IE

ManicMarket

Person who formerly monitored for insider trading and handled pre-clearance at my firm. Contact the department who does the work, explain you forgot to get pre-clearance. Let them do their investigation and go from there. Every firm will have different policies, but most aren’t very interested or trying to fire people who made an honest mistake. They have to look at the facts and circumstances and then remedy the situation from there. Things they could say - you need to bust the trade. That’ll be different from situation to situation how that’s handled. They could also say - you’re fine, don’t do it again. IE - if they would have been able to pre clear the trade at the time it was placed. No one was harmed and therefore a verbal warning feels appropriate. Any firm with a proper control environment in place will find your trade and know it wasn’t pre cleared. Do you want to ask for forgiveness after you’ve been caught doing something wrong and hidden it or before they reach out to you and you have the opportunity to clearly show it was just human error?

PaperHandsTheDip

Likely works in a high paying industry -- IE some higher end software jobs can pay 500k+ / annum right out of school. Some guys working in AI for big tech companies are taking home 600k - 1m right out of school. With a few years of specialization some are making $2m+ Kinda fucked tbh

PaperHandsTheDip

Uh, no you don't lol. Are you living in the 90s? A PDF is an open format, with hundreds of readers out there. It's actually built, open source, into chrome ie. That's what I generally use to read them (just a browser). A pdf doesn't need adobe reader, there are \~1000 other ones out there, including open source ones. The powerpoint format is also open source (surprisingly to you I guess). IE: Go check out google slides -- it'll allow you to make powerpoints, edit them, import / export & convert to PDFs as well.

FederalExpressMan

My primary company software is from the 90s and runs on Windows with DOS command prompt. It is solid and very rarely does it go down. Other supplemental programs are built to run on IE/Edge. I’m pretty sure alot of critical enterprises are the same.

HotTruth999

Worse than IBM. At least IBM was able to reinvent itself several times. Microsoft is good at trying to put their competition out of business and locking in enterprise customers who have no wish to remain. As soon as they can escape they will run for the hills. MSFT is nothing more than an expensive China-lite borrower of other companies’ innovation. What do I mean? MSDOS was copied from a 3rd party QDOS for 50k MS networking was copied from Novell The Microsoft mouse was copied from Xerox The GUI on Windows was copied from Xerox & Apple Excel was copied from Lotus 123 Exchange was copied from Lotus Notes Word was copied from WordPerfect IE was copied from Mosaic and Netscape Windows NT was copied from Digital Equipment Corporation VAX VMS Azure was copied from AWS Xbox was copied from Sony ps Etc etc etc They haven’t a creative bone in their body.

skilliard7

1. If Meta's models manage to catch up and outperform competitors, or are cheaper, people may choose to use them. 2. For consumers, having them built into existing products(IE Facebook) may encourage usage. This is a big reason Google has had some success despite having an inferior model; Gemini is built into Search/Chrome/Android/Gmail, so it is convenient to use.

PaperHandsTheDip

\> Why not just expand to some other lower volume assets like options or cross-country ADRs/ETFs? It's quite profitable as is. IE: My systems used to account for \~1% of global crypto derivative trade volume. It's not at those levels anymore -- but I wouldn't exactly call my operation "small" -- it's quite profitable, capable of trading billions per month and making millions. IE: These are some stats from a decayed system: [https://imgur.com/a/Ww0MuYy](https://imgur.com/a/Ww0MuYy) \--- \> Anyways, small trading businesses are one of those niches where I think software will pretty much always stay proprietary Correct. However my brothers business (\~20 engineers) is now fully vibe coded as well. I'm aware of one of my friends at Meta and another at Google who are also 100% vibe coded now. \--- The issue with saas - is that once companies realize they dont need super / hyper specialized programming knowledge - you just need domain knowledge - it's going to be everywhere. I was chatting with another friend this weekend (works for a very large construction company in vancouver) - who are in the process of moving all their saas to in-house.

PaperHandsTheDip

Market cap DOES NOT equal amount invested. Big difference. Often a $10m investment can move the market cap by significantly more, sometimes by over $100m to much more in extreme cases. IE: When a company raises money, they may raise say $10m at a $250m valuation. Previous raise was $5m at $100m valuation. The company got $10m invested, but their market cap went up by $150m (15x more). Public companies work similarly in this manner, but it's done via the stock market. It's a function of liquidity, valuation (what people think it's worth), supply, demand & a bunch of other things. TLDR: IT's not 1-1

PaperHandsTheDip

>\> I feel like I was too late this time. As soon as the war started (like literally the first day) - I sold. Magnitude I had no idea how big / far it would move. I just assumed it would (as wars can't easily be backed out of like his other moves) & war also tends to be bearish >\>  thought the war would worsen and they would keep falling The issue with this - is that everyone already knew this information, so for lack of a better word it's "priced in". The only things that are NOT priced in is information that is not widely known. Everyone has been debating just how far markets will move, when to buy back in, etc. I sold when people were debating whether the war was even real / was going to happen (they'll just shake hands and call it off tomorrow!). Similar debates people had as to when it would bottom. They bottomed the day that Iran stated "we are willing to end the war", ie: a light at the end of the tunnel. The war did escalete in the meantime (you are correct) - but everyone already acted on / anticipated that happening. Iran being willing to end it / showing willingness was the bullish sign for last week. >\> Is your strategy based on the assumption that markets will keep going down as a situation worsens? No - it's guessing on events that people are not really aware of yet (that will probably happen, but haven't yet) & the general direction I expect the market to move -- all before the events occur. IE: Speculation. The reason markets are "forward looking" is that everyone is already aware of all the current information. Markets could continue down, yes, but if the war ends they will jump like crazy. It's incredibly difficult (ie: basically impossible) to correctly price markets if you only consider existing information. You need to have an edge / some information most others do not, or speculate on events that may occur (and what their effects would be)

PaperHandsTheDip

Exactly. Whenever the trigger you set occurs, the automated order happens. IE: A stop loss can be set with a price & amount to sell / reduce your risk. It's an automated order, where the trigger is price action.

CoughRock

any one working in finance or finance adjacent have insider trading prevention rule. IE: any stock you buy can only be sold with a loss if you want to sell it within 30 days of purchase. Shorting is not allow but inverse etf is okay strangely enough. Option is only allowed for covered call. But if your shares got called away and sold, that's insider trading right there buddy. Back in 2019, cryto and alternative asset like stupid ass nft used be able to skirt the 30 days insider trading rule. But that's no longer allow.

Temporary-Alarm-744

My guy missed Tri Color crashing. Time to get off Microsoft IE

baithammer

You need to read what I wrote, namely that you keep energy sources such as Natural Gas online until that capacity is covered by greener options. ( IE. Phase In / Phase out)

PaperHandsTheDip

I've been building software for over 20 years as has my brother. He showed me the recent improvements in claude since 6 months ago. It's actually fucked. A single engineer can now make / run an entire project \*solo\*. You can now just tells claude what to do, it does it and verify it. Hallucinations have dropped to near 0. Experienced engineers are swapping to 100% vibe code - and it \*works\*. These are not junior engineers / "vibe coded shit" that people are starting to put together. They're quality code / projects. I had a look at my brothers most recent one. He said he spent \~2 weeks on it. I looked at the code, it looked solid. He told me he didn't write a single line. Previously it'd have taken over a year. \--- The issue with software companies (such as MSFT, ie) - is that their revenue comes from building these systems. You have managers and teams of engineers to assemble them. The engineering "team" isn't really needed anymore. A highly experienced engineer can manage a set of agents and accomplish the exact same thing / quality. Which is what blew my mind. IE: The cost of making enterprise software is about to faceplant, hard, and it's going to bring along all these software companies with it. They have teams of hundreds of managers, engineers, etc, to build it. That entire thing can be reduced down to only a handful per client now. Which at that point - the enterprise just hires their own small internal team to do it all...

PaperHandsTheDip

Well - tariffs were just a tax on consumers. Oil makes the price of goods go up across the board, globally. IE: It's not a tax and there is no "take backs" that can be done

PaperHandsTheDip

Many try to -- see what robinhood is doing. The reason is a mix of various things, here's a few off the top of my head: **regulations** \- often not legally allowed. **overhead** \- how much does it cost to implement vs expected gains from doing it? If it's a significant amount of work, requires increases in headcount / friction & payoff isn't super large - it's often just not worth it. **professionalism -** often these brokers & apps have repuations that they like to uphold. You won't see massive funds using robinhood like the users do. If Schwab started introducing "meme like things" they lose the professionalism image and it may actually cause more damage than financial gains that they stand to make. IE: There is a risk to everything.

PaperHandsTheDip

It's also a much more global issue than the tariffs were. IE: US didn't tariff itself. Some countries were barely effected. Domestic only / smaller companies were much less effected by tariffs. The oil shock is going to hit everyone & very hard.

marketmispricing

Do you focus on IV for the option being outta whack with the underlying security? IE: creating a mispricing?

JacobSteed

I got burned doing this last spring when everything plunged then whiplashed the other way. I’ve been more careful lately, selling covered calls on socks that I’m in a negative position. IE oracle.

CoughRock

That count a coercion from superior officer. Military court frown upon that. It will be illegal to fire them. IE: when Obama say military member who commit sexual assault to their fellow member or civilian, will be dishonorably discharge. This was during the okinawa base incident. The threat of dishonorable discharge count as coercion from superior officer. The members on trial end up getting free and honorable discharge afterward. Given how regard this administration has been so far. I would surprise they haven't legally trip themselves over. Effectively give free coercion protection to all the people they want to fire. Mind you they can still sue the member in civilian court. But military court will most likely grant them protection from being fire if hegeth get caught power tripping on public record.

PaperHandsTheDip

If you're actively investing in the market - it's basically a game of betting on news that hasn't been priced in yet / people don't know about yet. Do you know something we don't? I sold most my index funds when SPY was \~685 (feb) due to the rising tensions / war. That's when I made the trade you're considering entering into now. I haven't re-bought yet... I'm considering doing it soon to "lock in the profit". I can increase my units by \~4-5% tomorrow / lock the profit in. That's a fantastic trade (increase shares / holdings of index funds by 4-5%) in less than 2 months is fantastic. This is why people say it's "already priced in". Active investors looked at events that might occur & made bets on it. Once they occur & market reacts, they lock in the profits. IE: I'm an active investor (also passive) who made this same trade, but am looking to lock in profits / for my exit soon.

meltbox

Algos mostly just market make. They’re not often taking positions that are directional and if they are it’s a timed entry exit not long term no market investing. IE they may invest because of a positive presidential tweet and will exit on some combination of flow data. But they’re not just directionally gambling.

Individual_Formal130

Should have put 80% in your bank and don't let it sit there begging to be yolo'd. Perhaps the problem with all the losses IE no one is withdrawing that money.

tachyonvelocity

Natural gas is quite literally close to free IN THE US, do you even read my posts? Take a hint what most of the MAG7 and US companies, IE stocks, pays in energy costs. It's not friggin gasoline.

Efficient_Can4700

Because these problems exist because voters didn't pick their candidates IE Kamal Harris. If there was a better candidate for the democrats, things could have been different. Also just to put out that it's not a recent thing since around 1980 when candidates have been picked in primaries.

CoughRock

depend on if the toll is higher than the cost of maintain navy/air force there. Our military contractors aren't exactly know for budget efficient and running under cost. IE: cost of afghan war was around 2.3 trillions. It's going to cost you a huge sum of cash while our nation is running a huge deficit. Not sure if it's worth to pay that much just to protect one man's ego. Let's not forget, Prior to WWII. Great Britain was the world's de facto banking system. Every one borrow from them and has to obey them financially. WWII put them through huge amount of war debt and force borrowing from usa. Effectively gave up their banking power and destroy any ability to maintain oversea colonies. Who's to say the same thing won't happen to us if we escalate this to a world war. The neutral country that finance the next world war will be the winner post war and control the global currency.

PaperHandsTheDip

We'd all be billionaires if we jumped on every good missed opportunity. Some of them - you may have even been involved in. IE: I was involved in crypto in it's early days & at one point I had over 200 bitcoin. I sold them for... a few thousand each. Was pretty stoked about that. At it's peak that'd have been worth \~$25million. Just last year I had some AMD leaps (picked up \~$110). They're up over 5000% right now. I sold for a measly \~25% profit. You just gotta accept that there are a ton of good opportunities out there, and most of them you let slip through your fingers.

BZ852

You know it wasn't him who was responsible for that - it was Robinhoods lack of liquidity to cover the trades; IE: SEC rules, and even then, they weren't using Citadel. The apes hate Griffin because he offered an extortionate loan to Melvin Capital when they got squeezed.

PaperHandsTheDip

GME wasn't caused by dark pools - it was a short squeeze. Very different things. Dark pools are simply hidden liquidity. That's more or less all it is - market makers & people wanting to trade without making their flow / orders known to everyone else. People do this because that information is often used against them. IE: If you have a billion dollar sell... that may spook the markets. So you do it in a dark pool where other traders can't react to your information / flow. \> Banks and big names dont want these pools around, theyre toxic to the market and toxic to clients. They were actually invented for large traders, who are the ones who still use them. \> Pfof is going to fall off  PFOF is everywhere now. The reason we have no fee brokers (and better execution quality) is due to PFOF. There are rules around it - you need to offer a BETTER price than the best one on the books.

RocknrollClown09

Iran isn't going to let the US walk away without serious concessions. Trump will back off, claim victory, go up on stage and do his 'jacking off two dudes at once' dance, and silently every embargo and sanction on Iran will be lifted or completely unenforced. Basically, everything Trump touches turns to shit. IE, he's done everything in his power to kneecap renewable energy, from cancelling tax credits to shutting down projects that have already been completed. But guess what happens to rooftop solar and EV demand when fuel and electricity prices go up? He hates environmentalism, but guess what happens to greenhouse gases when nobody can afford to go anywhere? He loves farmers in red states who overwhelmingly voted for him, but guess what his trade war did to farm futures and what happened USDA got DOGEd and couldn't process federal aid claims? A 46% spike in small farm bankruptcies under Trump. He hated Iran having the resources to pose a larger economic, military, and diplomatic threat, but guess what's going to happen when he backs out of this? And if he doesn't back out, this will be just like Iraq and AFG except bigger, with less NATO-OTAN support, and way less support at home. The dude is literally Zap Brannigan. Except when it comes to crypto ponzi schemes and insider trading. He's really good at that.

PaperHandsTheDip

You don't have to time it perfectly - those that do often fall into your later group (wait too long). Really - treat a sale like a long trade, but change the base from USD to shares of company / stake in ETF. IE: When I sell something - I often look at how many shares I own. Example: if you had 100 shares and sold them for $100 each, I'd have $10k worth. If then the price dropped to $20, I'd still have 10k worth but my effective shares in the company are now 500, or a 500% return. I'd rebuy / take profit LOOOONG before 500% returns. I do this on things I'm long term bullish on. IE: Right now on SPY, I sold out at \~682-685 average. I can "take profit" right now and rebuy \~6% more units. My ideal goal / target is a few weeks / months out to start heavily rebuying tho (as I suspect more pain). But really - even if markets start turning around / sentiment shifts before then - I'll rebuy immediately and consider it a good trade. Why? I am more aligned with the "buy and hold" long term group. Timing the bottom is impossible. Just buy into the pain.

PaperHandsTheDip

Probably doesn't but she's making like $2 / hr more than minimum wage. It's unlikely she'll ever be able to afford even if we do crash, but minimum wage jobs are usually fairly widespread / available. IE: Any job would pay more or less the same.

enolevakava

Move everything into Emerging Markets (IE China)

PaperHandsTheDip

The argument is simply "damage lasts a long time" and it's not quickly forgivable. IE: The damage done is going to last significantly longer than the current US's administration will. It won't be reversed at the drop of a hat. If you go around starting wars, destroying infrastructure & killing citizens, that country isn't exactly going to just "let it go". It just instigates even more violence. The damage done is lasting, in more places than Iran. IE: The US has already damaged their reputation among many of their allies (see: greenland, canada, EU). Threatening to annex them is not exactly a good look. Then combined with throwing tariffs on everyone - they ruined a bunch of economies / caused massive international economic damage. Now with the war - they've caused even more economic damage (ie: oil). There's a good chance we may enter into a global recession -- caused by cascading events starting with tariffs. The current war and the global economic damage over the last \~year has largely been instigated by the US. This has been reflected in global markets in itself - look at the USD. It faceplanted last year (ie: \~10% drop) which signals lack of faith in the US. And to boot the US market underperformed global indices. Now with the war the economic damage is cascading and markets are falling. The US are not exactly "the good guys" right now (neither is iran), but there are more than 2 parties involved.

PaperHandsTheDip

Some people with no assets / little opportunity hope for a crash as it gives them more of an opportunity. IE: I have a friend who is in her early 30s. She really wants an economic and housing collapse SO she can buy a house. I have another friend who is just starting to make some money in their late 20's - but has no savings. He ends up further ahead if he buys everything cheaper, so wishes for a market crash. Etc.

PaperHandsTheDip

True. The damage being done is irreversible. The grudges held against the US are not going away anytime soon either. They've killed thousands and even comitted war crimes by targetting civilians, schools, universities & more -- completely unrelated to the war. IE: US targets girls elementary school and kills hundreds of children in a triple strike attack. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026\_Minab\_school\_attack](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Minab_school_attack) The US claims "we didn't know it was a school" - yet did a triple strike on it (destroy infra, wait a little bit for first responders to show up / people to come out of hiding then shoot AGAIN). Then a 3rd one later. The most likely reason? The school was for children of Iranian military members... it sends a message "we will kill you and your families". That is the story being reported outside the US anyhow -- dunno how it's being reported inside the US (not from US)

PaperHandsTheDip

180 is possible is why. Analysts have stated that 200+ is possible if the strait remains closed. We are a bit "insulated" to the impacts of the oil shock (gas prices go up a little bit) but the real world consequences are just starting to hit. IE: Slovenia is the first EU state to start rationing fuel. Reserves in other EU countries are starting to run dry. The energy crisis this has created is going to be the worst we've ever seen. Oil isn't magically going to come down overnight. [https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77m4zx6zvmo](https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c77m4zx6zvmo)

PaperHandsTheDip

It's far more than that. The US is spending over $1b / day on the war, irans budget is... $10b / annum, or \~$30m / day. The US is quite literally spending over 30x more than iran on this war and not being much more effective. I used the missiles as an example. \--- "defensive technologies" don't always work either. IE: consider the current cutting edge anti ICBM systems. They... only have a success rate of \~50%. IE: 1/2 ICBMs shot will not be taken down. Why??? They're trying to take down targets travelling at upwards of 20,000mph that are the size of a schoolbus. You need to intercept that and blow it up... The US has spent almost $200b on anti ICBM (ie: anti nuke) technologies since \~2000, ie: the annual budget of irans military. On a technology that only works half the time. It's a bit of a fools game at this point... spending more is more or less - pointless. If a nuclear threat seriously considered launching nukes, shoot 10 (with a \~50% chance to hit each) and there's over a 99.9% (quite literally) chance one lands. 200b wasted. \--- If you want an effective war / to win - you need to put a significant amount of men on the ground and be willing to accept loss of life. Spending 1000x more to ensure that doesn't happen is a surefire way to lose a war.

PaperHandsTheDip

I'm still mostly cash - have been since mid feb. Bear cycles like this historically have lasted for 6-9 months before markets bottom. We're not even 2 months into this one. I picked up a position this week ($MOS), but really my plan is to start heavily averaging into indices over the next 2-6 months. This war isn't going to end soon & it's elevating oil. While oil is elevated - equities will continue to march downwards. We need to see a "light at the end of the tunnel". It looks to me to be escalating, not resolving soon. IE: things are likely to get worse before they get better.

PaperHandsTheDip

The honest answer? It's because the US spends too much on the military. Turns out that a $100k missile does the same amount of damage as a $5m missile. The US military is basically this effect on steroids. IE: China is producing a $99k missile that is designed to take out $300m ships & overwhelm their defences. And... they work. USA: $300m on a warship. China: $100k on a missile. Iran is in a somewhat similar situation here. Whether you spend $10b or $1T on the military it doesn't matter much when a weapon that is 1000x cheaper does the same amount of damage. [https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/china-ykj-1000-hypersonic-missile-us99000-sm6-thaad-cost-gap/](https://defencesecurityasia.com/en/china-ykj-1000-hypersonic-missile-us99000-sm6-thaad-cost-gap/)

PaperHandsTheDip

\> The citation of active management underperforming is heavily tax and fee driven though, and is decades old. It's more relevant than ever. Look at the performance of passive vs hedge funds. Passive consistently beats the average hedge fund. \--- Passive investing fees have dropped to 0.03% on VOO, and other passive funds are similar. Active retail investors often have access to 0 fees now (ie: PFOF) giving both better execution quality and well... 0 fees. The fees saved are not contributing much to the performance deltas, nor execution quality - active retail investors often pay $0. Passive investing has \*more\* fees for most. Tax savings is not contributing to the deltas either - you pay taxes after the performance deltas are measured. IE: after tax performance is a different metric (I'm just looking at raw returns, not after taxes paid, etc). \--- IMO - the real reason passive tends to outperform is it is designed to follow the "market average". There tends to be very few people who are high performers. The rest underperform, quite drastically. The average passive investing follows is closer to the mean tho - not the median. So you end up with a few people who drastically outperform and the rest underperform. Irregardless of what you invest in - we are all playing a zero sum game against each other. This gets even more interesting when considering things such as prop firms (ie: jane street, hrt, etc). They perform various forms of market making / arbitrage / HFT - which \*always win\* (arbitrage in particular). This turns the active investing game into negative sum for every other active investors. Passive investing abstains from this negative sum game. Yes -- it's possible to outperform the index, but the average investor won't. It's math / you can show why with math (zero sum, negative sum games). Markets in general are positive sum -- yes -- but the distribution of gains is zero sum (it always sums up to 100% ownership). Some people are better at that game than others. Active investors are often playing the negative sum version of ownership, passive investing abstains.

Saulthewarriorking

Tesla is the worst of the ev's though. Its owner has alienated half its potential consumers and their products are of notoriously low quality. Of the half of consumers the have alienated it's the people who believe in climate change and EV's. IE the core demographic. Their financials don't match performance and when the final pump and dump comes for that shit bag company there will be a mighty wailing from the tech bro bag holders. I would rather light my money on fire than give it to a racist, fascist, drug addict from South Africa.

Noobsauce9001

Idk they got folks using this to vibe coding Ollama into shrinking models over just the past 24 hours: https://www.reddit.com/r/LocalLLM/s/lBkEu309IE

Salty-Passenger-4801

Remember before trump attacked Iran, he said they were negotiating. Nothing Trump says can be taken as truth. Reverse everything (IE: we are negotiating means there are no negotiations are happening)

Couchfar

Asking a question, with the assumption of something to be true. IE "assuming AI will destroy the economy", is a bad way to phrase a question. You don't know that AI will destroy the economy at all.

No-Lie2979

The standard recommendation is FTSE All-World (Vanguard version: VWCE, IE00BK5BQT80) or MSCI ACWI. US only is too risky.

tachyonvelocity

"Iranian representatives have let the Trump administration know it does not want to [re-enter negotiations](https://www.cnn.com/2026/03/23/politics/trump-shift-iran-talks) with special envoy Steve Witkoff and President Donald Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and would prefer to engage with Vice President JD Vance, two regional sources said." Reading between the lines, a negotiation is definitely happening, including a likely ceasefire and markets now realize this. WTI is literally trading like half of Hormuz is free to move. Stock futures have stayed up, IE markets know more than you think.

lowercaseCapitalist

This excludes the land owned by the federal government right? IE 29% of the total landmass of the states. I dont know what that's worth but its gotta be a few shekels that should probably be on the balance sheet.

sovlex

IE no real money flows out of it.

TheDeHymenizer

Iran is in a tough spot \-no way oil gets close to $200 if the strait isn't 100% closed IE nothing going to India nothing going to China \-if they do cut off India and China there might be Indian and Chinese troops invading No clue how this plays out but oil to $200 ain't happening if all they're doing is cutting off Europe

HotTruth999

I am saying it’s now a bad stock and a mediocre company. It’s already seeing a slowing of quarterly growth in Azure which is its biggest growth engine. Its share of Open AI has been significantly diluted and it is exposed if Open AI has a lower share than originally expected and which is now very likely. Millions of clients are tired of being locked in. Every time their salesman reaches out they know their monthly charges are going up, they’re getting very little new for it, and there is nothing they can do about it. Tremendous resentment builds up over years particularly as the technology is adequate but has not significantly advanced or given them any competitive advantage. They want access to alternatives. They want options. If you think about their innovation they have really had very little over the last 2 decades. They copy new technology. They integrate so tightly their clients are locked in which pisses them off. They try to put the innovators out of business. MSDOS was a copy of QDOS. Windows was copied from Xerox and Apple. Word from WordPerfect. Excel from Lotus 1-2-3. Exchange from Lotus Notes. IE from Netscape. MS Network from Novel. Azure from AWS. They’ve had very little innovation and there is no reason that will change. They’ve run out of stuff they can copy. They can’t buy their way into the domination they have enjoyed. There is only one way from here….and it’s not up!

CoughRock

not really, haber-bach process used to make fertilizer doesn't need to use natural gas hydrogen as precursor. It just happened to be the cheapest option at $0.5-1.7/kg. But if natural gas goes higher in cost, then coal gasification hydrogen production method become the next best option at around $2-3/kg but only viable in nation with lots of natural coal. IE: china and india. But at worse, you can use renewable electrolysis from water to get hydrogen feed stock at about $8/kg. Compare to the cost of sending in warships, feeding and equipping personnel to keep the strait open. Firing off the coal plant to make hydrogen would be the cheaper choice by far. But since the down stream reactor infrastructure is not near coal gasification plants are, production might be limit. So I highly doubt building new infrastructure would cost more than another decade long middle eastern war. You're essentially spilling blood for that $0.3/kg difference.

CoughRock

The jones act was passed on 1920 with "intended purpose" of boosting domestic ship building as part of national security. Now is 2026, so about 100 years has passed. Guess what happened with 100 years of protective tariff wall garden for ship builder. Surely they will take this opportunity to expand ship building infrastructure, improve technology and management so eventually the domestic customer can enjoy cheap and affordable ship and usa will have largest ship building capacity of the world's envy ? Surely Jones act will boost domestic builder 100 years of protective walled garden later. Domestic builder abuse the walled monopoly and stay small scale but profitable government contracted military vessel with high margin. Instead of lower margin ship that require heavy infrastructure investment and automation. IE: China long haul container ship is around $4.5k, equivalent us ship builder has cost around 6 to 8 times per tonnage. Lazy people who don't do any basic research like to blame it on chinese gov subsidy but completely forget the fact they already ended in 1980s. Their ship building capacity is about 200x of that us builder. They dont have 200x the labor population, so cant really blame it on cheap labor supply anymore. We are effectively subsidize the domestic ship builder to be less modernize and invest less in infrastructure to reduce cost. For the last 100 years. The intention of Jones act was good but how it was implemented and how the incentive were structured end up destroy and atrophy the usa ship building industry over 100 years of protective tariff cuddling. With usa birth rate declining, eventually you wont have enough domestic customer to support usa ship builder. And they will be force to compete internationally like china, japan and south korea. But with 100 years of atrophy and lack of infrastructure investment, they will be unable to compete internationally. You have to take off the band aid, the sooner the better.

Unlucky-Pound8363

🎉🔥new regarded strategy🎉🔥 Oil WTI/brent spread short and longing. This is a follow on from my comment yesterday. This is a new regarded tactic that I’m going to practice in real time with real money because I’m super regarded and love bag holding 😂 Sooo yesterday I shorted the WTI/brent spread , needless to say in the first few hours I was up 6k but then I started losing my profs and settled for 2k profits, went to sleep and woke up and I could of made 8k profits had I not pussyied out. But… the real lesson I realised was that WTI really doesn’t move during the night and in fact it draws down , and then during the day it’ll slowly go up towards 98/100 again even when refineries and oil fields are getting hit, it doesn’t react as much to news. Brent on the other hand is reacting a lot to news because it’s far more vulnerable then WTI. Where am i going with this ? well if you combine the fact that wti flows up and down during day and night and isn’t effected much by news but Brent is, it makes it easy to short or long the spread. Execution: I watch the news on Aljazeera and reuters YouTube, White House, Isreal times anything and everything during low volume trading to see if they blow up anything of importance like oil refinery or feild, and then if it’s big enough, example being the pars oil feild attack , I then long the spread but only if the news is recent IE in the hour and during low volume trading hours at night , if it’s daytime and WTI has higher trading volume then that’s when I short the spread. Again this is a regarded tactic of mine so please don’t copy me incase you get caught holding the bag and being margin called like me 😂😂 But I’m going back in again today ! What you think of this strat? the spread is meant to be WTI = Brent +4/5$ Currently it’s +13$ at the time of me writing this , but these are some patterns I’ve noticed. Is this a legitimate play ? Or did I just get regardedly lucky last night ?

quell3245

Every pundit has a theory and most are pretty interesting to piece through the strategy behind it. The most interesting theory I’ve heard is that the US will take out Kharg Island and completely cut off Iran from being able to export any oil whatsoever out of the gulf. (90% goes out of that seaport) Then hit their biggest interior plant at Abadan Refinery. The US will hope to damage not destroy these facilities, i.e. take them off-line for three months or so. Easier said than done with bombing though. After the revenue supply is cut off from Iran, they hope that the regular Army (Artesh) will mutiny without any pay. The more radical IRGC will then fight the Artesh for control of the country, IE as civil war. The Artesh is mostly conscripts and not hardliners - perhaps the people will rise up with the Artesh and fight the IRGC? At least the Aresh has weapon they can supply the people of Iran. Other theories is that Iran will go scorched Earth and hit the desalinization plants across the Middle East. That would essentially affect 100 million people and create a crisis event like we have never seen before.

CoughRock

these two words are so poorly defined that company board just used it as a fall back excuse for every bad decision. IE: mother trucker twitter board sold the company and up cutting off most of its existing staff and existing customer, destroy valuation by large amount afterward. Especially when twitter was turning profit for the first time after many unprofitable years during the sale period. Yet the board claim it was done with fiduciary duty

Tiny-Art7074

You don't need a good market, you just need the least shitty, and in tough times, more money will flow to the least shitty market, IE, the US.

ElectionReal

How do you feel about the news of so many "important" people divesting from the market? (IE Tubervile in most recent news). I already know that's not the whole story because, well, modern journalism isn't about the Ws (who, what, when, where, etc. Much more about sensationalism). Unfortunately I'm still affected by it because when I see people "in the know" divesting, makes me wonder if I should be doing the same. V00 and GLD hold strategy.

Col_forbin_

This guy doesn’t understand how batteries work if dropped in the water how do we expect him to understand how rates work ? There’s IE during his first term they let him off the hook because he was “ to stupid to understand the law “ These aren’t our brightest and best folks like Carlin said it’s a result of the greedy and selfish public on how we got here

Vaalysar

What the fuck are you browsing on? XP and IE? Puts on your tech regardation

Miiirob

Open up an online trading account. IE wealthsimple, questtrade, one with your bank, etc. Deposit the money. Look at some stocks, look at the current day, the week, month, year 5 year etc. Do a little research on the company through AI or reddit. Mark down the ones you like, can usually be followed on the app. Pick one or 2 and off you go. It's really way more simple then I ever thought it would be and being self directed, it feels like you've actually got some skin in the game.

PraetorianFury

I've read that bond vigilantes have shown a willingness to intervene if the Fed ignores inflation. IE they will sell their bonds forcing an increase in interest rates regardless of those offered by the Fed. That crashes the stock market immediately but saves the dollar from Nixon-shock inflation. They already spooked Trump before and it's way we have Kevin Warsh instead of Kevin Hasset as Fed Chair. Point is, there are some safeguards against Fed/administration incompetence. In a hyper-inflation scenario, everyone loses including the ultra wealthy so there's an incentive to behave like adults.

PraetorianFury

Can he? The point was to supposedly prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and their new leader is definitely gonna fast track it now and has every reason to hate the US and Israel since we just killed most of his family. IE the supposed objective of the war is in a worse state than it has ever been.

fire_alarmist

Basically yea, they have an omnipresent Skynet like entity that consumes the entirety of the internet and all personal data feeds and gets a read on what people think the problem is. It will watch all the popular finance videos, see what people are saying (IE. some big youtuber says XLF starts going under 49 its recession confirmed, or they say junk bonds getting dumped is the signal) and then just absolutely prevent that thing from happening so no one can confirm their beliefs and maximum uncertainty stays in the market.

AdAny631

Really, since when? I’m relatively heavy in $COST & think they will have great earnings tomorrow. Also when it comes to market rotation it’s best to look at the sector ETFs. I use the [State Street Sector Tracker](https://www.ssga.com/us/en/individual/resources/sector-tracker?WT.mc_id=ps_etf-sec_sectors-funds_us_google_slink_psnb_mf1_lp-sl1_nov25&gclsrc=aw.ds&&_bt=781354252522&_bk=sector%20etf&_bm=p&_bn=g&_bg=70797238455&gad_source=1&gad_campaignid=1939483851&gbraid=0AAAAACz5AuMeFzVDec3wkPP8IE_jIZfOM&gclid=EAIaIQobChMInNHZwPyHkwMVH07_AR2biBf7EAAYASABEgIs0_D_BwE#currentTab=monthThree) and 3 months into the year energy is up 23%, materials 16%, industrials 14% and consumer staples 11%.

snotick

This has been mentioned a couple of times. I'm not sure I follow your train of thought here. >For example, its better to own S&P500 members directly than in an ETF. That way when some stocks go up and some go down, you capture the average gain, Isn't owning an ETF that is made up of S&P500 stocks the same as owning them directly? When one stock in the ETF goes up or down, the others also average the gain? That's the point of a fund vs individual. Now you could make the argument that owning individual stocks can allow you to change the weight of those stocks as a group. IE VOO holds 10% of X stock, an you want own 20%. That would mean you can still own VOO, just buy additional shares of X. The other thing that doesn't really make sense is the tax harvesting of individual stocks to offset gains with losses. While this is okay if it happens organically, the goal is to not have investments with losses. If you hold all individual stocks and 50% went up and 50% went down equally, and you sell them all, you've ended up with 0 gains. Not really the goal.

fire_alarmist

Nope, every dip gets paused and routed through dark pools so they can keep propping this dogshit and painting the chart lines they want for maximum retail engagement. IE. State sponsored, trickery based bull trap to keep the market from collapsing by stealing retail gambler dollars

BillCarr451

Are you profitable at the strike Do you want to hold the shares or allow call away. Do you want them called away at the current strike to close the trade. If the underlying is depressed, would you sell a new cc at a lower strike for the same expiration? IE, would you risk call away at the new lower strike. What's the ARR vs basis of the remaining 40% profit Way too many unanswered variables to give a firm opinion I'd let it sit and enjoy the 40% at a new lower risk. Because, I wouldn't want to risk call away at a new lower strike. Therefore I'm unlikely to tempt call away at a new lower strike. So I'm unlikely to resell a new lower strike.

Moepenmoes

So I have a partially Russian ETF which has been frozen (how the fuck is this even allowed?) since their invasion in 2022, it's still in my port and showing as -100% for 4 years already, will I ever get the money back? I can't even sell/remove it from my port, what am I supposed to do? (Just FYI it's this one: IE00B0M63953 )

BlindTreeFrog

> Take for example my grandma If you check the tax code, I'd wager the Canadian Code, much like the US code, is encouraging the elderly to divest of their large expensive homes and move to smaller, cheaper homes. It is considered a social gain. So yes, ignoring everything else about your grandmother's situation, selling and moving to a cheaper home is part of the goal. > Ideally you want a strong economy & that is constructed by companies. Parking money and not touching it does not make an economy strong nor construct companies. The entire point of maintaining a reasonable level of inflation is to coerce people to move money around since stashing it causes issues long term. > Successful companies need investment and need time to grow. Yes, and buying stock initially from the company is a way to get investment into a company. You buying stock from me, does nothing to provide the company an investment. You buying stock and sitting on it does nothing to help the company. > You're essentially removing incentives for people to start / operate new companies Again, and as you've been told by multiple people, start ups are handled differently. > They're not encouraging money moving - they're forcing liquidations of investments. Yes, that moves money. If I sell Assest A, I then have cash that I can use to buy Asset B or spend on other things. Money moves when one does that. > They're actually decreasing liquidity in the market with that structure If people are sitting on assets and not selling because they want to hold forever and ever there is no liquidity in the market. Increasing liquidity means increasing buyers as well as sellers. > If they wanted money moving they would increase minimum wages / wage structures. IE: How money actually moves around. > ... > To get money moving around, increase wages. That actually gets money moving around. If there is nothing to buy it doesn't matter how much money you have, you can't do anything with it. If people are sitting on long term assets and not selling, the people with money can't buy anything. > Well, yah. Except nobody just "gets money". You have completely missed the point of that hypothetical. Like missed it so hard that you had to actively be looking to ignore the point of the scenario. Especially since the scenario kind of helps your argument (if you ignore the context I was working with) which makes it even sadder. > AMD was only able to exist because investors originally gave it money... it's a success story. AMD went public in 1972. The investors who originally gave it money would have in 1969 when AMD was founded and likely heavily cashed out with the IPO in 1972. Also, considering that AMD stock was down at $1.50 roughly 10~15 years ago, I'd wager that many of the heavy investors from a decade back are selling off right now to lock in the gains (I probably should sell mine). This would mean that it would be a good time for AMD to sell stock to raise some funds (if they have any... haven't looked at their books lately). But anyone who buys my AMD shares wouldn't be giving any money to AMD. Similarly, if I buy any more shares, unless they are the shares AMD is selling, it wouldn't be providing any money to AMD (and I expect few retail traders against get company shares directly and not buffered by clearance houses.... even ComputerShare has to buffer) > It increases their share price, which they can leverage to grow their business. They can leverage the share price only by selling shares themselves. Me or you buying shares from each other does nothing. > It was directly because of the public markets and the leverage it offered that they started to succeed Uhhuh... When was AMD's last public stock sell off? > AMD signed a deal with OpenAI that gave OpenAI the ability to purchase 160 million of shares in exchange for purchasing GPUs from AMD You should maybe look up what a Warrant is and what AMD actually gave to OpenAI. And the price that they have the option to buy at. > The warrant allows OpenAI to purchase shares of AMD at $0.01 per share. https://www.fool.com/investing/2025/10/07/amd-pays-a-high-price-for-blockbuster-openai-deal/?msockid=0821becd12226bd82732aafd13256a62 > To bootstrap themselves / actually break into the space - AMD signed a deal with OpenAI The OpenAI deal was signed Oct 2025. AMD had been broken into the AI space since 2023. Their market value cleared $300B while OpenAI was having it's spat with Microsoft. The month before AMD and OpenAI signed their deal, OpenAI signed a deal with NVidia for a bigger product buy (10GW vs 6GW) > The share price only goes up if investors buy and hold. Half credit. Share price is based on the last sale. Share price only goes up when investors buy/sell. Holding shares does absolutely nothing to the share price. > If this law was in place / forced sales (->decreases share price & removes liquidity) Why would more shares being sold decrease liquidity? Please explain.

CautiousDirection286

I did a few years. If you're getting sentenced, IE you have a set date you know your probably gonna do time. Hoop some weed and tobacco. If your not willing too. Tell people you were picked up randomly off the street. You csnt be going to jail without a package Dont politic , dont start touching phones or remotes. See whos who, better to ask . Its a crap shoot, you could end up on a ganged out range , or a chill one. Your expirence will be different . Dont do drugs you can't afford Dont gamble if you cant afford If you say your gonna do something for someone, or get your people to do something. Make sure they do it, you will get stabbed or beat up otherwise. I just worked out and did my programs. I was a junkie loser, I actually found prison better then being homeless. Make the best of it, DM if you wanna ask any questions . Good luck, hope you avoid doing time.

Pandamonium98

The funds aren’t indexed to a benchmark. They’re benchmarked against an index. IE a tech fund is benchmarked against an index tracking tech stocks to see if the fund is able to outperform the benchmark

PaperHandsTheDip

**> If you have no income, but you survived for a year in a location with 20% increase in valuation... Since we started this discussion accepting that property taxes were already an established thing, in this scenario, how would one be paying their property taxes?** Take for example my grandma. She is retired (in her 80s now) and owns a million dollar home. She has a few hundred thousand in savings, she lives off that. Property taxes are not large. On a million dollar home in Canada they hover \~0.6% / annum. IE: Pay 6k in tax on a million dollar home. If it goes up by 200k, next year her taxes would be... 7k. Using your model - if the value of her home goes up by $200k (my home has literally done that before in a single year) - my grandmas assumed income would be 200k. She would now owe $72k in tax. She would literally be forced to sell. BIG difference between $72k and 7k. She has no income! She's... retired. People have things called savings - life is often funded by that. **> Alright... defend that. Why are they meant for the long term?** Ideally you want a strong economy & that is constructed by companies. Successful companies need investment and need time to grow. Often multiple decades. You're essentially removing incentives for people to start / operate new companies. Existing ones may be fine (they'll get quite hurt too) - but you cripple upcoming ones. **> The government is encouraging money moving in the economy and increasing the liquidity of the market. An economy (under current understandings) fails when money is not moving around. This is the type of behavior that governments should be encouraging.** They're not encouraging money moving - they're forcing liquidations of investments. They're actually decreasing liquidity in the market with that structure... If they wanted money moving they would increase minimum wages / wage structures. IE: How money actually moves around. **> An economy (under current understandings) fails when money is not moving around** Correct, see above point. To get money moving around, increase wages. That actually gets money moving around. **> If you give a billionaire $100,000 he locks it up in investments. If you give 100 working class slobs $1,000 each they pay off debts and buy TVs. Which helps the local economy more?** Well, yah. Except nobody just "gets money". You either work for it or take a risk with your existing assets. If a billionaire took a risk and obtained $100k, yes - he took a risk for it. He got compensated for that risk. **> How do long term investments help the economy?** AMD was only able to exist because investors originally gave it money... it's a success story. **> If I buy 100 shares of AMD on the market, how does that help AMD? If AMD is selling shares, sure, they are raising money, but once that sale completes that share floating around doesn't do anything for them. It raises no more funds for them to use. So from AMD's point of view, why do they care if I have those shares for 6 months or 6 years?** It increases their share price, which they can leverage to grow their business. **AMD is actually a perfect example**, I'm glad you brought it up! AMD skyrocketed in value last year (from $85 -> $250 high). It was really struggling (believe it or not) to even to get it's AI chips off the ground. It was directly because of the public markets and the leverage it offered that they started to succeed. In particular - nvidia was dominating the AI space. To bootstrap themselves - AMD signed a deal with OpenAI that gave OpenAI the ability to purchase 160 million of shares in exchange for purchasing GPUs from AMD. This was only possible if it made financial sense for OpenAI - which relied on a high share price of AMD. Public markets / investments into AMD caused that to occur / the numbers to make sense.

szakee

[https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00BFMXXD54#stock-exchange](https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00BFMXXD54#stock-exchange)

Brawmethius

Not as long as derivatives expiring daily exceed the value of actively traded shares. You will only see volume at open (when all the greeks re-adjust from the AH/PM moves, news, ERs, etc), mid-day ish as theta flips at which day (IE SPY, between 0dte and 1dte) start to contribute more to risk/probability calculation, and then finnaly EOD (especially with 0dtes) for excise and final theta collapse (all extrinsic on 0dte wipes).

PaperHandsTheDip

this one? Copy pasta'd it. \--- Hand waved explanation\*\*\* \*\*\*may contain errors **> I know enough to know that robinhood and others earn their money through routing purchases of shares through a MM** That's payment for orderflow (PFOF) you're talking about. Yes MM's pay for orderflow. But that's because retail flow is considered "non-toxic", ie: non market moving, whereas institutions flow is often market moving. Retail is "noise" that doesn't move the price, so MM's can offer spreads / better prices than best bid/ask. The MM can only offer a better price than you'd get without PFOF. Retail actually gets better prices than institutions in most cases (surprisingly) because of this. They also pay lower fees. It's because retail is "noise" and isn't "we're dumping $100m" and the MM is left holding a bag. The MM holds retails inventory and just waits for someone else to come along and buy it. They know they can probably sell it for a profit (ie: the spread) since retail flow isn't market moving on average. **> even if its going to and through, they immediately buy another put contract sold from someone else who is the respective direct counterpart to my bet, right?**  No. MM's often don't hedge immediately, they assume the risk. They model the risks around things such as options and often hedge after certain risk thresholds are broken. MM's often hold huge (multi billion dollar) inventories (ie: they're exposed to billions in market risk). What your describing is what is known as a "market neutral" strategy. Some MM's employ it - many don't. Every MM is different tho (there is no universal "mm's always do this!"). After all - MM's are basically just proprietary trading systems owned by hedge funds / prop firms. They all have different rules / do different things. Many firms hold onto the contract and wait for someone else to come along and buy it, assuming all the risks in the meantime. They often get lopsided positions, and they CAN get run over. Look at what happened to the MM's shorting GME during 2021. They lost over a BILLION dollars. So no, MM's are not always perfectly hedged. **> So now its me against that random other guy, even if its technically against the MM?** The MM writes the contract & often buys shares to hedge it (incase of things like exercise / delivery). Not always tho. Everyone is different -- see above. If they turn around and "dump it to someone else" - it's almost always another market maker. No single buyer is sitting there waiting to buy at the drop of a pin (they'd be a MM themselves if that was the case). It really often is "you vs the MM". If someone else comes and buys something (even with an opposing position) - it's now both of you vs the MM. Think of a MM like a bookmaker in a betting house. You go in and bet on horse A winning. Someone else comes in and bets on B. The house takes both bets. It isn't "you vs the other bettor". It's "both of you vs the house, but the house is gonna win one of those bets". One of you loses, the other wins, and the house will always win (because they have odds in their favor when they sell the bets. IE: 95:100 payout in both directions). So they'll pay out $95 to one guy, pocket $100 from the other and profit $5 irregardless of the outcome. The spread in the market replicates this function (roughly). Very handwaved analogy. **> But what I just described makes no sense if its just only interacting with the MM and not the broader market** It's often you interact with a MM. When someone else wants to make a trade, they'll ALSO interact with a MM. In the meantime, the MM holds onto the inventory. They have spreads which is how they make their money for assuming the risks. It's quite rare you interact with a non mm player on the other end. The "other end" (if a person were to take it) reduces down to the case above in almost all cases.

flaggon_waggon

Don't bother man. These dipshits literally don't know what they're talking about & when someone tells them information that goes against their flawed knowledge they don't even bother googling to confirm. If anything this guy is even more cringe b/c he tells YOU to look it up lmfao. IE: How many people in this thread alone still parroting "3k wRiTe OfF fOr ThE nExT 20 yEaRs!" not knowing how carryover works. I genuinely wonder if they file their own taxes incorrectly and never get audited or at least have the self-awareness to leave it to a CPA. Also for anyone wondering - all you have to do is look up Section 1256 Contracts.

PaperHandsTheDip

Execution costs are a thing. If you immediately buy a contract and sell it, you lose money (ie: bid/ask spread). It's large on options - often sitting below 1%, but I've seen it break 10% during volatility. That's how much money you lose / pay just to enter into your position. IE (extreme example): If bid/ask is $90/100, you pay $100 to buy, but only get $90 to sell. You buy, the price goes up 10%, so you sell. Guess what? You actually lose $1, because you bought for $100, then sold for $90 + 10% = $99. Net loss = $1. Plus - if you're doing this all day you're losing theta throughout the entire day. It's the cost of leverage. The "average cost" to hold your contract till EOD is the extrinsic value of the contract - which for 0DTE on SPX as seen in OPs contracts was at least 20% of the contracts value. That's worth exactly $0 at the EOD - meaning you lose that on 0DTE's as well.

PooPooPointBoiz

Fuck bros. NVDA calls or puts tomorrow? On one hand, the MAG7 have been spending ungodly amounts of money on AI research (IE NVDA chips). But on the other hand, anything less than a perfect earnings report will cause this shit to tank. I'm torn dudes.

Successful-Tea-5733

So you are going to tell me that we were better educating our students in the 1920's? Even the 1960's I don't think I would agree that we had anywhere near the intelligence we have today. If you want to tell me that school students were broadly better in the 60's I might agree with that. The issue there is less educational and more demographic (IE, it's a statistical fact that students who come from a 2-parent household tend to do better in school than those raised by single parents and we have far more single parents today than we had in the 60's) (And don't come at me "I was raised by a single parent and I graduated from MIT." Yes, you can do great coming froma single parent household, this is specifcally broad statistics which are not disputed). And to add, I don't see where simple labor will be replaced by AI as easily as other jobs.

KingRegardothe2nd

That sort of says something about you lol. Find some interesting and or exciting hobbies. Go buy some good drugs. Vape some DMT. Do personally rewarding things, IE feed the soul more.

Capn-Jack11

IE there is no particular massacre you can point to so you just have to throw around loose ideas accidental and indirect deaths as all intentional cold blooded civilian murders.  Cant even point to a single American massacre lol. Not one! Not once have we mass murdered protestors in recent history! We had plenty of opportunity to. 2020 protests, civil rights protests, many racial protests in fact. Clashing between sides, sure, not mass murder by tanks of innocents in the thousands.

TreGet234

I'm quite fascinated by the near perfect linear performance of euro inflation linked bonds https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B0M62X26#chart (switch currency to euro) It's had a pretty consistent 2.5% growth rate for the last 20 years while other bond etfs (including american tips) have been all over the place. Now, today 2.5% isn't much but the consistency is incredibly appealing. If i buy bonds i don't want them to bounce around like shitcoins.

Aleucard

There's two basic notions at work in the decision making sectors. One is hankering and fiending for the day where they don't need to have any human workers at all save for personal amusement and can scrape off the bottom 95% of the population entirely. The other is taking this for an opportunity to drop wages and compensation even further to cut their bottom line a few more pennies. The former are largely pig ignorant of the realities of the tech as it exists today (IE it has no idea what objective truth and fact even is, and can never learn because of how it functions), which is likely where the biggest shockwaves from the AI bubble popping will come from.

PaperHandsTheDip

It's always been min-max extracting value from workers. That hasn't changed -- people are just more aware of it. I'd argue it happens as people age & become more aware of how the world works. We used to have 12 hour work days and shittier work conditions (ie: look at how farming, mining & other industries used to be). \> We are seeing absolutely horrid job growth 100% true. The job losses we've seen under this admin are the largest in modern history. It's very alarming, yes. Largely driven by reduction of white collar jobs. There are a lot of "bullshit" jobs out there - those are being hit particularly hard. Also the entire tech sector (and several others). \> Jobs absolutely equal the economy We're in a K shaped economy. Those doing well and doing very well, and those who are struggling are really struggling. It's not so much a black and white / universal case. As long as the upper end of the K shaped economy are doing well & spending money, the economy will keep chugging along just fine. It doesn't need to bring everyone up with it to succeed. I'd argue as we get more advanced tech / automation it becomes even more and more polarizing. We're seeing this in tech right now. For evidence of this (economy doing fine) - look at consumer spending. It's at ATH's and trending up. Economy doesn't care if 100 people spend $100, of 50 people spend $200. Company will make $10k in either case. [https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PCEC96) \--- IE: For the "K shaped" economy - strong engineers can utilize AI to drastically accelerate their workloads. What used to take me personally 2 weeks can now be done in literally a single day. It's no longer "be a code monkey for 8 hrs", it's "prompt the agent, get the output, tweak it / prod it a little, modify the output where needed / verify correctness". You get the same output in 30 minutes. A strong engineer changed from someone who could pound out code like crazy (but struggled with the macro understanding) - to someone who can understand the ideas / theory & verify correctness. The valuable skillsets are shifting and people need to adapt or get left behind. I'm seeing that in all my circles - in particular software. The "strong / good" engineers just got even that much better.

PaperHandsTheDip

Posts like this encourage me to buy. Of course we're past the peak on several tech companies -- we're actually close to the bottom on many imo. IE: Look at the valuation of MSFT. It's only been this low four times in the last decade, and only stayed this low for 4-20 weeks. I'm seeing a similar pattern in quite a few of the big tech companies. I started buying into tech last week [https://imgur.com/a/5ogcvFi](https://imgur.com/a/5ogcvFi)

InarasMal

Primarily women's tennis but I'll take anything where the book and % bets are in large disparity. Like, the Super Bowl this year was 50% Pats so I took Seahawks but I'm not a football guy for sure. General strategy is just to fade the public. IE always bet against the Dodgers type stuff

caller-number-four

> Holy cow 100k for credit cards is a lot, how did you get them? Don't know about OP, but there was a time when Citi would let you combine the credit limits of multiple accounts if you closed them. IE: Account A had a 25k limit and account B had a 15k limit. Transfer that 15k limit to account A and close B. They don't do that anymore.

PaperHandsTheDip

It's not a SaaS doomsday by any means, I agree - but it's an end to it's growth which is what the market has reacted to. It'll be on a more or less "sustained / slow decline" basis from here on out. Existing customers will likely continue their contracts, but getting new clients / customers will be much more difficult. Why would anyone new use SaaS when you can get a robot to do it for you -- for free. Hire 1 internal engineer to manage it, replace the 10 you outsourced. \--- \> better agility Generally true, which often means they're the first to adapt new technologies. \> because everything breaks when you try to migrate to a new system. It's not about migration - it's about any new systems can now be done much quicker / cheaper. Hence my COBOL / legacy argument. Existing systems won't be migrated, I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing FUTURE systems won't be produced the same way. \> higher risk tolerance It is a little higher risk, but really not much higher if you have an experienced engineer directing it. IE: My existing project is \~80% vibe coded. It's high frequency trading (arbitrage) systems. That is incredibly sensitive software that can lose fucktons of money if there is even a single bug in the system. The means in which the code was produced do not matter - just that it's correct.

PaperHandsTheDip

It was a use case, yes, but the demand wasn't there. Yes -- people were using it, but not on a large scale. It was largely just research driven. There was no expected uptick in demand for them until \~2020 when things started just upticking a little. Investors anticipated a boom in 2022 - that's when we saw nvidia's PE spike over 100. [https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/pe-ratio](https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/NVDA/nvidia/pe-ratio) In 2015 GPU's were not even known to be "the solution" for AI. It was one use case - but people thought ASICs were going to win given they're more energy efficient / generally better suited for singular tasks. IE: see TPU's, which google started producing around the same time. It's what they STILL use -- their models are not trained on GPUs, they're on TPUs which are asics. Google could have won the AI market with their TPUs - but kept access internal up until 2018, and only in \~2020 were they really "available" to rent. Nvidia won because of CUDA / open access / easy to buy - despite an inferior piece of hardware (for training NN's). Then they scaled up aggressively from there - and market mostly settled on nvidia. Asics still have a very good chance of winning - see how google is expanding their TPUs (ie: META is in talks to deploy their TPU's in their AI DC's over GPUs)

blorg

That's because the exchange rate between USD and EUR changed. Both of you bought and are holding the exact same bundle of stocks, which are worth exactly the same. The only difference is what currency you sell them into. Yours "rose" 17% because the dollar dropped. If the dollar drops, it requires more dollars to buy the same thing. Hence- the price goes up *in dollars*. His only rose 1.5% because the euro appreciated against the dollar. If you bought your VOO in euros, and then sold it in euros, you'd have the exact same return. If he bought and sold his VUSA in dollars, he'd have exactly the same as you. *In dollars.* You can [compare this here](https://www.justetf.com/en/etf-profile.html?isin=IE00B3XXRP09), see the difference when you change the currency (top right of the chart) from EUR to USD. It goes from 1 year: -1.08% (in EUR) to 1 year: +12.94% (in USD). That's including dividends, if you exclude them the numbers are -2.10% EUR, +11.77% USD. VOO is up 11.48% according to Google Finance- almost exactly the same.

PaperHandsTheDip

Close expiration, goodluck! I hope we see $440 by then, we'd both be printing hard! The CC's are netting me \~1% / day at the moment for a \~0.5-1% OTM. IE: I sold 402.5 CC's for $4 each, that expire EOD weds. As long as it's below 406.5 by EOD weds I'm better off with the CC's. BUT - I'm closing them at market open irregardless of outcome. Will reset then as well (either buy or sell shares to bring margin back to \~300%). I'm only using the CC's due to high leverage. I don't really like running them on things I'm bullish on when they're in dips. Look at the PE of MSFT here, it's fucked. [https://imgur.com/a/5ogcvFi](https://imgur.com/a/5ogcvFi) We've only been this low 3 times in the last DECADE, and during which we stayed at the depressed PE for a total of... 2-4 months. Hence why I think 1 month may be risky, personally if buying calls I'd target 4-6 months.

PaperHandsTheDip

\> the theories persist because they are right more often than no You only need a single counterexample to invalidate a theory. I'd argue they persist because they are easy to conceptualize & there's a lot of theory / economic topics built on top of them. They're really good estimates, but not an accurate reflection of reality tho. IE: Markets are discrete in practice -- yet many people model them as continuous. Continuous models are just really good approximations - but can never truly reflect the state of the market.

PaperHandsTheDip

That's not really a 1:1 good analogy. Someone else is assuming all the RISK - which typically nets positive returns. Not ALWAYS tho. IE: If they assumed the risk during a 5 year drawdown - they're losing out. The expected value of assuming risk is positive tho (ie: market averages \~10%, bonds average \~4%, the "expected gain" of assuming the risk is the \~5-6% difference.

AluminiumCaffeine

The part I dont get is that peope are saying AI video gen is a bear case, but if it helps bring down production costs seems good for existing distribution IE youtube + nflx right?

PaperHandsTheDip

The only thing that actually moves a stock is if people are buying or selling. I use a bunch of signals -- but my strongest one is sentiment -- as that's what tends to control general market directione. More or less -- hype. If sentiment is poor - people are often selling. If sentiment is good - people are often buying (or not selling). No need to min-max financial statements. All you need to do is take a 30second look at the chart and diff with sentiment. Figure out how the average investor feels - as the average investor trades off emotion. It's fuzzy tho. IE: Today I picked up a decent sized bag of MSFT shares. I have never looked at it's financials. All I see is that it's down on the 1yr, down \~25% in 6 months, and it's MSFT. It has a decent forward P/E, AI exposure & ...it's MSFT. A few guys on WSB's are talking about it, good enough for sentiment for me. It's MSFT -- it'll probably be fine. Never looked at it's financials or AI capex or anything. No need.

quickexhuast

if you were a manufacture, do you target a segment that has no competition, IE EV trucks, or a segment that is growing, IE SUV/Family haulers. You probably target the segment that has no to little competition

slo1111

The best thing is to do what everybody else does, but before they do it. The next best way is to be a long term investor and regularly contribute to some etfs, funds or anything diversified and forget about it. Then the next best way is to ensure you are diversified and don't put all your eggs in one basket and your job can be rebalancing to take advantage of market shifts. IE: Having a little cash on hand for corrections can can go a long way. After that is more of the gambling side of things.  Drive fast and take chances and hope it works out, but know there are significant odds that it won't. I do all the above except the very first item, but amounts invested in each category declines as risk increases.

elgrandorado

I think where some investors get misled is understanding the breakdown of the business. S&P has a larger analytics segment than Moody's but ~40% of their Op Income comes from the ratings business (IE bond issuance fees). That business on it's own ends up commanding a large premium over most because distruption there won't happen until both the structure by which we issue debt and the legal framework on debt both change across most of the world. Private credit has been stepping in to fill some cracks, but I don't know if that's going to be a permanent change. 15-16% of the business is the Dow Jones & S&P Index (boring and steady), and is another extremely durable source of income. Mobility makes up another 10% and that's about to be spun off. The remaining ~35% is the real piece of the pie which could get distrupted. Within that 35% is commodity insights and market intelligence. The treasure trove of data within commodity insights makes it far more durable than the market intelligence business imo, which is the remaining 21%. That's the part of the business which keeps me thinking right now about how to value S&P Global.

PaperHandsTheDip

Depends where you are from too. IE: Canada's brokers often have good promos towards the end of the year. I saw the best one I've ever seen from QTrade last year. 5% bonus on first $15k moved (=$750 cad bonus) and 1% on everything over it, up to a max of $5k. If you moved $100k over in November last year you'd have made: `5% * 15k ($750) + 1% * 85k ($850) = $1,600 --- 1.6% bonus / annum.` The holding period required was 1 year - just have funds by EOY 2026.