Clover Health Investments Corp
$-0.08 (-2.73%) Today
52 Week High
52 Week Low
7 Days Mentions
So much complete fuckery in this market. Haven’t seen anything like it. $TALK is trading at cash, $SEAC and $AVCT can still moon low floats. No fucking clue where they’re taking $BHG and $CLOV but massive floats can reverse split but trading stupid low for revenues and everything’s a P&D. Rant over.
I think everyone should tweet Chamath asking for clarity on his $CLOV position. Hate to say it I think he’s been short this whole time and I think this offering was for HFs to cover. Who buys 10 million worth of shares at $5.75 only for it to tank 40% a week later? Retail can take control of this.
$CLOV something is brewing with $GOOGL - partnership with Google Health off recent job listings imo. Avg cost is $17 which is ridiculous when it’s trading in $3s. People bagged big time in this but I think it’s going to $30 minimum by end of 2022. Offering at $5.75. Taking starter position Monday.
![img](emote|t5_2th52|4267)I checked your post history OP. Lets see the CLOV and BB loss porn. And if it was a BB you smashed I'm pretty sure they've been turned off so that's no big loss. Except the littering. I hope you picked up the pieces because people who litter piss me off.
I lost on OPAD not CLOV - I'm one of the few retards that made a few bucks on CLOV. I have no idea what either of these companies do, BTW, but their main focus appears to be making their stock price go down as fast as possible.
Yep, I made magic money on AMC and CLOV of all things (retard change, ~$600). Now I'm holding these heavy OPAD bags from one retarded play that was essentially a post on this sub with tons of emojis and "buy this stock, retard!" as the DD. I think I threw $400 in from my IRA (LOL retirement) and it's down like 75%, as I bought at the awesome price of $18.50 after-hours (ATH was $20.97). I will hold it until $0 just to remind myself not to invest based on emojis and that I am genuinely retarded.
Retail FOMO didn’t run the stock up from $40 to $170 within a few hours in Feb 2021. Retail FOMO didn’t drive the price to $350 March 10 then suddenly all sell to drop the price to $180 and then bounce off it back to [260 ](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/03/10/gamestop-surges-40percent-then-wipes-out-gain-completely-and-is-halted-again.html) Retail FOMO may have been responsible for the June run up before the vote count. Retail FOMO didn’t cause a [BBY buyback](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-11-02/bed-bath-beyond-soars-on-share-buybacks-plans-for-marketplace) to drive up GME. Retail FOMO didn’t drive the price up 30% AH on Jan 6. If it were just a retail pump and dump, wishful thinking etc the stock would be more like CLOV, WISH, RKT, SNDL etc. Go look at the 6 mo chart for any of those and see how they’ve just been slowly dropping as bag holders slowly cut their losses. That’s how GME looked for most of Feb 2021 too. I get it, apes can be more than a little cultish. But the price action has been very compelling, and I think most people want to wait and see what GME announces with their transformation.
I feel that these days, also, market makers make it so stonks don’t go up. How many regards bought into WISH and CLOV and never saw the thing go up? Motherfucking Gme. Who the fuck is selling that?? And god damn RIVN. It’s still a turd at 80. For the Algos:) 🚀
When it hits number one, normally that means it’s just about tapped out, or at least is in full gear. The ranking system is calculated based on old data. So it’s always behind. Remember CLOV? That was a gamma squeeze, shorts jumped in at the top, so weeks after it’s high CLOV jumped to the number 1 spot. But that was because the SI increased, and most shorts were super in the green, so even though it was number 1, it was almost impossible to squeeze. That being said, PROG was a terrible squeeze setup. The dilution was crazy. But on a good note, it hit that $6 high from the option chain ramping it up. So similar to BBIG this week. But BBIG also has some big catalysts coming up that are all but officially confirmed. So look at CLOV and PROG on their rips, realize that BBIG has the same option chain and short interest setup, but has actual catalysts and not speculation coming. The only thing we don’t know if the date of the catalyst yet.
2022's stock market has the volatility potential that makes 2020 and 2021 ones cute. It is equally possible that SPY can go to $50 (around -90%) or $550 (more than +15%). Bear case: Covid is a plan by China and Russia to weaken US (and Europe) economy. After years of examining US, they concluded that the only way to weaken US is via a pandemic due to how US economy works. They expected a global stock market crash resulting in depression in 2020, but ![img](emote|t5_2th52|4641). Now, with ongoing introduction of rate hike, they may attempt a joint-war (i.e., China invading Taiwan while Russia invading Ukraine at the same time) at the right moment to stir another possibility of global stock market meltdown. Why -90%? It is due to fear of WW3 in addition to already severe global supply chain issue and incoming rate hike. Bull case: There will be no war. Russia is just doing the best to increase the oil price without a bullet, while China is just playing around with Taiwan to unite China's people. Increment of rate hike doesn't affect the stock market much after Pelosi shouts at JPow when GOOG goes down below $2,500, and JPow has no choice but to announce at most 3 rate hike to 1.0% this year. SPY and QQQ reaches ATH every month, and the wsb apes are buying WISH and CLOV again.
Swing trading. Bought and held growth stocks sold for loss then I would do it again w/different ticker. Took huge loss on MARA and RIOT after BTC dip sold near the bottom. Hit big % on CLOV, BBIG, SNDL but didn’t take profit near the highs cuz of greed
Really fucking great post man, excellent points, and everyone should definitely take all economists' and analysts' opinions with a grain of salt. Opinions are like assholes after all. I'm definitely not Michael Burry here calling for the biggest crash of all time this week. My biggest point was just that historically we recovered way more quickly from the covid crash than most other crashes. You make great points about why this is the case, but I was just pointing out that OP's idea of recovery timeframes show some inexperience and unrealistic optimism. I totally agree with you that trying to time a crash is like trying to time anything else with the market: good fucking luck. It's a known fact that people lose more money by trying to wait for a crash than by just getting into the market. Time in the market is king. Except with something like CLOV. That may never see $16 ever again lol (sorry CLOV bag holders)
>Many economists don't even consider it a crash because the recovery was so quick. And you should probably take what they're saying with a grain of salt, because even among economists the prevailing wisdom on what crashes are is problematic. It was most definitely a crash, given that it was a liquidity crisis due to the breakdown of the economic engine of the economy causing a divergence between ability to pay money into the rotating economy compared to the need to pay it into debts and obligations, resulting in a >30% market drawdown. That is the very definition of a crash. The problem is that people apply mean reversion to the market and think "thing go up big, must go down big!" which works under normal circumstances, and is intertwined with signal biases in identifying bubbles. People assess bubbles by looking at curves and PE ratios, which are statistical artifacts of bubbles, but here's the problem: Everybody cites the expansion of capital in the market as the reason the market expanded, but never considers that in assessment of how the market reacted to the liquidity crisis and where that's going and never include it in their bubble assessment. It's a basic fact of mean reversion methodologies (which relate to bubble crashes) that once you change the underlying liquidity in the market, the factors of mean reversion and valuation multiple positioning changes, as it did after 2010. People kept predicting mean reversion there, and it never happened because the baseline liquidity in the market changed. This happens in stocks all the time. In fact, we're watching it happen right now: Mean reversion should mean that CLOV will eventually go back to $16/share, but that assumes that the interest and available float are the same, and they are not, which is why CLOV keeps dropping. Economists who assume crashes must be long lasting mean reversion to be a crash are falling into the same psychological bias pit that people who constantly buy into CLOV thinking it's going to go back up are in. It's all belief, no science. In the science of economics, markets expand against their liquidity backdrop, and as long as that liquidity in the active market is expanding or the same, a crash is not guaranteed. Bubbles exist when you have the same rough amount of money in the market and a lot of it goes to one thing... in the 2000-2001 crash, the primary issue with the liquidity in the market ultimately was due to bad accounting reducing value in the market, we then went through an elongated period of low fundamental liquidity because of bad economics during the Bush administration creating a problematic economic divergence problem. The tech bubble in 2000 HAD to crash because the same money in the economy had to start competing for debt-generating living costs as inflation drove up the costs of housing, etc, while real wages were declining and large markets were leaving the country resulting in downward fortunes for much of the country... but there was also a hard market valuation scandal driving the decline in relative valuations, which is why it took so long to recover. In that circumstance, because there was no capital liquidity backing, all the market could do was revert down and the lack of capital influx resulted in a lack of capital generative capability. A similar thing happened in 2008, but QE ultimately hid the real depth of the crisis by propping up the banks and getting rotational payroll and credit provision moving again. The same circumstances happened in 2020 as far as liquidity was concerned... but the added liquidity from the Fed combined with fiscal stimulus and the fact that the liquidity event was due to a pandemic have everything to do with the duration of the crash. Expecting a pandemic-driven crash to have the length and depth of a normal bubble crash, especially in the face of an elevated market liquidity expansion that will be draining into the economy via bank lending for the next 10 years... that's not science, that's belief. The science says it was a crash and did what it should have done. I initially doubted it, but after spending a LOT of time looking into it I'm comfortable saying that. Having said I agree completely with the point of not being overleveraged going into a crash. People who pull money out at the top and then buy in at the bottom obviously do better, but like you said timing the bottom is also far more problematic than it looks on a chart. In the end, though, most of the bear theses on here are no more complex than any other blind mean reversion assumption... and that's the problem. Timing a crash is just as problematic as timing the bottom. The strategy this year, with softening monetary accomodation, will favor stock pickers and volatility capture... but that's tough, so the other strategy is to dollar cost average over time keeping a lot of capital free to buy dips but not overleverage. Volatility capture will beat that by a wide margin, but can also beat it on losses by a wide margin, too. LOL