[HN Gopher] Day Trader Army Loses All the Money It Made in Meme-...
___________________________________________________________________
Day Trader Army Loses All the Money It Made in Meme-Stock Era
Author : lalaland1125
Score : 91 points
Date : 2022-05-09 21:21 UTC (1 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| givemeethekeys wrote:
| Not all. Not yet.
| tester756 wrote:
| We've detected unusual activity from your computer network
|
| To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not
| a robot.
|
| lol.
|
| and it doesn't even work, I'm in infinite loop
| soneca wrote:
| Tried to pass three times and couldn't. It just reset to the
| initial state
| wsinks wrote:
| Same, just validating you. I even recorded it with quicktime.
| arthurcolle wrote:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31319924
| jonny_eh wrote:
| It's a bad link, the correct one:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-08/day-trade...
| stuaxo wrote:
| Same here, that's 5 minutes saved in my day I guess.
| chrisseaton wrote:
| GME is still up 20x isn't it? Someone who invested in that meme
| stock won't have lost anything. I wouldn't mind those returns.
| zmgsabst wrote:
| AMC is up 3x if you bought it before the meme frenzy (Dec 20)
| -- and 20% from where I bought it during the meme frenzy (Apr
| 21).
|
| S&P500 is up 25% if you bought it before the meme frenzy and
| 33% if you bought in April, like I did.
|
| People who spotted it early are still _well_ ahead of S &P500
| -- and honestly, I wouldn't be mad at 20% vs 33% returns...
| because that meme frenzy saved AMC.
|
| Of course, I sold when it was 5-6x what I paid for it... so
| that's far and away my best performing stock of 2021.
| adders wrote:
| Wrong link, should be
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-08/day-trade...
| instead of
| https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=0ba7046d-cfde...
| jonny_eh wrote:
| Pretty revealing that a HN post can make to the front page with
| a broken link.
| gpm wrote:
| The original link works (for me), it just directs me through
| a captcha first. That's not a broken link by the usual
| meaning of the phrase, it doesn't mean people weren't reading
| the post...
| knorker wrote:
| Directed me to a captcha too. It's just that the captcha
| didn't work and "please try again".
| Havoc wrote:
| Yeah broken here too
| fragmede wrote:
| Or is it intentionally broken, as a ploy to hurt Bloomberg's
| bot detection algorithm.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| Nope, just a dumb accident. I think Bloomberg redirected me
| right before I copied the URL from the address bar ...
|
| Is there any way to easily fix the link?
| natly wrote:
| Are you implying people don't read the body of the article or
| that there's bot interference? (I can imagine either could be
| true.)
| hammock wrote:
| The former. I for one happily upvote a submission before
| reading it, to keep it on the front page which is so
| fragilely ephemeral for new submissions, so I can read the
| article and then come back to (hopefully) some good
| comments from others in the thread.
| planarhobbit wrote:
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| @dang, can you do us a favor and fix the link? I don't seem to
| be able to fix it myself.
| Someone1234 wrote:
| VTI is down 13.5% in the last three months, didn't non-meme/non-
| day traders also lose a lot of their gains for the previous
| 12-months? This seems like bait for those who were predisposed to
| believe this anyway.
| twblalock wrote:
| Based on today's prices, VTI is about where it was in February
| 2021 and if you'd bought and held before then, you'd have made
| gains.
|
| But that's not really the point: the question is, who performed
| better?
|
| At this point, as the article shows, the meme and day traders
| have underperformed the boring buy-and-hold index investors.
| timr wrote:
| The whole market is down, but when you consider that (for
| example) Netflix is down >70% from November 2021, it's a
| different level of drop.
|
| It's sort of impressive that GME is still holding out at around
| $100, however...
| Yhippa wrote:
| We have no idea who the bagholders are and who got out in time.
| commandlinefan wrote:
| The bagholders are the ones who weren't naive enough to cash
| out as soon as this became national news.
| Ekaros wrote:
| Now big question is where the smart cash is going? Real
| estate? Seems to be kinda in bubble too? Or might it make
| sense to be on the market?
| testfoobar wrote:
| Check out energy YTD.
| short_sells_poo wrote:
| Hint, smart money is buying puts on energy...
| paulmd wrote:
| makes sense, if you think the bottom's gonna fall out of
| the economy, energy usage usually goes with it.
| slig wrote:
| Are they buying anything at this moment?
| dmead wrote:
| The bond market no?
| paxys wrote:
| Let's not pretend institutional investors are doing much better.
| Look at ARKK or any of the VC funds that are heavily invested in
| startups having down rounds. And putting your 401k into "safe"
| investments during that period wouldn't have yielded much better
| results.
| ushakov wrote:
| exactly
|
| meme stocks are just a segment of a market, more riskier one of
| course, but still a part of the market
|
| if you were looking at DOW or S&500 for past couple months it's
| nothing but losses
| twblalock wrote:
| > if you were looking at DOW or S&500 for past couple days
| it's nothing but losses
|
| So? The article is about the past 2 years, not the past 2
| days.
|
| You could pick any short time period in the past few years
| that would make meme investors look good compared to the
| total market. But if you zoom out to a two year period, it's
| clear the meme investors underperformed.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| The point of the article is that they compare the meme stocks
| to the stock market as a whole. And the meme stocks are doing
| much worse.
| tapland wrote:
| This link might work:
| https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-05-08/day-trade...
| lvl102 wrote:
| Market is dramatically down but big tech earnings still very
| strong. I don't think this is the end of the story.
| twblalock wrote:
| The last few years was a perfect storm of stupidity:
|
| - The Fed juicing the market (and not stopping when it should
| have, dismissing inflation concerns as transitory, etc.)
|
| - Covid stimulus going to people who didn't need it
|
| - People spending that stimulus money to invest (often for the
| first time) on zero-fee platforms like Robin Hood
|
| - Meme stock investors intentionally manipulating stock prices to
| cause them to diverge from the underlying value of the company
|
| Despite all of that, people who bought and held a total market or
| S&P 500 index fund in 2020 have still made gains.
| testfoobar wrote:
| Add one more: 0DTE options and gamma squeezes.
| [deleted]
| dannyw wrote:
| Most importantly, the Fed Put that has been supporting markets
| since 2008 is unravelling.
| vuciv1 wrote:
| Eh, I got into the meme stocks, cashed out, and paid off my
| student loans. So, not everyone is stupid for it!
| giantg2 wrote:
| "People spending that stimulus money to invest (often for the
| first time) on zero-fee platforms like Robin Hood"
|
| You mean people gambling and trading. Very few people engaging
| in these activities are really investing.
| funstuff007 wrote:
| - The Fed juicing the market (and not stopping when it should
| have, dismissing inflation concerns as transitory, etc.)
|
| This in my mind is the key reason we as a society did not solve
| the pandemic quickly. If the investor class felt the same pain
| everyone else did, they'd be throwing their resources towards
| moving forward rather than re-locating to Palm Beach and
| complaining about the Northeast.
| usui wrote:
| Let's not forget to add the huge NFT/Web3 craze last year to
| the list. That is what, personally, signaled to me, stupidity.
| arinlen wrote:
| > - Covid stimulus going to people who didn't need it
|
| Could you please elaborate? I think the way the US did it's
| COVID stimulus was outstanding and very close to the ideal way
| to actually address people's potential needs.
|
| > - People spending that stimulus money to invest (often for
| the first time) on zero-fee platforms like Robin Hood
|
| What's exactly the problem? Aren't people free to spend their
| own money any way they feel like it? Or are we now held
| accountable by a righteous capitalism police to determine if an
| expense we make is kosher?
|
| > - Meme stock investors intentionally manipulating stock
| prices to cause them to diverge from the underlying value of
| the company
|
| What's exactly the problem? I mean, who are you to tell what's
| the "underlying value" of something, specially in a free market
| economy?
|
| It seems to me that worst case scenario the people spending
| their money on stocks are only gambling their own money, and
| best case scenario they profit from their own investment.
| JoeyBananas wrote:
| I never needed/wanted covid stimulus money, but it was
| practically jammed down my pockets by force when I did my
| taxes.
| agensaequivocum wrote:
| I bought my wife a handgun and myself an AK-47 with the last
| one. I certainly needed the weapons but not the check.
| emerged wrote:
| I lost two jobs directly due to COVID and got $0 "stimulus"
| while my sister was employed the entire time and got an
| absurd amount of free money.
|
| It wasn't a stimulus. It wasn't COVID related either. It was
| income redistribution. I might respect it to some extent if
| people called it what it was.
| spookthesunset wrote:
| > It was income redistribution.
|
| And in the end it was redistribution from the lower to the
| upper class. The last two years were the biggest wealth
| transfer in history. And "wealth" is so much more than just
| money... we absolutely screwed our kids in a way that will
| impact them for quite some time.
| deltree7 wrote:
| The second stimulus was a disaster.
|
| It has led to an unprecedented sticky-inflation that can only
| be brought down by inducing a recession.
|
| It's not that there were warned by prominent economists
| https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/11/inflation-larry-
| summ...
| twblalock wrote:
| > It seems to me that worst case scenario the people spending
| their money on stocks are only gambling their own money, and
| best case scenario they profit from their own investment.
|
| A lot of people got swept up in the hype and got left holding
| the bag after the initial set of meme investors made their
| money and got out.
| CalRobert wrote:
| I generally favour the way covid stimulus went but I suppose
| the argument would be that if it's going to people who are
| using it to buy GME maybe they didn't actually need it.
|
| Whether it _should_ only have gone to those who needed it, or
| just to everyone, is another question.
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| > Could you please elaborate? I think the way the US did it's
| COVID stimulus was outstanding and very close to the ideal
| way to actually address people's potential needs.
|
| I have a number of friends in the
| contracting/remodeling/construction industry. Demand for
| their services skyrocketed during COVID while they were all
| simultaneously working with their accountants to maximize
| their take from the COVID PPP program.
|
| Huge quantities of COVID money were pumped into companies
| that absolutely did not need it, and that's not even counting
| the massive volume of fraudulent claims. The COVID Paycheck
| Protection Program was supposed to shore up companies that
| would otherwise have to fire employees, but AFAICT nothing
| really stopped highly profitable companies from also
| collecting the money.
| arinlen wrote:
| > Huge quantities of COVID money were pumped into companies
| that absolutely did not need it (...)
|
| Since when is revenue and profit dictated by anyone's sense
| of fairness? That's an awfully moralistic and judgemental
| take on everyone else's needs and desires.
|
| Sadly this blend of judgemental view of everyone's money
| already hit small things like buying groceries. Damn the
| have-nots for generating inflation by actually stocking on
| the decent food that the well-to-do used to buy.
|
| Do you see any problem in anyone spending their own money
| in any way they'd like?
| jallen_dot_dev wrote:
| If the PPP was intended to help struggling businesses,
| but your business wasn't actually struggling due to the
| pandemic, then you didn't need it. It has nothing to do
| with fairness.
|
| > Do you see any problem in anyone spending their own
| money in any way they'd like?
|
| "How dare you tell the bank robber to return the money he
| stole. Who are you to tell him how to spend his own
| money? That's awfully moralistic and judgmental of you."
| PragmaticPulp wrote:
| I was referring to PPP loans from the government that
| were forgiven: https://www.sba.gov/funding-
| programs/loans/covid-19-relief-o...
|
| These were supposed to keep at-risk companies from
| failing when the economy crashed, but then the economy
| _didn 't_ crash and instead it was just a huge government
| handout of free money to most companies.
| TAKEMYMONEY wrote:
| Not just companies; megachurches, antivax orgs, even a
| Jan 6 rioter got a PPP loan. The most egregious examples
| are starting to be brought to justice:
| https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-convicted-27-million-
| ppp-...
| majormajor wrote:
| I think you're putting too much weight on "did the
| economy crash" here. As in, "wow, the economy didn't
| crash, we shouldn't have done anything" aka "wow, Y2K
| didn't ruin everything, we shouldn't have updated all
| that code" or "we didn't get hacked, why did we bother
| applying security updates" or similar.
|
| "We want to prevent the economy from crashing hard and
| long" is how I'd phrase motivations. Certain sectors did
| crash immediately, and yet the overall blast radius
| wasn't very large and a lot of stuff bounced back
| immediately.
|
| That seems like a great success.
|
| Loans being forgiven to generously even for companies
| that did NOT see a sustained dip in demand, on the other
| hand, is a more targeted specific problem, and a lesson
| to learn. But if you learn too broad a lesson like
| "stimulus is dumb" then you just drive yourself back off
| a difference cliff next time something exceptional
| happens.
| nradov wrote:
| A better lesson to learn is that shutting down major
| sectors of the economy was dumb. It was a total
| overreaction, and proved to be completely ineffective in
| controlling the pandemic. If politicians hasn't done that
| then there wouldn't have been a risk of an economic crash
| in the first place.
| majormajor wrote:
| > If politicians hasn't done that then there wouldn't
| have been a risk of an economic crash in the first place.
|
| This is naive and ignores the real sequence of events.
|
| Things like conferences were getting canceled before the
| first official government actions in the US. Groceries
| were being hoarded. People were paying attention to
| events. The government sticking its head in the sand or
| just repeating "everything is fine, stay calm" messages
| wouldn't have prevented any impact.
|
| _Uncertainty_ is an economic killer. And if you remember
| early on, that uncertainty also led to a lot less
| controversy over the canceled events and restrictions
| than arose later. (Though in retrospect, even many
| "paranoid" estimates back then were far less than a
| million US deaths...)
|
| Some level of stimulus was almost certain to be necessary
| regardless of official Covid actions in March 2020 unless
| you wanted to just let those companies and workers drown
| as people _chose_ to change their behavior.
|
| (The "restrictions should've been loosened earlier"
| argument is a much more reasonable one, but IMO still
| ignores how much of this was already local by winter of
| 2020, and also that at that point the initial economic
| damage was done.)
|
| (That's before getting into the recklessness of assuming
| _future_ severe novel diseases won 't be _even more
| deadly_ on limited early data...)
| aaomidi wrote:
| Just reminder that if you know any abusers, report it to
| the DoJ.
|
| These people who bought homes and shit with ppp are going
| to go to prison. I hope at least.
| dkasper wrote:
| And now recession seems to be here and they will probably
| get bailed out again.
| spamizbad wrote:
| Small business owners are a very powerful political
| force. If you are handing out checks to regular people
| (their employees) You basically have to give them
| something or they will wreck you.
| chrischen wrote:
| I agree with you they targeted small businesses pretty
| heavily with stimulus, and probably a lot of fraud
| occurred. While some of that money made it in the form of
| bonuses to employees, I bet a lot of it was soaked up by
| the frothy stock market.
| vmception wrote:
| I'll also chip in to say this was by design
|
| I have 0 or negative AGI while sometimes having gross
| income/earnings/gains in the millions I got auto-sent
| several stimulus checks of the max size, because Congress
| wrote it based on having an "AGI of $75000 and lower" or
| similar number. AGI is after most tax deductions
|
| Back to the by design part, the primary goal was to keep
| velocity in the economy high, and that means getting it to
| people with a high spend
|
| Fairness is not a factor at all
|
| Our economy works from velocity not whether one has money.
| Hoarding is worse than spending, not saying that poorer
| people would hoard just how its not a factor. It was
| designed to make maximum spending
|
| Someone prewrote it for congress they knew what they were
| doing while congress was just scared
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > Huge quantities of COVID money were pumped into companies
| that absolutely did not need it, and that's not even
| counting the massive volume of fraudulent claims. The COVID
| Paycheck Protection Program was supposed to shore up
| companies that would otherwise have to fire employees, but
| AFAICT nothing really stopped highly profitable companies
| from also collecting the money.
|
| And this was by design. The administration at the the time
| explicilty pushed for there to be no oversight at all on
| this. The opposition party at the time said it's just
| setting things up for fraud and corruption, but it was
| desired to have no oversight. Not even after the funds had
| been released (if you wanted to make an argument that
| upfront oversight would have slowed down the distribution).
|
| The administration both fired the inspectors general that
| would oversee the program, and passed laws to prevent
| transparency into the program. It was fairly controversial
| at the time, but now mostly lost in the haze of 2020
| lockdowns.
|
| https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/06/15/inspecto
| r...
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/06/16/taxpayers
| -...
| renewiltord wrote:
| It's fine. We needed a sensitive intervention, not a
| specific one. And given the time constraints, those two
| were definitely in opposition. The administration made the
| right choice.
| [deleted]
| giantg2 wrote:
| "Could you please elaborate? I think the way the US did it's
| COVID stimulus was outstanding and very close to the ideal
| way to actually address people's potential needs."
|
| Many of the people who got the stimulus checks didn't need
| them. Same with the advanced child tax credits (increases
| spending when it looks like you have more money). This was
| true for myself and many coworkers. There were others who
| needed it. It was far from perfect though.
|
| "What's exactly the problem? Aren't people free to spend
| their own money any way they feel like it?"
|
| Yes they are free to do that. It causes problems when there's
| a disconnect between value and price. Many of the activities
| were trading or gambling, which are not beneficial. That
| gambling affects prices and the market, thus affecting
| others.
|
| Think about what happens when's there's a rush on a bank. A
| bunch of people acting stupidly in large numbers can create a
| negative environment for everyone else.
| prepend wrote:
| Examples I witnessed are friends who never lost their job got
| like an extra $8k (couple working with two kids). So they
| bought stuff with it.
|
| I have multiple friends in tech who switched to remote and
| literally used the extra stimulus cash to trade with
| Robinhood and crypto.
|
| I doubt this is representative. But people making $100k who
| ended up saving money from no longer needing to commute did
| not need thousands of dollars in stimulus. Of course, it was
| neat getting the money, but it resulted in a lot of extra
| cash.
|
| Comically, I also have friends who just paid down debt and
| didn't buy anything.
|
| But my anecdotes are lucky in that I didn't know anyone who
| lost their job or got seriously ill.
| jameshart wrote:
| If someone got a stimulus check they didn't need, and put
| it all in GME, then it seems like everything has worked out
| great.
|
| Someone who did want the money (enough that they were
| willing to sell some GME stock to get to) got the money
| instead.
|
| And now the person who didn't need the money hasn't got any
| money.
|
| Justice served?
| eherot wrote:
| I feel it's worth pointing out that saving people from
| financial ruin was only part of the intent of the PPP
| legislation. The main point of a "stimulus" is to stimulate
| the economy. If your friend received money and then spent
| it on something, the legislation essentially worked as
| intended.
| prepend wrote:
| It certainly stimulated GameStop stock.
|
| I think the criticism is that the stimulus worked too
| well and we're suffering inflation and whatnot now.
| adra wrote:
| Inflation is hitting most countries aggressively now. The
| US may actually be on the conservative end of inflation
| which may have been buffered using government
| subsidies/influence, but the net takeaway is the rapid
| expansion in the world can't be explained by simply
| looking at the US's free-money-keep-buying scheme.
| gowld wrote:
| The PPP was the Paycheck Protection Plan.
|
| It was not sold as a stimulus, it was to allow businesss
| to pay furloughed employees (in a bizarre ill-thought-out
| privately-run unemployment insurance scheme) to continue
| to pay ongoing expenses.
|
| What didn't make sense, of course, is what those people
| were supposed to be buying, since the reason they were
| furloughed was because.... people weren't buying things,
| because of lockdowns and such. Hence, inflation when
| aggregate $ exceeded stuff worth buying.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| SilasX wrote:
| If they spent the extra money on secondary-market
| financial investment (like stocks or crypto), propping up
| asset prices, then that seems like it goes against the
| stimulus that the program wanted, which was to keep
| steady sales for otherwise reliable businesses.
| arinlen wrote:
| > Examples I witnessed are friends who never lost their job
| got like an extra $8k (couple working with two kids). So
| they bought stuff with it.
|
| And what's wrong with that? Aren't we talking about an
| economic stimulus program? What do you think is the whole
| point of an economic stimulus program, other than
| stimulating the economy?
| prepend wrote:
| What's wrong with it is a few things:
|
| 1) there could have been more money for people who
| actually needed it and were negatively impacted by losing
| their job or getting sick or whatnot
|
| 2) buying lots of "luxury" items drove up inflation. This
| is bad for a whole slew of reasons we are seeing now.
|
| If we wanted to stimulate the economy, we could have done
| it in more effective ways that didn't hose us.
| [deleted]
| harambae wrote:
| > Could you please elaborate?
|
| College students who weren't planning to have any income
| anyway before Covid hit. And that's at least still a
| relatively "legitimate" payout compared to the screw-ups like
| sending money to prisoners [0].
|
| But really both cases are massively massively dwarfed by
| anyone who could fog a mirror starting an LLC and getting
| $40k to $250k of PPP money. I personally know a couple people
| who should go to jail for this (but probably won't even have
| to repay the money, let alone repay with interest, let alone
| get in trouble).
|
| [0] https://www.forbes.com/sites/thomasbrewster/2022/04/05/go
| ver...
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Why do the dollar amounts always go
| Inappropriate QE >> PPP Grants >> Stimulus Check for
| undeserving person
|
| but the reporting happens in proportion / order
| Stimulus Check for undeserving person >> PPP Grants >>
| Inappropriate QE
|
| ? It's a rhetorical question, we all know why, but we don't
| have to repeat these choices in this thread.
| tmp_anon_22 wrote:
| Reminds me of water conservation focusing on personal use
| versus industrial agriculture in the middle of literal
| deserts. Or the output of a Toyota Camry versus a
| container ship.
| arinlen wrote:
| > College students who weren't planning to have any income
| anyway before Covid hit. And that's at least still a
| relatively "legitimate" payout compared to the screw-ups
| like sending money to prisoners [0].
|
| Where exactly do you see a problem with that? To put it
| differently, do you feel it's better to arbitrarily
| discriminate against elements of your society with a
| program intended to actually help everyone everywhere?
|
| More importantly, what leads you to believe that the goal
| of the COVID stimulus was to help individuals instead of
| society as a whole? Think about it for a second. In a
| moment in time where circumstances were leading to an
| unprecedented economic crunch, wouldn't a bottom-up
| consumer side stimulus help economy stay afloat?
| harambae wrote:
| Because college students yolo-ing on Gamestop options
| isn't especially productive for society.
|
| But, as I said, my bigger issue is the massive PPP fraud.
| And my issue with massive fraud on the scale of hundreds
| of billions of dollars is that the US is already deeply
| in debt.
|
| And my issue with the nation being deeply in debt is that
| future generations will have to pay for the profligate
| spending of this one, which I find immoral.
| dalbasal wrote:
| The first and second point kind of cross each other.
|
| Stimulus to _people who need it (to spend)_ is inflationary.
| Stimulus to those who don 't need it inflates stock prices.
| BoiledCabbage wrote:
| > - Covid stimulus going to people who didn't need it
|
| From the stimulus the worst of the offenses by far happend in
| the PPP for small business. It was absoutely shameful.
|
| While there was of course waste in the direct treasury payments
| to citizens, they get way overrepresented compared to what
| happened in the PPP. It's the same human nature of: If a big
| company gets 100M of our taxes for no reason, people grumble a
| bit, but if their next door neighboor gets an extra $100 and
| they don't, you never hear the end of it.
|
| The PPP was rife with waste, but by design you'll hear way more
| media and people complain about the co-worker they know of or
| cousin that spent $1000 on trading cards.
| pm90 wrote:
| If it kept businesses alive it was probably worth it. Small
| businesses take a long time to establish themselves but can
| be snuffed out pretty quickly. Many of my friends with such
| businesses barely made it and the PPP loans were _crucial_ in
| getting them through the pandemic.
| runnerup wrote:
| The purpose of the "stimulus" funds wasn't to give what was
| needed to the people who needed it. The purpose was to smooth
| out the economic whiplash. We knew there would be an enormous
| temporary dip in demand, but that structurally (long term)
| we'd still need all our businesses and couldn't really afford
| for them to go bankrupt.
|
| The money was supposed to be given to those who could spend
| it, to help keep all our small/medium/large businesses as
| healthy as possible.
| ganoushoreilly wrote:
| A startup I worked with that raised 20+ million in late 2019
| filed for ppp and got 600k+. They didn't need it but all they
| had to do was say Covid had impacted them, when truth be told
| it impacted all of us. It was a waste of tax payer dollars. I
| just hope the businesses that truly needed it were able to
| get it.
| skrtskrt wrote:
| the local immigrant mom and pop shops that needed it I'm
| sure had a hell of a time navigating the paperwork, not to
| mention trusting the government and banking system to take
| care of forgiving the loan when all the conditions were
| met.
| jokoon wrote:
| Why is there meme only in the title?
| tiahura wrote:
| Have they?
|
| GME is still 200% higher then when the "short squeeze" began.
| harambae wrote:
| GME is in a league of its own, now having a cult-like following
| around the prospect of a "Mother of all short squeezes" (MOASS)
| at some indeterminate point in the future.
|
| (I'm avoiding using excessively loaded terminology like "QAnon
| of finance" but I really can't think of a fairer way to
| describe it than a cult at this point.)
| ummonk wrote:
| It's not necessarily irrational, if you treat GME shares as
| collectables rather than investments in a profit-making
| business.
| candyman wrote:
| I hope it's finally over. For a while the market was driven by
| factors that I can't analyze or understand using my traditional
| financial frameworks. It's now back to a point where my tools
| work again. It's like all my instruments just read "Tilt" for the
| last three years. Now I get readings!
| brian_herman wrote:
| It doesn't matter how much money we lose there will always be
| more people to fill in our ranks.
| mastazi wrote:
| EDIT I was wrong, it was because of this
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31320075
|
| I get this in an infinite loop:
|
| > We've detected unusual activity from your computer network > To
| continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a
| robot.
|
| i'm assuming it could either be because they are blocking
| browsers with anti-fingerprinting or because they are blocking
| all international connections (I'm in Australia), if it's the
| latter, I wonder how long it will take before they realise they
| are losing readers LOL. (If it's the former, good riddance)
| candyman wrote:
| It's like the last three years all my instruments said "tilt" and
| none of my traditional financial analysis tools were worth a
| damn. Now I am getting readings and things are working again.
| Hope it stays this way. I expect we may overshoot on the downside
| but that's typical.
| lalaland1125 wrote:
| Archive link: https://archive.ph/7WJws
| ttyp3 wrote:
| I think we've heard this story before.
| blahblarblar wrote:
| In a bull market it's too hard to tell if you are a genius or
| taking a random walk on a rising tide. Most think they are the
| former.
| coldcode wrote:
| I can't the article it puts up some BS unusual activity warning.
| throwaway67743 wrote:
| Nope, excluding android users from their site entirely now.
| Supply archive.is instead of linking to ridiculous URL
| ushakov wrote:
| do you buy, sell or hold?
|
| personally, i'm a little spooked
| LaserDiscMan wrote:
| In terms of indexes, I find this chart quite comforting myself:
| https://www.ftportfolios.com/Common/ContentFileLoader.aspx?C...
| marvin wrote:
| I'm not touching my portfolio. I might rebalance it at some
| point. 50% global index funds, 16% emerging markets/global
| small cap/nordics. The whole point of passive investing is you
| make a philosophical decision not to get spooked when people
| get spooked.
|
| On the side of this, I also have a couple of single-company
| bets I made many years ago and won't adjust further.
|
| I expect to be underwater for a couple of years, anything
| better than that would be a pleasant surprise.
|
| A good time to increase the contributions.
| A4ET8a8uTh0 wrote:
| I... am not sure, but having seen similar movies before, I
| think given that we have an election year, any real pain that
| needs to happen will not happen prior to elections despite
| Powell's posturing.
|
| It is mildly annoying that this heuristic works so well..
| MrStonedOne wrote:
| sgarrity wrote:
| So many animations, huge blocking ads, and scrolling videos. The
| reading experience on the Bloomberg.com site was so poor that I
| lost my retirement savings.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Holding onto losing stocks gets worse after every 5% drop, you
| will think every time:bounce. By the 3-4th drop you'd be down
| like 40%. By this time you'd think it's down 40% it will bounce
| which it does 10% but then the 5% drops are back and the cycle
| continues till what's called capitulation.
| VWWHFSfQ wrote:
| Meme stocks or not, for the most part don't day traders always
| lose money? I read Malkiel's book and that seemed to be the point
| anyway.
| alfalfasprout wrote:
| Not really. Quite a few don't. It's much harder, on average, to
| make consistent returns trading actively than investing
| passively in the market as a whole though.
| FabHK wrote:
| So how do you identify whether it is luck or not?
|
| Quite a few people win in the casino.
| marvin wrote:
| I postulate that it's practically equivalent to determine
| whether someone succeeds through luck or skill, and
| actually succeeding through skill. And also that succeeding
| through skill is possible.
| jmcgough wrote:
| I think he was arguing against "chartists", people who try to
| read a random walk like they could tea leaves. But IMO most day
| traders are essentially doing that and aren't going to beat
| beta returns from the market unless they get lucky.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-09 23:00 UTC)