What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Stock Thread (28 Viewers)

JAA said:
Lets be real - LUV, IRBT, and TGT are all down more than 2%.  Heck, WMT is down over 5%.  What happened?  Nothing.  Just some nothingburger suit who forgot the password to his Cobalt McRib BlockCoin wallet now has to buy his Russian Bride new clothes with gold bars instead.

:coffee:
Click to expand...
Not that it changes your broader point but WMT had an earnings miss this morning.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
jamny said:
Thoughts on SPCX and SPAC's in general?

If SPCX is any indication, has the interest in SPAC's waned a bit or is it just the lack of recent acquisitions that keep them in the news.
Click to expand...
I'm curious what you mean by this -- SPCX has chopped around for the last 10-14 days but is still up 13% over the past month. 

IMO, SPAC interest has gotten so high that making money on them isn't quite as easy as it was before. Used to be that they would pretty much sit at $10 until rumors started coming out, now you see some pre-target SPACs shooting up to $12+ on zero news whatsoever. If you want to get in near $10 you have to buy earlier and hold longer. Also, there are so many SPACs out there now that you have to do more homework and really seek out the ones with good management. That said, they're still a great place to park cash IMO. I think I'm holding about 15 right now and I wish I had the cash to buy another 5-10.

 
Sand said:
WSB blowing up on the interview with IB CEO admitting that they choked off the buying pressure that would have driven GME into the thousands.  

Sounds like bald face market manipulation from these brokers, which deserve some jail terms, and some big shareholder suits as GME holders rightly lost huge profits.
Click to expand...
It's all such trash.  These companies, just like the hedge funds, overleverage themselves and then make the retail traders pay to bail them out.

Basically he was saying GME likely would have squeezed into the thousands, at which point the big hedge funds would have finally been margin called but would not have had the capital to pay off their short loans.  So then they would have defaulted on their borrows and the brokers (in this case Interactive Broker) would have had to foot the bill, so they had to shut off the buying of those securities to protect themselves.

But much like the hedge funds stubbornly getting themselves so far underwater that they were looking at bankruptcy on one trade, this is Interactive Brokers' own fault for creating so much leverage for themselves.  It's their fault for not margin calling those hedge funds when GME hit 40, 60, 80, etc when the hedge funds were way underwater beyond their margin limits but would still have been able to pay it back.

And that's the root of the issue, yet again.  Special treatment for the hedge funds creating insane leverage for the big boys (including the brokers) that isn't really at risk because they can always just pass the cost on to retail.  If a retail trader shorted 100 shares of GME at 4 bucks and it ran up to 60 and put their account near risk of going to zero that retail trader gets margin called right then and there.  But the hedge funds with their pull get to say "hey, chill, it's all going to work out in the end, just let us hold these borrows for a little longer".

Big rich DBs making beginner mistakes because they know they won't get beginner punishments.  Everyone keeps passing the consequences down the line until it finally falls on the retail investors, the one group that didn't actually make a mistake.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
caustic said:
I'm curious what you mean by this -- SPCX has chopped around for the last 10-14 days but is still up 13% over the past month. 

IMO, SPAC interest has gotten so high that making money on them isn't quite as easy as it was before. Used to be that they would pretty much sit at $10 until rumors started coming out, now you see some pre-target SPACs shooting up to $12+ on zero news whatsoever. If you want to get in near $10 you have to buy earlier and hold longer. Also, there are so many SPACs out there now that you have to do more homework and really seek out the ones with good management. That said, they're still a great place to park cash IMO. I think I'm holding about 15 right now and I wish I had the cash to buy another 5-10.
Click to expand...
Hopefully SPCX is our route into these around $10.

 
FreeBaGeL said:
It's all such trash.  These companies, just like the hedge funds, overleverage themselves and then make the retail traders pay to bail them out.

Basically he was saying GME likely would have squeezed into the thousands, at which point the big hedge funds would have finally been margin called but would not have had the capital to pay off their short loans.  So then they would have defaulted on their borrows and the brokers (in this case Interactive Broker) would have had to foot the bill, so they had to shut off the buying of those securities to protect themselves.

But much like the hedge funds stubbornly getting themselves so far underwater that they were looking at bankruptcy on one trade, this is Interactive Brokers' own fault for creating so much leverage for themselves.  It's their fault for not margin calling those hedge funds when GME hit 40, 60, 80, etc when the hedge funds were way underwater beyond their margin limits but would still have been able to pay it back.

And that's the root of the issue, yet again.  Special treatment for the hedge funds creating insane leverage for the big boys (including the brokers) that isn't really at risk because they can always just pass the cost on to retail.  If a retail trader shorted 100 shares of GME at 4 bucks and it ran up to 60 and put their account near risk of going to zero that retail trader gets margin called right then and there.  But the hedge funds with their pull get to say "hey, chill, it's all going to work out in the end, just let us hold these borrows for a little longer".

Big rich DBs making beginner mistakes because they know they won't get beginner punishments.  Everyone keeps passing the consequences down the line until it finally falls on the retail investors, the one group that didn't actually make a mistake.
Click to expand...
Would there be retail trading possible ($0 fee) if the brokers and hedge funds didn't have this relationship though? 

 
FreeBaGeL said:
It's all such trash.  These companies, just like the hedge funds, overleverage themselves and then make the retail traders pay to bail them out.

Basically he was saying GME likely would have squeezed into the thousands, at which point the big hedge funds would have finally been margin called but would not have had the capital to pay off their short loans.  So then they would have defaulted on their borrows and the brokers (in this case Interactive Broker) would have had to foot the bill, so they had to shut off the buying of those securities to protect themselves.

But much like the hedge funds stubbornly getting themselves so far underwater that they were looking at bankruptcy on one trade, this is Interactive Brokers' own fault for creating so much leverage for themselves.  It's their fault for not margin calling those hedge funds when GME hit 40, 60, 80, etc when the hedge funds were way underwater beyond their margin limits but would still have been able to pay it back.

And that's the root of the issue, yet again.  Special treatment for the hedge funds creating insane leverage for the big boys (including the brokers) that isn't really at risk because they can always just pass the cost on to retail.  If a retail trader shorted 100 shares of GME at 4 bucks and it ran up to 60 and put their account near risk of going to zero that retail trader gets margin called right then and there.  But the hedge funds with their pull get to say "hey, chill, it's all going to work out in the end, just let us hold these borrows for a little longer".

Big rich DBs making beginner mistakes because they know they won't get beginner punishments.  Everyone keeps passing the consequences down the line until it finally falls on the retail investors, the one group that didn't actually make a mistake.
Click to expand...
I agree with you for the most...however...there's always a however.  If something wasn't done the whole market could have collapsed.  The selloff needed for those margin calls would have flooded the market with stock.  

 
FreeBaGeL said:
It's all such trash.  These companies, just like the hedge funds, overleverage themselves and then make the retail traders pay to bail them out.

Basically he was saying GME likely would have squeezed into the thousands, at which point the big hedge funds would have finally been margin called but would not have had the capital to pay off their short loans.  So then they would have defaulted on their borrows and the brokers (in this case Interactive Broker) would have had to foot the bill, so they had to shut off the buying of those securities to protect themselves.

But much like the hedge funds stubbornly getting themselves so far underwater that they were looking at bankruptcy on one trade, this is Interactive Brokers' own fault for creating so much leverage for themselves.  It's their fault for not margin calling those hedge funds when GME hit 40, 60, 80, etc when the hedge funds were way underwater beyond their margin limits but would still have been able to pay it back.

And that's the root of the issue, yet again.  Special treatment for the hedge funds creating insane leverage for the big boys (including the brokers) that isn't really at risk because they can always just pass the cost on to retail.  If a retail trader shorted 100 shares of GME at 4 bucks and it ran up to 60 and put their account near risk of going to zero that retail trader gets margin called right then and there.  But the hedge funds with their pull get to say "hey, chill, it's all going to work out in the end, just let us hold these borrows for a little longer".

Big rich DBs making beginner mistakes because they know they won't get beginner punishments.  Everyone keeps passing the consequences down the line until it finally falls on the retail investors, the one group that didn't actually make a mistake.
Click to expand...
I sure hope there are lawsuits.  Such a joke

 
BassNBrew said:
I agree with you for the most...however...there's always a however.  If something wasn't done the whole market could have collapsed.  The selloff needed for those margin calls would have flooded the market with stock.  
Click to expand...
If two hedge funds gambling on a single $5bn company can take down a $10 trillion market, then the market is already broken.

And FWIW, I don't at all buy into the nonsense that the whole market would have collapsed.  That's just FUD imo.  The mechanics of that theory make no sense once actual numbers are plugged in.

 
  • Thanks
Reactions: JAA
McBokonon said:
I think it short squeezed up to 190 from 50 but it’s a really strong company. I’m not sure it should even be where it is now after the pullback, though. I’m basically just holding long term since my cost basis is in the 40’s, but I did trim a little at 138 on the way up and more at 170. Added a few back at 140 on the way back down but now I think I’m just waiting until it settles down. 

ETA: in other words, no pattern. Just chaos
Click to expand...
YES! finally got in at 149....BOO!

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Capella said:
What are you basing this on? They’re 28 days ends next week and then they are in the same jail Cydy is. 
Click to expand...
Yup...but they listened to the folks who told them to modify their endpoint to gain approval.  Being a legit company run by people not selling fake dreamer catchers means they are probably getting a conjugal visit in jail.

 
  • Smile
Reactions: JAA
BassNBrew said:
Yup...but they listened to the folks who told them to modify their endpoint to gain approval.  Being a legit company run by people not selling fake dreamer catchers means they are probably getting a conjugal visit in jail.
Click to expand...
Lol. I guess. I have a quarter as much HGEN as I do cydy. Thinking of adding more/shaving some cydy but not there yet. You believe in this one?

 
BassNBrew said:
Unless PLTR is above $28 at any point in time.  Say PLTR hits $30 on March 7th, he missed out on $2000 - $1300 = $700 profit in a shorter period of time.
Click to expand...
Indeed. Less risk, less reward. The common misconception is that options are riskier than stocks. True on the buying side, but completely false for those of us selling options. It’s actually more conservative to sell puts than to buy stocks. 

 
Capella said:
Lol. I guess. I have a quarter as much HGEN as I do cydy. Thinking of adding more/shaving some cydy but not there yet. You believe in this one?
Click to expand...
Gut feel is if Leron works then Lenzilumab will work and they both get approved.  If it's borderline, a tie goes to the company not run by a crook and that's listed on the Nasdaq and likely to partner with Bigpharma.   

I just sold about 15% of my position and have a limit order to sell another 15% at $22.99.  This is almost a double up for me at this price range.  In the past it's fallen hard after bumps like these so I'm anticipating adding shares back at $18.xx.  If that never happens, it's still a win.

 
BassNBrew said:
Gut feel is if Leron works then Lenzilumab will work and they both get approved.  If it's borderline, a tie goes to the company not run by a crook and that's listed on the Nasdaq and likely to partner with Bigpharma.   

I just sold about 15% of my position and have a limit order to sell another 15% at $22.99.  This is almost a double up for me at this price range.  In the past it's fallen hard after bumps like these so I'm anticipating adding shares back at $18.xx.  If that never happens, it's still a win.
Click to expand...
Yea I figure there will be a 15% drop by next week. Almost always is when this or cydy shoots up. Might add more then. 

 
Unsurprisingly these congressfolks are going down the complete wrong path here, faulting Robinhood for not having ENOUGH restrictions on what people can buy.

So dumb.  Just like the dot com bubble what we'll likely end up with here is a bunch of institutions screwing up the market and increased restrictions coming in on retail as a result.

Why are they sitting here asking Robinhood why they allow retail traders to trade stocks under $5 instead of asking why brokers allow hedge funds to short a stock up to 150%?  Why not ask Ken Griffin why he didn't cover his position when the stock ran up to $20, $40, and it was clear it was a losing trade?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
FreeBaGeL said:
Unsurprisingly these congressfolks are going down the complete wrong path here, faulting Robinhood for not having ENOUGH restrictions on what people can buy.

So dumb.  Just like the dot com bubble what we'll likely end up with here is a bunch of institutions screwing up the market and increased restrictions coming in on retail as a result.

Why are they sitting here asking Robinhood why they allow retail traders to trade stocks under $5 instead of asking why brokers allow hedge funds to short a stock up to 150%?
Click to expand...
You know the an$$$wer. 

 
Another item being whacked - QCLN.  This is an Oz suggestion and I'm up a lot here.  It's a clean energy ETF, down due to the market day and due to the bad press from Texas.  I don't think the long term growth of this area slows.  

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Andrew74
2024 FBG Stock Contest
2 3
Replies
104
Views
3K
KGB
KGB
Andrew74
2023 FBG Stock Contest
2
Replies
98
Views
5K
KGB
KGB
KGB
Crypto vs stock market
Replies
10
Views
956
Dr. Octopus
Dr. Octopus

Users who are viewing this thread

  • ... and 1 more.
    • Total: 28 (members: 9, guests: 19)
    Top