Get started

Risk Management

Position Sizing and Risk Management (for newer traders)Stop gambling! I see this all of the time, too many new traders using max leverage on every single trade. Do you want to see steady growth in your account? Then stop here and let this really sink in, use the same amount of risk on every trade. For example, if your risk is 2% of your account size per trade then make sure no matter where your entry is your stop loss and position sizing is always correct so you don't lose more than 2%.
Education
by Nick1upTrading
(One of) The terrible consequence of lockdownThis crap spread to Europe. Meanwhile Sweden having a beautiful and calm summer. Russia has already called covid-19 a hoax, because they claim 12.5% of the city have antibodies, and less than 2000 died, they estimated a death rate of 0.12% "At least 12.5% of Moscow population has covid-19 antibodies". www.rt.com Madrid has also 10 to 14% of its population that developped antibodies. 20% of people tested in New York had antibodies. I heard Germany interior ministery called covid-19 a hoax but could not confirm and I expect this to be an exageration. The russian supreme court, back more than 1 month ago has banned (with strict punishment) the proliferation of fear mongering. Remember in 2016 Putin banned the Rothschild New World Order banking cabal from Russia "under any circumstance" and declared "total independance". George Soros is also banned from Russia (plus a few other countries). Trump has retweeted a fox news segment that contained (this was just part of it) a part where a man - afro american btw - said the US should have "deported George Soros several decades ago he's a destruction to our civilisation and a clear and present danger to our country" This cracks me up, don't want to spread conspiracy theories, just saying this is how people feel about Soros, the Rothschilds and their "philanthropy" and "New World Order", I mean these guys literally said there should be an international coalition of big bankers that would be a government to govern all nations... If the US kicks Soros out, make sure to send Bill Gates and his vaccine along. The majority of the population is not mentally insane and we'll get out of this stronger. Or alive at least that would be nice. We really have to do something about the over urbanisation and the high incidence of mental illnesses. GDP in Q2 predicted to contract by 50%! Before thinking of buying cheap shares in the future, or shorting when really wise retail investor stop buying, the priority is to stay alive. I think Europe should do allright, people are mentally ill and absolute cucks but they are not as angry as young americans that are literally poor people. Americans that live anywhere but in ultra progressive democrat run cities should be ok. The rest... yikes, absolute devastation. And how will people even eat of the stores are all burned down? Well anyway no point dragging into this cancer I'll end this idea here. "Maybe saddling an entire generation of kids with debt & no hope of joining the property class while sending them to institutions that marinate them in neo-Marxist ideology wasn't such a good idea."
DEducation
by MrRenev
17
Projack's Trade Management Tutorial (5 STAR)This is something about Trades Management (How to manage your existing position) 1. If the trade went well ( You are in profit ) , When Reward / Risk Ratio hit 2:1, Close Half position. (You can also close all, if you feel good enought to take all the Floating Profit, but you will have the opportunity Cost of not be involved in the next trend , Hard to decide? Then Close Half! ) Why? Coz by doing this, even the market goes back and hit your SL, you are still winning? Calculation: 0.5 * 2R - 0.5 * 1R = 0.5 * R , If R is set as 2% of your capital, then Minimum Result it 0.5*2% = 1% (Congratulations! Now you have a 100% Winning Trade with 1% Result, and you are still holding half position with RiskFree) 2. If trend is in your favor, and price hit 4:1 or 6:1 , or maybe 0.618 pull back, or opposit Resistance or Support , Feel free to close another half , which is 1/4 position. 3. If hit 8:1 RR, close all profit, or Move SL to the latest Pivot to trail your profit. You can use 8ema or 21 ema to trail as well. or close all profit when you see price action shows reversal pattern .
FX:SPX500Education
by tntsunrise
49
Don't bet against Elon!A little update/correction, just so You understand what I thought and what I said last year. Bottom line: Elon Musk MUST be right about this. As he is smarter then You, and after all, Tesla is His project, not Yours. First of all, He stated _last year_ that we can expect a 50% growth / year. Represented here by the thick magenta line. (Side note: That was before the virus thing.) Secondly he even tweeted that "price is too high" recently, hence he knows math a little better than the FOMO retail investors (the majority) who jumped in around $750 :D and still wondering what happened and why aren't we at $2000 by now? So just HODL! :D Oh dear! If someone, I'm an Elon fan/follower. Any other real Tesla fans here? I don't see many, as if there were, they would listen to HIM. Try to calculate this difficult math problem :D for me please: $350 + 50% each year from 2019 - 2024. (My previous idea was from $420 -I'm biased). But naaaa, You guys always know better, and hope for more and more and get rich quick... until one day you'll get disappointed and drop out and/or loose. Why is that? Just notice the blue dotted line. That is also a possibility. A good investment from $750 to $751 in about one year, right? That was Your plan? :D Please! At the end of the day (I mean the year), Elon is gonna be right and not You . Either way, if there is high volatility or if there isn't. The former case is the green and red arrows, later case is the blue dotted arrow. OK, just listen to Dave Lee then, (smart, high IQ investor, big Tesla bull I know). He predicts TSLA around $2000 in 2024 (BTW, I predicted $2600-$3000 for 2024, but don't listen to me, I'm a biased delusional fanboy). You know, that is a year 2024, anyone able to count to 4 (years ahead) or just blindly repeats some phrases heard on TV/youtube without context and any real time frames understood? Long story short? Tesla is a great car, a great company, and no, You are NOT gonna get rich fast! Mark my words.
NASDAQ:TSLAEducation
by janfoux
I think I just wrote a book. PF, RR, WR, etc.Intro, you can skip this part but I think it would be interesting for you to take a quick look: Statistics estimates and formulas? Trading is mostly about emotions, not statistics estimates and formulas. Most people do not need all of those formulas, they don't need to make plenty of stats and estimates, but just focus on discipline and emotion control. I got this quote: "The key to trading success is emotional discipline. If intelligence were the key, there would be a lot more people making money trading." I agree. Analysis of broker data has shown over and over that over a couple of years 90% or more clients lost money, and often all of their money. So no point doing stats & formulas for 90% of people that will lose anyway. What they need most is discipline, to not lose all of their money, but rather just some of their money, and emotional control, to not blow their brains out once they lose everything. I can make a few quotes too: Checking a thing quickly... Stanley Druckenmiller was 46 when he did something stupid with the dot com bubble. George Soros started at 29 and his biggest (known) mistake was Stanley Druckenmiller. Oh this one is interesting.... Alot of profitable ones that got really confident after a few years of winning and got wiped out or made huge losses or missed on much returns (Buffet says BRK cost him 200 billion, he'd be way above Jeff Besos). I see alot of late 20s to early 30s. But even older than this after decades, it's never safe, never let your guard down. But most typical is the ~30 yo guy that made lots of money for years and laughs hysterically at noobs (retail traders mostly) and was warned of dangers by people trying to scare them away but proved every one wrong, knew he was at the top, one of the best in the world, so got really arrogant, dropped his guard down, and then boom. By the way, totally unrelated, should I all in short USO? It's losing money over time and already so many idiots "invested" in it. There can't possibly be more morons that would buy this dead crap right? Lmao USO investors, what a bunch of brainlets. I refuse to lose against idiots just by being outnumbered. All in no SL. 😁 How do I start a show so I can do literal pump and dumps legally like Joseph Granville? Good. Now that we got this out of the way. 1- Winrate Pretty simple here. All this shows is what percentage of bets are winners. Doesn't really account for breakeven, doesn't differentiate between small wins big wins. Pretty useless on its own. Implicitly means that every win and loss have the same size, like putting rigid entry target SL, and never touching it. 2- Reward/Risk How big is the average or expected win, compared to the typical loss. How much are you willing to risk and how much do you expect to make? Most "educators" repeat how important the risk to reward ratio is, and it kinda is, because it is one of the best predictor of success. FXCM published some data where they show that over the 3/1/2014 to 3/31/2015 period (1 year), 53% of their clients with a RR of 1 or more were in the green, while only 17% of those without were. 47% of RR >= 1 lose money. 83% of RR < 1 lose more. Their typical win % over a quarter is 25%, and the typical global win % over a year is around 20%. I would be willing to bet that profitability goes up significantly with reward to risk. Some of it would of course be simply because people that end up with a huge win on their hands balloon the high RR stats. That said, I doubt just flipping a coin, just randomly buying with a tight stop and a far away target would work. Althought... The top myfxbook systems are almost all automated garbage systems with an average win 0.20 times the average loss, that were really lucky over a long period (3 std dev of a normal statistical distribution = 0.3% 3/1000, just pick any trash system with high WR and run a binomial probability calculator find the odds of it making profit over 100 rolls). Hey I'll do this later in this idea. And as I was saying, perfect transition, flipping a coin isn't a viable strategy, the reward to risk alone doesn't say it all, even if traders using a high reward to risk ratio greatly outperform those that don't. If you make 10 times what you lose, but you lose 99% of the time, emm how to say... And this is why we must look at the profit factor. 3- The profit factor. Oh yes Pf = (W*R)/(1-W) I have seen reports with a gross PF of almost 3, and net of barely 1.1. If you design a strategy you count spreads in it... It's obvious. Day trading sucks and every analysis of day traders data shows about 1% or less make money, and don't make much. Probably the only ones making anything are level 2 scalpers, and 'experts' selling day trading robots, or signals, or courses. First a disclaimer! The argument of day trading having terrible profit factors applies to 95% of the time. When the average move per unit of time goes way way up (spreads & commissions usually don't especially if volume goes up too), and you get in 5 hours what you usually get in 2 weeks, then obviously it's different. I focus my argument on 95% of the time, when volatility is "normal" (within 2 st dev basically, and in particular within 1 - ~70% of the time) And I have been really nice here. Getting an idea of what good profit factors are... If I participated I would take a single bet with huge leverage and hope to get lucky, easy win once every couple of events, but I doubt they allow this. Lol on the worldcupchampionship site (ran by the CME I think), there are categories, Futures traders at the top have massive returns, way above Forex. Previous year winners with futures have bigger returns than FX, but this year is just stupid. maybe they blow up soon. Top 5 FX participants as of May 14 have 40% to 97% returns. Top 5 with futures are already at 200-800%! In 2018 futures winner made 250% FX winner made 200%, sometimes futures traders make huge gains. The gap is already so big lol. Anything to do with NatGas & Oil? 😆 www.worldcupchampionships.com Looking at a "war of traders" results. 27 days... Not sure what their leaderboard is. Looks like a great way to get suckers to deposit money and pay fees asap. First place has a PF of 44%, I assume this means 1.44, second place 160% I assume it means 2.6. Followed by 1.3, 1.05, 1.13, 1.26, 6.85, 1.11.... Prob easier to get a higher PF with commodity futures where they are so much hedgers, much fewer care about hedging FX risk, plus central banks use it to manipulate everything, more people trying to make money. Sometimes the sharpe ratio is mentionned. Quick definition: The Sharpe ratio measures the performance of an investment compared to a risk-free asset, after adjusting for its risk. It is defined as the difference between the returns of the investment and the risk-free return, divided by the standard deviation of the investment. I looked at some hedge funds reports a while ago, since they diversify and hedge alot PF isn't as high. Warren Buffet has a PF of what? 100? He makes one trade every 10 years. It's basically impossible to find those numbers, unless you work at a brokerage, and apart from your own, with the exception of the few times a broker releases some data. You have to take into account how many opportunities you get also, and more but alot if implicit. I would say that a PF too low is bad, because when conditions change you will take long to notice with certainty and you will also lose way faster! If you had a PF of 1.1 you spent 5 years to grow, and that can be lost very fast AND it takes you longer to realize it is not working anyway. A high PF has a high margin for error, profits grow fast enough so drawdowns don't eliminate years of progress, and going from 2.5 to 0.75 over a period kinda is extreme. I think typically for operations that target 1 to 5 daily ATR, (days to weeks holding period), and you get more than something like 1 single bet a year, good profit factors are in the 1.5-2.5 range. Lower than this gets a little dangerous, more than this is the holy grail. A 25% winrate 5R system has a PF of 1.67. 4- Max Drawdown & risk per operation & max risk Here you use a binomial probability calculator. Plenty on the internet. Winrate 25%, Reward/Risk 5, PF 1.67 ==> After 60 bets, on average you should get 15 wins 45 losses. The odds of getting more than 15 wins (P: 16 or more out of 60) are 43%. The odds of getting less than 5 wins (55 or more losses) are 0,0956%. 1/1000. 10k account. Flat $100 risk per bet. 55 loss 5 wins = $5500 in loss, $2500 in wins, down $3000. 60 loss 0 wins = $6000 in loss, $ZERO in wins, down $6000 (rekt.) So every 1000 trades you should expect something like this right? Even with a very decently profitable strategy it will happen. You have to decide at what point you consider the odds of it just being bad luck to be too high, and you just want to drop it. Smaller drawdowns are going to happen absolutely all the time. If you are risking 1% every time and adjusting, 55L 5W would be a 27% rekt, and 60L would be a 46% rekt. The odds of losing 18 or more out of 20 are greater than 9% (9/100). Will happen ALL THE TIME. With 1% risk, drawdown of 8 to 18%. Expect it very often. Some clients use funds to diversify, to get returns with low risk. Some expect less risk and volatility than the stock market, but expect better returns. Cute. 5- Expected returns after 100 bets Say you got a system like the one I used in my example (that you backtested + used over a great number, or just used over a greater number of operations). Winrate 25%, Reward/Risk 5, PF 1.67 If you do not care about eating 20% punches in the face, and risk 1% per trade, on AVERAGE, after 100 gambles, then your results will be as such: 75 Losses, 25 wins (0.99^75)*(1.05^25) = 1.6. Up 60%. If you risk 1% of your 20 years life saving, you would get 20% drawdowns on a regular basis, meaning you worked for free 4 years. You can play around with calculators and notepad to estimate how big drawdowns you'll get, how often etc. With a 2% risk: (0.98^75)*(1.1^25) = 2.38. Up 138%. And regular drawdowns not of 8-18% but 23.3%-33.3%. And once in a while drawdowns of 60% to 70%. And a few times in a lifetime of 80% to .... What is the max drawdown before divorce + jump off a cliff? 6- Expected returns after 1 year And here we are... Traders should have a vague idea to start with but mostly look at all of this after running a strategy correctly and with some profits, over a "significant" amount of time, kek can't give a number. First of all what is the amplitude of moves you manage to catch? So the first limit is obviously the number of waves / moves. No matter what sytem you have you will not be able to join more waves than they are waves in the first place! And then... how many you can catch, is much, MUCH, lower than how many there are. Duh! Anyone with half a brain should be able to understand all of this at some point... Someone that manages to be profitable and doesn't blow up should make 5 to 40% I guess. That's that. It's exponentially harder, but also exponentially more profitable. I think I should build a new income stream writting books...
Education
by MrRenev
10
What are your odds of making it? How many get rekt?We have all heard anecdotal evidence. Every one throws random numbers around "be in the 80%", "be in the 91%", 99%, 90%, 75%, all sorts of numbers, usually the failure rate is pretty high and success is low. Day trading, or longer term. Real estate same story. And for long term investing you will hear "90% don't beat the market". I am looking at speculating here rather, althought alot of numbers take into account long term investors so keep that in mind (I'll repeat it when accurate). What is very often said is that winners have high reward to risk, and aren't day trading. From what I have seen around it looks to me that the people that make money day trading pretty much all scalp support levels with level 2 market data, or that sell programs and signals. No personal and anectode from here on, or maybe a little as bonus, I will look at studies. 1- AMF (french regulator) study of a popular broker clients over 4 years. The name of the report is "Étude des résultats des investisseurs particuliers sur le trading de CFD et de Forex en France". Now, let's get into the fun stuff. Seems small compared to the markets (forex + stocks + indices + more). Do retail traders getting wiped out really change much? Big institutions make more profit than a couple hundred millions over 4 years... Large speculators that make money, must be from hedgers and whales mostly. I don't think retail holding bags & gambling adds much. A large part of the lost money came from idiots placing tons of orders. How much is lost in spreads? Checking by volumes, those that did 1 to 10 million lost on average 3700 euros.... Say the average volume they did was 4 MM, that's a 0.01% loss... Looks like they are coinflip warriors that day trade and just lose money with spreads? My opinion the very few orders ones (losses are quite high compared to very small number of operations) are those that either go "all in" an a hunch and lose and leave, or get lucky, get excited, go in big, get shrekt, get scared, leave. And also those that start and can't stop losing, bad luck streak, disgusts them so they quit. So ye, the ones taking "big" losses early one are the luckier ones, they give up quick and never come back and don't waste time & take massive losses. 2- UKNF (Polish regulator) reports "Komunikat w sprawie wyników osiąganych przez inwestorów na rynku forex" (Communication on results achieved by investors in the forex market) 2 reports. Can't find the older one unless this is it. "The New York Fed’s Foreign Exchange Committee volume survey released in 2016 shows that trading by volume “non-financial customers” in April 2016 was at roughly 7% of all FX trades." Nice, nice. No, 93% are not making money off the 7% of small fish (just making a little, a rounding error in their profit). 3- FXCM report (they're a broker) I am so thankful for all of the 16-24 yo Forex experts, I can't help it I always get hysterical when I see their little faces or even just talk about them 🤣 If I meet someone that looks all defeated and tells me he got scammed by such an individual I guess our friendship will quickly be over because I won't be able to help just laughing in their face. I roasted an "educator" on tradingview & twitter, he threated to sue me + others. After he had already scammed people. And he repeated it. TV staff correctly banned him permanently, haven't heard from him since. Lots of clients were defending him. All their money is now belong to him. 4- 1999 NASAA report "REPORT OF THE DAY TRADING PROJECT GROUP" by the "NORTH AMERICAN SECURITIES ADMINISTRATORS ASSOCIATION". As we have seen the vast majority of retail are day traders, so this sort of will tell the same story. In 1999 the business was not as developped, a largest percentage of participant very likely were more seriously, most no effort get rich quick with my 22 yo educator indicators gamblers joined later. 5- Brazil 2019 study of day traders I'm just reading an article here. I think the study can be found on the SSRN website. Had another paper from this site but it was a study on a voluntary survey of traders lol, so not worth anything. "We observe all individuals who began to day trade between 2013 and 2015 in the Brazilian equity futures market, the third in terms of volume in the world, and who persisted for at least 300 days". Ok so this paper is worth something then. They quote some old papers when day traders didn't compete with HFT firms, high success rates of course (I don't know if it counts locals, because I mean that's not speculating). 6- Article from Tradeciety (quoting their sources) 7- Do Smart Investors Outperform Dumb Investors? 2009 paper by Grinblatt Keloharju Linnainmaa. From... Some Chicago school of Business? Found it on Yale department of economics site. Robert J. Shiller personal page (Shiller PE ratio). Seems legit enough. 8- What about non day-trading market participation? Well, there is absolutely nothing! It's all about day trading. Like not being clinically retarded is extravagant. So to sum up: The ~76% money losing rate european brokers display on average, I think is over a quarter. China literally totally banned leverage with FX (wonderful country), and you wonder why Bitcoin and other ponzi schemes have so much success? And crypto baghodlers actually expect China to not entirely ban crypto eventually... They are slow and incompetent but they'll get there. And this is a classic commie tactic: Let them think you are pro crypto, they pop their head out, you can arrest them. When they'll have arrested all those involved with crypto they wanted to arrest, they are going to lay a blanket ban on all cryptos. There is no hope, there is no light at the end of the tunnel, more and more brainlets are treating the markets like a casino, and it might only be a matter of time until it gets completely banned for retail (thanks, always protecting the morons). Stats are not that bad. 90% lose over a 4 year period? Maybe 90-95% of all those that join end up eventually losing or quit after a short while? It's not that bad. And remember a whole lot are stupid day traders, and they destroy the average. In the first year 60% of restaurants don’t make it past their first year and 80 percent go out of business (get rekt) within five years. In the first year 80% of retail traders don't make it past their first year and 90% go out of business (get rekt) within five years. Not much surprise here. Lmao at all those celebrities restaurants that fail completely! 😄 Not talking about famous chefs, I mean action movie actors & the such. Restaurants failure rate isn't counting the recent "min wage raise" in the USA. Good luck with those. Success rate would honestly go to zero. Simple maths. Politicians are really really stupid. House flipping is a very intelligent activity and has about the same success rate as day trading. US bureau of labors stats show that small businesses in general have a 50/50 survival rate over 5 years and 25% over 15 years and that's quite high. Most "educators" are either young or old (uuu the experience right). Studies show middle-aged men start the most successful businesses. Middle aged men are too busy doing actual stuff? I am between young and middle aged myself if you were wondering. I could go look for more stats but it's all the same. Success rates are never 100%. And the harder something is (because of hygiene regulations, because of cognitive demand), the lower the success rate. Medical schools have an acceptance rate of 7% on average, but that's not saying that 7% of all people that apply get in. "MCAT and GPA Grid for Applicants and Acceptees to U.S. Medical Schools, 2017-2018 through 2019-2020 (aggregated)" ==> 42% Teens with low scores don't even bother applying thought. And once in school how many end up with a doctorate? Sooooo... Speculative trading is one of the hardest activities, it is one of the hardest psychologically and most cognitive demanding. I crack up when people try to cheer themselves up and go "smart people don't make good traders because emmm ego n perfectionists n stuff". It's really not surprising that the failure rate would be at that level. Medical schools have a barrier to entry, which is why the failure rate is not as high, but absolutely anyone can start trading or open a restaurant. Obviously failure rates will be higher, and much higher in the case of speculation. Just imagine the average person. He's not very smart. Most people are somewhat isolated from the rest of the population. Engineers are surrounded by people with master degrees and doctorates, not janitors that can't add 2 and 2 and think Bloomberg can give 1 million to every one (lol). The average person is not very bright, and 50% people are dumber than this! In the 90% failure rate you got all kinds of delusional clows, all the bottom feeders are here. AND! Remember! This includes a big majority of day traders! I don't know what the numbers are for non day trading, but over a 5 year period the failure rate might only be 70% or so! Cruel reality is cruel. If you are rather smart, or at least non-retarded. Let's say you are in the top 25% of people (> 110 IQ), you have a real chance of making money if you put the effort into it. Probably doesn't need to be a genius. Just to make some money now I'm not talking about making millions either. 90 to 110 IQ I don't know. Slow people under 90 IQ, it's my personal opinion they can't possible be successful. Just my personal opinion. Like my personal opinion is that people with (today's) IQ < 90 have never and are never going to solve any math problem, or find some new elemental particle, or build a rocket, etc. If they manage to remember how to lace their shoes and fill a welfare request document that's real good, and that's all society will ever require of them 😉. Marathons, Chess, stuff where you can't cheat. Masters in those disciplines reached the peak after training for decades. Musclemen... Activities where you can take steroids... "The Mountain" became one of the strongest men in the world 2 years after lifting his first weight. Now his face is deformed 🙃 Strongment events that rely on strong joints not just muscles, in other words steroids don't help, interestingly their records haven't been broken in a century+ The public thinks they can get something for free. They think they can have success in something instantly, like it's a web link, just clic and here y a go. The gall. You got people so stupid they don't even understand how stupid they are, they struggle with the most basic concepts, and they casually think they're the greatest mind of all time, and will become some super hero beating HFT firms and outperforming Jesse Livermore etc. That amount of delusion is absolutely staggering. What more can I say. Anything other than flipping burgers takes time and effort and brains or brawns and sees some people fail. The competitive activities have higher failure rates. The more competitive, the lower the success rate... Why am I even typing this... But sure, I'm going to keep seing thousands of newbs land every months, and chase the twitter expert, or look for the person that joined 2 months ago and said "price go up" just before the price goes up (not joking I saw someone like this recently and the update idea after the breakout had literally in the first line "Volume is low not a good buy I am looking to short", literally the first line, and newbs that saw "green candle. price go up" are celebrating the "great call"). Absolute pieces of ****. I don't always read everything, or watch entire videos, I read diagonally and I think every one should, I pick bits in articles I am interested in, and I think that's what people should do but maaan. If you're not even going to bother reading the first sentence and are jsut looking for the traders with the most successful apparent last few calls, you really deserve to lose everything. It's like the USO buyers that didn't bother finding out what they were buying. Or stock & FX traders that never touched a future and then went all in Oil without learning what it was or anything. That's really insane to me. They certainly deserve to get wiped out. If I may give some tips around all this:
Education
by MrRenev
13
5 years lawsuit: Guess how much "investors" got back?Before giving the answer, what happened? Apple had sapphire glass on its home button and camera. They lend money to their supplier, GTAT, a few hundred millions. Absolute masterminds had the genius idea that if Apple was going to have their phones whole screen in sapphire then demand skyrockets and share price goes up... infinity? Oh and this "investment" was "a sure thing". Well the company exited the business, shut down its plants, sold off its furnaces and announced plans to settle its debt. It gave back to Apple most of the money. Apple plans were to use sapphire for their watch apparently. People can't speculate they shouldn't even try. They're so delusional they think they can. Apple agrees to settle GT Advanced Technologies lawsuit for $3.5 million. So, bagholders that got rekt did the thing these losers always do: whine to judges. They filed a lawsuit saying GTAT was partially responsible for a "disastrous deal" costing "investors" more than $1 billion. Remember, that "disastrous deal" is what got them all excited and investing. "GTAT’s former top executives settled for $27 million and its underwriters for $9.5 million." ==> Total bagholders got around $40 million, compared to the estimated $1 billion they lost. 4 percent . If you are wondering, cryptos are not regulated are not run by anyone and investors will get 0% back. Good luck suing computers. Here is a "heartbreaking story" of an "investor" that lost everything (gambling most of his life savings on a rumor): www.businessinsider.fr Try not to laugh challenge. "I cried for 24 hours knowing I ruined the future for my family," wrote Cooper. It would probably be severly condemned by society if someone would start laughing hysterically at this announcement? I couldn't hold myself. I remember hearing bagholders of some stocks complain that lawyers were laughing in court when they told their story. Can't remember what it was in particular, and search engines are useless, and these stories don't get advertised too much. Might be a dumb rumor. And I wonder why rekt investors stay silent. Interesting chart. Remember what studies found "high IQ investors tend to have better results due to diversifying more". I'm more of an OTP and disgusted by "investing" in 50 companies or holding 30 trades at any given time, but going all in on a single trade, or investing entire lifesavings on a single company, not even just a single sector or correlated assets, literally a single company, that's just so dumb. Guess what? OF COURSE THE GTAT INVESTOR FORUM GOT REMOVED! Come on we want to learn from their mistakes, and have a good laugh at the same time. Investors sued them so they wouldn't want to keep the forum open, plus they're not public like they were anymore. And who was pushing apple suppliers to retail investors? Good old Cramer ;) Imagine a business that isn't diversified at all, that has only 1 client, on a recent technology that can change anytime. Now imagine retail investors - known for "averaging down", never cutting losses, never hedging, and going all in at once (😆), not understanding what they buy, being emotional and following the herd.... buying those businesses! I might be into macro speculating but even I know that a business like this is risky and certainly not something to go all in in. Here is an article that has screenshots of rekt "investors": www.joshuakennon.com That's run by an individual not a company, and he puts investors in quotes like me, good I like this guy. He probably cracked up and laughed while laughing. He can only be a good person thought, he's gay. Maybe I should pretend to be gay to be considered a good person. And also do some "philantropy and charity" (biggest scams). Telling people about this will help as opposed to being an emotional "carer" that "wouldn't dare laugh at others misery" and is telling every one to get all excited and telling them about the time Bitcoin went up 5 million percent or some crap, and "positive" let's just focus on the 0.1% of companies that went way up and ignore the 99% that collapsed completely, that'll help novices / noobs make the right calls! So many destroyed "investors" that "bought in cheap". You can make so much money when you buy high and sell low, and inversingly, you can lose so much buying cheap and selling high. If regulators want to do something useful, and not discriminate (based on IQ or education or anything), just prohibit leverage to those with less than a few years of experience or less than a certain number of operations (and not for EVERYONE including profitable participants over a great number of operations!), maybe even set a rule limiting novices position size to 50% of proven assets. I don't think there's really a point to protect very dumb people savings (must hurt to work 25 years and then lose it all at once lel), but regulators want to, so do something smart. Regulators are the ones that can't make money speculating or investing, and not even writting about it, so they regulate, and therefore they won't be able to come up with solutions and are always too late too useless etc. A little story about r-words that lost everything they saved (£180k at 50 yo) gambling on stocks to "get their money back" using borrowed money (leverage): www.telegraph.co.uk I heard so many times "I lost money investing so I started trading to make it back" in particular in crypto. If a family member or close friend said this to me I'd insult them, prob hit them actually. Hard to stay polite with that amount of stupidity and delusional. And I heard stories of people that got shrekt in bubbles, got their money back, and quit at breakeven. I heard stories of someone that let someone close trade their money (a pro (pro means wagecuck) trader), make a killing - the one trading it, and the second the amount they made was equal to the amount they lost they pulled it all out (these people really deserve to get wiped out). As investing becomes more popular to anyone (anyone... can you imagine), the rekt stories are more common. The average person is deeply stupid, now imagine that half of the population is worse than that 😐 And they can all invest speculate and have access to all sort of tools, including borrowing money. There's just going to be more and more regulations, but those come slow. It's kind of pressuring profitable traders that don't yet have accounts bigger than say 100k to take more risk to try to make money faster. Charlie Munger said you have a 20 slot punchcard, but some people manage to end up with a single slot punchcard (it was Charlie that said this right? Every one is crediting Warren Buffet). John Templeton had bought 104 companies shares when he started but that was a protection against ignorance and he was a macro investor, maybe I should follow his example then. Alot of very successful speculators make big one sided bets rather than diversify but first of all it's usually macro, and second of all they are diversified in time, they use stops, they don't go all in, etc. I don't know that many investors, and the only recent ones are from movies and tv. About Michael Burry: "Burry was speaking from experience. According to his own blog posts, he too started with an ultra-concentrated portfolio, around four to six stocks, but as Burry's strategy developed and he grew as an investor, so did his portfolio. Soon, the number of individual positions had increased to nine and then later, this number went up to 18." Well Buffet says he'd be very happy with just 3 or so stocks but he is longer term, and he would still have cash and probably some bonds too. And he wrote "10 to 30" (not just stocks all investments). Michael Burry is right in that range. I might just use indices tbh, but when i finally invest I'd just go for a few, really few. 3 to 5. But 1 can mean "30 companies from a country I want to invest in" I would be betting on the country economy not on 30 different companies. I think I'll always have some cash. You can speculatively buy & sell using borrowed money using investments as collateral but I'll have cash in accounts anyway. About those "investments" it can be argued it was or was not stupid. We can talk about doing your research. About not averaging on losers or "buying cheap". But 1 thing cannot be argued: Dumb money is the money that goes all in a single company with no rules, and it's not called dumb money because they are intelligent but unlucky. Rule number 1 = Don't lose money Rule number 2 = Never forget nb 1 Rule number 3 = Don't go all in / Invest in at least 3 issues / set a maximum risk per investment that should always be less than 33% (and 33% is so huge). Graham's largest gain was from GEICO, which his Graham-Newman Partnership purchased 50% of in 1948 for $712,000. The position grew to $400 million by 1972, contributing more to the portfolio than all of Graham-Newman's other investments combined. Oof don't diversify too much. Graham, one of the very very very rare book writter and economist that actually made money. Oh no wait, the only one. They call him an economist but he finished university at 20 and went to Wall Street, yet another success that didn't waste too much time in useless school go figure. Going to university was pretty rare back then thought. Diploma inflation hit hard. When I think of how many years I wasted for nothing... Some people don't even risk 100%, they borrow and risk more than 100% MYGAWD. R words. R words. Absolute rwords. "When you combine ignorance and leverage, you get some pretty interesting results."
OTC:GTATEducation
by MrRenev
15
Looking at NSE retail investors strategy🤓 If you are wondering what was public shareholders favorite stock in summer 2018, this is it: Obviously, what did you expect? 😆 Compared to the N50 which of course has crashed recently but apart from that in an uptrend: I will translate a story from punjabi (nah I'm jk it's in english) Buying aggressively a fast falling stock with lots of reports of fraud and 0 institutional interest. Maybe they can please insanity or several mental disability? At least alot of those that retail sold the most (not short, just abandonned) are down a ton, ALTHOUGHT it wouldn't surprise me that they started buying as the price fell a lot. We can look at a few other of retail favorite holdings nearly 2 years ago... Alot of big gains in the past and then a crash. Basically the stocks which are the very best to short. "Past performance is not indicative of future performance" is a sentence too complex to understand I guess. Imma start a fund, set alert on retail picks, go short, profit. Shorting stocks that are down 90% is probably one if the easiest ways to make money, probably the main issue is it does not scale obviously. K that's enough for today. I am trying to imagine someone trying to convince me to try and teach traders and like I'd owe him one so I'm imagining myself "umm ok so biggest tip emm don't be complete idiots". I don't understand how this can have kept going for a century or more. When did "retail investing" become a thing? In the 1920s? Ye and all the problems started to appear then... Hitler etc. No one cares about the history, bunch of brainlets. Huge interest in finding out what the best indicator is and how much a day trader can earn. If these idiots ever make money I'm jumping off a cliff. Retail investing was nearly non existant in 1600-1800 right? Goldman Sachs blames mom & pop investors for stock volatility (retail investing must be at ath by now) www.marketwatch.com I'll try posting about dumb money when I find data, I found robinhood users holdings and indian holdings, there must be more. South Korea were all in crypto, so they must be interesting. They're supposed to be the country with highest IQ, would be funny to see what crap they invest in. OOOOO It looks promising: www.businesstimes.com.sg www.straitstimes.com 😊
NSE:PCJEWELLEREducation
by MrRenev
9
A look at the 10 most owned stocks by robinhood users 😂"Countertrend trading" and "We are oversold" these sentences just sound so stupid, I have a hard time believing this is a thing. Here are a few of my finest comparisons: "I put a pillow on my face and practice suffocated breathing". "I compete in sprints with my legs tied together" Huh but why? "Well 2 legs have more power than 1 obviously duh silly" You keep losing! "YES BECAUSE THEY ALL CHEAT AND ALL KNOWING INSTITUTIONS MANIPULATE THE RACES!". "I put my hand on the stove and now I am overburned way more than I should be, I will therefore keep my hand on and put the second one, should heal anytime". "Counteroxygen breathing", "Countergravity jumping", "Counterheat cooking", "Countermudtorrent walking", "Counterultratide kayaking"... "Stop buying umbrellas during this rainy season you fools! Don't you see we are overbought?", "Go to the pump station and fill your full car tank so you can stay at home don't you see Oil is oversold?", "Stop buying & drinking water during this heat wave you fools don't you see we are overbought?", "Stop buying ventilators and masks in this respiratory disease season you fools don't you see we are overbought?", "Stop avoiding sky stations in the summer we are oversold", "Why am I sunbathing by -5°C? Well clearly you are a noob and didn't notice seaside resort are very oversold this winter!" It sounds so wrong xd So, what are retail investors holding? First of all Tesla is not in the top 3 anymore, they have fallen to only #19. You have heard the theory a million times, and here the practical side of things confirms it: they hold and average in losers, they close at breakeven or take profit very quickly, they avoid winners, they get excited and buy at the top when the price goes parabolic. Robinhood users have beautiful taste as you will see now. Now, the top 10: ACB was very oversold when wise & sophisticated investors took this opportunity. Aha! It got much cheaper, they can buy more now. They sure know how to smell a great deal. Buying a car manufacturer on a downtrend for years and year, with declining sales and many financial issues, at the bottom clearly about to collapse and capitulate, smart, very smart. Buy parabolically as the stock capitulates? Pure genius. RSI at 7.50 was below 20. Yes, in times of crisis companies with bad fundamentals and in a downtrend for 2 decades tend to do very well. Excellent perceptiveness by millenial retail investors. Putting money in companies losing money and ignoring productive companies sounds like a great way to make a country prosper. WallStreetBets legends have been spotted betting on another success story. How much lower can it go it's already down 97%. You don't loose if you don't sell. (Multi)National-Socialist Umbrella corps time is soon over, I knew it! I can't wait for the big tech bubble to deflate. *Kondratiev I... I don't know what to say... This is... They have the right to vote... I'm scared... That's some serious mental disability... Idk if I can laugh about it... Not going to bother commenting. Same as previous. I am thinking of shorting it but it's best if I stick to my own domain. Those investors stupidity is astonishing, I am not joking, I am shocked and even a bit worried. Here's the top 10. Hey, but what about highly performing stocks? Unsurprisingly most of the top perf stocks are those expected to be a major part of the next Kond. cycle, and are seen as very important at the moment (but at the same time poor countries with old drugs are doing better than rich countries so... we'll see). Quick check of a biotech company not in the "best performing" ones (which are mostly small ones) but a rather big name that is in the S&P500 (barely thought) and doign very well: That's really something. Can you imagine how bad the world would be if there were no professional investors? Or if idiots keep reproducing at the current rate and smart women keep "focussing on their careers". 200 investors. That's it. OrganiGram has 90 thousand (265M market cap versus 10B for BIO). They'd rather invest in 4000 other companies rather than this one. What about another top performer, Kodiak Sciences (2.25B mcap)? They're not making positive earnings yet, but this is a growth stock, and we all know robinbros don't look at that, and we know they don't hold for years or decades. RobinTrack is going to become my main indicator... There are no big tank storage companies in the US I'm sad I wanted to check that. I already know what the result would be thought. What about the FMCG sector? Doing very well in this period of course (especially in the toilet paper area) Delivery also doing good Let's look at another top performer, a small cap... I think that's enough, I made my point. I did not cherry pick the worse possible examples. These people are STUUUUUPID. They are way too stupid to be trading even simple instruments in a protected environement and with regulations to protect them. You can throw all the regulations you want, they will still be stupid and do dumb things. And they think they can get their foot into Oil futures & other complex products. Tough love: If you constantly fight the trend and let your losers run you are an idiot and you will lose everything. There is a reason why the best in the world keep repeating the same advice.
NASDAQ:TSLAEducation
by MrRenev
9
Another speculative bubble: Alcatel-Lucent [Banking] [Crypto]First... a little introduction about mainstream speculation, then I will talk about 50 year market cycles, and then about banking & currencies. Coronavirus: The "best" models by "the brightest minds" predicted - taking into account lockdown & social distancing - "tens of millions of deaths". MrRenev predicted - it's only a few months old - that this was extremely exagerated. By Late April, 200,000 people have died. The rate is high in cold countries (~40°N, interestingly this is New York and Rome latitudes), I think deaths of colds by this coronavirus are as high as all other colds combined. Anyway, I got alot of heat but I was right, as usual. I also predicted that lockdown was useless and did no good (but does a whole lot of harm), and I will soon compare lockdown countries to non lockdown ones to show it, plus studies will say the same thing, same old, same old. A study has shown New York had several millions infected! More than 1 in 5! (As I predicted...got patronized and everything but I was right - AGAIN! - so don't mind me if I am arrogant and condescending). Cough cough: 11,544 deaths in New York City 15,740 in the New York state A death rate around .5%, it's a little higher than other places, but it's pretty cold there, and air quality isn't great, and americans are fat so obviously it will be worse. Also there is another reason why the rate could be higher there but I won't even mention it because the USA sees racism everywhere and they still control the world (not for long ;}) and I can't be bothered. I had the numbers for all colds but idk where they are now, but for the flu & pneumonia last years they were almostas many deaths as for covid-19 alone. And if I remember correctly covid-19 had about as many deaths as all colds combined. So it's pretty big but way smaller than all the clowns predicted. "Low end mortality prediction 3%, but could be as high as 10%" "Worse than the spanish flu" "Deadlier than feared" LMAO clowns! CO2 : Sigh. CO2 will kill us all. Another pathetic dogma and ridiculous calls. "World hunger will be extreme", actually earth population went up exponentially and hunger went down even in nominal terms. 30-50 years ago: "Temperature will go up 5 to 15 degrees" (15? really? Chimp). Went up 1 degree. In the North Hemisphere. And 0 in oceans & around the equator. 0.5 overall. They're desperate to make "adjustment" to make it look worse lmao, but then there are inconsistency and they deviate from other measurements and other countries etc and keep coming up with excuses to cover up their previous lies. "12 years left" We've had 12 years left for the past 30 years boy. Terrible, really terrible calls. I could make a long list. There are really funny ones, well they're all funny, another example is the "end of the world millenium bug", heard of that one? Oh, every one knows this one :"The Titanic is unskinkable" OOOH MY this one DID NOT AGE WELL! "Prosperity Will Never End" (1929). "We have to transitions to renewables because our advanced economics predict Oil will cost $380 a barrel in 10 years and it's fundamentally impossible we are wrong" (economists in 2005 - barrel priced at minus 40 a few days ago and Trump fighting to keep the long term price above 20 bucks). Cycles: So I remind you, 1780-1830: Steam Engine, Mechanisation 1830-1880: Railway, Steel, Comm (telegraphs), ( Start of wageslavery ) 1880-1930: Electricity, Chemicals, Heavy Engineering 1930-1975: Automobiles, Oil, Mass Production & Consumerism 1975-2020: IT, Comm (satelittes, computers, internet, phones) 2020-2060: Banking (& Currencies), Health (billions of obese...), ( Decline of Wageslavery/Change in Work structure ) Comm continued between 1880 and 1975 and was growing before 1830, but it made its biggest revolutionnary gains in the 2 periods mentionned I think. Idk maybe traders are communists after all, alot want freedom and hate the exploitation of man by man, the difference with official commies is we are smart enough to understand freedom comes from making money by yourself (profit) not by electing dictators that control everything and put chains around your neck (so obvious...). Banking & Currencies : A banking revolution is necessary, by revolution I mean changing this rotten system completely. All this money printing... In the US retail banks are making ridiculous loans to uneducated people that won't ever be able to pay, squeezing them, and then taking away their houses and more... Cryptocurrencies were the earliest element in this new banking Kondratiev cycle, like computers of the 60s (first popular computer game spacewar that you might have heard of run on a 1960 model), and the space race. If you stored very pricey Disk Storage Drives and CRAM from 1962 you might be able to sell a few to collectors but that's it. Wouldn't get your money back and I didn't say inflation adjusted. Companies are developping in this area, I mean quick payments, they're starting to replace banks. There are issues but it's growing. I better perform well in this cycle and know what to invest in, I can proudly say I am an engineer in security & electronic payments, isn't that funny, in another life I might have been part of the next bubble, at least I learned something useful at school. Forgot it all thought. So anyway ye, all those mobile phone companies, and optic cable companies (Alcatel was both), went way way down. Mobile phones got really big, optic fiber too, doesn't mean their share price HAVE to go up, if they started already 500% too high duh, and there are other factors. People are so dumb. That's why it is called dumb money. Finance is getting more and more complex, probably because of the Flynn effect, mmm because the smart are getting smarter and the dumb are getting dumber. And people are getting fatter and fatter + the world is open so diseases can spread on easy mode. Plague inc casual difficulty. Next big things banking/currencies/and even the rest of finance, and Health / bio-tech. The cattle that gets excited and greedy about potential profit and becomes obsessed and blinded with reasons to go up (the halving, bakkt, cme futures, etc) will get slaughtered and turned into delicious steaks, smart money will keep profitting I wonder... finance becoming more advanced efficient complex... Gives an even bigger edge to the smart. And dum dums get punished harder (as Robinhood users positions demonstrate). The dum dums breed like rats, the smart (especially women) not much... So this means more brainlets money to end in the pocket of less smart players. And all the little cockroaches that were cheating before everything got computerised (floor traders) stopped making money so now only pure skill / smarts is rewarded. The smart can make more money but then have to pay for dum dums that can't even survive on their own. And get dumber and so on. Without brains humans are just animals that don't run fast and aren't very strong. Nothing is more risible that delusional dumb money that gets blinded by 1 fact and ignore everything else and gets excited. The Alcatel chart, like many others, is not available anymore. There is still a remnant on the Istanbul Stock Exchange. Those bubbles, those dumb money movements happen ALL THE TIME. And they never learn, and it gets forgotten, and it's always the same story. And they are cocky when the price goes up, and they are persuaded they can't be wrong, and they get wiped out and turn silent. History will keep repeating itself for a long long time. Don't be one of those idiot gamblers. Investing and speculating take a very large amount of learning and a very large amount of thinking. This is what happens to gamblers 99.999% of the time:
EURONEXT:ENEducation
by MrRenev
2
Biggest mistakes theory in practice.The biggest mistakes and biggest reasons why traders lose keep being repeated. It is more clear when we can see it actually happen. Here we can see the number of holders as well as the increasing money pour in into an Oil ETF while the price is going down. When it will go up those that didn't hang themselves will break even so remind me to check robintrack. United States Oil Fund number of Holders on Robinhood went parabolic as Oil prices plunged robintrack.net Nosediving right now. Trading was halted for this fund www.streetinsider.com > Stop fighting fundamentals & trends because "it's cheap" or "some indicator" > Stop averaging in losers > Cut your losses You can be sure that when they get lucky and get out in the green (and rapidely take minuscule profits) you'll hear from them, and when they get wiped out on huge losers you'll never hear that story.
NYMEX:CL1!Education
by MrRenev
1
SPY - Trade what you SEE, not what you THINK! *FEAR*Hello traders, it is worth looking at the psychological problem that appears during this tough time and that´s: "Trade what you see, not what you think" Many traders forget about their trading plan and try to change the rules to adapt to the current situation. The problem is, that nobody knows, what will happen tomorrow, in a week or month. Markets sometimes behave "irrationally". Why quotes? Because who decides whether the crisis is over? If you have backtested the Strategy, have an analysis of it and have not counted on the fundamentals (news...) during the backtest, why do you want to implement them now? The answer is simple - FEAR! Forget about it. What gives you the confidence to follow your plan? Analysis, backtest, real trading. You know what to expect from your strategy. Keep in mind - Who keeps changing course is not going anywhere... AMEX:SPY ES1! Have good trading, FINEIGHT team
AMEX:SPYEducation
by Fineight
4
Why the market doesn't just fall straight downI read so many damn comments from people claiming "manipulation" and that the markets are rigged. The usual scapegoat is the Fed "buying stocks". There's a case for those claims, sure, but maybe there's also more rationale for buying and rallying, in spite of a bear market or market crash, than those small brains can handle. First, remember that for every trade there is a buyer and a seller . You'll often hear sayings like "more buyers than sellers" or vise-versa but that's mostly incorrect.. there may be more interest in buying than selling, but if someone buys 100 shares of a stock, there is someone on the other side of the table selling those 100 shares. So what's in it for those poor schmucks that buy the bottoms? Let's dive in to a few individual stocks that got hammered and see what the thesis for buying and rallying is. Starting with Boeing $BA-- You can see that Boeing fell about 75% from recent highs from the COVID-19 crash. A masterful trader who shorted at the very top and took profits at the very bottom made some big dough. And yet, someone who bought the bottom and sold the highs only 8 days later probably made MORE* money as share prices rocketed up 110%! Subsequent movement has a 35% drop for the shorts followed by a bounce up that has so far peaked at 37% at this writing but may have a little more juice in it. So already whoever bought this second dip made more than whoever sold the dead cat bounce. Here's another one. $RCL, one of many cruise companies that have been slaughtered by the pandemic (which btw I read is NOT eligible for any govt bailout)- Following an 86% drop, RCL rallied back 157% in only 8 days. After this dead cat bounce, there was a 56% drop followed by a (thus far) 80% pop. Here's $MGM- I like to think that the saying "tie goes to the runner" in stocks applies to those who are long. Here are some quick reasons why- Speaking strictly to shares of stock and without margin, a long position's risk is limited to the investment. Someone who buys 100 shares of $BA at $89.00 can only lose $8,900. Someone who shorts 100 shares at $89 theoretically has UNLIMITED RISK and losses can exceed investment! If a short seller is stubborn and holds on to that short all the way up to (theoretically) $890 a share, they need to come up with $80,100 somehow. And there are margin fees on top of that. Imagine a massive hedge fund or other institution and instead of 100 shares it was more like 1,000,000 shares- do you think they prefer limited risk or unlimited risk? Shorts see diminishing returns. Much like someone buying 100 x $89 can only lose $8,900, someone shorting can only make a maximum $8,900. Someone buying 100 x $89 has no ceiling to their profits. Usually over a long enough time long positions turn into a good investment. There's a decent chance that 10 years from now SPY shares may trade for $1000+/share. Also that's 10 years of dividends. Casual long-term investors and avg cost'ers can understand this. There are a lot of very angry bears out there as well as confused traders/investors that keep refreshing charts of the COVID cases and deaths. They are looking at news and seeing horror headlines and economic data like unemployment #s. And they are wondering, "Why are we rallying?" Think outside the box. These are likely all 'fake rallies' and 'dead cat bounces', but that doesn't mean there isn't money to be made from buying lows and selling highs. As I discussed in my Buying vs Selling ideas, there's also the potential that we've run out of parties interested in selling their shares for only 20% of what they were. I might list a car for sale on Craiglist for $10,000 and if all I get are offers for $2,000, I might just decide to keep the car. At least for now. Someone later may offer $6,000 or I may get in a position of needing to sell and willing to accept $1,000. * One small detail: I know that buying or short selling stocks isn't the only way to trade. Someone who bought puts instead of short selling could have made a hell of a lot more than 80% profits on these plunges.
NYSE:BAEducation
by chrism665
How to monetize the debt to finesse the law"The Federal Reserve will not monetize the debt." - Ben Bernanke in 2009 while testifying before US congress. Those that did not believe this were called perma bears and fear mongering lunatics :) (Imagine being that gullible LOL!) Alot of the ones calling others perma bears and crazies are now saying they knew all along, or that no one could have seen this coming and that they were one of the earliest person to warn us. Pathetic dishonest sore losers. The saddest part is the Dunning-Kruger is so high they probably even believe it. Absolutely pathetic. What is monetizing the debt? And how is it finessing the law? First, some context. (If you don't want to wait I explain the process in this idea only screenshot below). In 1913 was passed the Federal Reserve Act, as described by congress of the time: "An Act to provide for the establishment of Federal reserve banks, to furnish an elastic currency, to afford means of rediscounting commercial paper, to establish a more effective supervision of banking in the United States, and for other purposes" (Elastic means which can inflate to adapt to the country gdp - unlike Bitcoin - it does not mean hyperinflate thought) You might have heard of the panic of 1907, a financial crisis where the NYSE fell 50% from peak in 3 little weeks. Oh my it's hard to write about this without laughing. Long story short, bankers got greedy and then got rekt. From JPMorgan site "The crisis was global. The Bank of England sent $3 million in gold to Alexandria to stop the Egyptian Stock Exchange’s slide, only to find itself short of cash. Banks throughout Japan failed. French investors sold American stocks to buy gold to send home, badly depleting U.S. reserves." And then J. P. Morgan a rich banker, with his Rockefeller and Rothschild buddies bailed everyone out. The USA had no central bank since the Bank War of the 1830s, and alot of americans now felt the need of a central bank. So the FED got created, a private entity, private and separate from government to ensure a government couldn't print whatever they wanted. Fun fact during the 1929 crash, Morgan again (the bank, not the man he was dead by then) and his buddies were the ones to (try to) buy stocks to save the stock market. Along the decades the FED power has grown, after each crisis. The USA had alot as they are a country built on massive debt and on being the world reserve currency (and used to be the most promising emerging country due to size geography potential). In 2009 the FED for the first time monetized the debt, the chairman said it was not the case, which was a big fat obvious lie, and it was supposed to "not be that bad because temporary", but of course they never have been able to liquidate their assets, and all they did was postpone the problem and make a bigger, much bigger one. Now they are saying they are going to print with no restriction, and are going to be much more aggressive than previously, so we can totally expect tens of trillions, unless it's all bluff to encourage investors to buy? So, here we have it: This is it. Germany. Zimbabwe. The US government can now print as much money as they want via their little trick. Oh btw, US bonds are trash bonds, it's like 2005-2007 all over again. The only rating agency to downgrade treasury in the 2000s was SnP (other ones were criticized for not doing so), and guess what agency was the only one to get Punished by the government? Yup. So no one is downgrading government trash bonds now of course. They could be ranked Z it wouldn't matter anyway, the federal reserve is going to buy everything the government prints. The days of the us dollar as a world reserve currency are over if they continue in this direction. What kind of idiot would use the german mark as a safe haven? Money printer go brrrr.
TVC:GOLDEducation
by MrRenev
8
One of history greatest rektageTravelling back in time to the 19th century, the time of railroad bubbles. Back then the corrupt government would make laws that prevented legitimate capitalists from fairly competing and trying to provide the greatest benefit to society, to instead let friends of theirs have a monopoly and charge honest citizen whatever they wanted to. (I will make a separate idea on this later maybe tomorrow). In 1857 he ended in a fight to gain control of the New York and Harlem Railroad, one of the only two lines with direct access to Manhattan and had some unique advantages. He later explained that he wanted to show that he could take this railroad, which was generally considered worthless, and make it valuable. Can you guess what happens next? And this is how corrupt council members and crony capitalists got rekt beyond belief. I assume Cornelius Vanderbilt had a personal army as security, to prevent him from hanging himself.
TVC:DJIEducation
by MrRenev
8