Board 8 > Stock Topic $eventeen

(+) Yeah! (+)

Oh, opened Twitter and it seems the whole service crashed.

I dont know if that makes me feel better or worse, lol.

---

MoogleKupo141 posted...

ha ha holy shit

legitimately tripled my fake money in three hours

I dont even understand what grants dogecoin value ! Who is deciding this, where is it coming from? Is there a limit to how high it can go?

The dum dum market determines how high something can go and there is no limit. While fundamental analysis has its own importance, trading stocks that are super popular - or doing the opposite and getting in companies before they blow up, is the way to true wealth imho. I have now turned 10k into 100k in seven months, trust me on this one.

Man I'm still jacked to the tits about tomorrow and I usually hate Fridays on the market

---

So despite being able to cash out at an additional $1000 profit... I should still hold onto my DOGE. Right?

---

HanOfTheNekos posted...

So despite being able to cash out at an additional $1000 profit... I should still hold onto my DOGE. Right?

Hold.dat.shit.

---

This has me rollin, had to post it


---

So is Vanguard a good place to open an account with for a roth IRA?

---

I pray for DOGE to remain above 5 cents when I wake up.

GANON1025 posted...

So is Vanguard a good place to open an account with for a roth IRA?

Yes!

GANON1025 posted...

So IRAs and Target Date Funds are not the same thing? Fidelity lists them as different things. And for IRAs, either I need to manage it myself or have a robo-advisor do it?

So is Vanguard a good place to open an account with for a roth IRA?

An IRA is a type of account. A Target Date fund is a type of mutual fund. You can invest your IRA in any fund allowed. Many people, myself included, say to use Target Date funds because they're "set and forget". It's 2021 now, so the 2055 fund will be very aggressively weighted towards stocks, which is good. As we get closer to 2055, it'll move more and more towards bonds that give smaller returns but are also lower risk, which is the point as by 2055 you should be ready to retire and start using those funds.

I use Vanguard myself and have found it to be good. I'm sure they all do this, but you can set it to automatically deposit to the max the Roth allows using a weekly/biweekly/monthly/whatever schedule. As long as you've got steady income, this is another "set and forget" move that makes saving easy if you invest on a set schedule.

The general advice about retirement saving is:

1. Contribute to any 401(k) offered to the level of any match given by your company.
2. Contribute to a Roth IRA up to the limit.
3. Continuing contributing to the 401(k) (or a Traditional IRA if you don't have a 401(k)) up to the limit.

Of course, only contribute to retirement funds what you can afford to not touch EVER (outside of catastrophic need).


---

This may seem obvious, but the reason you dont touch the retirement money early is because you get penalized harshly if you withdraw it before you retire.

Sunroof posted...

This may seem obvious, but the reason you dont touch the retirement money early is because you get penalized harshly if you withdraw it before you retire.

To be fair, you can withdraw any amount you put into a Roth IRA penalty-free. Just not the earnings on what you put in.

---

Sunroof posted...

This may seem obvious, but the reason you dont touch the retirement money early is because you get penalized harshly if you withdraw it before you retire.

I think there are certain exceptions for a Traditional IRA or 401(k) like for medical expenses or a first time house payment or something like that.

I also think, as someone mentioned, you can withdraw any principal from a Roth IRA without penalty at any time. You just can't touch your gains though without severe penalty.

---

Binance is being such a pain right now. I didnt realize Id need to create a new account due to being a US citizen.

---

True. Although I always say its good practice to mentally part ways with any funds that you put into any type of retirement fund.

People might think, Wait a second. How the heck am I supposed to afford contributing to a 401(k) AND maxing out the IRA contribution limit? Its daunting at first to just give up like 10% of your income to savings. But it will help you retire earlier, and once you are retired it will make your life so much easier.

Sunroof posted...

True. Although I always say its good practice to mentally part ways with any funds that you put into any type of retirement fund.

Yeah, totally agree with this.

---

I also cant stand people who say, Id rather have that money now than when Im older, even if itd be an extra amount from interest. These are the same people who are never able to stop working because they literally cant afford to.

My buddy texted me about doge earlier this evening. I threw in $100. I just took my $100 back out and still have $90 left lol.

This stuff is weird.

How are you people investing in something after hours like this?

Doge Coin is a cryptocurrency that is active 24 hours so it isn't tied to the stock exchange hours.

---

Oh, I never knew that! I would have gotten in hours ago if my app let me. Oh well.

I don't think most brokerages even trade crypto, that stuff is bought on other markets.

You can essentially buy crypto on brokerages via funds though. I made 10k on GBTC when it doubled, which is a bitcoin fund

---

So, re: everything happening with GME - what's the upside to lending people your stock for them to short it?

Either you believe them in which case you are going to get back a stock at lower value so you should sell it.

Or you don't believe them, in which case... nothing changes for you.

It seems like a no-win play.

---

They pay you a fee to borrow your stock, you don't give it to them for free.

Anyways

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/why-was-share-trading-restricted.html

This goes against the narrative but is it true?

---

CoolCly posted...

They pay you a fee to borrow your stock, you don't give it to them for free.

Anyways

https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2021/01/why-was-share-trading-restricted.html

This goes against the narrative but is it true?

You know it isn't true because they are like "yeah this isn't political, they just want twitter follows"

Like, lol

---

DOGE in free fall

---

RIP DOGE

also GME is up to 310 euros in the EU

that's 375 usd

---

I ended up making 65 bucks. Pretty neat for a few cursory glances at my phone!

So you are confident in how clearing houses work? It can't be the case that they wouldn't allow brokers to take in more shares without collateral?

---

I'm not sure how clearinghouses work, but his explanation did not make any sense to me. Why was it getting too expensive for the clearinghouse to settle trades? Stocks go up and down all the time, and I've never heard of that. Also, why does it matter if someone is opening or closing a position? In both cases, the broker is either buying a stock. Whether it gets allocated to a customer opening a new long position or closing a short position should be done at the brokerage; shouldn't have anything to do with the clearinghouse.

Also, volatility today after they did this was the highest it's ever been. So if that was supposed to reduce volatility, lol no.

Finally, if this is the explanation, why are they allowing trading tomorrow? Volatility hasn't gone down. If they truly can't afford it then they still can't afford it for tomorrow right? What's changed in a day other than political pressure and AGs talking about investigations?

Robinhood is limiting buying of GME tomorrow to 5 shares per customer (and that's only if you owned no shares to start with, otherwise you can buy only up to a max of 5). That is frankly ridiculous - what's the difference between 10 million people buying 5 shares and 1 million people buying 50 shares?

I will say, if they are trying to suppress the price this could backfire on them. If you tell people that they can only buy 5 shares of a stock, they are going to infer that this stock must be incredibly valuable. In the old days Wall Street didn't even like dealing in lots of less than 100 shares and now 5 is the maximum you can buy?

---

Well, logic I see supporting this is how the clearing house acts as a middleman and is the one that actually buys the shares from other brokers

If I, Cly, want to buy 10 shares for $100 from red sox, I don't send the money to red sox, and red sox doesn't send the shares to me. I have a broker, Questrade, and red sox has a broker, Ameritrade. But Questrade don't interact directly either! There's a clearing house in the middle; ClearHouse. ClearHouse gives $100 to Ameritrade, and Ameritrade will give the 10 shares to ClearHouse. Questrade will give $100 to ClearHouse and ClearHouse will give 10 shares to Questrade. But this process doesn't happen instantly like it appears to us, Clearhouse is essentially buying the share from Ameritrade, and selling the share to Questrade, and it takes a couple days to actually happen.

So, does Questrade give the money before ClearHouse buys it from Ameritrade? I don't think necessarily. They have collateral from Questrade to justify buying the share from Ameritrade. If Questrade doesn't end up giving the $100, ClearHouse doesn't give them the share and doesn't completely lose out. Let's say they have $1000 collateral on hand, so they are okay doing this trade for Questrade.

But what if Questrade suddenly wants ClearHouse to buy $10,000 in shares from Ameritrade. Should ClearHouse give Ameritrade $10k when it's not sure Questrade will pay, and doesn't have the collateral to seize if Questrade doesn't come through? ESPECIALLY when the share price might tank immediately after and Clearhouse loses out?

What would the ClearHouse do? They'd tell Questrade they aren't going to fulfill these highly volatile stock trades unless Questrade can provide collateral.

So in this case, the clearing house wasn't willing to buy GME for Robin Hood or a few other brokers due to the level of collateral on hand. In this case, it wouldn't be RobinHood or Webull who disabled buying, but the clearing house.

That's the argument here - whether it's actually true though, i have no idea. I've never heard of a stock being limited on only buying before.

---

Doge on its way back up

---

CoolCly posted...

Well, logic I see supporting this is how the clearing house acts as a middleman and is the one that actually buys the shares from other brokers

If I, Cly, want to buy 10 shares for $100 from red sox, I don't send the money to red sox, and red sox doesn't send the shares to me. I have a broker, Questrade, and red sox has a broker, Ameritrade. But Questrade don't interact directly either! There's a clearing house in the middle; ClearHouse. ClearHouse gives $100 to Ameritrade, and Ameritrade will give the 10 shares to ClearHouse. Questrade will give $100 to ClearHouse and ClearHouse will give 10 shares to Questrade. But this process doesn't happen instantly like it appears to us, Clearhouse is essentially buying the share from Ameritrade, and selling the share to Questrade, and it takes a couple days to actually happen.

So, does Questrade give the money before ClearHouse buys it from Ameritrade? I don't think necessarily. They have collateral from Questrade to justify buying the share from Ameritrade. If Questrade doesn't end up giving the $100, ClearHouse doesn't give them the share and doesn't completely lose out. Let's say they have $1000 collateral on hand, so they are okay doing this trade for Questrade.

But what if Questrade suddenly wants ClearHouse to buy $10,000 in shares from Ameritrade. Should ClearHouse give Ameritrade $10k when it's not sure Questrade will pay, and doesn't have the collateral to seize if Questrade doesn't come through? ESPECIALLY when the share price might tank immediately after and Clearhouse loses out?

What would the ClearHouse do? They'd tell Questrade they aren't going to fulfill these highly volatile stock trades unless Questrade can provide collateral.

So in this case, the clearing house wasn't willing to buy GME for Robin Hood or a few other brokers due to the level of collateral on hand. In this case, it wouldn't be RobinHood or Webull who disabled buying, but the clearing house.

That's the argument here - whether it's actually true though, i have no idea. I've never heard of a stock being limited on only buying before.

Yes, that's very similar to my theory from earlier in the day. Except that there is no way that small retail investors buying long stock is generating liquidity issues. The problem is short sellers who have put up insufficient margin to withstand a squeeze. So, example:

I deposit $100 with Ameritrade. At 50% margin, that allows me to short $200 of stock. So I short 1 share of ABC which is trading at $200. Let's say the margin maintenance requirement is 30%. That means if the position moves against me so that it exceeds $100 + $100 / (1 - 0.3) = approx. $242, I get a margin call and my broker will close my position. Normally, I've lost $42 out of $100 and my broker has lost nothing.

But now say this isn't a normal stock, but is in a short squeeze. When the stock hits $242, my broker attempts to close it by placing a buy order. But there are already no shares left for sale at $242. The best my broker can do is to buy for $400. Well, there's a total loss of $200 on this trade and I only put up $100. So my broker now eats a loss of $100. My broker is not in the business of shorting stocks so this loss is unacceptable and crushing.

So here's where it goes from a hypothetical to speculative: what if the broker/clearinghouse knows they have massive liability in a short squeeze because they don't believe their short sellers can deliver the funds? They also believe that changing margin requirements now, to something that would protect against a short squeeze like a 1000% margin requirement would immediately place their shorts into a margin call and trigger the squeeze before they've put up any more margin (which they aren't able to do that extent anyway). So they manipulate the market to try to force the price down to stop it from happening. And then tell us that they couldn't afford to do anything else.

I don't know if that is what is happening but there needs to be an investigation.

---

Crypto changes amid market conditions
Instant Deposits are temporarily unavailable for crypto purchases. This means you won't be able to buy crypto with funds from a deposit until it settles (which can take up to 5 business days to complete). Your Crypto Buying Power will also not reflect your deposit until it settles.

Oh that Robinhood

---

Premarket trading is open in the US and GME is at $450.

---

ninkendo posted...

Crypto changes amid market conditions
Instant Deposits are temporarily unavailable for crypto purchases. This means you won't be able to buy crypto with funds from a deposit until it settles (which can take up to 5 business days to complete). Your Crypto Buying Power will also not reflect your deposit until it settles.

Oh that Robinhood

fuck man, I sold my doge a few hours ago with the intention of buying back in when it got low and then they go and change the rules on me again

robinhood is the worssssst
---

So Roth is the way to go on IRA?

red sox 777 posted...

Yes, that's very similar to my theory from earlier in the day. Except that there is no way that small retail investors buying long stock is generating liquidity issues.

Why wouldn't this be possible? I've seen it said that 50% of Robinhood's users have GME - it's very possible they are heavily exposed on this enough that Robinhood in particular doesn't have the collateral to keep escalating GME buys, and they are heavily focused on retail investors as their business. I have no real measure of this but my assumption has been that they aren't as big as a lot of other brokers which is why they target retailers.

I'm not sure if I think other brokers like Webull make this clearing house theory more or less likely to be true.... Clearing houses doing this to whichever brokers can't support the purchases would make sense, but even if Robinhood has this issue, does it really make sense these other ones would too?

Your theory is pretty much along the lines of a lot competing theories - all focused on manipulation to prevent the squeeze. If there is no valid mechanic that caused this like clearing houses I'm sure it'll come out at some point with all this talk by congress people and class action lawsuits. If the clearing house thing is a lie, it won't hold up under any scrutiny since the clearing house will just say they didn't do that. Seems like Citadel/Robinhood collusion is the most straightforward.

---

https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/28/22255245/google-deleting-bad-robinhood-reviews-play-store
Everything
Everything in this whole story reeks of injustice


---

Damn Google, thats disappointing

Oooh my platform updated and it turns out I put $46k into AMC, not $40k. Even better. Need this to surge at open please

I am usually against review bombing because people use it for the wrong reasons most of the time
"Oh this game has a political agenda I don't like?!! 1/10!!" and trust me, I hate political agendas in games. But while it can affect enjoyment somehow, this is in no way a reason to review bomb. Maybe give it a 6 if you wanted to give it a 7
I also don't like Epic exclusive but again - this is not a reason to review bomb (Hitman 3 has 30 negative user reviews on Metacritic because of being Epic Exclusive...and this is dumb because it has nothing to do with the game itself)

But in this particular case? Robinhood sole purpose is for people to be able to trade and make money.
Not being able to trade the hottest stocks right now directly hurt your ability to trade and make money. This is the very core of the app. Giving it a 1 star is justified because the apps fails at what it was designed to do
"But you can trade and make money from other stocks" - Maybe, but they do not have the potential that the banned stocks had. You can't make a 30% profit in 5 minutes from $KO like you can from $GME
Fuck Google and I am surprised there isn't a outcry about this

---

Oh review bombing is totally justified and it's bullshit protection. Google ultimately loses money as these trends continue so they're trying to minimize their losses too.

---

good morning

---

Ready for another day of movies and video games

---

Cant sleep. Im also committing to selling today. I have to before my flight because I dont believe in the stock post-weekend cool down. Unless this is fool mentality?

There will be no cool down until blood has been spilt

---

I just wish it wasnt a Friday.

Not going to lie, tempted to sell some at $13. $5000 of AMC is kind of above my personal risk tolerance

---

The big variable is whether there will be a surge at open due to people being able to invest through RH and those apps.

Sunroof posted...

The big variable is whether there will be a surge at open due to people being able to invest through RH and those apps.

Yep.

---