[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)