Random Thought Thread

bluemax_1 said:
But the big boys don't like losing money, especially to the little guy, which means they'll probably try to change the rules of the game to try to prevent this from happening again.
Click to expand...
seems like we're at a phase where anyone's grasp on control over rules is slippery
 
I've pissed away enough $ playing the stock market as a day trader almost 20 years ago (hint hint, my posting handle in here ought to tell you something) to have learned one thing which has been repeated in here over the past few days, i.e, a fool and his money are soon parted. If you don't know WTF you are doing, you will be fleeced and skinned alive. I used to scoff at the old timers back in my days when I was a young buck myself buying into the BS that my era back in the late 90's and early 2000's was a different era, e.g. the Internet, fiber optics, new tech; blah, blah, blah, belch!

Don't get me wrong, there is a science to this and if you are smart and dedicated PLUS VERY DISCIPLINED, you can stand a better chance as a small investor without the institutional know-how and the connections. FFS learn about important parameters such as moving averages (MA) and the application/definition of candles (not the ones on the bathtub's ledge!) and whole host of other jargons, but you gotta be good at math. Following advices online and on message boards often culminates in disaster. Might as well buy a chicken, throw some seeds on a spreadsheet and just mark where the chicken pecks: same odds of making/losing it all :D
 
bluemax_1 said:
I like playing with stocks. I usually wind up with pretty decent results, but sometimes you gotta just keep trying til you figure out what works best for you.

Depending on position, sometimes I might go short, or long.

All depends on whether I'm shooting from the bench or prone :p
Click to expand...
I’d like this twice if the system would let me.
 
000Robert said:
I wonder what would happen if the little guys decided to just stop playing the game?
Click to expand...

It seems to me the ubiquitous 401k makes that about impossible. All these people buying stock every month whether it's a good idea or not. It keeps the party going.
 
Casinostocks said:
I've pissed away enough $ playing the stock market as a day trader almost 20 years ago (hint hint, my posting handle in here ought to tell you something) to have learned one thing which has been repeated in here over the past few days, i.e, a fool and his money are soon parted. If you don't know WTF you are doing, you will be fleeced and skinned alive. I used to scoff at the old timers back in my days when I was a young buck myself buying into the BS that my era back in the late 90's and early 2000's was a different era, e.g. the Internet, fiber optics, new tech; blah, blah, blah, belch!

Don't get me wrong, there is a science to this and if you are smart and dedicated PLUS VERY DISCIPLINED, you can stand a better chance as a small investor without the institutional know-how and the connections. FFS learn about important parameters such as moving averages (MA) and the application/definition of candles (not the ones on the bathtub's ledge!) and whole host of other jargons, but you gotta be good at math. Following advices online and on message boards often culminates in disaster. Might as well buy a chicken, throw some seeds on a spreadsheet and just mark where the chicken pecks: same odds of making/losing it all :D
Click to expand...

While this is pretty good advice, the current craziness is no longer about some average guy making a good profit on a stock pick. This has become all about the little guy sticking it to the Man. The 99% having their day.

While I don't agree with most of the motivations here, I do find it interesting that natural forces have a way of taking over when the established regulators, rules and systems will not. It's fascinating from the sidelines.
 
TRfromMT said:
While this is pretty good advice, the current craziness is no longer about some average guy making a good profit on a stock pick. This has become all about the little guy sticking it to the Man. The 99% having their day.

While I don't agree with most of the motivations here, I do find it interesting that natural forces have a way of taking over when the established regulators, rules and systems will not. It's fascinating from the sidelines.
Click to expand...

Don't get me wrong, I also like the premise of the "little guy fighting back" as I had alluded to in an earlier post a couple of days ago but my cautious side was tempered a couple of decades ago playing the speculative game. As a related matter, I have watched some recent interviews with the young man who is the RobinHood CEO and my spider senses got tingled up when he was pressed on the part ownership of RH by some of the big WS guys. I agree with you that this is a game which I also like to watch from the sidelines as I no longer have the stomach for partaking.
 
Casinostocks said:
Don't get me wrong, I also like the premise of the "little guy fighting back" as I had alluded to in an earlier post a couple of days ago but my cautious side was tempered a couple of decades ago playing the speculative game. As a related matter, I have watched some recent interviews with the young man who is the RobinHood CEO and my spider senses got tingled up when he was pressed on the part ownership of RH by some of the big WS guys. I agree with you that this is a game which I also like to watch from the sidelines as I no longer have the stomach for partaking.
Click to expand...
The links between RH and Citadel (of which Melvin is a part of), and the timing of RH cutting off the little guys from GME, and now, limiting the little guys to a single share of several other potential plays... :rolleyes:
 
The good thing about the thing is that it has exposed the whole "rules for thee but not for me" issue on WS.

The big players get to manipulate the shit out of the market, taking super risky positions/shorts/whatever and not getting fucked by it.

If the market was honest and free, the big shorts would get killed for thinking they could short 150% the available stock to devalue GME to make a killing.

The fact that they did a bunch of illegal stuff with RH and others to retail guys to try to force sales below market, while having the news call the small retail GME buyers white supremicists and getting yellen to "investigate" is very telling.

That itself is a bigger win for the small guy in general.

I am gleefully watching the big hedges worry about this while small retail guys troll them for getting their dick in a vise that they created themselves. It's awesome.
 
The Amazing Virginian said:
Anyone paying any attention at all in 2008 should have already known that the game is rigged and they will absolutely change the rules without a moment's notice whenever the crap hits the fan. I highly recommend two very entertaining, well-made, and relatively accurate movies: "The Big Short" and "Too Big to Fail."
Click to expand...

Oh, I watched that show in real time. I knew the game would go the way it did as soon as the big guys nexus with powerful people's money became obvious.

The fact they got bailed out will only embolden the taking of risk, because now the big guys know their incestuous relationships with powerful people (the only people in the nation that can legally insider trade, mind you) will ensure that all actual risk gets passed to the taxpayer.

A market cannot be free when failure isn't an option.
 
co556guy said:
Oh, I watched that show in real time. I knew the game would go the way it did as soon as the big guys nexus with powerful people's money became obvious.

The fact they got bailed out will only embolden the taking of risk, because now the big guys know their incestuous relationships with powerful people (the only people in the nation that can legally insider trade, mind you) will ensure that all actual risk gets passed to the taxpayer.

A market cannot be free when failure isn't an option.
Click to expand...
I made those same points to Alan Blinder when I had an opportunity to speak with him in September 2008 right after they converted Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs from investment banks to bank holding companies so the Fed could bail them out. We talked about how they were creating a huge moral hazard.

But the truth is . . . Bernanke, Paulson, et al. were all scared sh__less after Lehman went toes up, and there was no way they were going to let that kind of thing continue. The real failure was not breaking all those guys up after things calmed down by, say, March 2009, so that there would be no more too big to fail. But the lesson they all learned was that you must get bigger at all costs, and if you do, then no risk is too great. As a result . . . the financial institutions are all way bigger and more concentrated now than they were in 2008.
 
The Amazing Virginian said:
I made those same points to Alan Blinder when I had an opportunity to speak with him in September 2008 right after they converted Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs from investment banks to bank holding companies so the Fed could bail them out. We talked about how they were creating a huge moral hazard.

But the truth is . . . Bernanke, Paulson, et al. were all scared sh__less after Lehman went toes up, and there was no way they were going to let that kind of thing continue. The real failure was not breaking all those guys up after things calmed down by, say, March 2009, so that there would be no more too big to fail. But the lesson they all learned was that you must get bigger at all costs, and if you do, then no risk is too great. As a result . . . the financial institutions are all way bigger and more concentrated now than they were in 2008.
Click to expand...

You obviously have more experience with this than I, and it's interesting to meet someone who has talked personally with some big names in that area.

Personally, I disagree on principal with any bailout, any breakup, etc. They should have been left to be crushed by the market, then be held as an example of what happens when risk isn't managed. ANY other solution just passes the buck.

Now, I am sure my position is not as nuanced, experienced or educated as yours (I am not being sarcastic here)....and thank you for making those arguements. At least it was said, even if it was ignored.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top