Seems like the best way to make money is to just be American. My brother just got his second stimulus check. He also got his second stimulus check 6 weeks ago o.O. The IRS sent a correction apologizing for the mistake with the first one despite no mistake being made, and gave him another $600. That is STONKS in action.

Nov 6, 2020 22:13:50 GMT iNCY said:

Nov 6, 2020 22:01:39 GMT KING KID said:

I've been investing and day trading. I invested in DKNG when it was DEAC and made an unbelievable profit off of it. I don't have the time to wait over a year for less taxes. When a stock goes parabolic, I sell it. I take the thousands. Will I get fucked in taxes? Probably. Bring it.

The vast majority of people who day trade lose money
Even less make more money than if they had left their money in an index fund.
I really like the movie Margin Call with Jeremy Irons where he says the three ways to make money are to either: be first, be the smartest or cheat.
It's not that hard to see it as true.

Most pump and dump scams are in the penny stock arena and when you eventually hear about them it's when the original pumpers are selling them off.

Also, I have the very unpopular opinion that the tech sector is massively overvalued, especially the darling stocks like appl and tsla people act like they will have exponential growth forever.

I am massively bearish on Tesla... But I'm not going to short it because autists are pushing its value through the roof and calling it a new paradigm.

I'm going to bump all the old investing threads and quote myself... I don't drink, this is all I got.

Funny how fast things change and now pump and dump is done publically with influencers with major companies. AMC was the perfect example of a masterful pump and dump, done in a legal and very public manner.

That said Telsa rose 50% since that tweet. If you got followed WSB, you got in between 40 and 60. Worth 650 now. That is one hell of a payoff for two and a half years. Sure they went down from the two peaks, but again, they beat the market on Telsa. The other original pet stock AMD is also up 50% still.

The big unifying stocks of the original movement proved to be successful investments.

Sadly GME will be the last stock they got to pick due to the co-opting of the movement for pump and dumps and the shattering into many different groups.

Jun 14, 2022 14:10:29 GMT c said:

Funny how fast things change and now pump and dump is done publically with influencers with major companies. AMC was the perfect example of a masterful pump and dump, done in a legal and very public manner.

That said Telsa rose 50% since that tweet. If you got followed WSB, you got in between 40 and 60. Worth 650 now. That is one hell of a payoff for two and a half years. Sure they went down from the two peaks, but again, they beat the market on Telsa. The other original pet stock AMD is also up 50% still.

The big unifying stocks of the original movement proved to be successful investments.

Sadly GME will be the last stock they got to pick due to the co-opting of the movement for pump and dumps and the shattering into many different groups.

Sure you can ignore fundamentals and YOLO on daddy Musk, but how do you calculate your exit point?
Same with GME, most idiots ride it up and back down again... Because stinks only go up

At this point GME is a circle jerk of degenerates convincing themselves that they're right.

Neither of these were the results of fundamentals. They were artificial events traditional market theories cannot account for. And they were grossly successful if you got in during the early months of both campaigns. Even if you never sold still would see profit. The people who bought it after the runs, well, they are idiots and hopefully learned a costly lesson you get in early or not at all and you need to be glued to the computer to sell at the right time.  If you want to act like a day trader, you need to put in the work.  Want safe, passive investing, get an index fund.  Want serious returns, you need to be watching that ticker like a hawk and ideally do some math to avoid holding too long or buying too high.

Jun 14, 2022 20:22:54 GMT c said:

Neither of these were the results of fundamentals. They were artificial events traditional market theories cannot account for. And they were grossly successful if you got in during the early months of both campaigns. Even if you never sold still would see profit. The people who bought it after the runs, well, they are idiots and hopefully learned a costly lesson you get in early or not at all and you need to be glued to the computer to sell at the right time.  If you want to act like a day trader, you need to put in the work.  Want safe, passive investing, get an index fund.  Want serious returns, you need to be watching that ticker like a hawk and ideally do some math to avoid holding too long or buying too high.

What I am saying is that there are no magic beams and everything.. .Eventually... Returns to the fundamentals.
Sure, you can make cash on the way up, but nobody who made coin on GME or TSLA did it by hard graft, they just rode one of the stupidest bull markets of all time to the top... And most, back down again.
Day Traders don't really make money, I read a funny piece a few weeks ago that the most successful traders were the ones that had lost the passwords to their online accounts.

By the time the most hear about an investment the big guys have bought and sold and everyone is buying their bags.
Isaac Newton is a classic example of this pattern:

Yet despite that, GME still is 100 a share. The people who got it at less than 20 made 500% returns despite everyone saying they would lose all their money. Same for those who bought into Telsa at 50.

///

If the market was rational and solely based on the fundamentals it would also be predictable.  Thus far it traditional theory has not proven predictable, which means those fundamentals have serious wholes.  And WSB exploited them to make bank before they were co-opted into pump and dump schemes.  

Jun 15, 2022 0:53:40 GMT c said:

Yet despite that, GME still is 100 a share. The people who got it at less than 20 made 500% returns despite everyone saying they would lose all their money. Same for those who bought into Telsa at 50.

///

If the market was rational and solely based on the fundamentals it would also be predictable.  Thus far it traditional theory has not proven predictable, which means those fundamentals have serious wholes.  And WSB exploited them to make bank before they were co-opted into pump and dump schemes.  

It is predictable... Eventually... Everything eventually returns to the fundamentals in an undistorted market.
Of course people make money in a bull run, but as I keep saying it is only historically you can say that's smart.
I don't think anyone currently holding GME at $120-ish is smart.
It makes sense that the only people holding on are those who don't want to realise their losses from buying at a much higher point.
That is also the thing holding the share price up.

I am not making this up, it is the volume that tells the story more than the share price, not sure why you are arguing this:

I simply arguing that the people preaching fundamentals were wrong. They said buying Telsa or GME in 2020 was a bad idea as the stocks did not the inherent value to justify an increase in price. But two years later both stocks are still considerably higher priced than when people got them as meme stocks. And they managed to bankrupt companies that bet against them with shorts as they gamma squeezed short sellers.

This does not need charts.  Is the price of GME higher or lower than when WSB started to buy it?  Same for Telsa?  If yes they were right in the end.

Jun 15, 2022 3:53:59 GMT c said:

I simply arguing that the people preaching fundamentals were wrong. They said buying Telsa or GME in 2020 was a bad idea as the stocks did not the inherent value to justify an increase in price. But two years later both stocks are still considerably higher priced than when people got them as meme stocks. And they managed to bankrupt companies that bet against them with shorts as they gamma squeezed short sellers.

This does not need charts.  Is the price of GME higher or lower than when WSB started to buy it?  Same for Telsa?  If yes they were right in the end.

Everything you just said is wrong.
All of your data is based on the idea that people bought in under the current share price for GME.
They didn't... It's why I posted the graph:




You can clearly see by the volumes that more got in than got out and most didn't get in under the current price.
They were told a mega-short squeeze was coming and to hold the line and buy more.
They just became exit liquidity for those looking to unload their bags without crashing the price.
GME is a terrible example though because most of the people involved are borderline retarded.

Go look at /biz/ today and it is the same scam with BTC, they say "Buy the dip" what they mean is "Pump up my bags so I can exit without a loss"

The WSB bets stuff for GME started before the COVID epidemic. They would all be in the smart money in. The bag holders were people who came in after the story went viral. Ditto for Telsa. If you paid attention the original people settled their bets at 150 to 200 from the original group and got out. Most of the original people on Telsa been out since it broke 200 as well.

WSB does not move the market alone, they got in early and rallied people for the gamma push. They could not do the gamma push alone, but their bet was made sense and big investors joined the squeeze. After the first squeeze many sold fast but when it was clear the stock would be shorted against at 50, they came back.

Sept to Nov is the WSB people. Jan to Mar was wall street. Pure volume shows it.

Whenever the housing crisis does what it does best, is that the time to look into a house?

Jun 25, 2022 20:09:01 GMT @ness said:

Whenever the housing crisis does what it does best, is that the time to look into a house?

Yep, that’s what I’m waiting for.

Yup, when people are crying about the collapse of the home equity market and how retirees lost their retirement plans, that is the time to buy in.

It's still hard to call the bottom, there are no clear signs off the types of distress that will see house prices unwind quickly.


I haven't seen any whisper of it, but thinking through the hedge fund buy up or real estate.. it would be ironic if the banks were buying houses at inflated prices simply to sell them to the Fed in the form of MBS, which actually represent the majority chunk of QE... It's hard to imagine the Fed Reserve could be that dumb... But yet here I am, imagining it.

The demand for houses has ended right now. But the houses are still vastly inflated in prices. The demand was never natural though, just the result of near free credit on them that allowed for rent backed securities to basically expand their empire endlessly until rates moved using profit from one month to buy new houses, to issue new securities, ect. It is when these get devalved and the investors sell them, that the price will pop.

Not sure why you think we are still buying MBS federally. We are buying like 40k a week if. Most of the stock was from 2008 to 2012 to boost the economy and prevent Mac and Mae from going under.

We put cash into economy with Trump's 2.3 trillion dollar corporate bailout and 4.5 trillion dollars worth of 0 interest loans. That I think has a greater impact that 2.7 million worth of MBS the US government owns.

The algorithms have thrown me down the finance-talk rabbit hole on my socials, and there's a lot of bullshit on there. So, I'm throwing it over to the PW braintrust - what is the quickest-surest-most legitimate way to make a quick $100,000 outside of real estate?

Cocaine?

It really depends on your startup capital, and well your timeline more than anything since you are likely to get a percentage of your investment back each year.  So making 100k in one year is much different than over 20 years.  

For you, I wonder if it would not be investing in a small business that deals in something you can help place into supermarkets using your supermarket knowledge. The family that owned by local grocery chain did this a few years back and it is starting to pay off well banking off their family name and a new italian brand since they are technically an italian family, but severed all ties when the fascists took over.

Jun 26, 2022 4:30:02 GMT c said:

The demand for houses has ended right now. But the houses are still vastly inflated in prices. The demand was never natural though, just the result of near free credit on them that allowed for rent backed securities to basically expand their empire endlessly until rates moved using profit from one month to buy new houses, to issue new securities, ect. It is when these get devalved and the investors sell them, that the price will pop.

Not sure why you think we are still buying MBS federally. We are buying like 40k a week if. Most of the stock was from 2008 to 2012 to boost the economy and prevent Mac and Mae from going under.

We put cash into economy with Trump's 2.3 trillion dollar corporate bailout and 4.5 trillion dollars worth of 0 interest loans. That I think has a greater impact that 2.7 million worth of MBS the US government owns.

I don't think that's correct
The corporate bailouts are a different chunk of change to the quantities easing.

With almost USD 700 billion of new emergency MBS purchases since March 2020, the Fed now holds USD 2 trillion of agency MBS, or almost 30% of the outstanding balance.

Jun 26, 2022 4:37:17 GMT NATH45 said:

The algorithms have thrown me down the finance-talk rabbit hole on my socials, and there's a lot of bullshit on there. So, I'm throwing it over to the PW braintrust - what is the quickest-surest-most legitimate way to make a quick $100,000 outside of real estate?

Reselling, either a service or a product. Preferably something of a high value that can sustain a good margin. I think it's easier to sell 15 things for 10k each than it is to sell 150 things for 1k.

Look for software or products looking for sales agents that have good margins.
I think looking at product doing well in one industry, reskinning it and offering it in another is a good avenue.

Oh shit missed the chart being in millions. At two trillion we def need to liquidate that shit and pay down some of the fucking debt.

See we are releasing 25 to 50 billion a week, but maybe time to accelerate that shit.

Sheet with details:


www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20220623/

Edit:

And looking into it we are still buying a net increase of 40 billion a month.  Fucking hell.  How the fuck is that divesting...

Jun 26, 2022 5:05:13 GMT c said:

Oh shit missed the chart being in millions. At two trillion we def need to liquidate that shit and pay down some of the fucking debt.

See we are releasing 25 to 50 billion a week, but maybe time to accelerate that shit.

Sheet with details:


www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h41/20220623/

Edit:

And looking into it we are still buying a net increase of 40 billion a month.  Fucking hell.  How the fuck is that divesting...

To misquote Jeremy Irons in Margin Call, what they're trying to do is slow the music if it stops, the market implodes. I mentioned in the other thread that the other week there were ZERO buyers for MBS it which in and of itself is enough to crash the housing market. No mortgages makes for a pricing collapse, which would be especially bad when the Fed Reserve already holds the debts.

The mortgages are not the the mortgage backed securities. The MBS are a way for the bank to double dip on the mortgages. They will not stop granting mortgages just because there is no market for the securities.  They will just have to find the next way to sell the business they are already doing with people to investors.  

One interesting part of this all is if the fed can sell it's holdings, they would have tripled their profit on the MBS they picked up during the housing crash. We should have been selling them off hard as the housing market got red hot and people actually started to think that these were worth ever touching again. That said I still do not think these have any real value after the rating crises that lead to basically nothing being done and everyone assuming it could never happen again.



Really hope I live to see the day the masses realize the banks do not have their savings because they are allow to invest it all, and it only will take a minority of people to close accounts for banks to not be able to settle their balances.  That will be a day that will get very interesting, very fast.  

Jun 26, 2022 7:41:36 GMT c said:

The mortgages are not the the mortgage backed securities. The MBS are a way for the bank to double dip on the mortgages. They will not stop granting mortgages just because there is no market for the securities.  They will just have to find the next way to sell the business they are already doing with people to investors.  

One interesting part of this all is if the fed can sell it's holdings, they would have tripled their profit on the MBS they picked up during the housing crash. We should have been selling them off hard as the housing market got red hot and people actually started to think that these were worth ever touching again. That said I still do not think these have any real value after the rating crises that lead to basically nothing being done and everyone assuming it could never happen again.



Really hope I live to see the day the masses realize the banks do not have their savings because they are allow to invest it all, and it only will take a minority of people to close accounts for banks to not be able to settle their balances.  That will be a day that will get very interesting, very fast.  

I think you have that wrong, an MBS is how the banks move the mortgages off their books and free up more funds for lending.

And they only existed the last 40 years as the Glass–Steagall Act made them illegal prior to that. But mortgages been around for 120 years, so clearly they do not NEED to sell securities to lend money. They need to sell them to rapidly recapitulate in an era where they invest money as fast as they earn it which is what is creating the system of rapid bubbles and bursts, something we already realized was inevitable in the 1920s when we passed the Glass-Steagall act to stop this stuff.

Should note what happened the last time feds raised interest rates to combat inflation. The entire savings and loan industry crashed beyond repair in America. Let banks invest, and they will invest at dangerous levels. US history shows the tiniest of shocks will cripple them. If there was no rush on housing during COVID they would have collapsed with COVID. Now those securities lose value they will collapse and we will need to bail them out for the fourth time in 40 years.

Jun 26, 2022 9:06:06 GMT c said:

And they only existed the last 40 years as the Glass–Steagall Act made them illegal prior to that. But mortgages been around for 120 years, so clearly they do not NEED to sell securities to lend money. They need to sell them to rapidly recapitulate in an era where they invest money as fast as they earn it which is what is creating the system of rapid bubbles and bursts, something we already realized was inevitable in the 1920s when we passed the Glass-Steagall act to stop this stuff.

It's not the MBS that are a problem, they let banks take a discounted amount of the loan profit up front.
Where the banks got in trouble was with synthetic CDOs where the same loan was repackaged and sold on several times over.
These were CDOs of CDOs which is as nonsense as it sounds.

It was not the CDOs though that were the problem. They were a whole separate can of worms.

It was the MBS themselves that were the problem, which is why we call it the subprime mortgage crisis and not the synthetic CDO crisis.

The mortgages pools were rated AAA with mortgages that were underwater. Sure, now we do not allow subprime mortgages to be sold as AAA, but we still rate MBS as safe AAA investments despite the fact that most Americans are one emergency away for needing to let their mortgages go underwater. And that emergency can be rising prices. Also these MBS also still have misstated risks since the risk of each payer defaulting is considered uncorrelated, an assumption that is not true in reality.

If interested in what went wrong with those CDO's read about David Li, "On Default Correlation: A Copula Function Approach" and Gaussian copulas and statistical ensembles. Basically what happened was people who did not understand math, devised risk metrics based on the complex math, assuming because the math was complex, it must be powerful. Taleb warned them, it was nonsense and dangerous, but no one really looked into what the math actually went. And what the Gaussian copula assumes is in terms of risk, is that risk is independent between individual items, so joint risk can be calculated using the correlated risk between them.

The problem is when you step back this all makes no sense. Sell off a massive position in any random stock and sell offs will happen to related stocks. Every investors knows this. But the math fooled them and they bet against this basic market principle and lost severely. Sadly many still use gaussian copulas to determine risk functions on multivariate derivatives.

Jun 26, 2022 15:48:38 GMT c said:

It was not the CDOs though that were the problem. They were a whole separate can of worms.

It was the MBS themselves that were the problem, which is why we call it the subprime mortgage crisis and not the synthetic CDO crisis.

The mortgages pools were rated AAA with mortgages that were underwater. Sure, now we do not allow subprime mortgages to be sold as AAA, but we still rate MBS as safe AAA investments despite the fact that most Americans are one emergency away for needing to let their mortgages go underwater. And that emergency can be rising prices. Also these MBS also still have misstated risks since the risk of each payer defaulting is considered uncorrelated, an assumption that is not true in reality.

I disagree, the house prices beneath the MBS deteriorated and lead to a credit crisis, but the houses still existed and the position was recoverable.
It was the offering of Synthetic CDO's that crushed the banks.

CDO's were bonds on the performance of bonds, this is where the double dipping came from.
So the banks made money on the MBS, which is really a CDO in terms of function, but then they offered synthetic CDO's which were artificial, in simple terms it was an unsecured bond on the performance of the asset, but it wasn't underwritten by the asset.
Everyone assumed that nothing is safer than houses, but it is these synthetic options that made the liabilities of the banks far greater than the value of the homes underwriting the initial security.