly
  • Using stops sensibly
  • Picking a clear level

Why it matters

The first rule of making money through trading is to ensure you do not lose money. Look at any serious hedge fund’s website and they’ll talk about their first priority being “preservation of investor capital.”
You have to keep it before you grow it.
Strangely, if you look at retail trading websites, for every one article on risk management there are probably fifty on trade selection. This is completely the wrong way around.
The great news is that this stuff is pretty simple and process-driven. Anyone can learn and follow best practices.
Seriously, avoiding mistakes is one of the most important things: there's not some holy grail system for finding winning trades, rather a routine and fairly boring set of processes that ensure that you are profitable, despite having plenty of losing trades alongside the winners.

Capital and position sizing

The first thing you have to know is how much capital you are working with. Let’s say you have $100,000 deposited. This is your maximum trading capital. Your trading capital is not the leveraged amount. It is the amount of money you have deposited and can withdraw or lose.
Position sizing is what ensures that a losing streak does not take you out of the market.
A rule of thumb is that one should risk no more than 2% of one’s account balance on an individual trade and no more than 8% of one’s account balance on a specific theme. We’ll look at why that’s a rule of thumb later. For now let’s just accept those numbers and look at examples.
So we have $100,000 in our account. And we wish to buy EURUSD. We should therefore not be risking more than 2% which $2,000.
We look at a technical chart and decide to leave a stop below the monthly low, which is 55 pips below market. We’ll come back to this in a bit. So what should our position size be?
We go to the calculator page, select Position Size and enter our details. There are many such calculators online - just google "Pip calculator".

https://preview.redd.it/y38zb666e5h51.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26e4fe569dc5c1f43ce4c746230c49b138691d14
So the appropriate size is a buy position of 363,636 EURUSD. If it reaches our stop level we know we’ll lose precisely $2,000 or 2% of our capital.
You should be using this calculator (or something similar) on every single trade so that you know your risk.
Now imagine that we have similar bets on EURJPY and EURGBP, which have also broken above moving averages. Clearly this EUR-momentum is a theme. If it works all three bets are likely to pay off. But if it goes wrong we are likely to lose on all three at once. We are going to look at this concept of correlation in more detail later.
The total amount of risk in our portfolio - if all of the trades on this EUR-momentum theme were to hit their stops - should not exceed $8,000 or 8% of total capital. This allows us to go big on themes we like without going bust when the theme does not work.
As we’ll see later, many traders only win on 40-60% of trades. So you have to accept losing trades will be common and ensure you size trades so they cannot ruin you.
Similarly, like poker players, we should risk more on trades we feel confident about and less on trades that seem less compelling. However, this should always be subject to overall position sizing constraints.
For example before you put on each trade you might rate the strength of your conviction in the trade and allocate a position size accordingly:

https://preview.redd.it/q2ea6rgae5h51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=4332cb8d0bbbc3d8db972c1f28e8189105393e5b
To keep yourself disciplined you should try to ensure that no more than one in twenty trades are graded exceptional and allocated 5% of account balance risk. It really should be a rare moment when all the stars align for you.
Notice that the nice thing about dealing in percentages is that it scales. Say you start out with $100,000 but end the year up 50% at $150,000. Now a 1% bet will risk $1,500 rather than $1,000. That makes sense as your capital has grown.
It is extremely common for retail accounts to blow-up by making only 4-5 losing trades because they are leveraged at 50:1 and have taken on far too large a position, relative to their account balance.
Consider that GBPUSD tends to move 1% each day. If you have an account balance of $10k then it would be crazy to take a position of $500k (50:1 leveraged). A 1% move on $500k is $5k.
Two perfectly regular down days in a row — or a single day’s move of 2% — and you will receive a margin call from the broker, have the account closed out, and have lost all your money.
Do not let this happen to you. Use position sizing discipline to protect yourself.

Kelly Criterion

If you’re wondering - why “about 2%” per trade? - that’s a fair question. Why not 0.5% or 10% or any other number?
The Kelly Criterion is a formula that was adapted for use in casinos. If you know the odds of winning and the expected pay-off, it tells you how much you should bet in each round.
This is harder than it sounds. Let’s say you could bet on a weighted coin flip, where it lands on heads 60% of the time and tails 40% of the time. The payout is $2 per $1 bet.
Well, absolutely you should bet. The odds are in your favour. But if you have, say, $100 it is less obvious how much you should bet to avoid ruin.
Say you bet $50, the odds that it could land on tails twice in a row are 16%. You could easily be out after the first two flips.
Equally, betting $1 is not going to maximise your advantage. The odds are 60/40 in your favour so only betting $1 is likely too conservative. The Kelly Criterion is a formula that produces the long-run optimal bet size, given the odds.
Applying the formula to forex trading looks like this:
Position size % = Winning trade % - ( (1- Winning trade %) / Risk-reward ratio
If you have recorded hundreds of trades in your journal - see next chapter - you can calculate what this outputs for you specifically.
If you don't have hundreds of trades then let’s assume some realistic defaults of Winning trade % being 30% and Risk-reward ratio being 3. The 3 implies your TP is 3x the distance of your stop from entry e.g. 300 pips take profit and 100 pips stop loss.
So that’s 0.3 - (1 - 0.3) / 3 = 6.6%.
Hold on a second. 6.6% of your account probably feels like a LOT to risk per trade.This is the main observation people have on Kelly: whilst it may optimise the long-run results it doesn’t take into account the pain of drawdowns. It is better thought of as the rational maximum limit. You needn’t go right up to the limit!
With a 30% winning trade ratio, the odds of you losing on four trades in a row is nearly one in four. That would result in a drawdown of nearly a quarter of your starting account balance. Could you really stomach that and put on the fifth trade, cool as ice? Most of us could not.
Accordingly people tend to reduce the bet size. For example, let’s say you know you would feel emotionally affected by losing 25% of your account.
Well, the simplest way is to divide the Kelly output by four. You have effectively hidden 75% of your account balance from Kelly and it is now optimised to avoid a total wipeout of just the 25% it can see.
This gives 6.6% / 4 = 1.65%. Of course different trading approaches and different risk appetites will provide different optimal bet sizes but as a rule of thumb something between 1-2% is appropriate for the style and risk appetite of most retail traders.
Incidentally be very wary of systems or traders who claim high winning trade % like 80%. Invariably these don’t pass a basic sense-check:
  • How many live trades have you done? Often they’ll have done only a handful of real trades and the rest are simulated backtests, which are overfitted. The model will soon die.
  • What is your risk-reward ratio on each trade? If you have a take profit $3 away and a stop loss $100 away, of course most trades will be winners. You will not be making money, however! In general most traders should trade smaller position sizes and less frequently than they do. If you are going to bias one way or the other, far better to start off too small.

How to use stop losses sensibly

Stop losses have a bad reputation amongst the retail community but are absolutely essential to risk management. No serious discretionary trader can operate without them.
A stop loss is a resting order, left with the broker, to automatically close your position if it reaches a certain price. For a recap on the various order types visit this chapter.
The valid concern with stop losses is that disreputable brokers look for a concentration of stops and then, when the market is close, whipsaw the price through the stop levels so that the clients ‘stop out’ and sell to the broker at a low rate before the market naturally comes back higher. This is referred to as ‘stop hunting’.
This would be extremely immoral behaviour and the way to guard against it is to use a highly reputable top-tier broker in a well regulated region such as the UK.
Why are stop losses so important? Well, there is no other way to manage risk with certainty.
You should always have a pre-determined stop loss before you put on a trade. Not having one is a recipe for disaster: you will find yourself emotionally attached to the trade as it goes against you and it will be extremely hard to cut the loss. This is a well known behavioural bias that we’ll explore in a later chapter.
Learning to take a loss and move on rationally is a key lesson for new traders.
A common mistake is to think of the market as a personal nemesis. The market, of course, is totally impersonal; it doesn’t care whether you make money or not.
Bruce Kovner, founder of the hedge fund Caxton Associates
There is an old saying amongst bank traders which is “losers average losers”.
It is tempting, having bought EURUSD and seeing it go lower, to buy more. Your average price will improve if you keep buying as it goes lower. If it was cheap before it must be a bargain now, right? Wrong.
Where does that end? Always have a pre-determined cut-off point which limits your risk. A level where you know the reason for the trade was proved ‘wrong’ ... and stick to it strictly. If you trade using discretion, use stops.

Picking a clear level

Where you leave your stop loss is key.
Typically traders will leave them at big technical levels such as recent highs or lows. For example if EURUSD is trading at 1.1250 and the recent month’s low is 1.1205 then leaving it just below at 1.1200 seems sensible.

If you were going long, just below the double bottom support zone seems like a sensible area to leave a stop
You want to give it a bit of breathing room as we know support zones often get challenged before the price rallies. This is because lots of traders identify the same zones. You won’t be the only one selling around 1.1200.
The “weak hands” who leave their sell stop order at exactly the level are likely to get taken out as the market tests the support. Those who leave it ten or fifteen pips below the level have more breathing room and will survive a quick test of the level before a resumed run-up.
Your timeframe and trading style clearly play a part. Here’s a candlestick chart (one candle is one day) for GBPUSD.

https://preview.redd.it/moyngdy4f5h51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=91af88da00dd3a09e202880d8029b0ddf04fb802
If you are putting on a trend-following trade you expect to hold for weeks then you need to have a stop loss that can withstand the daily noise. Look at the downtrend on the chart. There were plenty of days in which the price rallied 60 pips or more during the wider downtrend.
So having a really tight stop of, say, 25 pips that gets chopped up in noisy short-term moves is not going to work for this kind of trade. You need to use a wider stop and take a smaller position size, determined by the stop level.
There are several tools you can use to help you estimate what is a safe distance and we’ll look at those in the next section.
There are of course exceptions. For example, if you are doing range-break style trading you might have a really tight stop, set just below the previous range high.

https://preview.redd.it/ygy0tko7f5h51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=34af49da61c911befdc0db26af66f6c313556c81
Clearly then where you set stops will depend on your trading style as well as your holding horizons and the volatility of each instrument.
Here are some guidelines that can help:
  1. Use technical analysis to pick important levels (support, resistance, previous high/lows, moving averages etc.) as these provide clear exit and entry points on a trade.
  2. Ensure that the stop gives your trade enough room to breathe and reflects your timeframe and typical volatility of each pair. See next section.
  3. Always pick your stop level first. Then use a calculator to determine the appropriate lot size for the position, based on the % of your account balance you wish to risk on the trade.
So far we have talked about price-based stops. There is another sort which is more of a fundamental stop, used alongside - not instead of - price stops. If either breaks you’re out.
For example if you stop understanding why a product is going up or down and your fundamental thesis has been confirmed wrong, get out. For example, if you are long because you think the central bank is turning hawkish and AUDUSD is going to play catch up with rates … then you hear dovish noises from the central bank and the bond yields retrace lower and back in line with the currency - close your AUDUSD position. You already know your thesis was wrong. No need to give away more money to the market.

Coming up in part II

EDIT: part II here
Letting stops breathe
When to change a stop
Entering and exiting winning positions
Risk:reward ratios
Risk-adjusted returns

Coming up in part III

Squeezes and other risks
Market positioning
Bet correlation
Crap trades, timeouts and monthly limits

***
Disclaimer:This content is not investment advice and you should not place any reliance on it. The views expressed are the author's own and should not be attributed to any other person, including their employer.
submitted by getmrmarket to Forex [link] [comments]

Conservative Margin Lending - A tool to use, and a reason to invest outside of Super

Conservative Margin Lending - A tool to use, and a reason to invest outside of Super
Hi AusFinance, i thought i would write on a topic i'm rather passionate about, and hopefully offer some 'food for thought' and an alternative to the standard answers of 'Super is the best environment for your money'.
Disclaimers:
  1. this is not financial advice, i am merely trying to offer some food for thought
  2. these examples are greatly simplified, they do not take into account interest rate risk, legislation risk (both on super, on changes to tax, etc..).
  3. The case study below does not take into account the ability to margin lend inside super. the ability is there, such as Bell Potter's Equity Lever platform, but this is not available to your average retail/industry super, hence it is excluded.
Margin lending for the uninitiated:
For those of you unaware, margin loans are borrowing to invest. Your shares/fund units act as security that let you borrow money to buy more shares/fund units. These are given different levels of "Loan to Value Ratio" aka LVR.
a 75% LVR means you can make up a total investment with a minimum of 25% your money, and a maximum of 75% borrowed money. So with $2,500 you'd be able to borrow up to $7,500 (Making up a total portfolio of $10,000).

Why borrow to invest?
Simply put, Margin lending amplifies your gains and your losses. I have included a table below to demonstrate what a margin loan will do to a $25,000 investment at an 8% p.a. return at different LVRs. I am using Leveraged Equities variable 4.24% interest rate on their direct investment loan as the interest cost - the product offers access to the vast majority of funds and shares that an investor needs, it's just lacking advanced features like options trading (who cares!)

https://preview.redd.it/42p6co191lb51.png?width=786&format=png&auto=webp&s=764b15d0695792766367cc05b5adae78f3af840a
Here we can see the return improve from the standard 8% all the way to 11.8% if using 50% LVR. But in my opinion, 50% LVR is too risky for many investors appetite here, even if it is my ideal point. Instead, i would direct your attention to 35% LVR.
Why 35% LVR?
a 35% LVR comes with a number of benefits to an investor doing standard VAS/VGS/VDHG style etf investing.
  1. Increased returns - as we can see it takes an 8% return and increases it to a 10.1% return
  2. Returns slightly understated - The return is not factoring the effect that the interest will have on your tax return - it is tax deductible.
  3. Low chance of a margin call.
Let's talk about #3. Margin calls are without a doubt the scariest part of margin lending, and i don't blame you for being afraid of them. Many people who leverage too aggressively and fly too close to the sun get hit with a nasty cycle where:
  1. Their investment falls into margin call territory because it has dropped
  2. They are forced to sell their assets at the worst points in the market to get out of the margin call
  3. they miss out on the recovery because their excess cash was used covering margin calls on the way down.
But this is where a 35% LVR is so appealing. the calculation to figure out where your margin call will happen is:
1-(Loan/(Lending Value + Buffer)).
So if we take a standard favourite of Ausfinance such as VAS, VDHG etc, we can see that they have a LVR of 75%. Industry standard buffer is 10%. so let's figure out a margin call on a $25,000 investment, with $14,000 borrowed funds (35% LVR):
1-($14,000/(($39,000*0.75)+($39,000*0.10))) = 58%
it would take a 58% drop in the portfolio to bring it to a margin call. This is the portfolio dropping from $39,000 to $16,470.
This requires a staggering drop before you experience a margin call, and if you are concerned reducing your LVR to only 25% will still improve your return and increase your chance of never being margin called.
You have time to add to your holdings with equity only (buying a dip + decreasing your overall LVR). the important thing is you can manage your risk and it requires truly a cataclysmic level of decline before you experience a margin call ,and at that point that may not be your biggest concern.

Why all the fuss? What's the point of risking being margin called?
It's all in that % return. in the following example i will use ASIC's compound calculator, along with the following parameters:
$25,000 initial deposit (your capital), $0 regular deposits, annual compounding, and a 30 year time horizon. The only assumption is that as the portfolio grows in capital value, the 35% LVR is maintained.
Case 1 - 0 LVR (AKA [email protected]%) - after 30 years of compounding at 8% you end up on $251,566
Case 2 - 35% LVR (AKA compounding at 10.1%) - after 30 years of compounding at 10.1% you end up on $448,291
Verdict - Case 2 ends up being $196,725 better. a 78% superior return
Every % matters so much in a long term strategy, it is truly impossible to overstate how important it is to long term outcomes.

Case Study: Super Showdown
As a final demonstration of the power of a low leverage strategy we will put two different cases head to head. Let us assume that a 30 year old intends to retire at age 65, and has the option of either having $50,000 in super, or invested at a 35% LVR.
After retirement, they will either 1. Take the money tax free in pension phase or 2. pay capital gains tax by cashing out their own 'pension' each year, with their marginal tax rate being 30% (using the currently legislated but not implemented rates). Case 2 will overstate their tax slightly, as i will not scale it, i will just hit the whole thing at 30%.

https://preview.redd.it/86c7xcrc7lb51.png?width=530&format=png&auto=webp&s=045a1774106ac8d8ac848decb04bec9a142bdc52
We can see that with the CGT discount, paying 15% tax is actually better than paying a 0% tax rate due to the higher return. It's an out-performance of $508,681
But okay, i hear you, CGT discount may be gotten rid of, let's recalculate it with no discount:

https://preview.redd.it/yafmmg6p7lb51.png?width=530&format=png&auto=webp&s=d9ae4b0db5de48808ca202f7c6e40d599c34c065
Even without a CGT discount (and 30% flat is more tax than you'd pay on a CGT discounted method on the highest marginal rate currently) there has been an out-performance of $306,102

What do i hope you take away from this?
Even if you decide that the risk of margin lending is too much for you, or that i'm absolutely insane to choose an outside of super strategy that relies on borrowing to invest, i hope that i have given you something to think about.
the one thing i hope everyone takes away from this just as a general point is the sheer power of small changes in your long term return %.
I really strongly believe in conservatively leveraging safe and boring investments to boost that all critical return over the long term to create outstanding long term results.
minor edit: fixed up some grammar
submitted by Savings-Flounder to AusFinance [link] [comments]

PRPL Q2 2020 Earnings Expectations

PRPL Q2 2020 Earnings Expectations

tl;dr - Earnings is gonna be lit!

PRPL earnings is tomorrow, 8/13, after hours. Any other date is wrong. Robinhood is wrong (why are you using Robinhood still!?!).
I'm going to take you through my earnings projections and reasoning as well the things to look for in the earnings release and the call that could make this moon even further.

Earnings Estimates

https://preview.redd.it/w3qad4gb9ng51.png?width=854&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a88656a9867d0e40710736f61974a22b5f4a631
I'm calling $244M Net Revenue with $39.75M in Net Income, which would be $0.75 Diluted EPS. I'll walk you through how I got here

Total Net Revenue

I make the assumption that Purple is still selling every mattress it can make (since that is what they said for April and May) and that this continued into June because the website was still delayed 7-14 days across all mattresses at the end of June.
May Revenue and April DTC: The numbers in purple were provided by Purple here and here.
April Wholesale: My estimate of $2.7M for Wholesale sales in April comes from this statement from the Q1 earnings release: " While wholesale sales were down 42.7% in April year-over-year, weekly wholesale orders have started to increase on a sequential basis. " I divided Q2 2019's wholesale sales evenly between months and then went down 42.7%.
June DTC: This is my estimate based upon the fact that another Mattress Max machine went online June 1, thus increasing capacity, and the low end model was discontinued (raising revenue per unit).
June Wholesale: Joe Megibow stated at Commerce Next on 7/30 that wholesale had returned to almost flat growth. I'm going to assume he meant for the quarter, so I plugged the number here to finish out the quarter at $39.0M, just under $39.3M from a year ago.

Revenue Expectations from Analysts (via Yahoo)
https://preview.redd.it/notxd6hhbng51.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=aa0453414f467aa6c5bf72ce8a8046c0ae6e62a5
My estimate of $244M comes in way over the high, let alone the consensus. PRPL has effectively already disclosed ~$145M for April/May, so these expectations are way off. I'm more right than they are.

Gross Margins

I used my estimates for Q3/Q4 2019 to guide margins in April/May as there were some one time events that occurred in Q1 depressing margins. June has higher margin because of the shift away from the low end model (which is priced substantially lower than the high end model). Higher priced models were given manufacturing priority.

Operating Expenses

Marketing and Sales
Joe mentioned in the Commerce Next video that they were able to scale sales at a constant CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost). There's three ways of interpreting this:
  1. Overall customer acquisition cost was constant with previous quarters (assume $36M total, not $93.2M), which means you need to add another $57M to bottom line profit and $1.08 to EPS, or
  2. Customer Acquisition Costs on a unit basis were constant, which means I'm still overstating total marketing expense and understating EPS massively, or
  3. Customer Acquisition Costs on a revenue basis were constant, which is the most conservative approach and the one I took for my estimate.
I straightlined the 2.2 ratio of DTC sales to Marketing costs from Q1. I am undoubtably too high in my expense estimate here as PRPL saw marketing efficiencies and favorable revenue shifts during the quarter. So, $93.2M
General and Administrative
A Purple HR rep posted on LinkedIn about hiring 330 people in the quarter. I'm going to assume that was relative to the pre-COVID furloughs, so I had June at that proportional amount to previous employees and adjusted April and May for furloughs and returns from furlough.
Research and Development
I added just a little here and straight lined it.

Other Expenses

Interest Expense
Straightlined from previous quarters, although they may have tapped ABL lines and so forth, so this could be under.
One Time and Other
Unpredictable by nature.
Warrant Liability Accrual
I'm making some assumptions here.
  1. We know that the secondary offering event during Q2 from the Pearce brothers triggered the clause for the loan warrants (NOT the PRPLW warrants) to lower the strike price to $0.
  2. I can't think of a logical reason why the warrant holders wouldn't exercise at this point.
  3. Therefore there is no longer a warrant liability where the company may need to repurchase warrants back.
  4. The liability accrual of $7.989M needs to be reversed out for a gain.
This sucker is worth about $0.15 EPS on its own.

Earnings (EPS)

I project $39.75M or $0.75 Diluted EPS (53M shares). How does this hold up to the analysts?
EPS Expectations from Analysts (via Yahoo)
https://preview.redd.it/o2i1dvk6hng51.png?width=373&format=png&auto=webp&s=27e63f7934d85393e1f7b87bf2e2066c28047202
EPS Expectations from Analysts (via MarketBeat)
https://preview.redd.it/psu5rajfhng51.png?width=1359&format=png&auto=webp&s=0612d43777c644789b14f8c5decbe36f41925f5e
These losers are way under. Now you know why I am so optimistic about earnings.
Keep in mind, these analysts are still giving $28-$30 price targets.

What to Watch For During Earnings (aka Reasons Why This Moons More)

Analysts, Institutionals, and everyone else who uses math for investing is going to be listening for the following:
  • Margin Growth
  • Warrant Liability Accrual
  • Capacity Expansion Rate
  • CACs (Customer Acquisition Costs)
  • New Product Categories
  • Cashless Exercise of PRPLW warrants

Margin Growth
This factor is HUGE. If PRPL guides to higher margins due to better sales mix and continued DTC shift, then every analyst and investor is going to tweak their models up in a big way. Thus far, management has been relatively cautious about this fortuitous shift to DTC continuing. If web traffic is any indicator, it will, but we need management to tell us that.
Warrant Liability Accrual
I could be dead wrong on my assumptions above on this one. If it stays, there will be questions about it due to the drop in exercise price. It does impact GAAP earnings (although it shouldn't--stupid accountants).
Capacity Expansion Rate
This is a BIG one as well. As PRPL has been famously capacity constrained: their rate of manufacturing capacity expansion is their growth rate over the next year. PRPL discontinued expansion at the beginning of COVID and then re-accelerated it to a faster pace than pre-COVID by hurrying the machines in-process out to the floor. They also signed their manufacturing space deal which has nearly doubled manufacturing space a quarter early. The REAL question is when the machines will start rolling out. Previous guidance was end of the year at best. If we get anything sooner than that, we are going to ratchet up.
CACs (Customer Acquisition Costs)
Since DTC is the new game in town, we are all going to want to understand exactly where marketing expenses were this quarter and, more importantly, where management thinks they are going. The magic words to listen for are "marketing efficiencies". Those words means the stock goes up. This is the next biggest line item on the P&L besides revenue and cost of goods sold.
New Product Categories
We heard the VP of Brand from Purple give us some touchy-feely vision of where the company is headed and that mattresses was just the revenue generating base to empower this. I'm hoping we hear more about this. This is what differentiated Amazon from Barnes and Noble: Amazon's vision was more than just books. Purple sees itself as more than just mattresses. Hopefully we get some announced action behind that vision. This multiplies the stock.
Cashless Exercise of PRPLW Warrants
I doubt this will be answered, even if the question is asked. I bet they wait until the 20 out of 30 days is up and they deliver notice. We could be pleasantly surprised. If management informs us that they will opt for cashless exercise of the warrants, this is anti-dilutive to EPS. It will reduce the number of outstanding shares and automatically cause an adjustment up in the stock price (remember kids, some people use math when investing). I'm hopeful, but not expecting it. The amount of the adjustment depends on the current price of the stock. Also, I fully expect PRPL management to use their cashless exercise option at the end of the 20 out of 30 days as they are already spitting cash.

Positions


https://preview.redd.it/tho65crvkng51.png?width=1242&format=png&auto=webp&s=6241ff5e8b26744f9d7119ddef7da86f163c741d
I'm not just holding, I added.
PRPLW Warrants: 391,280
PRPL Call Debit Spreads: 17.5c/25c 8/21 x90, 20c/25c 8/21 x247
Also, I bought some CSPR 7.5p 8/21 x200 for fun because I think that sucker is going to get shamed back down to $6 after a real mattress company shows what it can do.

UPDATES

I've made some updates to the model, and produced two different models:
  1. Warrant Liability Accrual Goes to Zero
  2. Warrant Liability Accrual Goes to $47M
I made the following adjustments generally:
  • I reduced marketing expenses signifanctly based upon comments made by Joe Megibox on 6/29 in this CNBC video to 30% of sales (thanks u/deepredsky).
  • I reduced June wholesale revenue to 12.6M to be conservative based upon another possible interpretation of Joe's comments in this video here. It is a hard pill to swallow that June wholesale sales would be less than May's. The only reasoning I can think of is if May caused a large restock and then June tapered back off. The previous number of $19.0M was still a retrenchment from the 40-50% YoY growth rate. I'm going to keep the more conservative number (thanks again u/deepredsky).
  • I modified the number of outstanding shares used for EPS calculations from 53M (last quarters number used on the 10-Q) to almost 73M based upon the fact that all of the warrants and employee stock options are now in the money. Math below. (thanks DS_CPA1 on Stocktwits for pointing this out)
Capital Structure for EPS Calculations
From the recent S-3 filing for the May secondary, I pulled the following:
https://preview.redd.it/qw7awg8w7sg51.png?width=368&format=png&auto=webp&s=66c884682ddb8517939468ab1e6780742f55d427
I diluted earnings by the above share count.

Model With Warrant Liability Going to Zero
https://preview.redd.it/cz2ydomi4sg51.png?width=852&format=png&auto=webp&s=53cc457a3143cabb16bfff9a1503054a9a8c0fca
Model With Warrant Liability Going to $47M
https://preview.redd.it/o2hltrgf5sg51.png?width=853&format=png&auto=webp&s=41cbe73a7aa0894a86a09ccc9179b100e9d3372d
A few people called me out on my assumption, that I also said could be wrong. My favorite callout came from u/lawschoolbluesny who started all smug and condescending, and proceeded to tell me about June 31st, from which I couldn't stop laughing. Stay in law school bud a bit longer...
https://preview.redd.it/dd4tcdue4sg51.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=d27f3ad40c702502ee62f106b6135f0db2c1e7be
One other comment he made needs an answer because WHY we are accruing MATTERS a lot!
Now that we have established that coliseum still has not exercised the options as of july 7, and that purple needs to record as a liability the fair value of the options as of june 31, we now need to determine what that fair value is. You state that since you believe that there is no logical reason that coliseum won't redeem their warrants "there is no longer a warrant liability where the company may need to repurchase warrants back." While I'm not 100% certain your logic here, I can say for certain that whether or not a person will redeem their warrants does not dictate how prpl accounts for them.

The warrant liability accrual DOES NOT exist because the warrants simply exist. The accrual exists because the warrants give the warrant holder the right to force the company to buy back the warrants for cash in the event of a fundamental transaction for Black Scholes value ($18 at the end of June--June 31st that is...). And accruals are adjusted for the probability of a particular event happening, which I STILL argue is close to zero.
A fundamental transaction did occur. The Pearce brothers sold more than 10M shares of stock which is why the exercise price dropped to zero. (Note for DS_CPA1 on Stocktwits: there is some conflicting filings as to what the exercise price can drop to. The originally filed warrant draft says that the warrant exercise price cannot drop to zero, but asubsequently filed S-3, the exercise price is noted as being able to go to zero. I'm going with the S-3.)
Now, here is where it gets fun. We know from from the Schedule 13D filed with a July 1, 2020 event date from Coliseum that Coliseum DID NOT force the company to buy back the warrants in the fundamental transaction triggered by the Pearce Brothers (although they undoubtably accepted the $0 exercise price). THIS fundamental transaction was KNOWN to PRPL at the end Q4 and Q1 as secondary filings were made the day after earnings both times. This drastically increased the probability of an event happening.
Where is the next fundamental transaction that could cause the redemption for cash? It isn't there. What does exist is a callback option if the stock trades above $24 for 20 out of 30 days, which we are already 8 out of 10 days into.
Based upon the low probability of a fundamental transaction triggering a redemption, the accrual will stay very low. Even the CFO disagrees with me and we get a full-blown accrual, I expect a full reversal of the accrual next quarter if the 20 out of 30 day call back is exercised by the company.
I still don't understand why Coliseum would not have exercised these.
Regardless, the Warrant Liability Accrual is very fake and will go away eventually.

ONE MORE THING...

Seriously, stop PMing me with stupid, simple questions like "What are your thoughts on earnings?", "What are your thoughts on holding through earnings?", and "What are your thoughts on PRPL?".
It's here. Above. Read it. I'm not typing it again in PM. I've gotten no less than 30 of these. If you're too lazy to read, I'm too lazy to respond to you individually.

submitted by lurkingsince2006 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

PRPL Nurples- Why purple valuation just might make your NIPS hard - DD inside

PRPL Nurples- Why purple valuation just might make your NIPS hard - DD inside
All- I have received hundreds of DM asking where the stock is going. I have received questions such as: where do you think it stops, is it over valued, undervalued, should my mom invest, should i Yolo, should i sell and take profits? blah, blah blah. Here is some DD- stop asking me about where this ends up because I don't know for sure but I have some Feely Good estimates. I hope this post makes your nipples hard and if it doesn't you're probably a gay bear.
I am going to give you a quick run down of what my expectations are for Q2 earnings and it will include the good, the bad and the ugly. The ugly being the warrant accrual that will hurt GAAP.
First of all, There is little that needs to be determined for Q2 top-line as they have already released April and May Sales. April Sales Came in around ~62M based on my math and May Sales came in at 88M and some change. Based on these numbers, we can safely assume that we will at a minimum have somewhere around 225M in revenue for the quarter by using the average of April and May to determine June. I believe 225M to be on the low side and I have continued to up my estimates as I believe E-commerce is still thriving, especially purple. Purple continues to climb the web traffic ladder and has moved up another ~500 spots to be the 13,000 most popular site in the world.

For simplicity sake, I am going to use some historical numbers to estimate profits. If you'll look at previous posts that I've made then you'll see how I arrived at these numbers. There are some quick napkin calculations below. We can safely assume that the average wholesale selling price of a mattress is ~1350 dollars and we can assume that GM for wholesale is around 30%. This means the average cost of a mattress to manufacture is ~945 on average. From my previous posts, we knew that pre Covid the business was split by units, not by gross sales. On average, wholesale consumed 50% of capacity and DTC consumed 50% of capacity. In order to determine average DTC selling price then we can equation .5*1350 + .5*(DTC Price) = 1900. PRPL indicated their average selling price per mattress was ~1900.00, I found this in their s-3.
-----------------------------------
.5*1350 + .5*(DTC Price) = 1900=========== DTC average price is 2450.00, 1350 is average Wholesale price.
DTC Margin is ~62% Estimated
Wholesale Margin ~30% Estimated
----------------------------------
Historically, advertising costs have been about 30% of revenue. I have been tracking advertisement for purple and from a TV cost standpoint, they have not increased their commercial count at all in the last three months. See link, PRPL is still only performing 125 commercials per day. This commercial rate has held steady for 6 months.
https://www.ispot.tv/brands/tqU/purple-mattress

I believe purple has increased their ad spend online but I believe it will be proportional to their new capacity on a unit basis.
Previously purple had 6 Machines of capacity and spent 38M in advertising, I believe they will spend (7/6)*38M which is 44M or roughly 15M per month. Just because revenue is up, doesn't mean they will spend more per unit- they are capacity constrained and that is terribly inefficient.
----------------------------------
The following table shows my best guesses on their major category costs. This includes the gross Margin and the other costs subtracted from the Gross Margin.
April May June (Est) Total Revenue net revenue effect
Gross Margin from Wholesale 6M*30% 17.3*30% 20M*30% $13M
Gross Margin from DTC 56M*62% 71M*62% 55M*62% $112M
SG&A Costs (3.5)M (3.5)M (3.5)M ($10.5)M
Research and Development (1)M (1)M (1)M ($3)M
Advertising (15)M (15)M (15)M ($45)M
Profit Non GAAP ----------- ----------- --------- 66.5M or 1.23 EPS
Warrant Accrual ($35M)
Profit GAAP Estimated $31.5M or .59 EPS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If we used 66.5M, PRPL would report 1.23 EPS on an adjusted Basis.
The warrant Accrual will unfavorably push the EPS down on a GAAP basis and we will likely see something around .59 EPS. If they can achieve this for the next 4 quarters then in a years time there is a huge potential for stock increases based on the following P/E's.

GAAP est. Non GAAP Est.
EPS Annualized $2.36 $4.92
Stock price assuming 8x P/E $18.88 $39.36
Stock Price assuming 12x P/E $28.32 $59.04
Stock Price assuming 15x P/E $35.4 $73.8
Stock Price assuming 20x P/E $47.2 $98.4

People may say that this is super inaccurate..... but if you look at the following cash statement then you will realize that PRPL has been generating more than 1M per day in cash for the last two months - that is absolutely insane.

purple has generated 70M in cash in 60 days.
Mark my words, PRPL is going to be more profitable than TPX this quarter. TPX reported earnings of .68 EPS today on revenue of 665M. TPX is trading at 80+ per share. if purple reports a similar .68 EPS then it would be valued about 60% lower than TPX on an EPS basis. if purple posts EPS of ~1 dollar then it would be undervalued as compared to TPX by about 80%.

I hope your NIPS are tender now. Hope this helps you understand why I believe PRPL to be so undervalued.
submitted by dhsmatt2 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

$PSTG: PURE STORAGE for them, PURE TENDIES for you

$PSTG: PURE STORAGE for them, PURE TENDIES for you
This is actually my first DD I've ever posted so fuck you and forgive me if this doesn't work out for you.I've been looking at $PSTG for a while now and if my buying power didn't get so fucked from my decision to buy 8/7 UBER puts, I would have been already all over this play.
What had got me looking into Pure Storage was an unusual options activity alert. I've looked into this company before but didn't entirely understand what they do. Now after looking at them again, I'm still not exactly sure wtf they do....BUT I've gotten a better clue. Basically what I got from my research is that these guys fuck with "all-FLASH data storage solutions (enabling cloud solutions and other low-latency applications where tape/disk storage does not meet the needs)."......and ultimately what this all means to me is that these are the motherfuckers making those stupid fast laser money printers with the rocket ships attached. And that's something I'm interested in.
Now, here is the DailyDick you all degenerates have all been fiending for:
Fundamentally: PureStorage remains one of the few hardware companies in tech that is consistently growing double motherfucking digits, yet remains constantly cucked and neglected by investors (trading at 1.9x EV/Sales).
https://preview.redd.it/ek7ugjsewnf51.png?width=1118&format=png&auto=webp&s=f9c7e72c95e450a105e44223937422d896eeeb21
The 36 Months beta value for PSTG stock is at 1.62. 74% Buy Rating on RH. PSTG has a short float of 7.28% and public float of 243.36M with average trading volume of 3.16M shares. This was trading at around $18 on Wednesday 8/5 when I started writing this and as of right now, it's about $17.33 💸
The company has a market capitalization of ~$4.6 billion. In the last quarter, PSTG reported a ballin'-ass profit of $256.82 million. Pure Storage also saw revenues increase to $367.12 million. IMO, they should rename themselves PURE PROFIT. As of 04-2020, they got the cash monies flowing at $11.32 million . The company’s EBITDA came in at -$62.81 million which compares very fucking well among its dinosaur ass peers like HPE, Dell, IBM and NetApp. Pure Storage keeps taking market share from them old farts while growing the chad-like revenue #s of 33% in F2019, 21% in F2020, and 12% in F1Q21.
Chart of their financial growth since IPO in 2015:
https://preview.redd.it/gwlmy82v4nf51.png?width=640&format=png&auto=webp&s=b6508cd5f641da4086b70d8b8007da034e982fd7
At the end of last quarter, Pure Storage had cash, cash equivalents and marketable securities of $1.274B, compared with $1.299B as of Feb 2, 2020. The total Debt to Equity ratio for PSTG is recording at 0.64 and as of 8/6, Long term Debt to Equity ratio is at 0.64.Earning highlights from last quarter:
  • Revenue $367.1 million, up 12% year-over-year
  • Subscription Services revenue $120.2 million, up 37% year-over-year
  • GAAP gross margin 70.0%; non-GAAP gross margin 71.9%
  • GAAP operating loss $(84.9) million; non-GAAP operating loss $(5.4) million
  • Operating cash flow was $35.1 million, up $28.5 million year-over-year
  • Free cash flow was $11.3 million, up $29.0 million year-over-year
  • Total cash and investments of $1.3 billion
I bolded the Subscription Services Revenue bullet because to me that's a big deal. Pure Storage keeps them coming back with products such as Pure-as-a-service and Cloud Block Store and everybody knows that the recurring revenue model is best model. Big ass enterprises buy storage from vendors such as Pure Storage in the cloud to prevent vendor lock-in by the cloud providers. $$$ >!💰<
What are Pure Storage's other revenue drivers? Well these motherfuckers also have the products to address the growth of Cloud storage as well as the products to drive the growth of on-prem storage. For on-prem data center, Pure sells Flash Array to address block storage workloads (for databases and other mission-critical workloads) and FlashBlade for unstructured or file data workloads. On-prem storage revenue is mainly driven by legacy storage array replacement cycle.
https://preview.redd.it/01su6chrwnf51.png?width=1129&format=png&auto=webp&s=16e6a705f9392291bc0c3932c815802d9101365e
So far, it seems like Pure Storage's obviously passionate and smart as fuck CEO has been spot on with his prediction of the flash storage sector's direction. Also seems like he's not camera shy either. Pure Storage's "Pure-as-a-Service and Cloud Block Store" unified subscription offerings is fo sho gaining momentum it. This shit is catching on with enterprises, both big and small. COVID-19 increased the acceleration of our digital transformation and the subsequent shift to the cloud. This increased demand in data-centers is going to drastically help Pure Storage's future top and bottom line. To top it off, NAND prices are recovering! (inferred from MU earnings). I expect Pure Storage to get some relief on the pricing front because of this which obviously in turn should improve revenues.
PSTG's numbers look pretty good to me so far but are they a good company overall? Even when scalping and trading, I don't like to fuck with overall shitty companies so I always check for basic things like customer satisfaction, analyst ratings/targets, broad-view industry trends, and hedge fund positioning.. that sort of thing.Pure Storage stands out in all of these fields for me.
https://preview.redd.it/4n0e5nve5of51.png?width=373&format=png&auto=webp&s=495416bb6f5a2dab77f3ac483ca4d9510b39037c
Customers like Dominos Pizza and many others all seem to be happy AF with no issues. I can hardly even find a negative review online. Their products seems to be universally applauded. Gartner and other third party independent analysts also consider Pure Storage's product line-up some of the best in the industry.
The industry average for this sector is a piss poor 65.Pure Storage has a 2020 Net Promoter Score of 86
https://preview.redd.it/3w51io8yvmf51.png?width=698&format=png&auto=webp&s=4f7d06825d0ad9d126216e5069af2f9c3636f86a
Enterprises are upgrading their existing storage infrastructure with newer and more modern data arrays, based on NAND flash. They do this because they're forced to keep up with the increasing speed of business inter-connectivity. This shit is the 5g revolution sort to speak of the corporate business world. Storage demands and needs aren't changing because of the pandemic and isn't changing in the future. The newer storage arrays are smaller, consume less power, are less noisy and do not generate excess heat in the data center and hence do not need to be cooled like the fat fucks at IBM need to be. Flash storage arrays in general are cheaper to operate and are extremely fast, speeding up applications. Pure Storage by all accounts makes the best storage arrays in the industry and continues to grow faster than the old school storage vendors like bitchass NetApp, Dell, HPE and IBM.
Pure Storage’s market share was 12.7% in C1Q20 and was up from 10.1% in the prior year - LIKE A PROPER HIGH GROWTH COMPANY.HPE, NetApp and IBM, like the losers they are, lost market share.According to blocksandfiles.com, AFA vendor market share sizes and shifts are paraphrased below:
  • “Dell EMC – 34.8% (calculated $766m) vs. 33.7% a year ago
  • NetApp – 19.3% at $425m vs. 26.7% a year ago
  • Pure Storage – 12.7% at calculated $279.7m vs. 10.1% a year ago
  • HPE – 8.4% – $185m vs. 10% a year ago"
Pure has been gaining marketshare almost every year since it began selling storage arrays in 2011. Pure Storage is consistently rated the highest for the completeness of vision as this chart shows:
https://preview.redd.it/5agj17gcgnf51.png?width=428&format=png&auto=webp&s=da9c6389baccab85261d6e0f71b3474e84b90d3c
Hedge Funds are on this like flies on shit.
Alliancebernstein L.P. grew its position in Pure Storage by 0.5% in the 4th quarter. Alliancebernstein L.P. now owns 104,390 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $1,786,000 after purchasing an additional 560 shares during the last quarter.
Legal & General Group Plc grew its position in Pure Storage by 0.3% in the 1st quarter. Legal & General Group Plc now owns 258,791 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $3,213,000 after purchasing an additional 753 shares during the last quarter.
Sunbelt Securities Inc. acquired a new stake in Pure Storage in the 4th quarter worth $4,106,000.
CENTRAL TRUST Co grew its position in Pure Storage by 79.8% in the 2nd quarter. CENTRAL TRUST Co now owns 3,226 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $56,000 after purchasing an additional 1,432 shares during the last quarter.
Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Co. grew its position in Pure Storage by 203.0% in the 1st quarter. Northwestern Mutual Wealth Management Co. now owns 2,312 shares of the technology company’s stock worth $28,000 after purchasing an additional 1,549 shares during the last quarter.
Also, everybody's favorite wall street TSLA bull, Cathie Wood has been busy steadily purchasing big lots of PSTG for her ARK ETF funds for a while now...Even going as far as selling TSLA in order to re-balance!
https://preview.redd.it/zjxuakjosnf51.png?width=1125&format=png&auto=webp&s=f34abdd3b35791eb207d31d72ea0f6fb11beec30
https://preview.redd.it/bkf1uzb2tmf51.png?width=2048&format=png&auto=webp&s=a9870ec41cfb4ce468ba61d83f2f8a4151927a4e
Hedge funds and other institutional investors own 78.93% of the company’s stock and it seems like more are piling in every day.
Tons of active options, too -Pretty good volume lately with the spreads looking decent.
Over 5,000 September $20 Calls added just on 8/3 alone 🤔
Order flow helps my thesis here, showing a recent influx of big dick money moving into PSTG.
https://preview.redd.it/liychuhblnf51.png?width=592&format=png&auto=webp&s=ca6a60d54a9eb8bd9e32e0ef70992b8282c29e70
Google Search Trends showing uptick in interest: SPY420 baby
https://preview.redd.it/joo0b9wxinf51.png?width=1710&format=png&auto=webp&s=24eb18f18be18b9b771ff1911c09c5479ba2f1a0
Robinhood Trends showing the YOLO is trending up
https://preview.redd.it/4gk5yjdxmnf51.png?width=1538&format=png&auto=webp&s=76c4b114c133c493c84386d1705f85229f5f7d44
Increased job postings on LinkedIn all across the globe, further supporting the idea that Pure Cloud Adoption is looking strong.
https://preview.redd.it/5zenasprznf51.png?width=1092&format=png&auto=webp&s=a492e227e2208fe89925c9b7fe365634f7ffde6a
Technically: This broke out through down-trend line a couple of days ago and as of right now looks to be pretty oversold. Looks like its found support at the 50 DMA and zooming out , the chart just looks like to me that it's coiling up for a big breakout.
https://preview.redd.it/wxtz8minmnf51.png?width=1208&format=png&auto=webp&s=7baabbd3e8f97dfc8bd0d5bfa512613c2eea4921
These fucking shorts are going to get squeezed out hard. Potential short squeeze coming?
https://preview.redd.it/lh8lp08funf51.png?width=1533&format=png&auto=webp&s=921b6684369e25e94f00ed96a404458028e540c8
**So what's the play?**I'd like to see RSI break out of the downtrend and the divergence between price & momentum ends at some point. If/when RSI breaks out, I want to play this thing aggressively with bullish call calendar spreads....THAT IS IF I HAD SOME FUCKING BUYING POWER (FUCK YOU UBER)....Soooo really what I'll be doing is asking my wife's boyfriend sometime this weekend for a loan. That way on Monday I can buy some $PSTG 9/18 $17.5 & $20 calls at open and YOLO my saddness away for a week.God forbid, I might even buy of those things called "shares" I heard about from /investing if at all possible because in all honesty, I really do feel like this is a good company to hold in a long term growth portfolio.Pure Storage is NOT looking like your average KODK prostitute to flip or scalp and actually more like someone you'd bring home to your dads.
EARNING DATE: 8/25
Pure Storage has a history of beating estimates and rocketing up. Over the last 20 quarters, the company beat revenue 17 quarters by an average of $4.9 million or about 3%. Out of the three times that the company missed on revenues, once was due to supply fuck-ups at one of its distributors and the other two times were due to Average Selling Prices declining faster than the company forecasted. Higher-than-expected ASP declines (due to NAND oversupply) is one of the risks of the storage business...but then again NAND prices look to be recovering now if MU's earning isn't fucking with us and telling us fibs. Big money is forecasting revenue to be around $396 million, essentially flat year-over-year, and EPS of a disrespectful ass penny....Fuck that conservative ass guidance! I think PSTG is going to blow that shit out the water. This chart shows Pure Storage’s past performance and we all know for sure that past performance = future results.....right?
https://preview.redd.it/4xflpezdhnf51.png?width=623&format=png&auto=webp&s=c1660a80a1a1821ef8098791a8cee632e25f1445
My Prediction: After ER8/25, Pure Storage will hit new 52 week highs.$20.50 - $23.50 is my guess. Bold prediction, $27.50+ by the EOY and $50 by December 2021.
tldr: PSTG 9/18 $17.5 & $20 calls

edit: for those that bought into this, I'm in this with you!
Let's pray for a rebound next week. also, Fuck Cisco!
submitted by OnYourSide to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Repost of u/Cpt_Tsundere_Sharks 's post about the unfulfilled martial fantasy

First off, a request to the mods: Can you not delete the post so that people can read what the post was about since it had a lot of content
Other than that, u/Cpt_Tsundere_Sharks post:
For a long time now, I have been playing almost exclusively martial characters, very rarely if ever playing full spellcaster classes. Some people would say that this is boring, that I should expand my horizons, do other things, but part of the reason I play so many martials is that the ultimate warrior is my ideal power fantasy. I don't care for the wizard who can bend space and time or the druid who can turn themselves into a dragon or the cleric who has learned to become the very avatar of their god on this mortal plane. These things do not interest me, they are not the representation of the kind of character I would want to become at the height of their power in a fantasy setting. No, my power fantasy is the man who can take on the world through martial prowess alone. To be a character who has become so skilled with his blade, so mighty with the wielding of weapons, that he is considered an army unto himself. A terror that carves its way through the battlefield, bolstering the morale of his allies and crushing the enemies that stand before him with unstoppable force.
But, therein lies the problem. This is not possible for martial characters in Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition.
Now, let's back up a bit and get some context first. Please bear with me, this is probably going to be a long post.
A conversation that I regularly participate in the comments of this subreddit one where I feel martial characters are underpowered in comparison to spellcasting classes. Many would disagree by saying something along the lines of this:
"Spellcasters are versatile with low hit points while martial characters are tanky with good single target damage. That's the trade off."
The idea is that it is fair that a wizard can cast Fireball to hit multiple targets at once because eventually the Fighter can learn to make 4 attacks in one turn and use all of them to absolutely wail on one guy. AoE damage vs. Single Target damage. And for a while, I agreed with this notion. It's only recently that I've come to realize that even if this is true, it's still unfair.
There are situations that can represent a challenge without access to magic that simultaneously can be handwaved with magic. Stealth can be trivialized through Pass Without a Trace or higher level castings of Invisibility. Uncross-able divides can be crossed with Dimension Door or Arcane Gate or even just a simple Misty Step. A person can be convinced to do something with a casting of Suggestion or forced to do something with Dominate Person. These are the things that magic is capable of accomplishing. And this capacity to be useful in a myriad of circumstances is one of the great draws of being able to cast magic.
However, it's considered to be a fair trade that martial characters are not good/completely incapable of accomplishing such things simply because they are good at being able to hit things. Not even things, but a singular thing. Single target damage. Only Fighters get more than two attacks per Action, so getting mobbed by a large number of enemies at once is very bad for any martial character that is not a Fighter, and only marginally less bad if you are a Fighter. The problem of course is simply that they aren't capable of hitting them all at once. The martial's current role in a party is that they are supposed to be the ones who deal a large amount of damage to the boss enemy on their turn. The Barbarian uses their Reckless attack to roll 4d20 and try to get a Brutal Critical on the Demogorgon, the Fighter uses their Action Surge to try and hit the Adult Red Dragon 8 times, the Paladin uses all of their highest level spell slots to Divine Smite Acererak for 7d8 Radiant Damage. Lots of damage, but only on the single enemy. I find this to be unfair as a trade off for two primary reasons:
It feels bad to be only good at fighting single enemies. All of these martial examples are not likely to be good at skill checks. Good at what they're good at, sure, but most characters will only end up with between 4 and 6 proficiencies unless they're a Rogue or take the Skilled Feat. And in all of these cases, the optimal stat distribution causes them to not be naturally good at other things as well. Barbarians are very multi-ability-dependent, needing high Strength and Constitution but then also needing Dexterity to bump up their AC, each being prioritized in that order. That means the other three mental stats will become worse. Fighters also tend to prioritize Strength and Constitution (if you're playing the classic archetype) and most Paladins do the same with Charisma being a tertiary stat since it is their spellcasting. So with all of them prioritizing Strength and Constitution, there is only a single skill (Athletics) between those two abilities. Even if you play a Dexterity Fighter, you're only getting good at 3 skills. As opposed to a Wizard or a Druid or a Cleric who put their points into their main stat and become decent at 5 skills as a result. Whether martial or spellcaster, all of these classes get 2 proficiencies to start. But by nature spellcasters will be skilled at more things than the martials will be because their main stats are better for more things. So it feels like being a martial makes you only good at fighting single enemies while spellcasters get to be good at fighting multiple enemies, getting over impassable obstacles, and many different kinds of skill checks. Which brings me to my second reason.
Spellcasters are actually just as good or better at single target damage than martial characters. The average damage for a failed save on Meteor Swarm is about 50% more than the average damage for 8 successful hits with a greatsword as a Fighter using Action Surge.
Meteor Swarm: 20d6(rolls of 3)+20d6(rolls of 4) = 140
8 Greatsword Attacks with 20 Strength: 16d6(rolls of 3 and 4) + 40 = 96
"But that's a 9th level spell vs Action Surge. Of course the 9th level spell is more powerful."
Let's compare instead a mid level Wizard vs a mid level Barbarian using the Comprehensive Damage Per Round Calculator.
Wizard lvl 12
First round animate object as a 6th lvl spell vs. ac 17
- dmg output 48.3
Second and third round animate object + 2 castings of Cone of Cold
- dmg output 78.3*2
Total damage for a lvl 12 wizard in 3 rounds: 204.9
Barbarian lvl 12
Human barbarian, 20 str, PaM, GWM, a +1 glaive vs. ac 17
+5 to hit (10-5 from GWM)
First round bonus action rage and 2 reckless attacks
1d10+1(Glaive)+5(str)+3(rage)+10(GWM)
- dmg output 36.3
Second and third round
glaive attack and bonus action attack with the end.
- dmg output 52.1*2
Total damage for a lvl 12 barbarian in 3 rounds: 140.5
As you can see, the Wizard handily outstrips the Barbarian. And we even gave the Barbarian a magic item and feats that time. Spellcasting classes are capable of outputting just as much or more single target damage as a martial class. The argument that is often made after this is that a martial class can continue to output this throughout the course of a day whereas a spellcaster has to use many resources that they can only get back later, but I contest this by saying most people don't have that many encounters per day and that while a martial can sustain this damage over the course of several rounds, most encounters will not last long that long anyways. All the enemies will be dead before a martial can stack up enough hits to match what the spellcaster has already done. Even if we do assume multiple rests and encounters over a day, the Wizard can use Arcane Recovery to get back the 6th level spell slot they just used. So they're still probably just fine for the next encounter.
So for those two reasons, I present the case that martials truly are left in the dust by spellcasters in almost every regard. That's the context for this. But this isn't just me crying because I'm a power gamer who wants to be OP. More than just the mathematics of it, I feel that there is a power fantasy is left almost entirely unfulfilled for martial characters.
What is it that makes warrior characters in movies and stories stand out, look cool, and feel powerful?
What does Captain America do? https://youtu.be/oRwFd1G6_U4?t=42
What does The Punisher do? https://youtu.be/01SYT5MPsHw?t=28
What does The Bride in Kill Bill do? https://youtu.be/a3aFv8IQb4s?t=319
Neo and Trinity do? https://youtu.be/NgAmX8GRwDw?t=57
Aragorn? (the most classic of all fantasy warrior archetypes) https://youtu.be/wSgeEH-Zwbk?t=3
Thor? (yes, even though he uses magic I still argue he's a martial character because of the way that he primarily engages in physical combat) https://youtu.be/-mHaq88BAV4?t=131
Ip Man? https://youtu.be/Kv9ygN2B8WU?t=97
John Wick? https://youtu.be/SamAItb8L58?t=86
Or John Wick? https://youtu.be/0L9SzBANF0w?t=264
Or what about John Wick? https://youtu.be/ElZ9y6l9KhI
A common theme with all of these characters is that they can fight many opponents at once and still win. Whether outnumbered by a handful or outnumbered by a hundred, they make a real contest out of something that would and should make instant losers out of anybody else. When they do it by themselves, they're badass. When they do it in the middle of a battlefield, their martial prowess inspires the common soldiers around them. This is all part of the fantasy of being a powerful non-magic fighting character. I put in John Wick three times because the whole draw of his character is that he's so hyper-competent at killing that he can take down entire organizations of enemies by himself. Even in a world of assassins and professional killers, they consider him their Boogeyman. And this character was so popular it spawned a franchise that thusfar has made more than $500 million dollars at the box office. But the part where he has a 1v1 with the bad guy is not what makes us like him. It's arguably the most underwhelming part of the first John Wick movie. Being able to fight many enemies is often cooler than fighting a single skilled enemy.
https://youtu.be/WAwl1mprHZI?t=153
Take this clip from the movie Hero as a prime example that shows both ends of the spectrum. In the first half of the scene, two people are fighting their way through a literal army on their own and winning. In the second half of the scene, there is a duel between two swordmasters. And while the duel exhibits great skill, it is not the more impressive half of the scene. To put it another way, the thing that makes you think Broken Sword is skilled is not that he duels the Emperor. Rather, it's the other way around. You believe that the Emperor is skilled because he is capable of fighting Broken Sword, a man who just cut his way through an entire army with the help of only one other person.
https://youtu.be/fLxSRdnGucA
The pinnacle of a martial character's "cool factor" is not the ability to be able to participate in skilled single combat against someone of equal skill, but to be outnumbered so dramatically that there should be no chance of winning, and yet they can and do anyways. The odds and logic of the situation tell you that it is impossible. But they accomplish the impossible with nothing but the swiftness of their sword.
Now, don't get me wrong, one on one fights definitely are cool. But what can take an entire scene to establish that competence can be established in seconds using a battle in which the hero is heavily outnumbered. They are cool in different ways, one being naturally more drawn out than the other, but it's important to have both. If you're only limited to one or the other but not both, that kind of sucks.
https://youtu.be/xT66YPk0Q5w?t=190
https://youtu.be/jx9Phl04VSQ?t=905
Back to D&D, it is not possible to be this kind of character as a martial. Firstly, due to the mathematics and action economy of the system, it is always more efficient to put all of your damage onto a single target because it's hard to spread out. Secondly because you are limited in the number of attacks you can make, that puts a hard limit on the number of enemies you can kill per turn. 20th level Fighter with 4 attacks? Barring specific subclass abilities or feats, it's literally impossible to exceed killing that number of enemies. Even with feats, you only max out at 5 attacks (using the bonus action attack from Great Weapon Master) on your turn without using Action Surge. If you are outnumbered 100 to 1, how long do you think a 20th level martial character could last? Say you're a 20th level Fighter against 100 Goblins, no Great Weapon Master feat. Assuming you hit with 100% accuracy and kill every one of them in one shot and use both of your Action Surges, it will take you 23 turns to kill them all. And for each one of your turns, they can also make their turn, surrounding you on all sides and attacking you 8 times a turn in response. For ease of calculation, if you had 18 AC wearing non-magical plate armor, Mob Combat rules (found on DMG page 250) assume you are statistically likely to take 12 damage per turn. 252 damage (using average damage) over 21 turns of keeping you surrounded. If you have enemies that aren't CR 1/4 against a 20th level character, say 100 CR 1/2 Thugs, they could make two attacks each, that turns into 16 times per turn and that turns into 30 damage per turn. 630 damage over 21 turns. If the Fighter had 20 Constitution and maximum health rolls (10 on a d10) at every level, they would have 300 hit points. They would barely survive against the goblins. They would not survive against the thugs. That's not even including the possibility of being attacked from range with shortbows and crossbows and such. Eventually, you will lose. And it won't even really be close.
We think these characters should be capable of surviving situations like these, after all at 20th level any Fighter should be a legendary character based on their prowess and skill. But the way the game works, they just aren't capable of surviving.
What is the power fantasy of a spellcaster? To be so powerful that they can bend reality to their will? To cast magics that affect the very fabric of existence? Could a 20th level spellcaster survive a 1 v 100? Quite handily I think actually. How about a 1 v 1000? Well, given that Meteor Swarm allows you to make explosions of 40d6 damage in a 40 foot radius in 4 different locations, you could actually hit 900 creatures at once if they were all bunched up enough (each meteor can hit 225 creatures at peak efficiency). Turn that down to a 1 v 100 real quick. Mathematically, it's entirely possible simply because they can deal enough damage at a fast enough rate combined with the myriad of spells they can use for damage mitigation (Shield, Blade Ward, Blink, Stoneskin, Mirror Image, Blur, etc.)
Many might argue that this is fair, as it is unrealistic for a single person to be able to fight 100 people at once without magic and win. That could never happen in real life. But then I would counter with this:
Aren't we playing Dungeons and Dragons?
Is it realistic for someone to be able to pull meteors out of orbit with their mind? Or open up gates to other dimensions because they figured out how to tear holes in reality? Or to have discovered a word that is so powerful, so forbidden, that simply speaking it can cause another person to drop dead on the spot? Or to raise an undead army of skeletons? Why does realism become the limit for a Fighter when the Wizard's entire existence is predicated on breaking the rules of our reality?
Almost any spellcaster's power fantasy can come true. If you want to be someone who causes explosions on the battlefield, you can do that. If you want to be someone who turns illusions into reality, you can do that. If you want to be a seer who prophesies the future, you can do that. If you want to take over the world with thousands of full powered spellcasting clones of yourself, you can even do that. You are more limited by your own imagination and creativity than the actual rules of the game. But the simple fantasy of "I want to be able to fight a bunch of guys at once" is out of reach of the martial character, despite the fact that it's supposed to be the primary thing they're good at.
To summarize and conclude, I am of the opinion that the most common image of a skilled fantasy warrior is exemplified in their ability to fight a large number of enemies at once or in quick succession, not their ability to handily defeat a single opponent. The biggest design flaw and biggest disappointment for martial characters is their inability to fulfill this fantasy. Their single target damage is mechanically what they are known for, but I think what martial players like me really want more than anything is to be able to fight many enemies at once. I believe one of the ultimate power fantasies for a martial character is to be able to fearlessly charge forward into any number of enemies with full confidence of victory until a suitable challenger approaches. If Dungeons and Dragons is a game of wish fulfillment, the wishes of martial players like me cannot be fulfilled as it is currently designed.
https://youtu.be/qLJMDDxt408?t=25
I've been looking at old playtest packets for 5th edition and I found out some interesting things. The 11th level Hunter Ranger feature, Multiattack used to be something that any martial character had a choice to take at some point. Whirlwind Attack was available to be learned by Fighters and Monks, and Volley was on the list of Fighter maneuvers that could be learned. It seems to me that the reason that martial characters are so subpar in comparison now is that they were watered down across the board, mechanics that used to be able to be used by many are currently sequestered into individual subclasses.
Now, to be clear, I'm not really looking for a "solution" to this problem. At least not as far as 5th edition is concerned. The issues are too fundamental, too rooted in the core of the system to solve without an egregious amount of homebrewing. But I did want to put this out there as a topic of discussion to see if others in the community find validity in my idea. Is the problem of "linear fighters vs quadratic wizards" just an issue of efficiency, versatility, and mathematics? Or is the true problem that martial characters lack the ability to fulfill what is probably one of the core wishes of people who want to be warriors in fantasy settings?
edits: many typos I spotted after the fact -_-
Edit 2:
There's a lot of common responses I keep seeing pop up here that I want to address here in the main post.
"This is a game of resource management, you should just have more encounters per day to balance it out!"
First of all, this isn't something that a player can do themselves. This is entirely dependent on a DM and it's much more work for them to do so and be accommodating. They have to balance every encounter. It isn't as simple as just "having more encounters." Someone has to do that work.
Second of all, I mentioned this, but at a certain point it just becomes a slog when you're being constantly worn down every day just to give enough time for turtle martials to catch up to rabbit spellcasters. I don't know about you, but even as a martial, I wouldn't have fun doing this all the time.
Third of all, it completely ignores the point of my post. I don't care about being able to mathematically catch up to the wizard over the course of a day, I want to feel badass in my own right and I want to be able to do it whenever I want. It doesn't matter that a Wizard can cast Meteor Swarm once per day and I can use Action Surge once/twice per short rest. The point is that I use it and I'm done. And until I get that next short rest, I'm just as weak as a Wizard. Fighters can "recover" more quickly than spellcasters, but in the actual encounter? In the actual fight? They have less resources that they can burn through more quickly than spellcasters. This is the crux of the problem here. Without rests, there is nothing that makes a Fighter better than a Wizard. Anything I can do, he can do better, 🎶 he can do anything better than me. 🎶
It's basically the same thing as saying a Wizard can finish a marathon with their spells but then they'll be really tired when they're done. You can finish the marathon too if you take a few hour long rests along the way. Why can't I just finish the marathon with my own strength? Am I at least faster at sprinting the hundred meter dash? No, the Wizard is faster at that too, but you'll be able to do another hundred meter dash in an hour or so. He still can too, he'll just be marginally slower than you.
Do you see the problem with this argument yet?
"Martial characters should be getting magic items to make them better and then they'll be as good as spellcasters."
But spellcasters don't need magic items. This only supports the argument that martial classes are handicapped in comparison to spellcasters. It's essentially saying that spellcasters can stand on their own but martial classes need a magic item wheelchair to be able to keep up. Do you see the problem here?
Why is it too much to ask that martial classes can stand at the same level as spellcasters through just their own class features?
"Cleave is a really good tool."
And I agree. But last time I asked my DM, he said no. Maybe I'll get to ask him again, but I respect his rulings because he's my friend and I respect him.
"It sounds like the 5th edition system is not for you. You should try something else, like Pathfinder 2e!"
I would if I could but my group seems happy playing 5th edition. As much as this post is a huge complaint rant, not everything is about me. And I won't DM a Pathfinder game because frankly, I'm not good at DMing. I think other people have less fun when I'm behind the screen and I think I have less fun when I'm behind the screen. I wish it weren't the case, but it seems to be the one I'm stuck with. I just don't have a mind made for DMing.
Please be civil in the comments and follow the rules.
submitted by YSBawaney to dndnext [link] [comments]

What I Preferred in Bloodstained to Hollow Knight

I beat Bloodstained recently, and because this forum seems to think Hollow Knight is the greatest game ever while Bloodstained sucks I decided to go against the grain a bit and create a different discussion. Granted, overall I think Hollow Knight is better, but that's doesn't mean it's better on every aspect. Now, I found Bloodstained and Hollow Knight essentially took opposite approaches to building large Metroidvanias (in summary, Bloodstained gets it's complexity by filling out large continuums with quantitative variations, while Hollow Knight gets it through combinatorics by giving unique behavior to simple things which then synergize), so I don't think it's necessarily fair to compare them, but I'm going to do it anyway. This post is very long as I've found a lot to talk about, so I don't recommend reading the whole thing. Each paragraph is one aspect, you should be able to get what it is just from reading the first sentence, the rest of the paragraph is just an argument as to why I found that aspect to be better if you care to read it. I'll post the list of all the aspects in the concluding paragraph. With that being said, here it goes.
First, I prefer Bloodstain's save/death system over Hollow Knight's. While autosaving is convenient, I honestly prefer manual saving as I like having control over those cases where you don't want to overwrite your savefile. In Hollow Knight's case, it's clear that they implement autosaving specifically to prevent you from doing that, as otherwise their death mechanic wouldn't work, and it makes certain choices permanent. It really says something about how brutal Hollow Knight's death mechanic is that it would be preferable for the game to just end and have to be reloaded from a save point. In addition to being brutal, I find such a mechanic to be a poor fit for Metroidvania's, as forcing the player to go to the same destination to recover discourages exploration or trying different routes when a particular ones proves too hard. The logistics of the whole thing are also pretty iffy, both with the shade mechanic and with autosaving and returning to a save point on quitting, and both can be exploited in ways that feel to defy the logic of the game. The thing I like the most about Bloodstain's save system is that it has lots of slots you can branch out into, which I like using to save before boss fights in case I want to refight them. Hollow Knight's Hall of Gods is much more convenient, but it still fails to capture all such fights that a player might want to reattempt with a different strategy (the big one being the Pale Lurker), and not all the fights it does have are quite the same as the original (Uumuu in particular feels like a completely different fight), so it does not make having such a feature be obsolete. Even when bosses are available unchanged in the house of gods though, the fact that the Hall of Gods can't even be unlocked until midgame needs to be considered, while save branching can be done immediately after the boss is fought. Finally, even though Hollow Knight has autosaving, it still has save points, and Bloodstained does a much a better job at placing save point in desirable locations. In particular, Bloodstained always has a save point before a boss, while there is some frustrating exceptions in Hollow Knight.
Next, I prefer Bloodstain's map system. It's simple, but effective, and in terms of functionality has most of the features of Hollow Knight's, with essential features like save points and NPCs being marked in one way or another, and personal markers are given as well. Hollow Knight's maps are certainly prettier, but that doesn't necessarily make them more useful. They have a couple advantages with the colored regions and drawn out landmarks, but are also frustrating in other ways, such as with the limited markers, and the fact you need to buy everything first. The biggest issue though is the fact that maps must be bought before they can be used. This wouldn't be a bad idea by itself, but in practice it isn't used particularly well, as the map is often either is often either hid so near the entrance that they might as well start with it, or being hidden so late that they needs to frustratingly memorize the area before getting to it. The fact they cost geo is little more than a nuisance, as they don't cost enough for the player to ever be worth passing them up for now, but it's still often enough to just waste time grinding until enough geo is gathered to buy them. The problems with the map system are exacerbated by the shade mechanic, as a map is needed to track down the shade. This further discourages exploration, as it encourages someone to either just map a beeline towards the map while ignoring everything else, or just avoid areas entirely that they don't have the map for. Fog Canyon in particular was frustrating, as the map in positioned in such a place to actively discourage exploring the region until the player gets the shade cloak, but the area was designed to be cleared with either the shade cloak or Isma's tear, and the map can actually be picked up pretty easily picked up with the latter if the player wasn't discouraged from exploring by the tease combined with frustrating game mechanics.
Bloodstained did a much better job at handling money than Hollow Knight. I never found myself having to grind for money in Bloodstained, but I did in the early game for Hollow Knight. The biggest issue with currency in Hollow Knight though is in the late game, which is that geo becomes absolutely useless once everything is bought. There is one stock that never exhausts, the rancid eggs, but these become all but useless after everything else is bought out as the only use for rancid eggs is recovering the player's shade, where the primary purpose for doing such is just to recover geo. The only other reason would be to fix the soul gage, but in most cases it would probably be faster to just kill yourself than to return to Confessor Jiji in order to fetch the shade. This issue is amplified in Steel Soul mode, where geo will likely accumulate to a greater extent due to not being lost on death, rancid eggs can no longer be bought, and the end game geo sinks are useless as they only prevent an effect that occurs on death. The one other replenishable stock, fixing the fragile charms, can't be restored either as the charms only break on death. This is not an issue as Bloodstained. Not only is it much harder to pay for everything, and consumable items ensure that there will always be practical stock remaining, but there is uses for money other than buying items, namely the gold bullet spell and the gold power ring.
While charms can slightly modify the attack in Hollow Knight, the overall form remains the same, with the same nail attacks and the same spells. Meanwhile, by changing up weapons and spell shards, several different modes of combat are possible in Bloodstained. For example, one spell I enjoyed using in Bloodstained is Plume Parma, which launches a flying pig that bounces around the arena, and it's fun challenge to work on the geometry of arenas and boss patterns to figure out where to launch the pig so it hits the boss the maximum number of times before it pops. Hollow Knight has nothing comparable. As far as actual weapons go, boots encourage completely different fighting styles than swords or guns do. The fact there are different attack types as well also mixes stuff up in Bloodstained by more explicitly encouraging different builds. With that said, I did find Hollow Knight to have much better synergy between charms than any items in Bloodstained did, the limitation is just in modes of combat.
I found the traversal items to be much more interesting in Bloodstained. Hollow Knight's are pretty generic, with the most interesting one being super-dash, which is kinda annoying. Bloodstained had three more interesting traversal abilities with reflector ray, invert, and dimension shift. I do have to say the Hollow Knight did a much better job at actually putting it's traversal abilities to use, but even then I do think Bloodstained had a much more useful invert mechanic than most games where something similar can be done. Even with some of the more generic abilities Bloodstained had more interesting traversals. The best example of this is with how they handle water, where all Hollow Knight's traversal does is make some more water swimmable on the surface, while Bloodstained has two different traversal abilities for water, each allowing different ways to explore it in 2d space.
One thing that always frustrated me in Hollow Knight is how little of a difference upgrades in the game actually made. The clincher is the fact that once you get ALL mask upgrades and vessel fragments, you're still not even twice as powerful as you were at the start of the game. This difference is even more marginal when you consider how easy it is to heal and recover soul in this game, so in practice you have much more soul and life available then the meters indicate. On the other hand, if you do get pushed to the edge (which is the only point where health upgrades make a different anyway) and recover, then the effect is amplified as you could recover more than one mask after you otherwise would have died. For what they are worth, it annoys me that there are much easier method to continue pushing life past the limit, such as by farming lifeblood, making there be little incentive to actually track down any upgrades. This is one area where Hollow Knight's emphasis on the discrete works against it, as complete sets are needed before mask shards or vessel fragments, while any individual health or magic upgrade in Bloodstained makes a difference, even if it's so small that it's only situational. What really makes this bad is exactly how the upgrades are obtained. In short, I've found that for both masks shards and vessels fragments there is one that is extremely hard to get, a few that are fairly challenging, and most are a matter of going to the right place. As a result, there is little incentive to tackle the fairly challenging ones unless one is also confident that they can get the extremely challenging one as otherwise they won't amount to anything once all the easy shards and fragments are picked up, collapsing challenges with rewards of varying levels of difficulty into one.
Unlike the masks, the fully upgraded nail is significantly more powerful the original nail. I don't like the way I paced the upgrades though. Each nail upgrade adds a constant amount of damage to the nail which is slightly less damage than the starting nail. This is fine, though the practical effect is somewhat sporadic due to most enemies having so few hit-points that the ratio between the previous number of hits it took to kill an enemy to the new number of hits is often quite different from the ratio between the previous amount of damage the nail did to the new amount of damage. It would be more consistent against bosses, if it wasn't for the fact that many bosses are giving more hits as the nail is upgraded so the effect is nerfed. Even worse, spells don't become more powerful, so a boss can actually become HARDER when thought with more powerful nail. While not a boss, I noticed this effect with the shade, which was quite annoying. With those aside, the issue comes from the fact the requires for upgrading the weapon are not constant, but instead increase linearly. By itself this would be reasonable as it would be expected for their be a greater requirement to get a constant improvement later on to reflect the increasing difficulty of the game, but the issue comes from the fact that the upgrade requirement is from a rare item, of which each is required to get the final upgrade. As result, the difficulty of upgrading the item increases superlinearly, not linearly. To explain why, I'll use this example of completing a set of trading cards by buying random cards. Say there are twelve possible cards that could be randomly gotten, there is six in the set you're trying to complete, and the package contains one card. With the first package, you have a 1/2 chance of getting a card in the set, and thus getting one card closer to complete set. Once you have 5/6 cards in the set though, you only have 1/12 chance of getting one card closer to completing the set as you need the specific one that you are missing, not just any card in the set. You can't apply the same calculations to Hollow Knight as obtaining the ore isn't random, it's gotten by performing certain tasks, but similar reasoning applies. The issue isn't just that it's superlinear though, but the exact values are poorly balanced. To get the first nail upgrade, you need zero pale ore, while the final upgrade needs three pale ore, which is half the total pale ore. As a result, it's strictly harder to get the final nail upgrade than to get ALL the nail upgrades before it, but the proportional effect isn't anywhere close to what you get for ANY of the upgrades before it. This lack of marginal improvement is then exacerbated by the fact that some pale ore is much easier to get than others (easiest is basically just found on the wayside on a route you have to go down anyway, hardest requires completing the second of three gauntlets), so of course the easy to find ones are all going to found before the hard ones. The reward to effort ratio is just completely out of wack for the final nail level, and I find that it just added one more nail level and four more ore it could have been much more reasonable without changing the overall system. Meanwhile, Bloodstained does damage upgrades completely differently. Frankly I don't know how Bloodstained scales damage other than it being much more complicated, but in practice I found it to be much better paced than it was in Hollow Knight. There is an issue where occasionally you randomly got a weapon that's much more powerful than the weapons you should have at that point so until you get to the next stage most weapons you pick up are useful, but overall I found it to be much better.
Bloodstained has much more interesting alternative game modes than Hollow Knight does. First off, it has different difficulty settings, which Hollow Knight just lacks. If we consider Hollow Knight's alternative game modes, none of them actually add any functionality. Steel Soul mode technically adds a single new feature in the form of Steel Soul Jinn, but as all she does is convert eggs to geo, which is not particularly useful for the reasons explained in the section on money. The fact the save file deletes on death doesn't actually add functionality as a player could impose this challenge on themselves by choosing to manually delete their save file on death, all it does is automate the process. I guess you could consider the achievements associated with the mode as an added feature, but those are spoiled by the fact you can save you run by just quitting before death, meaning you can play as if you only have one less hit, and can't do any shade-jumping exploits. The other mode is Godseeker mode, which is it's answer to Boss Rush mode. It sounds like a good idea, but it's pretty terrible in practice because you can already do all of Godhome in the main game, and all Godseeker mode is just Godhome and nothing but Godhome. I see two potential uses for this mode, the first is that in Godseeker mode you're fulling upgraded so it can be done to get around having to get all the upgrades yourself, and the second is that Godhome is a pain to get to to and get out of, so just opening a second save file can be done instead for convenience sake. The problem is, it's so hard to unlock Godseeker mode that by the point you've gotten there you've probably already done every else, so you don't need to unlock any upgrades, and you can just set around in Godhome while you try to clear it in the main game as you don't actually need to leave. As it is I still haven't cleared the third pantheon, but the only upgrade I'm missing is the fourth level Grimm charm, which I frankly don't find to be worth beating either Nightmare Grimm or the third Pantheon for. The fact the Hall of Gods is almost filled in Godseeker mode means it could be used to fight the handful of bosses (Pure Vessel, Winged Nosk, and the Sisters of Battle) that still need to be unlocked in Godhome if you're unable to clear the fourth Pantheon, and it can be used to fight Grey Prince Zote if you let the real one die, but that's not much. Bloodstained also has a Boss Rush Mode, but it's much more reasonable to unlock, just requiring the bosses to be rather than tracking down some obscure location and complete the challenges there, and it doesn't waste an entire safe file. It also actually emphasizes the rush part, with a timer for high scores, and performance rewards that can actually be used in the main game instead of just being some weird isolated challenge for getting an alternative ending. With boss revenge mode it has another fun challenge mode that's unlike anything in the game, but it also has a couple full length modes that act like full games. Right now they have Zangetsu mode and randomizer mode, both of which are substantially different from the main game. Bloodstained is still being updated to add new game modes, while Hollow Knight is now capped at it's definitive version.
Finally, I found Bloodstained to be much more reasonable with how it distributed its alternative endings. Hollow Knight has five endings, but two of them are just variations, so I'll only consider three of them. Bloodstained also has three endings, so we can compare them. As far as it can be measured, I feel these endings are roughly distributed in the same way: the first ending is a bit over half-way through the game, and final ending requires doing a bit more than the second one. The main difference I feel in between how this three endings are distributed between the games is that in Bloodstained, the first two endings are the result of aborting the main path through the game early. Meanwhile, you get the first ending in Hollow Knight if you go and do exactly what you are supposed to do, and the other two endings are for doing extra. There is one issue though: the first ending in Hollow Knight SUCKS. I swear it's one of the worst endings I've ever seen in modern commercial game, not only is the outcome unsatisfactory for our characters, but it's just short and feels like it doesn't actually resolve anything. It's the second ending that feels canonical, and that you need to actually get to for the game to feel complete. This is where the issue comes in. To get the best ending in Bloodstained, you pretty much just have to finish exploring the castle, and everything else will fall into place as long as you take advantage of what you were told along the way. That's not the case in Hollow Knight, where I feel they were trying to find an excuse to force player to hit all the important lore spots, but it never really came together in a meaningful way. Half of it is reasonable, where you need the shade cloak to explore through Queen's Garden so you can get half of the kingsoul. The Pale King's half though, is kinda ridiculous. The first issue is getting to the White Palace, which requires using an ability that isn't used anywhere else in a specific location. The bigger issue than finding the White Palace though is getting that ability. For reasons I don't understand, they decided to make it the final upgrade that you get from collecting dream essence, when I think it would make more sense to include at least one optional upgrade past it instead of just having the seer disintegrate. The larger issue though is what it takes to get that point. The game points to two sources of dream essence, warrior dreams and whispering roots, and they contain enough essence to get all the upgrades EXCEPT the awakened dream nail. For the final bit of essence, you're expected to beat one of the champions, most of which are harder than the tyrant lord so it brings into question of what's the point of even including the queens path. The Hidden Dreams updated added some somewhat more reasonable alternative champions to get this final bit of essence from, but they have the same issue of the other champions in that not only are they hard to beat, but they are also hard to find. It's not that they are actually hard to find if you know to look for them, but as far as I'm aware the game gives you know hints that these bosses even exist, and they are all located in isolated areas that you already visited and would have no reason to revisit unless you're specifically looking for the champions. The Hidden Dreams ones are even worse in this regard, as you can be locked out of one if you miss something much earlier in the game, while the other requires a trigger completely unrelated to the character to appear, and is located in a secret area which is the one region I know of that requires desolate dive to access without any sort of visual cue. The real problem though comes once you actually get to the White Palace though, which is this seemingly never ending platform section that is FAR harder than anything before it, feeling more like you're playing Super Meat Boy than Hollow Knight. It's one thing if was just an optional challenge like the Path of Pain that it also contains, but I find the fact you need to beat it to get a decent ending to unreasonable, the game doesn't even do anything to prepare you for it. The only reason I got through it was with an optional charm, Hive Blood, whose use involves a lot of just sitting around and waiting and it is so tedious. I wonder if the White Palace feels some out of place specifically because it was a stretch goal that happened to be part of the main quest instead of a side quest like the colosseum is. Maybe it would have been even harder, but I feel like the whole ordeal would have at least made more sense if the abyss was actually completed as originally planned. The final ending doesn't have the same weight the second one does, but it's even more ridiculous. For unknown reasons, they decided to make the sole reward of boss rush side quest to be getting this final ending, and then center the entire ending around this boss rush mode, and it's just weird. What makes it absurd though is what it takes to actually get the ending, which is beating the Pantheon of Hallownest. It's hard enough to unlock as it requires clearing all the other Pantheons, but the real issue with it isn't that it's hard, it's that it's LONG. To get the hard part of the Pantheon, the player needs to spend like 20 minutes fighting all of the bosses that they've already mastered on the previous pantheons, and if they die they need to restart the entire thing. Because the ending is so hard it's like 20 minutes wasted each failed attempt, and that's just not worth it for most people. The worst part is the ending ends in a bit of cliffhanger, letting people to believe it was sequel bait, in turn frustrating countless player's trying to avoid spoilers who fruitlessly beat themselves against this ridiculous challenge. Bloodstained has it's superbosses too, but those are just additional challenges, not being required to get what seems to be an important ending. To get that you just need to be beat the game.
In conclusion, I preferred Bloodstain's save and map systems, found it did a better job at handling money, had more combat options and more interesting traversal items, had more useful upgrades to health, magic, and damage, has more useful alternative game modes, and has more reasonable conditions for getting the good endings. While I'm not saying these are the only things Bloodstained did better, I do think Hollow Knight is better in most other aspects, including graphics, story, bosses and enemies, and sound and level design, and these aspects are considered to be more essential. I will not argue why I think Hollow Knight does this better people seem to generally be in agreement to this, and I've already written well more than enough. I'd like to hear any differing opinions, but again, I recommend only reading the sections you're interested in discussing and not the entire essay.
submitted by ganondox to metroidvania [link] [comments]

Yield farming thread

What is yield farming? Most broadly, it means getting some benefit for providing capital, usually in the form of tokens. Currently, there are three major different schemes:
  1. Staked funds aren't utilized in any way and tokens are distributed proportionally to what's staked (may be dai, weth, ycrv, or other tokens). Token price risk: zero. Token accrues, but even if it falls to zero you lose nothing. Smart contract/protocol risk: depends on the staking contract, usually low to zero. Contracts are usually simple modification of the first contract used by yearn (taken from synthetix), making analysis easy by only looking for differences. APR: may start high, but usually collapses fast to relatively low values as funds pour in.
  2. Providing liquidity in trading pools. Tokens are gained in return for providing liquidity for requested tokens on uniswap, balancer, curve, mooniswap. Token price risk: medium to high, depends on pool weights. See these two articles for details on how liquidity providing works: Uniswap - pool weight is always 50%/50% Balancer - arbitrary pool weights, down to 2% for one token. Can be multitoken, not just two. Smart contract security risk: medium to high. In addition to checking the (usually simple) staking contract, requires security analysis of the token contract. If it's possible to mint a very large amount of token, or someone has a hidden enormous stash, the attacker could clean the pool by dumping them at once. I'm aware of one scam called "YYFI" that did this - you can see the attacker successively getting DAI from the balancer pool. Fortunately for the victims, he wasn't very competent and did everything manually, giving time for people to withdraw. A more competent attacker would automate the pool cleaning process in a smart contract. APR: usually very high - upper three digits or four. It's rarely realized APR because it's calculated assuming that token price stays constant. If you think the token being distributed is undervalued definitely the best option to farm.
  3. Depositing and borrowing funds for defi. Currently utilized by compound and cream (a compound clone). Users get rewarded with tokens for lending and borrowing tokens. Token price risk: zero. Security risk: the most complex to analyze option of all, although Compound itself is definitely the safest defi dapp on ethereum.
Warning: gas fees are high. $10k is probably the minimum amount that makes sense for active manual farming, which still only makes sense for a more long-term farms like COMP or CRV, at the cost of not maximizing APR. I have spent over $3k in gas during the last two months by farming very actively. Below $100k, or if you don't want to spend a lot of time on this, it's probably best to deposit your funds into one of yearn vaults that yield farms for users. https://yearn.finance/vaults
A partial list of current yield farms (feel free to comment with more farms! I can edit and add them to this list):
  • COMP farming, the oldest one (I think?). Relatively low returns (58% on DAI), safe, no price risk. Efficient way to farm is to supply and borrow the same asset (can be done via instadapp) up to maximum leverage possible (with some margin for interest payments).
  • BAL farming, provide liquidity to BAL pools. Safe smart contracts (just don't deposit deflationary tokens). Price risk and APR depends on the pair. https://balancer.exchange/
    See returns for both balancer and compound at https://www.predictions.exchange/
  • YFV finance, one of the many clones of YFI. The seed pool is safe IF you withdraw before the staking period ends (see the security part). Current APR on stablecoins: 121%
  • CRV farming, providing liquidity to curve pools. Mostly safe - curve smart contracts tself are safe, but keep in mind if one of tokens in the pool collapses (renBTC is probably the riskiest) other tokens are going to get drained. You can see the current APR on https://dao.curve.fi/mintegauges. As of now, the highest APR is for compound pool - 105.27%. It's varying and there's complicated game with CRV voting that impacts it.
  • CREAM farming. CREAM is a clone of compound. It's definitely less safe than Compound. Initially, it launched with a direct control by one normal address, but recently they moved to a 5-of-9 multisig.
  • YFII, another YFI clone. Current APR 95%. https://yfii.finance/#/staking
  • Mstable, liquidity providing with stablecoins. APR about 50% (MTA + BAL). https://defirate.com/mta-yield-farming/
  • Zombie, meme token. Current APR is abysmal (33.5%) but token may unexpectedly pump, increasing it. There's a smart contract bug that, as long as rewardDistribution and owner aren't set to zero, potentially allows rewardDistribution to lock all staked funds (not steal). Makes zero sense as of today.
Analyzing security.
Yield farms come and go. The key to earning high returns is to be agile and to jump fast into new farms, which requires manual analysis of security. Of course it's possible to yolo in without any analysis, but I don't recommend it. I'm going to show an example on two recent farming contracts (of the first type - funds just sit in contracts).
Original yearn staking contract. GRAP staking contract. Let's load two codes into a text diff tool, like this site. What interests us on the code level are changes relating to the withdrawal capability, which in the original code are limited to the withdraw() function. We can see that the only substantial change is the addition of the checkStart modifier which prevents both deposits and withdrawals if it's too early. As startime is set directly in source code and can't be modified anywhere, that change is safe - if it doesn't throw on deposit it's not going to throw on withdraw.
The next step is switch to the 'read contract' tab on etherscan and look at two variables: owner and rewardDistribution. In Grap's case, they lead to a timelock contract that requires all changes to wait for at least 24.5 hours - which makes any fund lockup extremely unlikely. At worst, we only have to look at the rewardDistribution contract once a day to see if there's any pending change.
GRAP farming is now finished with no security incidents.
Second example: YFV. This one is still active. Contract link. After comparing them we can see that changes are much more extensive. The withdrawal function also has the checkStart modifier, but that part is fine (ctrl-f to check if starttime can be modified somewhere else - it can't). What's the problem is the checkNextEpoch modifier. There's a lot of things there and three external contract calls (mint calls). If anything in there throws, withdrawal would become impossible. Dangerous. However, that only happens after the staking period ends, so withdrawing before block.timestamp >= periodFinish is relatively safe.
Another check is to look at the owner and rewardDistribution variables. Owner is set to zero, but where's rewardDistribution? Unfortunately, contrary to GRAP, it's private. It's possible to read it with the getStorageAt web3 api (although finding the index is more work - it's 3). However, the team has provided a link to the transaction in which they set rewardDistribution to 0 so it's fine.
In conclusion, as long as you don't hold the funds after the locking period ended there's no security risk here. The current period ends on Tue Sep 1 14:02:29 2020, UTC.
submitted by nootropicat to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear is Terrible: An Analysis

Well the servers are down and I can't play Final Fantasy... so I'm going to write about Final Fantasy.
May I (regretfully) present:

The Probability, Costs, and Benefits of Obtaining Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear:

A Primer for Sellers and Buyers

By: Pavel Amastacia of Malboro

A link to the Jupyter notebook I used to create this. The formulas will show up cleaner (if you're on desktop).
The notebook also has a fun python calculator detailing the forumlas that you can play around with. If you're into that sort of thing.

Abstract

In Final Fantasy XIV, the ability to obtain the highest level sellable body piece, the Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear, is directly tied to the ability to complete Wondrous Tails, a weekly log where players attempt to complete nine out of a set of twelve challenges. Each challenge results in a "stamp" being placed on a 4x4 grid, with increased rewards being offered for each time the player creates a complete horizontal, vertical, or diagional line with four stamps. Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear is offered as an option when players connect three lines, the maximum line total resulting from nine stamps on the grid. There have been many writings discussing Wondrous Tails probabilities. This writing advanced upon those before it by revisiting the probability of obtaining three lines simultaneously but then follows by looking into the opportunity costs of doing so, the price of the resulting Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear, and the benefits offered by its sale and consumption.

Table of Contents

  1. Probability of Success
  2. Time Requirements
  3. Opportunity Costs
  4. Valuation
  5. Conclusion
  6. Limitations
  7. Calculator

Probability of Success

Defining the liklihood of lining up three rows in Wondrous Tails is multi-step process. There are nine "stamps" which are awarded and subsequently placed on a 4x4 grid. The liklihood of putting a stamp in the correct place requires an examination into the total number of obtainable combinations as well as the total number of winning combinations. It is easier to explain the process by highlighting what Wondrous Tails is not.
We will contrast Wondrous Tails with another Final Fantasy XIV staple, the Jumbo Cactpot. The cactpot requires the player to select four numbers, each one being 0-9, as part of a lottery announced every Saturday. Because there are ten possible numbers for each selection, and four numbers to choose, the chance of winning the cacpot can be expressed as:
1 / n^k or 1 / 10^4 = .0001
Given that you are allowed to purchase three cactpot tickets per week, your odds are actually:
3 / 10000 or .0003
In the case of the cactpot, the values are independent; they can repeat. If you choose a nine as your first number, you are not prohibited from choosing nine as your second number (as opposed to many real-life lotteries that only allow a number to be chosen once). Likewise, if the winning numbers of this week’s cactpot are “4321”, there is nothing prohibiting next week’s numbers from being “4321” as well, though the chances of the winning numbers being the same two weeks in a row are diminutively small.
1 / 10000^2 or 1/ 100000000
All of this is to say that the variables are able to repeat. In the case of Wondrous Tails, they cannot.
The variables in Wondrous Tails (or WT) are dependent. On a 4x4 grid, if one space is occupied by a token, then another space cannot simultaneously be occupied by another token. Using 1 / n^k is no longer applicable. Using diminishing numbers such as (1 / n^k) * (1 / (n-1)^k) * (1 / (n-2)^k) … to model a space removed after each stamp would also be incomplete because it fails to account for the fact that there are twelve spaces on the board but only nine stamps.
The solution is found in combinatorics, specifically the solution is found as a k-combination which, itself, is equal to the binomial coefficient. The formula for a k-combination is:

C(n,k) = n! / k!(n-k)

where there are k distinct objects and n samples.
Plugging the numbers for WT in, we are given:

C(16, 9) = 16! / 9!(16-9)! = 20922789888000 / 1828915200 = 11440

There are 11,440 total stamp arrangements in WT.
As with the cactpot, there are multiple opportunities for success with WT. Though you only receive one grid per week, the only requirement is that three rows are made; their orientation, position, or shape is irrelevant. A winning shape on a 4x4 grid can be rotated 90, 180, and 270 degrees as well as mirrored to produce multiple placements of the same shape.. If we examine all of the ways to create three 4-point lines with nine points on a 4x4 grid, we are left with 24 solutions.
3 line wins in Wondrous Tails
source
Because we have 24 chances for success, our odds are then:
24 / 11440 ≈ 0.21%
The pressing question now is, "is it even worth it?"

Time Requirements

The first value to consider in this question is the time needed to complete a series of WT. Individual times will differ, but I will use my own for purposes of demonstration. I look for one box that I can unsync repeatedly with second chances (if you run your dailies and/or have newer people in your FC that you help, you should have a problem with too many second chance points in any given week).
On any given book, the top row is reserved for Main Scenario dungeons of various levels. This leaves 4x3 slots for various trails, raids, Deep Dungeons, etc. to populate. I will not go into calculating averages for this population, but I can usually guarantee an ARR extreme dungeon that I can unsync quickly. Going for Garuda, King Moggle Mog, or Ramuh are in the 1:30 range for me (and you could surely optimize that number down more). On the worst end, there may be no trials and I end up running Sastasha at 4:45 (this is rare though). I’ll stick with my 90-second number for now.
We now have the assumption that I will run WT nine times at 90 seconds per run. Not counting acquisition, turn in, and duty selection, I spend 810 seconds running WT content (or 13.5 minutes). Given that I have a 0.21% chance of achieving three rows on any given week, I will, on average, take 100 / .21 ≈ 476.19 weeks to reach my goal and I will spend 13.5 * 479.19 = 6,428.57 minutes doing so.

Opportunity Costs

These numbers are nice to have, but they still don’t answer the question “is it even worth it?” Provided you’re on FFXIV, and you have 13.5 minutes each week, what’s to say you shouldn’t? In order to find that number, the opportunity cost of pursing WT must be determined.
The opportunity cost of any activity is the sum of what other activities are forgone by making that choice. If a person has a dollar to spend on a candy bar or soda, if they choose the soda then the candy bar is their opportunity cost (if they're required to spend that dollar). For the purposes of this evaluation, we’ll ignore estimating intagibles, sunk costs, etc.
To determine one’s own opportunity cost, evaluate how much gil could be made on other activities in the same time. For analysis purposes, I will once again use my own results; If I am concentrating on money-making, I can earn around 300,000 on average in an hour. This breaks down into about:
Given that 13.5 minutes is 22.5% of an hour, we’ll reduce my earnings per 13.5 minutes to 300000 * .225 = 67,500. It’s not a perfect conversion, but I’ve never approximated my money-making capabilities per 13.5-minute period.
Foregoing the 67,500 gil that I could make each week with the 479.19 weeks that I would need to obtain three rows, I find that my opportunity cost is 67500 * 479.19 = 32,345,325. A single piece of Ornate Neo-Ishgardian gear should be a little over 32 million gil. So, we now have an approximation of the item's value; the final question is, “how much can I actually get for it?”

How Much is the Item Worth?

An Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear piece allows five materia slots to be melded to it by default. Without the ornate piece, five slots can still be melded, but the success rate becomes lower for each piece beyond the allowable slots. Further, as the standard Neo-Ishgardian Gear has only two slots, any slot beyond the third must be of a material quality one less than the preceding slots. On an ornate piece, all five slots can be socketed with the highest materia available for that item level. This leaves us with two variables to examine: the average cost of creating a non-ornate piece with max melds and the stat difference between an ornate piece with max melds and a non-ornate piece with max melds.
The average price for an Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear piece is 6,464,286 on Malboro as of the time of this writing (August 8, 2020). This is far below the 32,345,325 that we value the item at when contrasted against its cost to produce; this also includes zero markup, or profit, for our time. This low-pricing phenomenon might stem from lack of information regarding the item’s estimated value (unlikely in an entire population) or from the notion that sellers adjust their prices until they find the prevailing rate at which buyers will purchase their goods (that's economics, baby).
In this case, it would be a closed-book matter to say that acquiring an item at 6,464,286 / 32,345,325 = 20% of its real value is a steal as a buyer (and ruin as a seller)… but, of course, this assertion also must be challenged. Specifically, the question becomes, “how much benefit will I get from consuming this item?”

Valuation

The average price for a standard Neo-Ishgardian Gear piece is 73,036 on Malboro at the time of this writing (August 8, 2020).
The average price for the “big three” materias (Savage Aim, Savage Might, Heaven’s Eye VIII) is 14,442.
The average price for the comparable Materia VII counterparts is 1,980.
Melding a Neo-Ishgardian piece with 3x VIII materia and 2x VII materia will product the following success rates:
Materia Level Successful Meld Chance
VIII 100%
VIII 100%
VIII 17%
VII 10%
VII 7%
Taking averages for each success, here is the estimated gil cost to overmeld the gear to five slots:
Materia Level Successful Meld Chance Avg. No. of Attempts Materia Cost Total Cost for Slot
VIII 100% 1 14,442 14,442
VIII 100% 1 14,442 14,442
VIII 17% 6 14,442 86,652
VII 10% 10 1,980 19,800
VII 7% 15 1,980 29,700
The performance differences must be taken into consideration as well. Each of the big three provide +60 of their respective stat at the 8th level, and +20 of their stat at the 7th level so the difference is +300 vs + 220 respectively. The costs of purchase and meld each piece is as follows:
Gear Equipment Price Materia Price Total
Standard 73,036 165,036 238,072
Ornate 6,464,286 72,210 6,536,496
The stat bonus of the standard gear is 1,823 for tanks and non-magical DPS and 1,767 for magical DPS and healers. We’ll average it to 1801.
The total difference of power between these gears is as follows:
Gear Unmelded Melds Total % Increase
Standard 1801 220 2,021 0%
Ornate 1801 300 2,121 4.95%
Compared with Price
Gear Price % Price Increase % Performance Increase
Standard 238,072 0% 0%
Ornate 6,536,496 2,745.6% 4.95%
For a 2,745.6% increase in price, you can take home a 4.95% gain in performance for this item.
So, what can be said to the question of “how much benefit will I get from this item?”
Only that “it depends”...
Most players will not realize a benefit from the increased gear. I would model that increase as the time saved by increased damaged output as a function of gil-making potential, i.e. “How much time will I save by doing extra damage, getting dungeon drops, and selling them for additional gil?” If that amount is greater than 6,536,496-238,072 = 6,298,424, then you should, of course, make the purchase.

Summary

Given the probability of obtaining three rows in WT versus the opportunity cost of doing so, it is not worth the pursuit strictly as a method of obtaining Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear to sell. Secondary rewards and benefits may outrank that decision for you.
Given the percentage state increase versus the percentage price increase, there are very few players that would recuperate their investment in Ornate Neo-Ishgardian Gear versus overmelded HQ Neo-Ishgardian Gear.

Limitations

If you've made it this far, you've probably had a few instances where you've thought, "but what about ..." and you're probably onto something. In any case, there are a lot of assumptions and magic numbers at play. Namely, this estimate is predicated upon my own performance and deals only with gil-making. For this reason, I have detailed my calculations so that, if you were so inclined, you could channel your inner healer and adjust.
As I was writing this section, I realized that I could just quickly make a calculator inside of the notebook link here, so I have, in fact, adjusted for you. (did I mention that I main WHM?)
I've taken the time to list out a few more assumptions, limitations, and thoughts that I didn't have time to work out; feel free to create your own weights and formulas! :D
  1. Statistical outliers: provided you can get three rows ahead of the likelihood of 0.21%, how much time is worth it? At which attempt does profit move to breakeven? A good question, but this document is already too long.
  2. Only Malboro was sampled: I'm lazy. Well, that's not true; I don't like mindless tedium. I don't have the patience to log every transaction on every world over days. If mining MB data wasn't against ToS, I would've aggregated data over worlds and times.
  3. Intangible benefits: What if having the extra 80 points from the ornate meld is what helps you get a first world clear or join a static where you derive a lot of enjoyment? What if you care about prestige? There are only a handful of these things floating around; it certainly sends a wealth statement! In that case, assign values to those intangibles if you want to attempt a comparison. Make sure to factor in your opportunity costs foregone by spending that gil.
  4. I undercut by one gil but I'm not an asshat: you can lie to yourself but not me.
  5. I'm filthy rich and spending millions of gil is no problem, no matter the reason: your fuction of gil and time are probably much higher than mine and would increase the value of the item considerably from a seller standpoint; there are probably few situations where pursuing WT for money would be worth your while. If your were a buyer, then you might arrive at a point where your opportunity costs of purchasing are so low that you derive value from consumption. Most importantly, if you are that rich, are you hiring? I can do lots of things.
  6. Spending the time making gil rather than completing WT would likely not be a one-for-one tradeoff, money-wise. Every item has an aggregate demand curve and, if you spent 6,428 minutes flooding the market with a good (or an array of goods), you will affect supply. Provided supply exceeds demand at a given price point, the price will fall until equilbrium is reached (and marginal revenue equals zero and long-term economic profit equals zero and all those other perfectly-competitive assumptions because people are hard). Pursuing WT is a chance to diversify and sell something very much in demand: Sure, no question about that. If you're hitting the market so hard that a 0.21% success chance represents a worthwhile venture for you, then we are in different places in our game experience.
  7. I enjoy WT and that's got to count for something, right? Me too and that's why I do them. I play a video game to have fun and that's enough of a reason to fill in your stickers if that's what you want to do. This writing deals with efficiencies and probabilities, not life advice (except for the one-gil thing... going on the record pretty strongly about that one).
  8. If I'm already doing these runs as part of my dailies, helping FC members, etc., then doesn't that affect the outcome: yeah, definitely. Your opportunity cost is much lower because you're not trading off time that you would otherwise use to optimize making money.
  9. Using shuffle increases probability and reduces opportunity costs. By how much is a function of how easy it is to obtain second chances for you and how many repeats you use to complete your journal.
What's the opposite of a shitpost? I'm asking for a friend
submitted by GrayRainbows to ffxiv [link] [comments]

Arbitrage opportunities in options - how options are priced, explained in layman's terms - without resorting to the BS pricing model

Arbitrage opportunities in options - how options are priced, explained in layman's terms - without resorting to the BS pricing model
Alright retards, I've been laid off at work due to beervirus and I've been eyeing and toying with the idea to get back into options trading. I'm writing this post to raise the bar for discussion on this sub, I'm tired of seeing just memes. We'll never match WSB unless there is a healthy mix of dankass memes and geniass discussions.
Now, when it comes to options, I am completely self-taught (completely from first principles, back in 2008, before you autists came up with the idea of watching videos on youtube). Since I am completely self-taught, my perspective will be different from the people who learnt this stuff while studying MBA/finance courses/NSE accredited investing courses. So if what I'm saying is different from what you've heard from the dude who swindled you of 20K for two days of options education or your gay BF's live-in partner, remember when it comes to maths, there are many ways of approaching a problem, ultimately, all are the same - profit means account balance goes up, loss means a loss post on ISB goes up.
Now, I'm assuming that you understand how options work. If not, I suggest heading to Zerodha's Varsity to read up on options. If you're too lazy for this, get your micro-dick outta options, this is a man's game, surprise butt-sex awaits amateurs.
I'm also assuming that you've come to realise that the sustainable way to make money in options is to write options. Unless you've got Trump or Ambani on speed dial to get access to news before it becomes news, YOLOing whatever rent money you have on buying options will blow up your account, eventually.
Writing options also means the possibility of account balance going tits up is a real possibility. You gotta, gotta, gotta measure and manage your risk. You can do this only when you understand options as well as your dick.
Towards this, I intend to put up a bunch of posts (depending on many of you shit heads are still reading at this point) that comment about little things that are more of 'wisdom' than 'education'.
The example below talks about currency derivatives. Why currency? Read below:
  • Lower margin needed. I can short a CE/PE contract with only Rs.2000, unlike the >Rs. 70,000 for index contracts. You get to learn, play and wisen up with an order of magnitude less money than with Nifty or Banknifty contracts.
  • More stable underlying. When you're shorting contracts, the last thing you want is the underlying asset going crazy like a broncho during rodeo.
  • Less autistic crowd in the currency market. While banknifty options attract retards like flies to poop, currency derivatives attract a more educated crowd.
  • Sooner or later, you end up acquiring a more balanced education on economics as a whole, rather than the shit fest that goes on in the local circles.
  • The more contracts you can short, the more strategies you can pursue
  • Decent hedging is possible without throwing away all of your potential profits
  • Lesser stress (anybody else going through premature hairloss or is it just me?) because of points outlined above.
Alright, today, I'm going point how the put-call parity works and by extension, show proof for 'efficient markets' by pointing out how opportunities for arbitrage is pretty much non existent, so you guys can cool it with the whole 'market manipulators' knee jerk reaction.
Alright, to start off, here's the current spot rate of the USD-INR pair:
https://preview.redd.it/qup28ay567j51.jpg?width=452&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b79ef1a3480e5cbafa42547143c651397ec57f13
Here's today's USD-INR futures closing rate for Sep expiry:
https://preview.redd.it/krghirc677j51.jpg?width=511&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=60d52b785baa8a1cd240d0df7949a48c8391ba2d
The difference between spot and futures rates is due to differences in what is construed as 'risk-free' interest rates in the US and in India. Check out this video if you want to understand why the Sep futures is trading at a premium of 27 paisa to the spot rate.
Alright, so the deal is, if you buy 1 futures contract @ 74.49, unless the USDINR exchange rate rises by 27 paisa at the end of Sep (i.e. a spot rate of 74.49) you won't make a profit (ignoring brokerage and stuff). If the exchange rate were to remain the same without any change, you stand to lose (0.27 * 1000, currency derivatives have a lot size of 1000) Rs. 270 per lot. Even worse if the rupee were to appreciate (i.e. exchange spot rate goes down).
Now bear with me if the next few paras are exceedingly boorish, I need to spoon feed people who aren't used to currency derivatives. My strategies are mostly aimed at playing a more risk balanced play, something that yields consistent returns which can be compounded. 10% profit compounded monthly gives 314% growth per year, 3.5% profit compounded weekly gives ~600% growth per year.
Given how the USDINR rate is crashing, one way to profit would be to short a futures contract (duh!).
The orange line indicates the current USDINR exchange rate
As indicated above, if the exchange rate does nothing and remains as is till end of Sep, each lot of USDINR futures shorted yields about Rs. 250 in profit (for something that takes up Rs.3000 in margin, that's a >8% profit in return). Things look even better if the exchange rate were to fall further.
The problem is that things heat up quickly if the exchange rate were to go up. Ideally we would want to hedge against it (which also reduces the margin needed drastically). One way to hedge it would be to buy a at-the-money call (74.25CE @ rate of Rs. 0.555 -> Rs. 555 per lot (i.e 0.555*1000)).
https://preview.redd.it/ze16kyphv7j51.jpg?width=588&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a3c2bba9fb314beff309671f03a013e69e08f4e0
Having purchased a call option, the P/L curve now looks like:
The max loss is now limited to Rs. 315
The keen-eyed among you will recognise the above P/L curve as one that matches that of a put option. By shorting a futures contract and buying a call option (both with same expiry), we have created a synthetic put option that would have costed us Rs. 315 (0.315*1000) for one lot.
Now, why go through all of this hassle if we can get the same returns by just buying a put option? Makes sense, as long as we can purchase the 74.25 strike put option at a price lesser than Rs. 0.315 (see above).
Let's see what the put options are going for:
Well, how about that...
The market price of 74.25 puts are exactly the same price as our synthetic put. While the synthetic put came in at Rs. 0.315, the put costs another 0.005 extra to avoid the trouble of shorting a futures contract and buying a call at the same time. This is not by chance, big trading desks have algos (trading bots for the virgins here) that keep an eye out for price disparities. In this case, if someone were to be willing to pay more, the algos would compete amongst themselves to sell the puts at any price above 0.32. And if someone were to be willing to sell a put for less than 0.315, the algos would immediately buy.
The price of the puts move in sync with the prices of the futures and call contracts. Conversely, we can create a synthetic call, and you will notice that the price of the synthetic call works out to be the same as the market price for the 74.25 strike call. We can also create a synthetic futures contract the same way.
The prices of derivatives aren't decided willy-nilly. They are precisely calculated at all times, which forms the basis for the best bid/ask prices. There is no room left for someone to come in and make free money via arbitraging using synthetic contracts.
If you found this insightful, and would like more of this sort of posts, let me know.
Options when used properly, can be used to generate risk adjusted returns that are commensurate with the amount of risk you are taking. If you are YOLO-ing, sure, you can double or triple your money, because you can also lose 100% of your margin. Conversely, you can aim for small, steady returns and compound the crap out of them. Play the long game, don't be penny wise and pound foolish.
submitted by circuit_brain to IndianStreetBets [link] [comments]

New margin Calculation of NSE Upstox Margin Calculator  Check Funds Required to Trade What is Span Margin? Margin Calculator Forex Margin Calculator: How much money do you need in your trading account?? What is Margin Trading? Margin Trading kya Hota hai ...

How to use the Margin Calculator: Select the base currency of your trading account. Select the desired instrument (i.e. EUR/USD). Enter the conversion price of the instrument, which you can take from your trading platform. Select the margin ratio value to be equal to the leverage of your trading account. Enter the desired trade size in lots. Margin vs markup. The difference between gross margin and markup is small but important. The former is the ratio of profit to the sale price and the latter is the ratio of profit to the purchase price (Cost of Goods Sold). In layman's terms, profit is also known as either markup or margin when we're dealing with raw numbers, not percentages. Margin Calculator for INDICES (NIKKEI225 & DOW30) NIKKEI225 & DOW30 have fixed leverage 1:50 Dow30 1 LOT=1 Contract Nikkei225 1 LOT=100 Contracts ... Please consider carefully whether trading or investing in bitcoin or other cryptocurrencies is appropriate to your financial situation. Only risk capital should be used when trading or investing. Learn how margin trading works, including understanding the risks and potential reward of trading on margin with our margin trading calculator. MARGIN TRADING INVOLVES SIGNIFICANT RISK TO YOUR INVESTED CAPITAL. All-in-One. Margin. Swap. Profit. Pip. Converter. Margin Calculator Margin is the Minimum equity necessary in your account to maintain your open positions. Account Base Currency. Currency ...

[index] [745] [359] [93] [300] [782] [234] [193] [625] [304] [782]

New margin Calculation of NSE

In this Video i have shared information about Span Margin and Margin calculator. Thanks For MY SUBSCRIBERS. Thanks for - LIKE COMMENT SHARE ----- FOR MORE VIDEOS, -----­----- Share Trading in ... www.DeCarleyTrading.com - For those option traders who seek to know the margin requirement for a particular short option or option spread trading strategy before actually executing the trade, the ... How to Use Margin Calculator in Angel Broking Mobile Trading App? #StockMargin #MarginTrading Dost, jab ghar bhaade par lete ho, to deposit jama karna padta hai right? Goa mein bike rent karte ho ... BEST ONLINE STOCK TRADING COURSES IN INDIA -UDTS ll STOCK SELECTION FOR INTARADAY - Duration: 43:37. IFMC Institute 421,027 views. ... Zerodha Margin Calculator CNC , MIS , BO , CO ... Learn how to use the Span Margin Calculator. In this video we will show you how you can calculate exactly how much margin is required to trade your desired position, all within a few clicks.

#