Lurker > red sox 777

Do you like the away goals rule? What should the system be for breaking ties?

Moonroof posted...

Likely bad news?

Probably. I mean I don't think it can be good, right? Best case is they do nothing.

That said, it could have already been priced in. Markets have fallen a good deal over the last 24 hours or so.

Oh dear, there's an emergency Fed meeting scheduled for Monday.

I guess the market isn't done falling yet.

It's based on what our 45th president said. "It has not been easy for me. It has not been easy for me. I started off in Brooklyn. My father gave me a small loan of a million dollars. I came into Manhattan, and I had to pay him back, and I had to pay him back with interest. But I came into Manhattan and I started buying properties, and I did great."

And to be clear, the loan does have interest. The rate is generous, but not zero.

Vote away!

Hooray for Uber's earnings beat!

Also, the small size of these companies can be an advantage because it means the bigger players won't be interested because it's just not big enough to move the needle on their returns. Warren Buffett couldn't buy GOFF in a volume big enough to matter to him without buying the whole company.

Lopen posted...

I'm never gonna get on these uber pennies where you're gambling entirely on management cleaning up bs and nothing to do with an actual underlying company. I just dont trust myself to have the conviction to hold if it dips. Glad it worked out though.

I feel like there should theoretically be massive amounts of alpha (expected value) on these trades because they are high risk and the information is so out of the way that almost everyone is going to stay away from not having or not understanding the information. Lots of research needed though to make sure you're not the sucker.

I guess that hearing must have went well for shareholders. I need a Fidelity account too it seems.

It's about time I listened you on one of your picks Blur so I will buy some if my broker allows it.

red sox 777 posted...

The fact that you are feeling fear and it's motivating you not to buy should be a pretty strong sign that it is a good time to buy. However, I am boycotting Amazon to the extent I can and that's got to include their stock.

Darn it why didn't I ignore my principles and buy AMZN?!

Moonroof posted...

I averaged down more on BBIG. Got my average to $3.46. Set my call strikes to $3.50 since I dont think itll hit that by tomorrow and it got me a couple extra hundred bucks.

Feels like you are risking a lot to make a little.

Nanis23 posted...

AMZN is in such a good price to buy but after seeing what happened to NFLX, PYPL and FB after earnings...I am not taking this chance

Yeah once again I am controlled by fear

The fact that you are feeling fear and it's motivating you not to buy should be a pretty strong sign that it is a good time to buy. However, I am boycotting Amazon to the extent I can and that's got to include their stock.

Nanis23 posted...

Oh, cool, Facebook
I am there too

Yeah I am done. Totally bankrupt

I think this is an exaggeration. A 19% drop isn't going to cause bankruptcy on regular shares.

Vote away!

The sad thing is both of us would have probably done a lot better just putting all our money in Google and not doing any trading.

Google doing well though! I wish I hadn't sold mine back in late 2020.

Looks like an earnings miss.

Sorry about Paypal. That's a big hit for a company with such a high market cap.

Lopen posted...

Anyway I'm not claiming to be an expert here. I haven't even dabbled in that kinda stuff since 2012. So yeah it's very possible the entire idea is different now-- but the idea of machine learning and training/testing sets, conceptually that hasn't really changed to my knowledge. It has no doubt advanced but the basic concept is the same I'm sure.

But yeah I just know a LOT of the market is automated first hand (I mean it should be obvious it is just looking at it, but I have an idea firsthand of how it's done) and you're probably giving short sellers/market makers more credit than they deserve if you say "well they wouldn't do that because they'll clearly lose money"-- they will make moves that will clearly lose money because on average with a stock market full of stocks to exploit they won't lose money making those moves. The amount of coordination and awareness needed to beat the algorithms is such that they won't lose all that often.

Also there is just a lot of information on BBIG that can't even be boiled down into "data" such that if you've got it flagged as an easy short, the data that it shouldn't be shorted isn't something an AI can really digest. A dividend is coming that has no cash value and must be covered when shorting-- there's no way to feed that into a machine.

So if you want my answer to "why would they do this, it's so hard to make money continuing to short here" the basic tl;dr answer is

"they're not consciously doing it, and right now BBIG is a blip on the radar in terms of the overall balance sheet"

Maybe if it flies to hundreds Gamestop did they'll notice. Until then load up on the cheap.

I guess that makes sense, and the algos may not have ever actually "seen" what the humans all saw could have happened - the price climbing into the thousands on the strength of actual margin calls in the billions of dollars. So they may not be appropriately evaluating the risk.

I'm not saying they would have built a new model on the theory that the environment is now fundamentally different. I'm saying if they assume the environment is not fundamentally different, then the new data should increase the algorithm's estimate of tail risk. And since the damage if that risk is triggered is very high, the decisions may be different. Like if your algo thinks a GME event has a probability of 0, it may think it's okay to enter into those positions. If your algo thinks it happens 1 in 100 years that may be enough to push it beyond its risk parameters.

Speaking of this, humans are notoriously bad at evaluating tail risk. If we have an system that produces a consistent return of 10% per year and one drawdown of 95% every 30 years, people will think this is a great system even though it loses money after 30 years. They'll attribute the one drawdown to an "outlier" and ignore it.

I would think that algorithms may be better than humans at evaluating this, although I guess it depends on the goals they are programmed with.

I did think though about something one of the Fed governors said recently - regarding our next "garden variety" recession. He was talking as if those are common and we should expect them once in a while, but although they used to occur every few years, we haven't had a garden variety recession since......1991. Not in my living memory.

Since then we've had only very long periods of growth punctuated by severe recessions (as measured by the market plunging. I wonder if we'll actually get another garden variety recession or if they've been permanently avoided by the Fed's financial engineering which causes no recession in the event the market feels the Fed is willing and able to control the problem or massive plunges in the case the market believes the Fed is either unwilling or unable to control the problem.

Wouldn't the events of last January represent a very significant training set? It wasn't just GME and AMC; many many heavily shorted stocks were way up. I feel like if the algorithms aren't sophisticated enough to have learned from that by now, they probably aren't adding much value to the people using them.

Also if you are basing expectations on the learning speed of AI 15 years ago, uh, things have advanced a lot since then.

No. To be honest, over the last year, I have heard a lot of discussion about short sellers engaging in manipulation that on its face appears extremely unlikely to work and likely to cause themselves to lose money. At this point, hearing this kind of thing triggers a high level of skepticism for me. I don't think short sellers are actually stupid enough to be throwing away their money like this.

For GME, they were wrong because they didn't realize that thanks to the speed of information flow with the internet, you no longer need to have a large percentage of shares of a stock concentrated in a small number of hands for a short squeeze to occur. That's an understandable mistake, given that in recorded history we had never seen a major short squeeze without concentration of shares before GME. But I don't think they are going to make that mistake again so soon after it blew up in their faces and as for manipulation, it's one thing if they're doing it to try to dig themselves out of a hole, it's another to jump in a hole and then try to manipulate to get out. It seems much smarter just to not jump in the hole.

Lopen has very high confidence in BBIG and I respect his analytical ability but I just don't understand why the short sellers/market makers would be behaving in the way they are theorized to be behaving.

Well good luck to both of you.

That's a buy of BBIG stock at $3.50, not $3.50 calls right?

Lopen posted...

Everyone sees your stop orders

With a volatile stock like this it literally is a stop gain. The price will just be moved to the range to get your shares then bounce right back up.

In general the smart money are able to exploit stop orders mercilessly. Especially large orders in low liquidity stocks.

No comment on BBIG itself.

This might be the great green day we were waiting for.

I know they started out with refinancing student loans, which I always thought was a bad business. I don't know why anyone would want to refinance federal student loans which have income-based repayment and forgiveness at the end of the period if you haven't made enough money to pay it off with a real loan that you have to repay regardless of how much money you make. But I take it that's only a small part of their business now.

Does anyone here actually use SOFI? Trying to do a sanity check.

That was a tremendous surge into the close there. At this point I'm used to false starts that quickly sink into new lows so we'll see how Monday looks.

The Fed just needs to start giving more details of their ramp for rate increases and selling assets on their balance sheet. Right now it's not clear how much they are going to do so there is a lot of fear.

Moonroof, you like to hold for extremely short amounts of time. While I still don't think that is a great strategy, I can't knock it, because I think you've managed to lose less money than most people here over the past 7 months or so despite having much more money to lose.

I've also come to understand that its your way of managing risk - putting in massive amounts of money and holding for days or hours is much less risky than holding for years.

This is the most I've ever felt the Mandela effect. I was half convinced someone went and edited Investopedia, but it checks out with all the other sites showing up on a Google search. So strange.

Oh interesting. Guess I've misunderstood the term for ages!

But uh, I guess the conclusion is the same. DCA is a suboptimal strategy. The recommended advice always given (assuming you cannot time the market) is to maximize the amount of money you have in the market at all times. Buy when stocks are down, buy when they are up, buy whenever you have money to put in. I guess this is "lump sum" investing if you have a big lump sum to invest, but if you have already invested most of your money this looks a lot of like investing at regular intervals because you invest more when you get paid from work.

Zachnorn posted...

"Buying the dip" is trying to time the market to buy at a low. "Dollar cost averaging" is buying at regular intervals regardless of market conditions.

Easily confused with "averaging down" which is buying the dip to get a lower cost per share. Dollar cost averaging only lowers the cost per share when the stock is down but it can increase it if the value of the stock has gone up.

I am pretty sure dollar cost averaging means only buying when it lowers your average cost. The other one you are referring to is what is typically recommended (just put all your money save an emergency fund in the market at all times).

Zachnorn posted...

I think buy the dip is over and now it's dollar cost averaging or holding cash.

Isn't dollar cost averaging the same as buy the dip?

GME has been fluctuating wildly doing 10-20% moves on a daily basis recently. I feel like there's an opportunity to daytrade this.

This market sucks. Oh well. This is when you rejoice that you aren't overleveraged and keep on going.

I intend to invest a significant portion of my portfolio in Reddit when the IPO occurs. I personally don't get why Discord is good, but a lot of my friends like it.

UBER was my first trade in March 2020. I bought it when it was down like 25% for the day, at $14. It turned out to be basically the very bottom. I sold for a 10% profit and then it was up like 38% the next day. I guess I learned a lesson about selling too soon.

I closed out SCHW and got back into SPCE and UBER.

I'm thinking if Fed offers some clarity and it's not horrible news the market rallies. Vagueness would be bad.

Nanis23 posted...

Most of them no
I have DIS, FB and V which I believe in. Also VOO and QQQ
But also PLTR NIO PYPL BABA and BITO which I don't

Okay, so why not sell the ones you don't believe in?

Who was the worst US President?

Who was the best US President ever?

Does reality have a liberal bias?

Nanis23 posted...

Not today(hm, yesterday)
But in general

I am holding failures that dropped a lot even when the market was green. They now drop even more

Do you believe in those stocks? I recall previously you had invested in a bunch of stuff you said you didn't believe in.