| | submitted by coinluv to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments] |
 | submitted by Ranzware to BitNewsLive [link] [comments] |
 | submitted by berrybookmark to CryptoCurrency [link] [comments] |
| | submitted by waqqasalvi to Coinpick [link] [comments] |
| | submitted by waqqasalvi to Coinpick [link] [comments] |
| | submitted by prnewswireadmin to cryptonewswire [link] [comments] |
| | submitted by prnewswireadmin to cryptonewswire [link] [comments] |
 | Would you like to entertain yourself with a story about one of the greatest schemes in the history and, maybe, learn a few plays? This story is about three brave autistic brothers, who almost cornered the entire commodity and how one (not so brave, but shrewd) bank did it without anyone noticing. As in any good fable – there’s a moral and a strategy that you could draw from it. submitted by negovany to wallstreetbets [link] [comments] The year is 1971. Nixon temporarily abolishes gold standard. And every temporary government program is never reversed, as you know. Trading price of gold went sky high: from 270s to 800s in two years or so. Enter Hunt brothers, sons of H. L. Hunt, oil tycoon, one of, if not the, richest man in the world at that time. Hunt family was, what one might describe as, right-wing libertarian and anti-globalist. They believed that Keynesian economics and the US shift to the left in the 60s will lead to the debasement of the US dollar and monetary collapse. Thus, return to the gold or silver standard was the way, as they thought. Allegedly, Hunts also had a feud with Rothschild family and other financial speculators, and were resentful towards the US government for doing nothing to protect their oil assets in Libya, confiscated by Gaddafi. So they started their move against America, alpha-silver bug style. In 1973 Hunts began buying all the silver they could. And, instead of just speculating futures contracts, they actually took delivery. Initial price was $1.5/oz. Silver was shipped to Switzerland in secretive and costly operations and stored in vaults (brothers feared confiscations – remember, private citizens were still prohibited from owning gold in the US). The following events are quite vivid and include the efforts to create a cartel similar to OPEC, talks with Iran and Saudi monarchs, pump and dump publicity and large scale purchases of miners. But we will spare the details, except one: Hunts even tried to corner the soy market at the same time. Reminds you how WSB slv gang quickly switched to corn gang. But the soy scheme didn't fly and they focused on silver only. Their efforts pumped the price to almost $50/oz by early 1980. At some point Hunts controlled around 230 million oz of silver and the majority of what was traded. Hunt brothers laughing at your pump&dump effort Of course, when you are such a smart ass, you become a target. Chicago exchange officials became very concerned citizens by 1979. They started issuing numerous regulations limiting the amount of market share one can accumulate in one hands. As all American concerned citizens, they had financial incentive to do so: Hunts managed to prove that Chicago exchange board members had short positions against silver. Finally, CFTC (Commodity Futures Trading Commission) issued a ruling that basically forced Hunts to liquidate part of their portfolio by February 1980. This sent silver prices down dramatically and brothers started to get margin calls which they could not cover. And so their story ended with bankruptcies and heavy fines for the family. Shortly after, Reagan and Volcker raised interest rates and silver price never recovered to $50/oz ever since. We skip to the year 2008. Global financial crisis is in full swing. Bear Stearns is royally fucked, as due to all bears. Before the music was over, they mastered paper speculation of futures contracts like no one else. Bear Stearns accumulated world biggest naked short position on silver. What could go wrong? Stonks go up, silver goes down. Until it reversed and silver skyrocketed from $11 to $21. This became one of the margin calls to screw Bear Stearns. JP Morgan is asked by the FED and co. to buy out BS and to save the entire market. Since BS's shorts are now deeply down - JPM gets the whole bank with pennies on a dollar. But the problem is that JPM themselves have massive naked short position on silver. Combined with BS it will exceed anything permitted by the CFTC. Since Obama administration was in a rush, they push CFTC to grant JPM basically a carte blanche to accumulate any position over the limit for a period of time. Period of time comes due and turns out that JPM not only didn’t trim the shorts significantly – they even bought more shorts at some point. Even with all the fines, it went very much their way, because in 2009 silver dropped. So they pocketed hundreds of millions of dollars. But come 2011 and silver spiked again, dramatically. JPM, now bleeding cash on shorts, could close short positions, like any of us would do, right? Nope, fuckyall says JPM and starts hedging short futures positions with… physical silver. 'But wouldn’t that be even more control over the commodity?' - you might ask. See, nothing in the rules of CFTC says you can’t do that, because to help cronies speculate with paper futures contracts, made of thin air, CFTC basically started treating physical silver and futures as two different instruments (it’s, actually, even more complicated than that: google difference between physical, eligible, registered and so on). In the next 9 years JPM becomes the world biggest holder of both short contracts and physical silver. The later they 'loaned' to SLV trust, of which they are custodian. This way upkeep of physical silver, which otherwise would be a liability for hedging, becomes an asset, because we, retards, who own SLV pay the maintenance. People are often confused here, because SLV is issued by Black Rock, not JPM. Well, there is a difference between being an operator of a financial instrument and being a custodian providing backing. Now, to confuse you even more – JPM is one of the major holders of Black Rock itself with 1.6% or sth like that. By estimates of Theodore Butler, JPM acquired 900 million oz of physical silver since 2011. That’s 4 times more than what Hunts owned. Just shows you, that banks can get a pass with something that even the richest individuals can not. And you have to give it to JPM - their play was very clever. Instead of risking it all on a margin call, they make money on every turn. As of 2020, JPM still holds both shitton of physical silver and short COMEX contracts. You can call this the most epic straddle of all time. With such mass they can swing prices in any directions and profit from this on any given day. Latest example you’ve seen on the August 11th. Why am I bothering your poor gambling soul with this wall of text, you might ask? Market makers manipulate the market as they please, what’s new about that? Well, here we come to the conclusions and a strategy. How can a small retard replicate what the big boys are doing? Conclusions:
a) Only long expiration dates and calls; no weekly expiration, not even monthly. Ideally – at least half year options; b) Go long on certain silver stocks. Maybe I’ll do a write up on good silver stocks to buy; c) Sell covered calls on long positions; d) Buy 1-3 month puts on your long positions as a hedge; Now, day trade with those positions: on red days sell your puts and buy back covered calls. On green days – reload puts and sell calls. Repeat until lambo. P. S.: I gathered these facts from the open sources, since these events were of interest to me. Some facts are intentionally oversimplified, google for more details, there are good reads. And feel free to correct me if you know contradictory facts. P. P. S.: JPM, plz don’t whack me. |
Richard Dobatse, a Navy medic in San Diego, dabbled infrequently in stock trading. But his behavior changed in 2017 when he signed up for Robinhood, a trading app that made buying and selling stocks simple and seemingly free.
Mr. Dobatse, now 32, said he had been charmed by Robinhood’s one-click trading, easy access to complex investment products, and features like falling confetti and emoji-filled phone notifications that made it feel like a game. After funding his account with $15,000 in credit card advances, he began spending more time on the app.
As he repeatedly lost money, Mr. Dobatse took out two $30,000 home equity loans so he could buy and sell more speculative stocks and options, hoping to pay off his debts. His account value shot above $1 million this year — but almost all of that recently disappeared. This week, his balance was $6,956.
“When he is doing his trading, he won’t want to eat,” said his wife, Tashika Dobatse, with whom he has three children. “He would have nightmares.”
Millions of young Americans have begun investing in recent years through Robinhood, which was founded in 2013 with a sales pitch of no trading fees or account minimums. The ease of trading has turned it into a cultural phenomenon and a Silicon Valley darling, with the start-up climbing to an $8.3 billion valuation. It has been one of the tech industry’s biggest growth stories in the recent market turmoil.
But at least part of Robinhood’s success appears to have been built on a Silicon Valley playbook of behavioral nudges and push notifications, which has drawn inexperienced investors into the riskiest trading, according to an analysis of industry data and legal filings, as well as interviews with nine current and former Robinhood employees and more than a dozen customers. And the more that customers engaged in such behavior, the better it was for the company, the data shows.
Thanks for reading The Times. Subscribe to The Times More than at any other retail brokerage firm, Robinhood’s users trade the riskiest products and at the fastest pace, according to an analysis of new filings from nine brokerage firms by the research firm Alphacution for The New York Times.
In the first three months of 2020, Robinhood users traded nine times as many shares as E-Trade customers, and 40 times as many shares as Charles Schwab customers, per dollar in the average customer account in the most recent quarter. They also bought and sold 88 times as many risky options contracts as Schwab customers, relative to the average account size, according to the analysis.
The more often small investors trade stocks, the worse their returns are likely to be, studies have shown. The returns are even worse when they get involved with options, research has found.
This kind of trading, where a few minutes can mean the difference between winning and losing, was particularly hazardous on Robinhood because the firm has experienced an unusual number of technology issues, public records show. Some Robinhood employees, who declined to be identified for fear of retaliation, said the company failed to provide adequate guardrails and technology to support its customers.
Those dangers came into focus last month when Alex Kearns, 20, a college student in Nebraska, killed himself after he logged into the app and saw that his balance had dropped to negative $730,000. The figure was high partly because of some incomplete trades.
“There was no intention to be assigned this much and take this much risk,” Mr. Kearns wrote in his suicide note, which a family member posted on Twitter.
Like Mr. Kearns, Robinhood’s average customer is young and lacks investing know-how. The average age is 31, the company said, and half of its customers had never invested before.
Some have visited Robinhood’s headquarters in Menlo Park, Calif., in recent years to confront the staff about their losses, said four employees who witnessed the incidents. This year, they said, the start-up installed bulletproof glass at the front entrance.
“They encourage people to go from training wheels to driving motorcycles,” Scott Smith, who tracks brokerage firms at the financial consulting firm Cerulli, said of Robinhood. “Over the long term, it’s like trying to beat the casino.”
At the core of Robinhood’s business is an incentive to encourage more trading. It does not charge fees for trading, but it is still paid more if its customers trade more.
That’s because it makes money through a complex practice known as “payment for order flow.” Each time a Robinhood customer trades, Wall Street firms actually buy or sell the shares and determine what price the customer gets. These firms pay Robinhood for the right to do this, because they then engage in a form of arbitrage by trying to buy or sell the stock for a profit over what they give the Robinhood customer.
This practice is not new, and retail brokers such as E-Trade and Schwab also do it. But Robinhood makes significantly more than they do for each stock share and options contract sent to the professional trading firms, the filings show.
For each share of stock traded, Robinhood made four to 15 times more than Schwab in the most recent quarter, according to the filings. In total, Robinhood got $18,955 from the trading firms for every dollar in the average customer account, while Schwab made $195, the Alphacution analysis shows. Industry experts said this was most likely because the trading firms believed they could score the easiest profits from Robinhood customers.
Vlad Tenev, a founder and co-chief executive of Robinhood, said in an interview that even with some of its customers losing money, young Americans risked greater losses by not investing in stocks at all. Not participating in the markets “ultimately contributed to the sort of the massive inequalities that we’re seeing in society,” he said.
Mr. Tenev said only 12 percent of the traders active on Robinhood each month used options, which allow people to bet on where the price of a specific stock will be on a specific day and multiply that by 100. He said the company had added educational content on how to invest safely.
He declined to comment on why Robinhood makes more than its competitors from the Wall Street firms. The company also declined to comment on Mr. Dobatse or provide data on its customers’ performance.
Robinhood does not force people to trade, of course. But its success at getting them do so has been highlighted internally. In June, the actor Ashton Kutcher, who has invested in Robinhood, attended one of the company’s weekly staff meetings on Zoom and celebrated its success by comparing it to gambling websites, said three people who were on the call.
Mr. Kutcher said in a statement that his comment “was not intended to be a comparison of business models nor the experience Robinhood provides its customers” and that it referred “to the current growth metrics.” He added that he was “absolutely not insinuating that Robinhood was a gambling platform.”
ImageRobinhood’s co-founders and co-chief executives, Baiju Bhatt, left, and Vlad Tenev, created the company to make investing accessible to everyone. Robinhood’s co-founders and co-chief executives, Baiju Bhatt, left, and Vlad Tenev, created the company to make investing accessible to everyone.Credit...via Reuters Robinhood was founded by Mr. Tenev and Baiju Bhatt, two children of immigrants who met at Stanford University in 2005. After teaming up on several ventures, including a high-speed trading firm, they were inspired by the Occupy Wall Street movement to create a company that would make finance more accessible, they said. They named the start-up Robinhood after the English outlaw who stole from the rich and gave to the poor.
Robinhood eliminated trading fees while most brokerage firms charged $10 or more for a trade. It also added features to make investing more like a game. New members were given a free share of stock, but only after they scratched off images that looked like a lottery ticket.
The app is simple to use. The home screen has a list of trendy stocks. If a customer touches one of them, a green button pops up with the word “trade,” skipping many of the steps that other firms require.
Robinhood initially offered only stock trading. Over time, it added options trading and margin loans, which make it possible to turbocharge investment gains — and to supersize losses.
The app advertises options with the tagline “quick, straightforward & free.” Customers who want to trade options answer just a few multiple-choice questions. Beginners are legally barred from trading options, but those who click that they have no investing experience are coached by the app on how to change the answer to “not much” experience. Then people can immediately begin trading.
Before Robinhood added options trading in 2017, Mr. Bhatt scoffed at the idea that the company was letting investors take uninformed risks.
“The best thing we can say to those people is ‘Just do it,’” he told Business Insider at the time.
In May, Robinhood said it had 13 million accounts, up from 10 million at the end of 2019. Schwab said it had 12.7 million brokerage accounts in its latest filings; E-Trade reported 5.5 million.
That growth has kept the money flowing in from venture capitalists. Sequoia Capital and New Enterprise Associates are among those that have poured $1.3 billion into Robinhood. In May, the company received a fresh $280 million.
“Robinhood has made the financial markets accessible to the masses and, in turn, revolutionized the decades-old brokerage industry,” Andrew Reed, a partner at Sequoia, said after last month’s fund-raising.
Image Robinhood shows users that its options trading is free of commissions. Robinhood shows users that its options trading is free of commissions. Mr. Tenev has said Robinhood has invested in the best technology in the industry. But the risks of trading through the app have been compounded by its tech glitches.
In 2018, Robinhood released software that accidentally reversed the direction of options trades, giving customers the opposite outcome from what they expected. Last year, it mistakenly allowed people to borrow infinite money to multiply their bets, leading to some enormous gains and losses.
Robinhood’s website has also gone down more often than those of its rivals — 47 times since March for Robinhood and 10 times for Schwab — according to a Times analysis of data from Downdetector.com, which tracks website reliability. In March, the site was down for almost two days, just as stock prices were gyrating because of the coronavirus pandemic. Robinhood’s customers were unable to make trades to blunt the damage to their accounts.
Four Robinhood employees, who declined to be identified, said the outage was rooted in issues with the company’s phone app and servers. They said the start-up had underinvested in technology and moved too quickly rather than carefully.
Mr. Tenev said he could not talk about the outage beyond a company blog post that said it was “not acceptable.” Robinhood had recently made new technology investments, he said.
Plaintiffs who have sued over the outage said Robinhood had done little to respond to their losses. Unlike other brokers, the company has no phone number for customers to call.
Mr. Dobatse suffered his biggest losses in the March outage — $860,000, his records show. Robinhood did not respond to his emails, he said, adding that he planned to take his case to financial regulators for arbitration.
“They make it so easy for people that don’t know anything about stocks,” he said. “Then you go there and you start to lose money.”
 | submitted by dhsmatt2 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments] Just about how I feel Alright ladies and Gentleman- Many of you gambled with me on a purple earnings play and it didn't quite materialize as expected - I hope many of you purchased some of the lower more conservative debit spreads as they should be profitable still. Current Moves I took some time on earnings day, after hours to unload some shares as well as warrants with the expectation that the sell off would push us down to around 20.00, it appears that the selloff is mostly done as we've dropped about 4.5 from Thursday intraday peak. I have begun selling cash secured puts for September expiration, 20.00 strike As I do not believe purple will drop past 18.65, which is the breakeven point for those puts. Awesome quarter but not as awesome as expected Alright, even though Purple didn't come close to my 225M estimate, it still had an amazing quarter in terms of fundaments. Purple achieved about 122M in revenue in Q1 and 165M in revenue in Q2, that is an impressive feat, especially considering they appeared to shutdown operations for a couple of weeks and that created deferred orders for Q3. Adjusted earnings of 60+ cents per share, this excludes one time charges. This is actually an impressive number and beat many of the analysts expectations. The headlines showing the miss reported on GAAP, not adjusted. Joe Megibow indicated that PRPL would have about 1B in capacity by the end of 2021, that is definitely an excellent reason to hold your investment or look for an entry. After the call there were still price upgrades from almost every analyst as the year over year growth is very very impressive, especially for a manufacturing company. Tip ranks price targets as of 11PM eastern Going forward I believe the worst of the sell off is over and I expect that we will likely trade in the 21-25 dollar range from now until the next earnings. I have since exited about 60K shares of stock and about 60K warrants as I believe cash secured puts are a better play for the next couple of months. I will be selling puts for 20.00. on my remaining shares I will be selling covered call with 30 strikes. I am also still holding my 22.5/25.00 debit spreads for October and I will hold my 25/30 and 25/35 debit spreads for January as I believe November could be a very very good earnings as the stock price will hopefully trade only slightly up and the accrual for warrants will be much smaller. Revenue possibilities for Q3. I believe that Q3 max revenue will likely be in the 200 Million range. This is due to PRPL running full production for 12 weeks instead of 10 and the additional 7th machine that is available for the entire quarter rather than just a single month of the quarter. I believe that Purple will not quite achieve 200M in revenue because there will be a shift into wholesale that will push down top line, slightly, this is based on the comments from the calls. I believe purple will likely only achieve about 15% more revenue in Q3 than Q2, which is still impressive. This is my quick envelope calculation. It is still early but I expect somewhere in the 180-190M range and gross Margin around 46-47%. Capital structure I was optimistic that this quarter would push us to a point where we could clean up the warrant situation but it appears that we will have another quarter of accruals and reversals. I was asked by u/indonesian_activist to detail the capital structure, I will try to do that in a follow on post as it is not as clean as I'd like but I don't believe it is a show stopper as the company is still producing healthy amounts of cash, gross margin improvement and market share improvement. The capital structure is also promising because the founders still have a large stake in the company. Founder led companies are very very good. My positions before and through earnings No I didn't sell anything before the call. The first transaction In my account on 8/13 is selling warrants for 5.00 (which is cheaper than they are going for now and cheaper than they went for at any other time that earnings day). i was hoping to re-purchase if the stock plummeted, which it didn't so it cost be about 75K between shares and warrants. I've broken down my first trade details and then shown a summary of every subsequent purchase. This is probably the last time I will go into this detail because it's time consuming, but i held every penny through earnings. First After hours trade on 8/13, just above 8/12. First trade is the 509.98 shown above, each following trade is above- goes from newest to oldest as the list goes down. Current Position as of tonight I sold 400 CSP contracts on Friday and I sold my 22.5 calls for about 1.00 on Friday as well as they were almost as expensive as the day I bought them. I am now holding a naked position as I have -2910 25.00 PRPL calls in the market. I am holding the remainder of my calls and debit spreads. I hope you guys made out ok- most of the more conservative spreads are still net positive. I will not lie about my moves but I also am not going to post my moves real time as sometimes they are time sensitive. https://preview.redd.it/wop4lqmsnhh51.jpg?width=444&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=a20cd3225354ec8ecb02575d445f4edff29d7665 https://preview.redd.it/gjp9squwnhh51.jpg?width=435&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=36fc2b3e785fc78a8335385cd13f48b3277a9015 God speed Autists. Do your own research- I learned all my investing skills through Tik Tok. Matt |
![BULLISH $SQ $DKNG $BA Option Plays [07/21/2020]](https://a.thumbs.redditmedia.com/-9mOImfyMqHjQZ4p-2qCT1L0DkweyVcZnkawcJ5NZP4.jpg "BULLISH $SQ $DKNG $BA Option Plays [07/21/2020]") | Recap submitted by iKalculated to wallstreetbets [link] [comments] Previous Research: https://www.reddit.com/options/comments/hrbexa/bullish_options_plays_24_month_horizon/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x https://www.reddit.com/options/comments/huwfat/short_long_option_plays_07202020/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x This post covers Option Plays for $SQ, $DKNG, $BA The time frame of these options are 3-6 months out, to avoid Theta burn and maximize ITM potential. The beauty of long plays is that the stock only needs to move a few % to be profitable, with a long time horizon as a hedge. Close the position within 2-4 months to minimize theta and maximize delta opportunity. I have also included a shorter time frame with higher risk/reward and lower premiums. Short plays are laid out, but not recommended. 1) Square, Inc $SQ [Information Technology Services] - BULLISH Square, Inc. engages in the provision of credit card payment processing solutions. It is a cohesive commerce ecosystem that helps sellers start, run, and grow their businesses. The firms sellers downloads the Square Point of Sale mobile app, they can quickly and easily take their first payment, typically within minutes. Bullish Square Case: The ongoing shift toward electronic payments has created, and will continue to create, room for acquirers to see strong growth without stealing share from each other. Ancillary services are becoming a more critical engine for growth and will help Square fully monetize its merchant client base and improve margins. Electronic payment growth is shifting overseas, and Square’s business model looks portable into international markets, as the company does not rely on a large local salesforce to attract merchants. $SQ profile, from FindMarketPlays early access platform In both previous research posts, I discussed the bullish case of Twitter hinging on a successful subscription platform. Source: https://www.theverge.com/2020/7/8/21317266/twitter-subscription-platform-codename-gryphon-job-listing Subscription platforms require a reliable payment processor. Guess who Dorsey is going to choose to process payments for Twitter's subscription platform? $SQ overlaid with $SHOP, following the same trajectory $SHOP is trading at a 69x Price to Revenue multiple, with -$1.16 EPS. $SQ is trading at a 11x Price to Revenue multiple, with $0.72 EPS. Not only is $SQ profitable, it is in a similar niche to $SHOP and has a huge growth opportunity with Twitter's subscription platform. Let's take a look at the unusual options activity scanner: $2 Million in $97.5 calls, expiring Aug 21. Earnings Aug 5 $190 Jan 15 Calls $100 Jan 15 Calls Big bullish bets on $SQ, notably dated around Jan 15. Coincidentally, that is the timeframe I pegged for $TWTR $40 Calls, and for the Subscription platform to be announced. Personal Experience: I set up a Shopify site for a girl I know who started a brick-and-mortar clothing store. She is... technologically challenged, to say the least. Guess what she used for payments in retail? Square. Even with Shopify's poor integration with Square, she stuck with it (Against my advice for inventory & tracking purposes). As states reopen, and smaller brick and mortars are back, farmers markets, carnivals, etc, expect growth from $SQ. I am eyeing a $118-$122 entry to incorporate the stock into my portfolio, and purchase options. With this information, I propose: Short Term Play [HIGH RISK]: SQ $130c Aug 7 2020, trading at $6.57 at time of writing. 41% Probability ITM. Earnings Aug 05 2020. Long Term Play: SQ $160c Jan 15 2021, trading $11.03 at time of writing. 23% Probability ITM 2) DraftKings, Inc $DKNG [Internet Software/Services] - BULLISH DraftKings, Inc. operates as a digital sports entertainment and gaming company. It provides online and retail sports wagering offerings, online daily fantasy contests and online casino games. $DKNG profile, from FindMarketPlays early access platform Currently, only 5 states have legal online gambling [Delaware, Nevada, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia]. 23 states have Sports Betting legal and or in legislation. From https://investmentu.com/sports-betting-stocks/ Focus on casino gambling! You can gamble at a casino whether there are sports on or not, and the following states are most likely to legalize online casino gambling in the next 12 months [based on legislation]:
Source: https://www.bettingusa.com/states/ $DKNG overlaid with $PENN, following the same trajectory 52 Week high for $DKNG is $44. With Americans sitting at home, legalizing online gambling makes sense financially for governments and to satiate the appetite of the restless, short-attention span population. Let's take a look at the unusual options activity scanner: A stream of bullish plays, ranging from $30 to $40, expiring July 24 and Aug 21. $DKNG is both a stock and option play. I am eyeing a $28-$30 entry to incorporate the stock into my portfolio, and purchase options. Personal Experience: A buddy of mine ran an (illegal) sports book in college, and netted 6 figures over the course of four years. Tons of potential tax dollars on the line. With this information, I propose: Short Term Play [HIGH RISK]: DKNG $40 Aug 21 2020, trading at $3.50 at time of writing. 36.5% Probability ITM. Earnings Aug 13 2020.\*21,690 open interest in this position, which would control 2.2 MILLION Shares*\** Long Term Play: DKNG $45c Jan 15 2021, trading $6.70 at time of writing. 28% Probability ITM 3) Boeing, Co $BA [Aerospace & Defense] - BULLISH Boeing is the cornerstone of millions of stock portfolios. I remember hawking the stock price while on vacation in Paris, when the plane crashed in March '19. My ex was pissed. I was more pissed for not picking up some stock and options when it bottomed around $100 a few months ago. Bullish Boeing case: Boeing has a large backlog that covers several years of production for the most popular aircraft, which gives us confidence in aggregate demand for aerospace products. Boeing is well-positioned to benefit from emerging market growth in revenue passenger kilometers and a robust developed market replacement cycle over the next two decades. We expect that commercial airframe manufacturing will remain a duopoly over the foreseeable future. We think customers will not have many options other than continuing to rely on incumbent aircraft suppliers. $BA profile, from FindMarketPlays early access platform COVID-19 has been a blessing in disguise for $BA. COVID-19 gifted $BA time, the most important thing they needed to fix their issues. Airlines are not flying, so it is excusable for $BA to have cancelled orders. Finally, as long as the oil-based dollar is the global currency, $BA will be in business selling weapons. $BA overlaid with $RTX, another major defense contractor. Despite the airline issues, $BA is tracking $RTX, because defense is where the big money is. Let's take a look at the unusual options activity scanner: $1.3 Million in $195 Sept 18 Calls $800K in $180 Aug 21 Calls Earnings is July 29th, but this is not an earnings play. The stock is consolidating in the $170-$180 range, a huge support and resistance in 2020. I am eyeing a $165-$170 entry to incorporate the stock into my portfolio, and purchase options. With this information, I propose: Short Term Play [HIGH RISK]: BA $200c Oct 16 2020, trading at $14.01 at time of writing. 31% Probability ITM. Long Term Play: BA $240c Jun 18 2021, trading $18.75 at time of writing. 20% Probability ITM Conclusion Based on my research, $SQ stands to gain from $TWTR news, $DKNG is poised to dominate online gambling, $BA is slowly recovering, and will not fail. TL,DR: Short Term Play [HIGH RISK]: SQ $130c Aug 7 2020, trading at $6.57 at time of writing. 41% Probability ITM. Earnings Aug 05 2020. DKNG $40 Aug 21 2020, trading at $3.50 at time of writing. 36.5% Probability ITM. Earnings Aug 13 2020.\*21,690 open interest in this position, which would control 2.2 MILLION Shares*\** BA $200c Oct 16 2020, trading at $14.01 at time of writing. 31% Probability ITM. Long Term Play: SQ $160c Jan 15 2021, trading $11.03 at time of writing. 23% Probability ITM DKNG $45c Jan 15 2021, trading $6.70 at time of writing. 28% Probability ITM BA $240c Jun 18 2021, trading $18.75 at time of writing. 20% Probability ITM Final Note: I will include the stock with the most mentions on this thread in my next analysis post. Will try to get to all your questions this time. This reddit post is not investment advice - do thorough research before ever investing. Platform used is FindMarketPlays. Check my profile for a Demo. Enter your email here to know when it launches: https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLSeUTcj420FlNTpk4Ynozlbi3CuxhaIu6HJkyHLxAfZpFfG37w/viewform?usp=pp_url |
 | Alright CYKAS, Drill Sgt. Retarded TQQQ Burry is in the house. Listen up, I'm gonna train yo monkey asses to make some motherfucking money. submitted by dlkdev to wallstreetbets [link] [comments] “Reeee can’t read, strike?” - random_wsb_autistBitch you better read if you want your Robinhood to look like this: gainz, bitch Why am I telling you this? Because I like your dumb asses. Even dickbutts like cscqb4. And because I like seeing Wall St. fucking get rekt. Y’all did good until now, and Wall St. is salty af. Just google for “retail traders” news if you haven’t seen it, and you’ll see the salty tears of Wall Street assholes. And I like salty Wall St. assholes crying like bitches. https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/retail-investors-are-crushing-hedge-funds-again That said, some of you here are really motherfucking dense & the sheer influx of retardation has been driving away some of the more knowledgeable folks on this sub. In fact, in my last post, y'all somehow managed to downvote to shit the few guys that really understood the points I was making and tried to explain it to you poo-slinging apes. Stop that shit yo! A lot of you need to sit the fuck down, shut your fucking mouth and listen. So I'm going to try and turn you rag-tag band of dimwits into a respectable army of peasants that can clap some motherfucking Wall Street cheeks. Then, I'm going to give you a mouthbreather-proof trade that I don't think even you knuckleheads can mess up (though I may be underestimating you). If you keep PM-ing me about your stupid ass losses after this, I will find out where you live and personally, PERSONALLY, shit on your doorstep. This is going to be a long ass post. Read the damned post. I don't care if you're dyslexic, use text-to-speech. Got ADHD? Pop your addys, rub one out, and focus! Are you 12? Make sure to go post in the paper trading contest thread first. THE RULES:
This shit is targeted at the mouthbreathers, but maybe more knowledgeable folk’ll find some useful info, idk. How do you know if you’re in the mouthbreather category? If your answer to any of the following questions is yes, then you are:
Table of Contents: I. Maybe, just maybe, I know what I’m talking about II. Post-mortem of the February - March 2020 Great Depression III. Mouthbreather's bootcamp on managing a position – THE TECHNICALS IV. Busting your retarded myths V. LIQUIDITY NUKE INBOUND VI. The mouthbreather-proof trade - The Akimbo VII. Quick hints for non-mouthbreathers Chapter I - Maybe, just maybe, I know what I’m talking about I'm not here to rip you off. Every fucking time I post something, a bunch of dumbasses show up saying I'm selling you puts or whatever the fuck retarded thoughts come through their caveman brains. "hurr durr OP retarded, OP sell puts" - random_wsb_autistSit down, Barney, I'm not here to scam you for your 3 cents on OTM puts. Do I always get it right? Of course not, dumbasses. Eurodollar play didn't work out (yet). Last TQQQ didn't work out (yet). That’s just how it goes. Papa Buffet got fucked on airlines. Plain retard Burry bought GME. What do you fucking expect? Meanwhile, I keep giving y'all good motherfucking plays:
Chapter II. Post-mortem of the February - March 2020 Great Depression Do you really understand what happened? Let's go through it. I got in puts on 2/19, right at the motherfucking top, TQQQ at $118. I told you on 2/24 TQQQ ($108) was going to shit, and to buy fucking puts, $90ps, $70ps, $50ps, all the way to 3/20 $30ps. You think I just pulled that out of my ass? You think I just keep getting lucky, punks? Do you have any idea how unlikely that is? Well, let's take a look at what the fuckstick Kevin Cook from Zacks wrote on 3/5: How Many Sigmas Was the Flash Correction Plunge? "Did you know that last week's 14% plunge in the S&P 500 SPY was so rare, by statistical measures, that it shouldn't happen once but every 14,000 years?" On 3/5, TQQQ closed at $81. I just got lucky, right? You should buy after a 5-sigma move, right? That's what fuckstick says: "Big sigma moves happen all the time in markets, more than any other field where we collect and analyze historical data, because markets are social beasts subject to "wild randomness" that is not found in the physical sciences.Ahahaha, fuckstick bought TQQQ at $70, cuz that's what you do after a random 5-sigma move, right? How many of you dumbasses did the same thing? Don't lie, I see you buying 3/5 on this TQQQ chart: https://preview.redd.it/9ks35zdla5151.png?width=915&format=png&auto=webp&s=2c90d08494c52a1b874575ee233624e61ac27620 Meanwhile, on 3/3, I answered the question "Where do you see this ending up at in the next couple weeks? I have 3/20s" with "under 30 imo". Well good fucking job, because a week later on 3/11, TQQQ closed at $61, and it kept going. Nomura: Market staring into the abyss "The plunge in US equities yesterday (12 March) pushed weekly returns down to 7.7 standard deviations below the norm. In statistical science, the odds of a greater-than seven-sigma event of this kind are astronomical to the point of being comical (about one such event every 160 billion years).Let's see what Stephen Mathai-Davis, CFA, CQF, WTF, BBQ, Founder and CEO of Q.ai - Investing Reimagined, a Forbes Company, and a major fucktard has to say at this point: "Our AI models are telling us to buy SPY (the SPDR S&P500 ETF and a great proxy for US large-cap stocks) but since all models are based on past data, does it really make sense? "Good job, fuckfaces. Y'all bought this one too, admit it. I see you buying on this chart: https://preview.redd.it/s9344geza5151.png?width=915&format=png&auto=webp&s=ebaef4b1414d901e6dafe354206ba39eb03cb199 Well guess what, by 3/18, a week later, we did get another 5 standard deviation move. TQQQ bottomed on 3/18 at $32.73. Still think that was just luck, punk? You know how many sigmas that was? Over 12 god-damn sigmas. 12 standard deviations. I'd have a much better chance of guessing everyone's buttcoin private key, in a row, on the first try. That's how unlikely that is. https://preview.redd.it/luz0s3kbb5151.png?width=587&format=png&auto=webp&s=7542973d56c42e13efd3502331ac6cc5aea42630 "Hurr durr you said it's going to 0, so you're retarded because it didn't go to 0" - random_wsb_autistYeah, fuckface, because the Fed bailed ‘em out. Remember the $150b “overnight repo” bazooka on 3/17? That’s what that was, a bailout. A bailout for shitty funds and market makers like Trump's handjob buddy Kenny Griffin from Citadel. Why do you think Jamie Dimon had a heart attack in early March? He saw all the dogshit that everyone put on his books. https://preview.redd.it/8fqvt37ama151.png?width=3711&format=png&auto=webp&s=0b06ee5101685c5274c6641a62ee9eb1a2a3f3ee Read: https://dealbreaker.com/2020/01/griffin-no-show-at-white-house https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/11/bank-ceos-convene-in-washington-with-president-trump-on-coronavirus.html https://www.proactiveinvestors.co.uk/companies/news/914736/market-makers--didn-t-show-up-for-work--macro-risk-ceo-says-914736.html https://www.chicagobusiness.com/finance-banking/chicago-trading-firms-seek-more-capital https://www.housingwire.com/articles/did-non-qm-just-disappear-from-the-market/ https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-03-22/bruised-hedge-funds-ask-clients-for-fresh-cash-to-buy-the-dip https://fin24.com/Markets/Bonds/rand-bonds-rally-after-reserve-bank-intervention-20200320 Yup, everyone got clapped on their stupidly leveraged derivatives books. It seems Citadel is “too big to fail”. On 3/18, the payout on 3/20 TQQQ puts alone if it went to 0 was $468m. And every single TQQQ put expiration would have had to be paid. Tens or hundreds of billions on TQQQ puts alone. I’d bet my ass Citadel was on the hook for a big chunk of those. And that’s just a drop in the bucket compared to all the other blown derivative trades out there. https://preview.redd.it/9ww27p2qb5151.png?width=2485&format=png&auto=webp&s=78f24265f3ea08fdbb37a4325f15ad9b61b0c694 Y’all still did good, 3/20 closed at $35. That’s $161m/$468m payoff just there. I even called you the bottom on 3/17, when I saw that bailout: "tinygiraffe21 1 point 2 months ago "hurr durr, it went lower on 3/18 so 3/17 wasn't the bottom" - random_wsb_autistIdiot, I have no way of knowing that Billy boy Ackman was going to go on CNBC and cry like a little bitch to make everyone dump, so he can get out of his shorts. Just like I have no way of knowing when the Fed decides to do a bailout. But you react to that, when you see it. Do you think "Oh no world's ending" and go sell everything? No, dumbass, you try to figure out what Billy's doing. And in this case it was pretty obvious, Billy saw the Fed train coming and wanted to close his shorts. So you give the dude a hand, quick short in and out, and position for Billy dumping his short bags. Video of Billy & the Fed train Here's what Billy boy says: “But if they don’t, and the government takes the right steps, this hedge could be worth zero, and the stock market could go right back up to where it was. So we made the decision to exit.”https://www.businessinsider.sg/bill-ackman-explains-coronavirus-trade-single-best-all-time-podcast-2020-5 Also, “the single best trade of all time.” my ass, it was only a 100-bagger. I gave y’all a 150-bagger. So how could I catch that? Because it wasn't random, yo. And I'm here to teach your asses how to try to spot such potential moves. But first, the technical bootcamp. Chapter III. Mouthbreather's bootcamp on managing a position – THE TECHNICALS RULE 1. YOU NEVER BUY OPTIONS AT OPEN. You NEVER OVERPAY for an option. You never FOMO into buying too fast. You NEVER EVER NEVER pump the premium on a play. I saw you fuckers buying over 4k TQQQ 5/22 $45 puts in the first minutes of trading. You pumped the premium to over $0.50 dudes. The play's never going to work if you do that, because you give the market maker free delta, and he's going to hedge that against you. Let me explain simply: Let's say a put on ticker $X at strike $50 is worth $1, and a put at strike $51 is worth $2. If you all fomo in at once into the same strike, the market maker algos will just pull the asks higher. If you overpay at $2 for the $50p, the market maker will just buy $51ps for $2 and sell you $50ps for 2$. Or he'll buy longer-dated $50ps and sell you shorter-dated $50ps. Max risk for him is now 0, max gain is $1. You just gave him free downside insurance, so of course he's going to start going long. And you just traded against yourself, congrats. You need to get in with patience, especially if you see other autists here wanting to go in at the same time. Don't step on each other's toes. You put in an order, and you wait for it to fill for a couple of seconds. If it doesn't fill, AND the price of the option hasn't moved much recently, you can bump the bid $0.01. And you keep doing that a few times. Move your strikes, if needed. Only get a partial fill or don't get a fill at all? You cancel your bid. Don't fucking leave it hanging there, or you're going to put a floor on the price. Let the mm algos chill out and go again later. RULE 2. WATCH THE TIME. Algos are especially active at x:00, x:02, x:08, x:12, x:30 and x:58. Try not to buy at those times. RULE 3. YOU USE MULTIPLE BROKERS. Don't just roll with Robinhood, you're just gimping yourself. If you don't have another one, open up a tasty, IB, TD, Schwab, whatever. But for cheap faggy puts (or calls), Robinhood is the best. If you want to make a play for which the other side would think "That's free money!", Robinhood is the best. Because Citadel will snag that free money shit like no other. Seriously, if you don't have a RH account, open one. It's great for making meme plays. RULE 4. YOU DON'T START A TRADE WITH BIG POSITIONS. Doesn't matter how big or small your bankroll is. If you go all-in, you're just gambling, and the odds are stacked against you. You need to have extra cash to manage your positions. Which leads to RULE 5. MANAGING YOUR WINNERS: Your position going for you? Good job! Now POUND THAT SHIT! And again. Move your strikes to cheaper puts/calls, and pound again. And again. Snowball those gains. RULE 6A. POUND THOSE $0.01 PUTS: So you bought some puts and they’re going down? Well, the moment they reach $0.01, YOU POUND THOSE PUTS (assuming there’s enough time left on them, not shit expiring in 2h). $0.01 puts have amazing risk/return around the time they reach $0.01. This is not as valid for calls. Long explanation why, but the gist of it is this: you know how calls have unlimited upside while puts have limited upside? Well it’s the reverse of that. RULE 6B. MANAGING YOUR LOSERS: Your position going against you? Do you close the position, take your loss porn and post it on wsb? WRONG DUMBASS. You manage that by POUNDING THAT SHIT. Again and again. You don't manage losing positions by closing. That removes your gainz when the market turns around. You ever close a position, just to have it turn out it would have been a winner afterwards? Yeah, don't do that. You manage it by opening other positions. Got puts? Buy calls. Got calls? Buy puts. Turn positions into spreads. Buy spreads. Buy the VIX. Sell the VIX. They wanna pin for OPEX? Sell them options. Not enough bankroll to sell naked? Sell spreads. Make them fight you for your money, motherfuckers, don't just give it away for free. When you trade, YOU have the advantage of choosing when and where to engage. The market can only react. That's your edge, so USE IT! Like this: Example 1: Initial TQQQ 5/22 position = $5,000. Starts losing? You pound it. https://preview.redd.it/gq938ty8e5151.png?width=944&format=png&auto=webp&s=734ab7ed517f0e6822bfaaed5765d1272de398d1 Total pounded in 5/22 TQQQ puts = $10,824. Unfortunately expired worthless (but also goes to show I'm not selling you puts, dickwads) Then the autists show up: "Hahaha you lost all your money nice job you fucking idiot why do you even live?" - cscqb4Wrong fuckface. You see the max pain at SPX 2975 & OPEX pin coming? Sell them some calls or puts (or spreads). https://preview.redd.it/7nv23fr41a151.jpg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=14a8879c975646ffbfe2942ca1982bfabfcf90df Sold 9x5/20 SPX [email protected], bam +$6,390. Still wanna pin? Well have some 80x5/22 TQQQ $80cs, bam anotha +$14,700. https://preview.redd.it/1iqtpmc71a151.jpg?width=750&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=df9b954131b0877f4acc43038b4a5a4acf544237 +$21,090 - $10,824 = +$10,266 => Turned that shit into a +94.85% gain. .cscqb4 rn You have a downside position, but market going up or nowhere? You play that as well. At least make some money back, if not profit. Example 2: 5/22, long weekend coming right? So you use your brain & try to predict what could happen over the 3-day weekend. Hmm, 3 day weekend, well you should expect either a shitty theta-burn or maybe the pajama traders will try to pooomp that shite on the low volume. Well make your play. I bet on the shitty theta burn, but could be the other, idk, so make a small play. Sold some ES_F spreads (for those unaware, ES is a 50x multiplier, so 1 SPX = 2 ES = 10 SPY, approximately). -47x 2955/2960 bear call spreads for $2.5. Max gain is $2.5, max loss is 2960-2955 = $5. A double-or-nothing basically. That's $5,875 in premium, max loss = 2x premium = $11,750. Well, today comes around and futures are pumping. Up to 3,014 now. Do you just roll over? You think I'm gonna sit and take it up the ass? Nah bros that's not how you trade, you fucking fight them. How? I have: 47x 2960 calls -47x 2955 calls Pajama traders getting all up in my grill? Well then I buy back 1 of the 2955 calls. Did that shit yesterday when futures were a little over 2980, around 2982-ish. Paid $34.75, initially shorted at $16.95, so booked a -$892 loss, for now. But now what do I have? 46x 2955/2960 bear calls 1x 2960 long call So the fuckers can pump it. In fact, the harder they pump it, the more I make. Each $2.5 move up in the futures covers the max loss for 1 spread. With SPX now at ~3015, that call is $55 ITM. Covers 24/46 contracts rn. If they wanna run it up, at 3070 it's break-even. Over that, it's profit. I'll sell them some bear call spreads over 3050 if they run it there too. They gonna dump it? well under 2960 it's profit time again. They wanna do a shitty pin at 3000 today? Well then I'll sell them some theta there. Later edit: that was written yesterday. Got out with a loss of only $1.5k out of the max $5,875. Not bad. And that, my dudes, is how you manage a position. RULE 7 (ESPECIALLY FOR BEARS). YOU DON'T KEEP EXTRA CASH IN YOUR BROKER ACCOUNT. You don't do it with Robinhood, because it's a shitty dumpsterfire of a broker. But you don't do it with other brokers either. Pull that shit out. Preferably to a bank that doesn't play in the markets either, use a credit union or some shit. Why? Because you're giving the market free liquidity. Free margin loans. Squeeze that shit out, make them work for it. Your individual cash probably doesn't make a dent, but a million autists with an extra $1200 trumpbucks means $1.2b. That's starting to move the needle. You wanna make a play, use instant deposits. And that way you don't lose your shit when your crappy ass broker or bank gets its ass blown up on derivative trades. Even if it's FDIC or SIPC insured, it's gonna take time until you see that money again. Chapter IV. BUSTING YOUR RETARDED MYTHS MYTH 1 - STONKS ONLY GO UP Do you think the market can go up forever? Do you think stOnKs oNLy Go uP because Fed brrr? Do you think SPX will be at 5000 by the end of the month? Do you think $1.5 trillion is a good entry point for stonks like AAPL or MSFT? Do you want to buy garbage like Hertz or American Airlines because it's cheap? Did you buy USO at the bottom and are now proud of yourself for making $2? Well, this section is for you! Let's clear up the misconception that stonks only go up while Fed brrrs. What's your target for the SPX top? Think 3500 by the end of the year? 3500 by September? 4000? 4500? 5000? Doesn't matter, you can plug in your own variables. Let's say SPX only goes up, a moderate 0.5% each period as a compounded avg. (i.e. up a bit down a bit whatever, doesn't matter as long as at the end of your period, if you look back and do the math, you'll get that number). Let's call this variable BRRR = 0.005. Can you do the basic math to calculate the value at the end of x periods? Or did you drop out in 5th grade? Doesn't matter if not, I'll teach you. Let's say our period is one week. That is, SPX goes up on average 0.5% each week on Fed BRRR: 2950 * (1.005^x), where x is the number of periods (weeks in this case) So, after 1 month, you have: 2950 * (1.005^4) = 3009 After 2 months: 2950 * (1.005^8) = 3070 End of the year? 2950 * (1.005^28) = 3392 Now clearly, we're already at 3015 on the futures, so we're moving way faster than that. More like at a speed of BRRR = 1%/wk 2950 * (1.01^4) = 3069 2950 * (1.01^8) = 3194 2950 * (1.01^28) = 3897 Better, but still slower than a lot of permabulls would expect. In fact, some legit fucks are seriously predicting SPX 4000-4500 by September. Like this dude, David Hunter, "Contrarian Macro Strategist w/40+ years on Wall Street". IDIOTIC. https://twitter.com/DaveHcontrarian/status/1263066368414568448 That'd be 2950 * (BRRR^12) = 4000 => BRRR = 1.0257 and 2950 * (BRRR^12) = 4500 => BRRR = 1.0358, respectively. Here's why that can't happen, no matter the amount of FED BRRR: Leverage. Compounded Leverage. There's currently over $100b in leveraged etfs with a 2.5x avg. leverage. And that's just the ones I managed to tally, there's a lot of dogshit small ones on top of that. TQQQ alone is now at almost $6b in AUM (topped in Fed at a little over $7b). Now, let's try to estimate what happens to TQQQ's AUM when BRRR = 1.0257. 3XBRRR = 1.0771. Take it at 3XBRRR = 1.07 to account for slippage in a medium-volatility environment and ignore the fact that the Nasdaq-100 would go up more than SPX anyway. $6,000,000,000 * (1.07^4) = $7,864,776,060 $6,000,000,000 * (1.07^8) = $10,309,100,000 $6,000,000,000 * (1.07^12) = $13,513,100,000 $6,000,000,000 * (1.07^28) = $39,893,000,000. What if BRRR = 1.0358? => 3XBRR = 1.1074. Take 3XBRRR = 1.10. $6,000,000,000 * (1.1^4) = $8,784,600,000 $6,000,000,000 * (1.1^8) = $12,861,500,000 $6,000,000,000 * (1.1^12) = $18,830,600,000 $6,000,000,000 * (1.1^28) = $86,526,000,000 And this would have to get 3x leveraged every day. And this is just for TQQQ. Let's do an estimation for all leveraged funds. $100b AUM, 2.5 avg. leverage factor, BRRR = 1.0257 => 2.5BRRR = 1.06425 $100b * (1.06^4) = $128.285b $100b * (1.06^8) = $159.385b $100b * (1.06^12) = $201.22b $100b * (1.06^28) = $511.169b That'd be $1.25 trillion sloshing around each day. And the market would have to lose each respective amount of cash into these leveraged funds. Think the market can do that? You can play around with your own variables. But understand that this is just a small part of the whole picture, many other factors go into this. It's a way to put a simple upper limit on an assumption, to check if it's reasonable. In the long run, it doesn't matter if the Fed goes BRRR, if TQQQ takes in it's share of 3XBRRR. And the Fed can't go 3XBRRR, because then TQQQ would take in 9XBRRR. And on top of this, you have a whole pile of leveraged derivatives on top of these leveraged things. Watch (or rewatch) this: Selena Gomez & Richard H. Thaler Explaining Synthetic CDO through BLACKJACK My general point, at the mouth-breather level, is that Fed BRRR cannot be infinite, because leverage. And these leveraged ETFs are flawed instruments in the first place. It didn't matter when they started out. TQQQ and SQQQ started out at $8m each. For the banks providing the swaps, for the market providing the futures contracts, whatever counter-party to whatever instrument they would use, that was fine. Because it balanced out. When TQQQ made a million, SQQQ lost a million (minus a small spread, which was the bank's profit). Bank was happy, in the long run things would even out. Slippage and spreads and fees would make them money. But then something happened. Stonks only went up. And leveraged ETFs got bigger and more and more popular. And so, TQQQ ended up being $6-7b, while SQQQ was at $1b. And the same goes for all the other ETFs. Long leveraged ETF AUM became disproportionate to short AUM. And it matters a whole fucking lot. Because if you think of the casino, TQQQ walks up every day and says "I'd like to put $18b on red", while SQQQ walks up and says "I'd only like to put $3b on black". And that, in turn, forces the banks providing the swaps to either eat shit with massive losses, or go out and hedge. Probably a mix of both. But it doesn't matter if the banks are hedged, someone else is on the other side of those hedges anyway. Someone's eating a loss. Can think of it as "The Market", in general, eating the loss. And there's only so much loss the market can eat before it craps itself. If you were a time traveller, how much money do you think you could make by trading derivatives? Do you think you could make $20 trillion? You know the future prices after all... But no, you couldn't. There isn't enough money out there to pay you. So you'd move the markets by blowing them up. Call it the Time-travelling WSB Autist Paradox. If you had a bucket with a hole in the bottom, even if you poured an infinite amount of water into it, it would never be full. Because there's a LIQUIDITY SINK, just like there is one in the markets. And that, my mouth-breathing friends, is the reason why FED BRRR cannot be infinite. Or alternatively, "STONKS MUST GO BOTH UP AND DOWN". MYTH 2 - YOU CAN'T TIME THE MARKET On Jan 14, 2020, I predicted this: Assuming that corona doesn't become a problem, "AAPL: Jan 28 $328.3, Jan 31 $316.5, April 1 $365.7, May 1 $386, July 1 $429 December 31 $200." Now take a look at the AAPL chart in January. After earnings AAPL peaked at $327.85. On 1/31, after the 1st hour of trading, when the big boys make moves, it was at $315.63. Closed 1/31 at $309.51. Ya think I pulled this one out of my ass too? Yes you can time it. Flows, motherfucker, flows. Money flow moves everything. And these days, we have a whole lot of RETARDED FLOW. Can't even call it dumb flow, because it literally doesn't think. Stuff like:
And many many others. Spot the flow, and you get an edge. How could I predict where AAPL would be after earnings within 50 cents and then reverse down to $316 2 days later? FLOWS MOTHERFUCKER FLOWS. The market was so quiet in that period, that is was possible to precisely figure out where it ended up. Why the dump after? Well, AAPL earnings (The 8-K) come out on a Wednesday. The next morning, after market opens the 10-Q comes out. And that 10-Q contains a very important nugget of information: the latest number of outstanding shares. But AAPL buybacks are regular as fuck. You can predict the outstanding shares before the market gets the 10-Q. And that gives you EDGE. Which leads to MYTH 3 - BUYBACKS DON'T MATTER Are you one of those mouthbreathers that parrots the phrase "buybacks are just a tax-efficient way to return capital to shareholders"? Well sit the fuck down, I have news for you. First bit of news, you're dumb as shit. Second bit: On 1/28, AAPL's market cap is closing_price x free_float_outstanding_shares. But that's not the REAL MARKET CAP. Because the number of outstanding shares is OLD AS FUCK. When the latest number comes out, the market cap changes instantly. And ETFs start moving, and hedges start being changed, and so on. "But ETFs won't change the number of shares they hold, they will still hold the same % of AAPL in the index" - random_wsb_autist Oh my fucking god you're dumb as fuck. FLOWS change. And the next day, when TQQQ comes by and puts its massive $18b dong on the table, the market will hedge that differently. And THAT CAN BE PREDICTED. That's why AAPL was exactly at $316 1 hour after the market opened on 1/31. So, what can you use to spot moves? Let me show you: Market topped on 2/19. Here’s SPY. I even marked interesting dates for you with vertical lines. https://preview.redd.it/7agm171eh5151.png?width=3713&format=png&auto=webp&s=d94b90dcd634c8dc688925585bf0a02c3299f71b Nobody could have seen it coming, right? WRONG AGAIN. Here: https://preview.redd.it/i1kdp3cgh5151.png?width=3713&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a1e086e9217846547efd3b6c5249f4a7ebe6d9e In fact, JPYUSD gave you two whole days to see it. Those are NOT normal JPYUSD moves. But hey maybe it’s just a fluke? Wrong again. https://preview.redd.it/fsyhenckh5151.png?width=3693&format=png&auto=webp&s=03200e10b008257ae15d40b474c4cf4d8c23670f Forex showed you that all over the place. Why? FLOWS MOTHERFUCKER FLOWS. When everything moves like that, it means the market needs CASH. It doesn’t matter why, but remember people pulling cash out of ATMs all over the world? Companies drawing massive revolvers? Just understand what this flow means. The reversal: https://preview.redd.it/4xe97l0oh5151.png?width=1336&format=png&auto=webp&s=07aaa93f6b1d8f542101e40e431edccbc109918f https://preview.redd.it/v6i0pdmoh5151.png?width=1338&format=png&auto=webp&s=74d5589961db2f978d4d582e6d7c58a85f6305f9 But it wasn’t just forex. Gold showed it to you as well. Bonds showed it to you as well. https://preview.redd.it/40j53u8th5151.png?width=3711&format=png&auto=webp&s=fe39ab51321d0f98149d33e33253e69f96c48e23 Even god damn buttcoin showed it to you. https://preview.redd.it/43lvafhvh5151.png?width=3705&format=png&auto=webp&s=1ef53283cbc0fb97f71c1ba935c0bd747809636e And they all did it for 2 days before the move hit equities. Chapter V. LIQUIDITY NUKE INBOUND You see all these bankruptcies that happened so far, and all the ones that are going to follow? Do you think that’s just dogshit companies and it won’t have major effects on anything outside them? WRONG. Because there’s a lot of leveraged instruments on top of those equities. When the stock goes to 0, all those outstanding puts across all expirations get instantly paid. Understand that Feb-March was a liquidity MOAB. But this will end with a liquidity nuke. Here’s just HTZ for example: $239,763,550 in outstanding puts. Just on a single dogshit small-cap company (this thing was like $400m mkt. cap last week). And that’s just the options on the equity. There’s also instruments on etfs that hold HTZ, on the bonds, on the ETFs that hold their bonds, swaps, warrants, whatever. It’s a massive pile of leverage. Then there’s also the ripple effects. Were you holding a lot of HTZ in your brokerage margin account? Well guess what big boi, when that gaps to 0 you get a margin call, and then you become a liquidity drain. Holding long calls? 0. Bonds 0. DOG SHIT! And the market instantly goes from holding $x in assets (HTZ equity / bonds / calls) to holding many multiples of x in LIABILITIES (puts gone wrong, margin loans, derivatives books, revolvers, all that crap). And it doesn’t matter if the Fed buys crap like HTZ bonds. You short them some. Because when it hits 0, it’s no longer about supply and demand. You get paid full price, straight from Jerome’s printer. Is the Fed going to buy every blown up derivative too? Because that's what they'd have to do. Think of liquidity as a car. The faster it goes, the harder it becomes to go even faster. At some point, you can only go faster by driving off a cliff. THE SQUEEZE. But you stop instantly when you hit the ground eventually. And that’s what shit’s doing all over the place right now. Rewatch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3hG4X5iTK8M And just like that fucker, “I’m standing in front of a burning house, and I’m offering you fire insurance on it.” Don’t baghold! Now is not the time to baghold junk. Take your cash. Not the time to buy cheap crap. You don’t buy Hertz. You don’t buy USO. You don’t buy airlines, or cruises, or GE, or motherfucking Disney. And if you have it, dump that shit. And the other dogshit that’s at ATH, congrats you’re in the green. Now you take your profits and fucking dump that shit. I’m talking shit like garbage SaaS, app shit, AI shit, etc. Garbage like MDB, OKTA, SNAP, TWLO, ZM, CHGG etc. And you dump those garbage ass leveraged ETFs. SQQQ, TQQQ, whatever, they’re all dogshit now. The leverage MUST unwind. And once that’s done, some of you will no longer be among us if you don’t listen. A lot of leveraged ETFs will be gone. Even some non-leveraged ETFs will be gone. Some brokers will be gone, some market makers will be gone, hell maybe even some big bank has to go under. I can’t know which ones will go poof, but I can guarantee you that some will. Another reason to diversify your shit. There’s a reason papa Warrant Buffet dumped his bags, don’t think you’re smarter than him. He may be senile, but he’s still a snake. And once the unwind is done, THEN you buy whatever cheap dogshit’s still standing. Got it? Good. You feel ready to play yet? Alright, so you catch a move. Or I post a move and you wanna play it. You put on a small position. When it’s going your way, YOU POUND DAT SHIT. Still going? Well RUSH B CYKA BLYAT AND PLANT THE GOD DAMN 3/20 $30p BOMB. Chapter VI - The mouthbreather-proof play - THE AKIMBO Still a dumbass that can’t make a play? Still want to go long? Well then, I got a dumbass-proof trade for you. I present to you THE AKIMBO: STEP 1. You play this full blast. You need some real Russian hardbass to get you in the right mood for trading, cyka. STEP 2. Split your play money in 3. Remember to keep extra bankroll for POUNDING THAT SHIT. STEP 3. Use 1/3 of your cash to buy SQQQ 9/18 $5p, pay $0.05. Not more than $0.10. STEP 4. Use 1/3 of your cash to buy TQQQ 9/18 $20p, pay around $0.45. Alternatively, if you’re feeling adventurous, 7/17 $35p’s for around $0.5. STEP 5. Use 1/3 of your cash to buy VIX PUT SPREADS 9/15 $21/$20 spread for around $0.15, no more than $0.25. That is, you BUY the 21p and SELL the 20p. Only using Robinhood and don’t have the VIX? What did I just tell you? Well fine, use UVXY then. Just make sure you don’t overpay. Chapter VII - Quick hints for non-mouthbreathers Quick tips, cuz apparently I'm out of space, there's a 40k character limit on reddit posts. Who knew?
Good luck. Dr. Retard TQQQ Burry out. |
 | Although AEF uniquely benefits from the structural tailwinds of both superannuation and ethical investing, we believe it remains misunderstood as an expensive traditional fund manager. submitted by Bruticus91 to ASX_Bets [link] [comments] The Opportunity Australian Ethical Funds (ASX.AEF) is a public market superannuation fund manager. The perception of the company itself vs. the industry is nicely summarised by the two figures below. Herein lies the opportunity. https://preview.redd.it/jhvvua1t5oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=e511deb4411e81840ffcf8b635e1d8f7b78eeb6e AEF is a renowned Australian fund manager that fits within the ESG trend. It represents one of the only pure play superannuation investments in the Australian public market, with 67% of funds under management (FUM) coming from superannuation. The stock bounced exceptionally from a low of $2 in March, reaching a high of $9 in June, and has since retraced towards the low $4s. Previously, the business traded at $6+ following its announcement of end of year FUM and expected earnings figures. On 8th August IOOF Holdings (ASX.IFL) – 19.9% shareholder – announced it was divesting 15% of its stake in AEF. IOOF is a peer and platform provider which offers AEF products to its clients. The investment was sold at $5.24 vs. market price of $5.90. IOOF disclosed it was selling its AEF investment (at a gain) to raise much needed liquidity. The block trade was viewed negatively by the market, with AEF immediately re-rating to below $5.24 and trending downwards (towards low $4s) ever since. The current share price of $4.17 (24 August close) implies the stock is trading at ~51x FY20 earnings guidance, which is slightly above historical levels despite substantially improved performance and outlook. We suspect that the FY20 results will be aligned with guidance (as demonstrated historically) provided in the quarterly FUM update and guided earnings figures. Results have also been positive across its peers throughout mid to late August (see ‘Roadmap’). https://preview.redd.it/t4oy3ksu5oj51.png?width=478&format=png&auto=webp&s=e2a88ef0bf70fba2e85d36bc71a1df2994217dcf Company History AEF began as Australian Ethical Investments (AEI) in 1986 and was owned by 600 insider shareholders before listing. It is a superannuation fund – so revenue is derived from fees on managing invested funds. By 2005, the business managed four unit trusts and a superannuation fund: · Australian Ethical Balanced Trust (est. 1989) · Australian Ethical Equities Trust (est. 1994) · Australian Ethical Income Trust (est. 1997) · Australian Ethical Large Companies Share Trust (est. 1997) · Parent of Australian Ethical Superannuation (est. 1998) The investments of the trust and super fund are guided by ‘The Charter’ – a series of positive and negative investment screens that must be taken into account when selecting securities for inclusion. https://preview.redd.it/cye711106oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=60c149549d7d752c26108c662ec319b56ebf371a In July 2005, the government enacted policy that afforded more choice to individual employees with regards to their superannuation provider (marking the beginning of a positive era for the superannuation industry). In that same year, AEF registered for a superannuation license which it was granted in 2006. Back in 2005/06 the company did not split out superannuation FUM, but FUM increased from $311m in Jun-05 to $380m in September-05 following this policy shift – suggesting there was an existing demand for ethical investment products in superannuation. From 2005 to 2011, AEF grew total FUM from $311m to $644m, despite muted FUM growth through the GFC-era. In 2012, the business began separating out its superannuation FUM-growth to improve its visibility. This era saw FUM increasing from $617m in 2012 to $4.05bn as at 30 June 2020. From 2016-19 reduction in FUM-based fees has seen suppressed revenue growth vs. FUM growth. This has resulted in several step changes in FUM-based revenue margins (revenue / FUM) as a result of lower overall fees earned on products. We view this shift as a positive in the long-run since AEF has competitively priced its funds, entrenching their competitive advantages (discussed below) and reducing the temptation that fee-conscious members switch funds. Since AEF has ratcheted the cost of their funds downwards (often ahead of their peers and industry averages), we believe fee compression improves the durability of AEFs revenue compared to peers who are yet to compress their margins. https://preview.redd.it/fcq5jog26oj51.png?width=453&format=png&auto=webp&s=d194c8778727e9adf1ebc162e6b181d8207cc292 Business Model AEF has a relatively simple business model – revenue is derived from fees on managing invested funds. The funds it manages includes retail, institutional and wholesale (non-super) funds, as well as superannuation funds. We are most interested in the superannuation business although the direct and indirect benefits associated with the funds management business are a noteworthy component to the brand and investment management infrastructure (i.e. ideation / performance fee generating / high performing ESG). Until 2012, AEF did not explicitly separate its super vs. non-super FUM. We believe this contributed to its (mis)perception as a traditional fund manager rather than a superannuation fund. Thankfully, since 2012 AEF has provided details relating to the composition of its FUM (below), and noticeably the growth in its superannuation FUM has been the driving force of the business. https://preview.redd.it/6ccbtqm36oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=6fb4e11064313ca9ab7b57186b2eddc6be62b928 Competitive Advantage 1. Superannuation Exposure: Superannuation FUM is higher growth and lower risk than traditional managed funds. Superannuation funds are regulated to grow at 9.5% due to the Superannuation Guarantee (the Australian Government mandated superannuation contribution). The regulatory framework could see this increase up to 12% in the medium-term and 14% in the long-term. For the purpose of our analysis, we have assumed a constant 9.5% contribution – so any increase would be additional upside. More importantly, excluding fulfilling conditions of release (i.e. death) an individual's superannuation cannot be withdrawn until retirement. Much like the Superannuation Guarantee, withdrawals are also mandated on a schedule that increases as a percentage of FUM with age (beginning at 4% and increasing to 14%). Consequently, the minimum inflows and withdrawals are predictable (and we note the vast majority of individuals do not deviate from these minimum levels due to inertia). Because of this mandated growth, Australia has the fourth largest pension sector in absolute terms and second largest relative to GDP (below). In 2020, the total superannuation pool is ~$2.1trn and growing. It is estimated that by 2040 superannuation assets could be as much as $9trn according to the Australian Treasury. https://preview.redd.it/wenevil56oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=c2210a8e26816af1ebf798d82c414c61760c5d5e Alternatively, traditional managed funds are subject to redemption risk, caused (typically) by performance and myopic investor behaviour associated with general market movements. Therefore, FUM growth for traditional managed funds must be attracted through marketing and distribution channels. This inextricably links fund inflows and outflows to performance and marketing efforts, which in turn causes a clientele that is more expensive to acquire and retain, and a more volatile pool of assets. Alternatively, traditional managed funds may access capital through secondary capital raisings and the reinvestment of distributions; both of which are a country mile from a 9.5% government mandated contribution. Logically, we wondered which (listed) asset could provide us with exposure to the exceptionally robust superannuation tailwind. We will not spend too much time detailing the industry dynamics and public market players as there is a lot of information to be found in various prospectus’ (see Raiz or OneVue prospectus). The main thing to understand is that superannuation funds can be separated into five buckets: https://preview.redd.it/jyykix976oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=07e96ebc246a565546e400ef87018d3d3360cd48 After screening for diversified financials and financials businesses on the ASX there were 53 players with at least some revenue linked to superannuation. The revenue exposure desired is revenue linked to superannuation FUM (explained further in the ‘Valuation’). However, it is important to understand that gaining access to this lucrative industry is difficult for several reasons: · Private industry funds – the gems of the industry have been private superannuation funds such as CBUS, Hostplus, and ESTA. We cannot access them as public market investors. · Conglomerate financials – it is possible to gain some retail superannuation exposure within the banking majors such as CBA, WBC, ANZ and NAB. However, they represent insignificant exposure by revenue and profit and the stocks are driven by other risk and growth factors. · Fund managers – fund managers may directly manage retail superfunds or SMSF funds such as Magellan, Platinum and Perpetual. However, there is limited visibility over superannuation FUM exposure. · Superannuation adjacency businesses – superannuation exposure can also be housed within wealth / platform advisers such as like HUB24, Netwealth and OneVue. However, to varying degrees, these businesses are not purely exposed to superannuation-FUM linked revenue. · Pure play sub-scale – the final example can be found in Raiz, which is a sub-scale business that has ~$450m in FUM of which 85% is funds management. It is possible to envisage this business as an AEF in 10-15 years with larger superannuation FUM exposure. Although the superannuation exposure representing $70m in FUM currently (vs. AEF $2.72bn) is vastly inferior to AEF. For this reason, AEF is the closest to a pure play (at scale) superannuation player. Putting this together, we believe AEF is likely to continue to grow its FUM at 20% p.a. YoY. This is principally due to AEF's ability to acquire new members and retain existing members. Therefore, to monitor this continued FUM growth going forward we encourage readers to look out of the number of superannuation members added in these upcoming results and beyond. AEF has grown its member base YoY consistently in an industry which has, on average, been relatively flat in terms of member growth. In 2019 AEF was the highest growing superannuation business in Australia across the previous 5-years. https://preview.redd.it/c4t7jx596oj51.png?width=226&format=png&auto=webp&s=51e47aa607470ce6482ed30352183a6cf6043bff 1. Ethical, Social and Governance (ESG): Beyond the obvious tailwinds in superannuation, AEF is also exposed to another important trend: ESG. Needless to say, ESG investing is becoming not only popular but almost mandatory for corporate money managers. Younger demographic investors are increasingly concerned with the ethical and social impacts of corporate activity. This report by Harvard and another by State Street provide some interesting commentary on the issue. ESG ETFs have been growing at a CAGR of >30%, and State Street forecasts that the global ESG ETF market will increase from US$170bn in 2020 to US$1.3trn in 2030. Momentum for ESG ETFs has been building specifically in Australia, where AUM surged almost 300% — from A$554.1m in 2017 to A$2.2bn in 2019. Whilst the ESG-shift has been occurring since the 2010s, State Street argue that COVID-19 will only further catalyse this shift by highlighting the inherent inequalities in society and health care systems, in turn, spurring social conscience. We note the following data points as indicators of this more recent catalyst: · Perpetual’s recent acquisition of Trillium, a US-based ESG fund, shows the desire of traditional asset managers to become exposed to this space. · BlackRock has started publishing more frequently and consistently on ESG trends and continued rolling out ESG products. · Forager’s investment blog received frequent commentary from investors talking about negative screening on their gambling holdings which has never been the case in the past. The key insight is that a growing proportion of the investment community through time is becoming concerned with ESG issues and this will drive fund flow. Industry data is pointing to the fact that this is a prolonged structural shift rather than a short-term trend. 2. Performance: AEF has improved upon their exposure to structural industry trends in superannuation and ESG through excellent fund performance. AEF's performance (below) has been consistently strong across all of their strategies (we highly recommend reading page 4 of Sequoia's June 15, 2020 "Investor Day Transcript" to highlight how governance and performance are complimentary). Such strong performance not only disincentivises members from switching to competitors and assists member acquisition, but also significantly enhances earnings at the group level. For instance, FY20 guidance provided on 7 July 2020 vs. 22 June had a midpoint difference of ~$2m. Given the long track record of the managers it is expected performance will remain strong. https://preview.redd.it/p6shg5nc6oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=e65acb553371c6bc7c1f70ddfdf153e9e625117a https://preview.redd.it/mtn23k7d6oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=9a7ba471248070f9f05216cdf5bbcab2a1f9102b Valuation Key: · FUM = funds under management · FUA = funds under administration · MA = managed accounts · FU\ = total funds (FUM + FUA + MA)* Valuing a Superannuation Member: Our valuation technique here will be somewhat unconventional. We will attempt to value the lifetime revenue per member (LRM) for AEF and for a traditional fund and then highlight the incongruity of their relative valuations. The long-term nature of lifecycle retirement saving (and by virtue the true value of a superannuation fund) demands a long term perspective. Fortunately, the mandated nature of AEFs cash flows facilitates evaluating the lifetime value of a superannuation member. To estimate the LRM we consider the following: (i) life cycle expectations (i.e. retirement age and life expectancy); (ii) salary expectations; (iii) superannuation contribution rate; (iv) investment returns; (v) member "type;" (vi) fee structure; and (vii) a discount rate. We begin by assuming a member makes $5,000p.a. at age 20, which grows to $130,000p.a. through the middle of their working life (35-50) and then declines to $90,000p.a. at 65 (noting these are gross values not inflation adjusted). Since the average member account balance for AEF is ~$60,000 (FUM of $4.05bn ($2.72bn of which is superannuation) / 43,000 members = $60,000 as at 30 June 2019), we can roughly assume that the average age of their member is between 30-35, which places them at the profitable end of this member acquisition cycle. Further, this member regularly contribute 9.5% of their earnings to their superannuation, which compounds at a rate of 6% p.a. Moreover, the prototypical member starts working / paying superannuation into AEF at age 20, retires at age 65, and redeems according to the minimum withdrawal schedule until age 85. However, how many members live according to this prescribed lifecycle; supported by an uninterrupted working life? What about people that take time off to raise children, either returning to part-time work or full-time work? We can model these archetypes also, which assumes much lower income growth and some years of earning no income. If we assume that society is roughly split into thirds by these archetypes (i.e. 1/3 uninterrupted, 1/3 interrupted and return part time, 1/3 interrupted and return full time), then we can calculate a weighted average LRM for the average member. Compressing fees by more than half to 50bps and assuming a 7% discount rate we arrive a weighted average discounted LRM of ~$18,000. Whilst comparing this to the average member in another non-super fund is difficult for an array of reasons (i.e. average acquisition age, average income, average balance, average contribution, redemption allowance etc.), we can loosely estimate what this looks. Adopting the same framework as above, to estimate the LRM of an average managed fund member we must first define the managed fund member "archetype." First, we assume the average traditional fund member has a higher income profile (as lower income earners typically do not invest in managed funds). We tweak the income profile to peak at $180,000 between 35-50 and taper down to $120,000 by age 65. Second, we assume the acquisition age is 30 years rather than 20 to reflect that most individuals do not invest in traditional managed funds until later in life. Thirdly, we account for the non-compulsory nature of managed fund contributions. If we start with the marginal savings rate (10-year average of ~7%) as a proxy for available funds for investment and increase this to align with our ‘managed funds’ archetype who has higher income to 15%. We then assume that from this 15%, about 1/3 will be invested into a managed fun (or ~5%). Therefore, for our individual earning $180,000 during peak working years, this is an annual contribution of $7,200. Finally, we increase the discount rate to 9% since because redemptions are more likely in a traditional fund. Using these alternative assumptions, we arrive at a LRM of ~$5,000. The significant difference in LRM helps explain why a superannuation business can command a much higher multiple of FUM or earnings. Further, we believe our estimate of LRM for a traditional fund manager is quite bullish (i.e. overstated) due to the following: (i) it assumes the individual works full-time for their entire life; and (ii) it assumes the individual stays with the fund from age 30 to 65 and makes uninterrupted and stable contributions. Although dollar cost averaging is touted as an eighth wonder of the world, we are doubtful it is applied as often as it is spoken. Trading Multiples Valuation: Valuing AEF on a relative basis is difficult given the lack of peers. Against traditional fund managers (i.e. Magellan, Perpetual and Platinum), which trade between 5-20x earnings, and superannuation exposed platforms (i.e. Netwealth and Hub24), which trade between 25-40x earnings, AEF looks relatively expensive. We are acutely aware that AEF is currently (at ~$4.2) trading at 12.6% of FUM and ~51x earnings; and at its peak (~$9) was trading at 25% of FUM and 120x earnings. We believe the valuation difference is driven by the quality of the FUM managed and, therefore, the quality of the earnings growth. Given their high alignment to superannuation, NWL and HUB are the two most comparable firms to AEF. As the trailing figures show, AEF appears to be trading on par with its peers. However, an important nuance is the trailing figure for AEF is based on 2019 earnings, whilst for NWL and HUB it is based on FY20 earnings given they have already reported. As such, on a like-for-like basis AEF’s ‘trailing’ earnings multiple (based on the mid-point of management’s guidance) is actually ~51x. This means it is trading below NWL and HUB, despite the fact that the majority of those businesses’ FU* is linked to FUA rather than FUM, which has a lower monetisation rate. Not to mention, the split between superannuation and managed funds is not as clearly delineated as is the case with AEF. What is also evident is limited analyst coverage of AEF and lack of forecast guidance assisting the market to predict growth (as is the case with NWL and HUB). Relative to traditional fund managers (i.e. PPT, PTM and MFG), we note the substantial difference in FUM and business quality. AEF hosts the highest monetization rate (Rev/FUM), even whilst facing fee compression, with the highest FUM growth among its investment management peers. Furthermore, we expect EBIT margins will improve from ~30% toward its larger traditional fund managers peers due to economies of scale over time that we believe will more than offset any fee compression. AEF has also supported a very high ROE due to its sticky clientele and service-based business model. The combination of: (i) best in class monetization; (ii) high LTM and increasing membership base; (iii) improving margins; and (iv) high ROE will make for an incredible growth engine on earnings in the long term. Thus, AEF is a higher quality business with ~4x+ the LCM of a traditional fund trading at only a 2-3x premium using current ratios... https://preview.redd.it/nffeuvef6oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=e0aed3fcb4464355aa965ed151d6dc2e484ff4b8 Risks We note the following investment risks with AEF:
Peers’ Earnings Updates: In summary, the FY20 results of peers indicate that businesses with revenues dependent on investment funds have performed quite strongly during this period. https://preview.redd.it/np04rasg6oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=0de02bee60036e9bd71068815e618c2f3711db24 Earnings Announcement: Earnings release on 26 August 2020 should provide for the first catalyst to remind the market of the AEF's fundamental performance. The key figures here will be superannuation FUM, superannuation members and FY20 earnings. AEF will also provide ongoing quarterly FUM announcements, with the following update due in early October. We may also see a mid-August FUM figure in the most recent announcement. Finally, AEF has historically provided updated FUM in back-dated results announcements. Evidence of this occurring can also be found in HUB's most recent announcement: https://preview.redd.it/jz8frxfi6oj51.png?width=680&format=png&auto=webp&s=325d7973e1eb6c98e714dea69306b1ebf8ab0cc7 Private Market Activity: Whilst we think that a private equity buyout is unlikely for AEF, further media exposure and transaction data points should help the public value these assets. There have been some recently executed and rumoured deal activity in the space through 2020. Notably, KKR – one of the largest US-based global private equity funds – bought a 55% stake in Colonial First State valued at ~$3bn from CBA. The implied valuation was ~16x EBITDA, despite the quality of business model and LTM of members being substantially weaker than AEF. There is similar PE interest in NAB’s MLC Wealth, with US funds CC Capital and FC Flowers on second round bids for the asset. NAB's MLC Wealth business caught the attention of Carlyle, BlackRock, and KKR earlier in the year although deals were not executed. The interest from KKR in Colonial is particularly notable, given Scott Bookmyer (KKR partner) who refers to Australian superannuation as the ‘the envy of the western world’. We believe AEF may benefit indirectly from private equity interest, which will confirm both the long-term value and viability of their business model. |
Margin trading is therefore different from gambling but quite as risky. While gambling is a game of chance, Margin trading is speculative. Speculative trading is done through calculated risks, where a positive return on investment is expected. High Volatility Makes Margin Trading Very Risky. Margin trading using crypto is nevertheless riskier Margin trading is therefore different from gambling but quite as risky. While gambling is a game of chance, Margin trading is speculative. Speculative trading is done through calculated risks, where a positive return on investment is expected. High Volatility Makes Margin Trading Very Risky. Margin trading using crypto is nevertheless riskier The reality is that margin trading is an inherently risky strategy that can transform even the safest blue-chip stock purchase into a high-stakes gamble. It allows aggressive traders—both individuals and institutions—to buy more shares than they could otherwise afford. “Margin trading is gambling for suckers. 90% of all traders lose money. It’s pretty much impossible to be profitable unless you’re already some high-level trader”. Another Reddit user goes ahead and asks for a moment of silence “for all of the sheep about to be slaughtered.” Margin trading allows aspiring traders to borrow funds from a broker so that they can take more significant positions in trades. This can amplify either consequent gains or losses. Margin trading is therefore different from gambling but quite as risky. While gambling is a game of chance, Margin trading is speculative.
[index] [96] [263] [44] [373] [258] [404] [603] [465] [285] [651]
9 Tips for Trading on Margin 👊 - Duration: 10:18. UKspreadbetting 4,736 views. 10:18. Lesson 8: Spread Betting Margin - What it is and How it Works - Duration: 4:03. Leverage and margin. http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/ Trading on margin allows you to magnify your gains. This is because financial pread betting is ... The one thing that changes the dynamic with spread betting compared to shares is margin - i.e. using leverage to trade with. Because of margin, it becomes a high risk product but it is up to you ... Margin is the deposit required to fund a bet. PLEASE SUPPORT US BY LIKING THIS VIDEO IF YOU FOUND IT USEFUL This is expressed as a percentage of the notional value. Example: Initial margin http://www.financial-spread-betting.com/Initial-Variation-margin.html Financial spread betting is a margined product. Betting on margin is whe...