/biz/ - Business & Finance

>>53029416

>>30438883
SOXL went roughly 250% if you bought the literal top in february before the crash and just held it. what more proof do you need that buy and hodlers always win?

pic related bought the top of TSLA after the forward split before it dumped. then it went up to almost double.

>>28573158
imagine being pic related and probably killing yourself after buying the """"top""""

>>25032169
i wonder if he held? why are buy and hodlrs always right, /smg/?

daily reminder that this guy would be making a fuckload of money if he just held. stocks literally do only go up.

>>24342655
idk, i used to say the same thing about pic related but if he held he would have been fine in only 2.5 months. assuming he bought shares and not options though to be fair.

daily reminder that stocks only go up. if this guy had held it took him only 2.5 months (september 1st to now roughly) to break even or even make a profit.

but did he hodl? or did he sell? that's the million dollar question.

what do you think happened to this guy?

>>23787509
Yea, super interesting and why most physics guys end up in finance or economics.
>more things to consider
Definitely are, just to send you down that rabbit hole, consider the production function: land, labor, capital, technology factors interacting

Some smart brains say its non linear, so more of 1 factor actually equals less production.

Japanese guy did some economic production modelling with matrices
http://reposit.sun.ac.jp/dspace/bitstream/10561/874/1/v45n1p29_tanaka.pdf

If you like this stuff I got lots more, I mean you can really go deep into autism with it like these guys:
http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/tesfatsi/MoneyBalancesInProdFunction.HStokes2013.pdf

>>23533126
>bought at $10
>sold half at $15

idk why you're so mad bro. even if i get stopped out at break even i still made plenty of money. i agree the people who JUST bought in are exactly like pic related though, "late to the party" as it were.

>>23191799
buy the rumor sell the news is an important saying for a reason. generally if you FOMO you're basically buying the news when everyone else is selling the news, that's why it generally fails. you have to get into things early, and be willing to wait, that's the key. GME was like this recently. the people who made out like bandits on the AAPL/TSLA forward splits were in at least a week or two if not longer before the splits even happened, the ones who got bogged bought in after the split, some at the peak like pic related. the key will always be buying in early on the rumor, and selling at or before the event occurs, and probably selling half at some point in profit to protect yourself just in case. i sold half of my GME at 14.50 on the pump for example, it sucks it's coming down now but at least i got a nice profit from that which is sorta the point (if it goes up im still in with half, if it goes down at least i locked in profits).

just remember any time you want to make a play off of some news catalyst you want to get in early and be patient. many of us have been in GME since Q2 ER. if you wanted to play Kodak you should have bought in before any sort of pump occurred because you believed in the FA.

>>23182217
>haven't gone down over the last few decades.
I mean they didn't in Japan for decades too before 1991. What happens when they do and you're stuck with the insurance jew and HOA payments? Also, in the US we can't raise rates either because we have too much debt now.

I'm actually yugely in favor of property ownership but can't help feeling i should wait because:
>mortgage rates might be even LOWER
>current market will run out of buyers soon
>deferment + foreclosure will add more sellers right after the last normie has bought the top.

>>22777619
looks like we got a wsb refugee here, boys.

>>22734244
this is, in a nutshell, why it is always best to buy at least a week before an event, and sell a day or two before the event even happens. premarket hype at the absolute latest but you probably shouldn't even be in that shit by that point. this is true for literally every news event.

the aapl/tsla split is a perfect example of this. all of us who got in before the split even happened made loadsa money. we got out when it first started dumping. the retards bought AFTER the split and got dumped on. and the cycle continues.

>>22523665
never heard of it. i saw some anon posting about the forward split for them too but i doubt NEE is as much of a name brand meme as TSLA and AAPL. you'd have to do more DD on it. TSLA was more of a gamble for me but it's TSLA i figured it'd at least meme it's way through the split. AAPL is a solid company so i was fine with holding it long term if i had to but after the split i was just waiting for a signal to exit. still feels bad i could have sold it for way more in the premarket but it tanked hard and then i sold it on the 50% retrace that morning, same with TSLA which i got out of around 500.

the main question is how much hype does NEE have? like i said i've never heard of it, but everyone has heard of TSLA and AAPL and they were also being memed on reddit. does NEE have that? worst case scenario, how solid of a company is NEE now and for the future? typically forward splits are good news so it's probably fine assuming they're a good company (which i assume they are because usually only good companies or fucking enigmas like TSLA have forward splits). i'd say it's probably fine but you probably will only make some money instead of big bucks. it also depends how much of a pump it's dealing with leading up to the split, on AAPL and TSLA all of the hype was priced in pre-split which is why they've dumped after, you had to get in early. people who got in post-split got fucked because they were late after the huge pump already happened, pic related.

>>22422184
it's still unreal that i timed my exit on TSLA post-split as well as i did. when it tanked from premarket 538 and then recovered around 50% to around 500 i sold. i still look at pic related sometimes and laugh.

>>22389752
that's what they told me.

>>22337056
i doubt it. retail historically has little impact on moving the needle. retail are the ones who were buying TSLA at 500+. i have proof.

>>22332218

>>22318624
but what about non-TSLA tech stocks like AAPL and AMD though? like im honestly curious. im essentially gambling on this but im really curious when AMD will reach new ATH's again. a day? a week? a month? a year? if i have to hodl for a long fucking time again im just going to use this as another lesson to never accept overnight risk ever again for the rest of my life, but at least AMD isn't a biotech shit.

>>22292237
either way, i only come here during the weekends or when the market is closed in general. only time there is any semblance of real discussion going on without the autistic screeching and reaction posting.

my point still stands though: WSB refugees or not, there is an annoyingly large segment of /smg/ that plays weekly options or bought TQQQ as their first trade "because they told me stonks only go up" or some dumb shit like pic related. it's really annoying how ADHD so many of these kids are, panicking like bitches. it's like they don't even realize that you get major tax reductions for holding for a year+, as if holding a stock or ETF for a whole year is like an eternity to them or something. it's like they don't see good stocks going down as a discount, as an opportunity. it's like they have no plan, no risk management, no FA or TA, just posts from strangers on the internet that they blindly follow.

the worst part of all is that at the end of the day they probably only have a $2k account or some bullshit. pisses me off.

>>22253940
Based.

so i guess that one anon's theory that (((they))) were pumping TSLA and would do it up until they got added to the S&P at which point they would dump their bags on all the normies was wrong then, eh?

>>22210452
9/4 500c bro should have bought a longer dated call, eh? looks like the tutes finally finished shaking out all of the zoomers