• Breaking News

    Tuesday, August 11, 2020

    Home Unlabelled Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here. Investing

    Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here. Investing

    August 11, 2020

    Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here. Investing

    Daily Advice Thread - All basic help or advice questions must be posted here.

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 05:17 AM PDT

    If your question is "I have $10,000, what do I do?" or other "advice for my personal situation" questions. If you are going to ask how to invest you should include relevant information, such as the following:

    • How old are you?
    • Are you employed/making income? How much?
    • What are your objectives with this money? (buy a house? Retirement savings?)
    • What is your risk tolerance? (Do you mind risking it at blackjack or do you need to know its 100% safe?)
    • What are you current holdings? (Do you already have exposure to specific funds and sectors?)
    • Any other assets? House paid off? Cars? Expensive significant other?
    • What is your time horizon? Do you need this money next month? Next 20yrs?
    • Any big debts?
    • Any other relevant financial information will be useful to give you a proper answer.

    Please consider consulting our FAQ first - https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/faq

    Be aware that these answers are just opinions of Redditors and should be used as a starting point for your research. You should strongly consider seeing a registered financial rep before making any financial decisions!

    submitted by /u/AutoModerator
    [link] [comments]

    [Breaking news] California judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday requiring Uber/Lyft to stop classifying drivers as independent contractors. Serious implications for Uber/Lyft, both are not yet profitable, are now required to pay for costly benefits that come with a full-time staff.

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 02:27 PM PDT

    https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/10/judge-grants-preliminary-injunction-requiring-uber-and-lyft-to-stop-classifying-drivers-as-contractors.html

    A California judge granted a preliminary injunction Monday requiring Uber and Lyft to stop classifying their drivers as independent contractors pending further action by the court. The order will take effect after 10 days, as the companies requested a brief stay during the appeals process.

    If upheld, the ruling could have serious implications for Uber and Lyft, both of which are not yet profitable and have seen their ride-hailing businesses suffer during the pandemic. By classifying their drivers as independent workers, rather than employees, the companies have not had to pay for costly benefits that come with a full-time staff.

    California Attorney General Xavier Becerra requested the injunction as part of a lawsuit he brought in May along with city attorneys from San Francisco, Los Angeles and San Diego. The suit, filed in San Francisco Superior Court, alleged Uber and Lyft violated the state's new law known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which was created as a way to classify gig workers as full employees and ensure benefits from their employers. Uber and Lyft were among a group of tech companies that have previously opposed the bill, arguing their workers enjoy the flexibility of creating their own schedules as contractors.

    California officials sought an injunction on the alleged misclassification and restitution for workers and civil penalties worth up to hundreds of millions of dollars.

    Shares of Uber were down 0.8% during extended trading Monday and Lyft shares were down 1.7%.

    Both companies said they would appeal the ruling immediately.

    "The vast majority of drivers want to work independently, and we've already made significant changes to our app to ensure that remains the case under California law," an Uber spokesperson said. "When over 3 million Californians are without a job, our elected leaders should be focused on creating work, not trying to shut down an entire industry during an economic depression."

    "Drivers do not want to be employees, full stop," Lyft said in a statement. "We'll immediately appeal this ruling and continue to fight for their independence. Ultimately, we believe this issue will be decided by California voters and that they will side with drivers."

    "The court has weighed in and agreed: Uber and Lyft need to put a stop to unlawful misclassification of their drivers while our litigation continues," Becerra said in a statement. "While this fight still has a long way to go, we're pushing ahead to make sure the people of California get the workplace protections they deserve. Our state and workers shouldn't have to foot the bill when big businesses try to skip out on their responsibilities. We're going to keep working to make sure Uber and Lyft play by the rules."

    Uber CEO Dara Khosrowshahi advocated for a "third way" to classify workers in a letter to President Donald Trump in March as the first round of coronavirus relief measures were being negotiated. He argued there should be a way for workers to gain protections without sacrificing the flexibility of contract work.

    In the ruling, Judge Ethan Schulman recognized the value of flexibility offered by Uber and Lyft, writing, "The Court does not take lightly Defendants' showing that a preliminary injunction may also have an adverse effect on some of their drivers, many of whom desire the flexibility to continue working as they have in the past, and may have commitments that make it difficult if not impossible for them to become full-time employees."

    But Schulman wrote that Uber and Lyft's concerns that the injunction would have "far-reaching effects" had "only been exacerbated by Defendants' prolonged and brazen refusal to comply with California law. Defendants may not evade legislative mandates merely because their businesses are so large that they affect the lives of many thousands of people."

    Schulman wrote that any impact of the injunction on Uber and Lyft's businesses would likely be mitigated by the fact that both have said the "vast majority of their drivers work on a casual or sporadic basis" and the reality that the coronavirus pandemic has "drastically reduced the demand for Defendants' services."

    "Now, when Defendants' ridership is at an all-time low, may be the best time (or the least worst time) for Defendants to change their business practices to conform to California law without causing widespread adverse effects on their drivers," Schulman wrote.

    Uber and Lyft sought to delay the ruling until there was a ruling on Uber's constitutional challenge of AB5 or until voters weighed in on a ballot measure they sponsored to exempt them from the law. The Court dismissed those requests.

    Schulman said Uber's arguments that drivers' work was outside the ordinary course of its business, as the standard requires, was "a classic example of circular reasoning." He summarized the argument as saying that since Uber views itself as a tech company, only its tech workers are its employees.

    "Were this reasoning to be accepted, the rapidly expanding majority of industries that rely heavily on technology could with impunity deprive legions of workers of the basic protections afforded to employees by state labor and employment laws," the judge wrote.

    The ruling does not end the legal battles for Uber and Lyft, however. Last week, California's Labor Commissioner announced lawsuits against the companies alleging wage theft due to misclassification. The commission seeks to recover wages it believes were owed to drivers currently classified as contractors. The suits were filed in Alameda County Superior Court.

    submitted by /u/u87hi
    [link] [comments]

    Deep dive into the reasons behind why Intel is behind technologically.

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 05:21 AM PDT

    Since its' Q2 earnings call a few weeks ago, Intel Corporation (INTC) shares have plummeted 20% upon announcement of problems with its' next-generation 10nm and 7nm manufacturing processes. The massive collapse has led to widespread attention among investors, but in reality the situation has been years in the making for those who've been paying attention. Today I'd like to look at some of the technical decisions Intel made, why they've caused problems and the implications of that on their future.

    Lithography techniques

    Lithography is an incredibly complicated process that forms an incredible competitive advantage for those who master it. In simple terms, you put a template of circuit designs (photomask) on a silicon base (wafer) and shine a powerful laser on it [1].

    Over time, people tried to fit more transistors in the same area – this would lead to increased performance capability, lower power consumption and various other benefits outlined in Dennard Scaling[2]. This becomes progressively more difficult over time, as you're trying to cram transistors into areas thousands of times smaller than the width of a hair. The industry ran into a particularly tricky wall around the 20nm mark, since the size of the laser you used to 'print' the circuit design became so relatively big that it couldn't reliably follow the complicated patterns needed for all the transistors. Two schools of thought developed to address this problem – patterning (using more than one photomask, each with simpler diagrams, and lasering the wafer with each of these templates separately), and EUV (extreme ultra-violet, using radiation with much smaller wavelengths than traditional). Intel saw success with dual-patterning (two templates) on its' 22 and 14nm process, and chose to go one step further and pursue quad-patterning on its' 10nm process.[3] Meanwhile, its' competitors TSMC and Samsung chose EUV. [4] For reference, Intel themselves have also chosen to pursue EUV for their 7nm process. That might give you a hint as to which was the right choice…

    Other terminology I'll be referring to in this piece are yield (how much of a wafer is actually useable) and monolithic (the whole CPU is cut out of the wafer as a single piece of silicon) vs chiplets (the CPU is formed from several pieces of silicon stuck together)

    The problems with 10nm

    Back in 2013, Intel was in it's prime. It dominated the CPU market with >90% market share, and was pursuing a tick-tock strategy with its' chips – every two years you would have a die shrink 'tick', then the alternating years you would have a microarchitecture change 'tock'. In the roadmaps released by Intel, they planned to have their next 'tock' of 10nm in 2016. The 'tick' – Skylake architecture came, but the 'tock' never did. Even today, 4 years after it was supposed to be released, 10nm still isn't really here. On paper, it was launched with Cannon Lake in 2018 – but the total number of those are in the thousands, if not hundreds. On paper, the 'mass-market' generation Ice Lake launched in 2020 but they have incredibly limited supply and offer inferior performance to Intel's own 14nm offerings. [5] The latest update is that desktop and datacentre chips will come in the second half of 2021 – but for reasons we shall soon see it is my opinion that these will yet again be flops. In fact, it is my opinion that 10nm is a total writeoff, and that the design decisions taken at a very early stage have doomed it to failure. When you use lithographic techniques, you are bound to have some defects in your wafer. After all, creating billions of devices tens of atoms in size isn't going to be perfect. Patterning as a lithographic technique inherently has a higher defect rate than not using it – you're basically going through the same process multiple times, thus increasing the chance of defect dramatically. As I mentioned earlier, Intel is using quad patterning in 10nm – this means their defect rates are going to be sky high. At the same time, their usage of a monolithic die compounds this problem for high-performance, high core count CPU models. As you can see from the blue wafer below, it's difficult to draw large squares (high-core count models) that are without defect. In comparison, the red wafer is AMD's chiplet approach, built on TSMC's less defect-prone EUV process.

    (Sorry, I copied this post from my blog to not self-promote but I can't insert the relevant pictures here)

    Since you can paste together multiple small CPUs into one bigger one, you use a far greater percentage of the wafer, cutting costs and letting you freely choose however many high-performance chips you want to build.

    Of course, it's impossible for anyone outside Intel to know the exact numbers for the defect rates, yields and unit costs for 10nm. No doubt they are improving as time goes on,as they always do with a maturing architecture. However, I can say with certainty that

    1. they are currently not yielding at rates that could let them release high core-count server chips in any volume, EVEN AT A LOSS
    2. The margins on 10nm will NEVER reach the heights that Intel has traditionally seen. Intel has enjoyed gross margins of above 60% for the last decade. In my opinion, if Intel were to replace their whole product stack with 10nm, their gross margin will never rise above 30%. The maximum price they can release their products at is capped not only by AMD's offerings, but more importantly their own legacy performance. If Intel attempted to price at a level that would give them healthy margins, their entire product lineup would be outcompeted by their 5 year old 14nm chips on a price/performance basis, and their customers would have no reason to upgrade, decimating their revenues.

    These are bold statements but I believe Intel's actions over the past few years, and their planned actions over the next few, support this view.

    When you release a new generation of processors, you always want to have it be 'better' than the previous generation. This may seem incredibly obvious, but the only exception is when the design has such big inherent flaws that you can't physically do so. For instance, the Bulldozer architecture AMD released in 2011 performed worse than their own previous-generation Phenom II architecture [6], leading to near-bankruptcy of the company, due to the flawed design of maximising core counts from a belief that multi-threaded performance was the future; while having the processor cores shares caches and FPUs, massively reducing the multi-threaded performance of the architecture. Intel finds themselves in a similar situation today. Their design choices made back in 2013 mean that it is impossible to mass produce 10nm high core count chips. This would've been fine if their monopoly continued and the mainstream continued to have 4 core, 8 threaded CPUs. Indeed, they are producing Ice Lake laptop CPUs today that have 4 cores. However, the resurgence of AMD with their high core count capable Zen architecture meant that Intel were forced into raising their own core counts to compete – there has been a doubling of core counts across their entire product stack, which is fine on 14nm with its' double patterning, but not so much on 10nm. The limitations of 10nm mean that current generation chips at the same price point from Intel have 14nm massively outperforming 10nm, with the higher core counts outweighing any density improvements that 10nm brings. Similarly, leaks for the upcoming 10nm Alder Lake desktop and Ice Lake Xeon chips suggest that the maximum number of cores on 10nm,28, will be 33-50% lower than those from 14nm [7] – not to mention AMD's offerings which top out at 2.3x the core count at half the price.[8] The persistent lack of chips on 10nm that can outperform their predecessors, despite us now technically being on '10nm+++', suggests that there is a fundamental barrier in the technology that no amount of delays and extra engineering can get past. 10nm is rotten from the very first steps taken.

    7nm and beyond

    So now we've established just how much of a disaster Intel's 10nm process is, what about 7nm? It should be better right? After all, its' built on the superior EUV, rather than SAQP. The market obviously expects it to be Intel's saviour, given the massive drop in Intel share price was widely attributed to the '6 month delay' in 7nm rollout. While I don't have nearly as much solid information to go on compared to 10nm, I just want to note a few things. The exact words Bob Swan used in the Q2 call were 'we are seeing a 6 month shift in 7nm… 12 months behind our internal target… we have identified a defect mode that resulted in yield degradation'.

    There's quite a lot to break down here. Many people, including analysts on the call, were confused by how 7nm could be both 6 and 12 months behind target at the same time. Have Intel achieved quantum tunnelling of time? The truth is that Bob's claim of a 'buffer in planning process' as the reason, while technically true, is incredibly misleading. In any typical launch of a new process node, you spend a few months getting up to speed – running the foundry through the whole process, troubleshooting, using the produced chips as prototypes to send to OEM partners for them to design products around, etc. You don't sell the chips produced to anyone. Industry standard is to call this period a tape-out, not a launch of a new process – that's when you actually produce chips that you sell to people. Bob's comment translated is that the process is delayed by 12 months, but they're going to breach industry standard and 'launch' 7nm when the first fabs start spinning up 6 months before they have chips in any volume. Sound ridiculous? Well, Intel did the exact same thing with 10nm. Faced with mounting pressure over the constant delays, Intel 'launched' Cannon Lake in May 2018. There was 1 CPU in the whole generation, a dual core processor with a clock speed of 2.2Ghz that was slower than the i3-3250 released in 2013 for $20 less than the 10nm part. Not to mention it was nigh on impossible to actually buy one.[9] Cannon Lake was an incredibly obvious paper launch, released to appease investors at a time where Intel had just started up its fabs. Ice Lake, the first 10nm architecture you could actually buy (in limited quantities) shipped in September 2019, more than a year after Cannon Lake 'launched'. This '6-month' delay is nothing more than an attempt to sweetcoat a 12 month delay (assuming no further delays).

    The second part of the comment, relating to a 'defect mode', is just as interesting as the first. Intel are attempting to use GaaFeT technology for their 7nm process, though there's conflicting information suggesting they might move away from this if it proves to be too difficult. [10] GaaFet, or Gates-all-around-Field-effect-Transistor, is a new and unproven transistor technology that should overcome the technical difficulties current transistor technologies face at increasingly smaller sizes. Unlike normal process shrinks, this is going to a completely new type of transistor and we only have one other comparable in history – the transistor to a 3D FinFeT technology a few years ago. With FinFet, the research process from having a 'working prototype' demonstrating commercialisation potential took 8 years. [11] Meanwhile, the equivalent demonstration with GaaFeT took place 3 years ago.

    [12] While FinFeT and GaaFeT are different beasts, it is undeniable that the plans from Intel, and indeed all other foundries, are incredibly ambitious. The latest leaks suggest that the 'defect mode' Intel have ran into has to do with their GaaFeT implementation. If this is true, you could easily see 7nm being just as much of a disaster as 10nm is.

    Beyond 7nm, there are some positives to be found. As we get even smaller transistors, it will be necessary for both EUV and patterning to occur. It's likely that Intel will have an advantage in this area compared to competitors due to their experience with 10nm. At the same time, they are actively exploring chipletbased designs. They might have been late in realising the benefits, but they've finally come around with their EMIB, Foveros and big.Little technologies, all of which I'll explore in a future blog post.

    Conclusion

    I'll leave it to you to decide what the financial implications of these deductions are for Intel, but suffice it to say the baseline scenario is far worse than what many people envision. There is no doubt that Intel will recover from this fiasco, but at what cost? Will it require yet another management reshuffle? Following in the footsteps of AMD, outsourcing production fully and writing off its' own fabs? Acknowledgement that they will no longer be able to extract incredible margins from their monopolistic position?

    References

    [1] http://www.lithoguru.com/scientist/lithobasics.html

    [2]Dennard, R., Gaensslen, F., Hwa-Nien Yu, Rideout, V., Bassous, E. and Leblanc, A., 1999. Design Of Ion-implanted MOSFET's with Very Small Physical Dimensions. IEEE Journal of Solid-State Circuits., 87(4), pp.668-678.

    [3]2019 Intel Investor Meeting Presentation, slide 9

    [4]TSMC PR release, 10/2019

    [5]https://www.anandtech.com/show/15385/intels-confusing-messaging-is-comet-lake-better-than-ice-lake

    [6]https://www.techspot.com/review/452-amd-bulldozer-fx-cpus/page13.html

    [7]https://wccftech.com/intel-10nm-ice-lake-sp-xeon-cpu-28-core-56-thread-cpu-benchmarks-leak/

    [8]https://www.amd.com/en/products/cpu/amd-epyc-7742

    [9]https://www.anandtech.com/show/13405/intel-10nm-cannon-lake-and-core-i3-8121u-deep-dive-review

    [10]https://twitter.com/chiakokhua/status/1288402693770231809

    [11]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinFET

    [12]https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319035460_Stacked_nanosheet_gate-all-around_transistor_to_enable_scaling_beyond_FinFET

    submitted by /u/InfiniteValueptr
    [link] [comments]

    How do you "Let your winners run"?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 07:13 PM PDT

    So I have a rare case where a 5% allocation of my portfolio (a mining stock) has risen 93% in value. I think it will go higher but what is the best way to lock in profits while letting it still grow? Some ideas I have are:

    • Sell off the profit each time this 5% allocation grows to 6% (currently at 8.88%)
    • Sell off the profit each time the 5% allocation grows in value by 25% (same as above but 6.25%
    • Sell off the profit once the price dips down to the 50 day moving average.
    • Sell entire excess when MACD black line falls below the red line (for lack of proper terminology)
    submitted by /u/cartoonzone
    [link] [comments]

    So if Kodak isn't going to get the loan, who will?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 12:03 PM PDT

    I guess the question is, who are the other chemical manufacturers that not only are American based but also in need of a loan to make chemicals for pharmaceuticals? I feel like this is really the big question rather than "will Kodak get the loan". At this point, I'd rather buy stock In a decent company in chemical space even if they end up not getting the loan.

    submitted by /u/Cocaineniggums
    [link] [comments]

    Nikola's stock jumps after securing 2,500 electric garbage truck order

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 06:37 AM PDT

    Shares of Nikola Corp. NKLA, 19.29% shot up 14% in premarket trading Monday, after the electric truck maker confirmed it secured an order to maker at least 2,500 electric garbage trucks for Republic Services Inc. RSG, -0.45% for an undisclosed amount. The company said it expects to begin testing the trucks in early 2022, with full production deliveries in 2023. According to a report in The Wall Street Journal, the battery-powered trucks Nikola will make can travel 150 miles on a charge. Although the price of the trucks in the Republic Services order isn't disclosed, Founder Trevor Milton told the WSJ that the company is committed to a price tag under $500,000 per vehicle, which is the going rate for electric garbage trucks currently sold by Nikola's competitors. Nikola's stock has more than doubled (up 122%) over the past three months through Friday, while the S&P 500 SPX, 0.22% has gained 14.4%.

    submitted by /u/TPRT
    [link] [comments]

    DHT Earnings - Lit? Or not lit?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 06:22 PM PDT

    I'm new-ish to reading balance sheets and I'd love to talk about DHT's most recent earnings. From what I can tell, the future for them is looking optimistic. Am I on par or off my rocker? Looking forward to hear back from ya'll. Cheers

    https://ml-eu.globenewswire.com/Resource/Download/b54a4a9a-949a-4282-8d33-595512900ed7

    submitted by /u/scott_od
    [link] [comments]

    Would you invest in Europe long-term?

    Posted: 11 Aug 2020 04:19 AM PDT

    I'm currently building a portfolio built from a few Investment Trusts, usual suspects; Scottish Mortgage, Edinburgh Worldwide, Polar Capital Tech, Pacific Horizon and Worldwide Healthcare.

    Omitted from this list is any big exposure in Europe, as it was a market that seemed less attractive, however I do like the look of Bailie Gifford European Growth Trust.

    What are people's thoughts on investing in Europe over the next few years?

    submitted by /u/Nev_1979
    [link] [comments]

    Quidel stock takes steep dive

    Posted: 11 Aug 2020 12:10 AM PDT

    I'm trying to gather some points of view on why Quidel stock has taken a steep dive recently. Almost 30 dollars on Friday and over 40 dollars today. I haven't seen any news that warrants this. In fact, there is good news. They might be awarded millions to expand manufacturing for COVID screening kits.

    I see this as a temporary dip.

    Thoughts?

    submitted by /u/ayowegot10for10
    [link] [comments]

    Impact of WeChat ban on Apple's China iphone business

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 12:34 PM PDT

    having read this article from the Verge on the recent WeChat ban announcement.. https://www.theverge.com/2020/8/8/21358941/wechat-ban-apple-china-business-trump-tariffs-trade-manufacturing-impact

    ..i'm also wondering if a ban would force Apple having to remove the Wechat app from its Chinese app-store, which would mean iPhones are becoming useless for Chinese customers (WeChat is used to pay for almost everything in China, communicate, do gov services, etc.). What's speaking against this assumption?

    submitted by /u/mekonsodre14
    [link] [comments]

    Russia announced Covid-19 Vaccine: Prepare for Green Tuesday?

    Posted: 11 Aug 2020 03:30 AM PDT

    Here are some investment suggestions: MT4 species: XAUUSD.

    Posted: 11 Aug 2020 03:12 AM PDT

    Hi! Hello everyone! Here are some investment suggestions I saw: MT4 variety: XAUUSD.

    Proposal for midday trading on August 11: Variety: XAUUSD. Time: 18:50, empty order, profit 2 USD.

    Proposal for evening trading on August 11: Variety: XAUUSD. Time: 21:25, long orders, profit 3 US dollars.

    Proposal for evening trading on August 11: Variety: XAUUSD. Time: 23:42, short order, profit of 3 dollars.

    submitted by /u/adelina666
    [link] [comments]

    Is it worthwhile investing in Chinese stocks?

    Posted: 11 Aug 2020 02:51 AM PDT

    I am 15 years old and have only recently started to deal with the topic of shares. Now I am wondering if it is worth investing in Chinese stocks, as many Chinese companies are buying American and European companies. Are there any risks associated with the form of government in China?

    submitted by /u/Prg_Mori
    [link] [comments]

    Is it bad to invest in correlated stocks?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 04:24 PM PDT

    I'm very new to stocks and I understand little of diversification, but I do understand semiconductors and I want to invest in SC industry. I'm currently looking at stocks like AMD, NVDA, TSM, ASML. Now, since TSM and ASML are the backbones of AMD and NVDA, these stocks are clearly highly correlated; AMD's success is TSM's success, though TSM could fallback on AAPL or NVDA if AMD were to fail. So my question is, would it be a bad idea to combine them all in my portfolio? Assuming my objective is to bet on AMD's growth, is there any benefit to also adding TSM to the mix?

    submitted by /u/VonLoewe
    [link] [comments]

    Trailing stop loss strategies

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 05:23 PM PDT

    (note: I originally posted this as a response to a thread in r/stocks but thought I'd post here to get people's thoughts)

    I have been thinking about trailing stops a lot lately with everyone predicting another crash and so I decided to do some research. I came across this blog post that reviewed three studies of different stop-loss strategies.

    The tl;dr is that trailing stop losses work really well between the 15 and 20% range (compared to shorter strategies like 5% on the one hand and buy-and-hold on the other). One study in particular found that:

    • "The only stop-loss level that did worse than the buy-and-hold (B-H) portfolio, with a negative average return of 0.12% and cumulative return of -8.14%, was from a trailing stop-loss strategy with 5% loss limit."

    The 15% trailing stop loss level gave the highest cumulative return and the 20% trailing stop loss gave the highest quarterly return. This makes sense if you think about it--a 15-20% gives you a lot of room for regular fluctuations but protects from either stock-specific or market-wide crashes. It stops the bleeding without limiting your profits too much. Then, once the market has bottomed out (or close to it) you have cash to reinvest and can hopefully decrease your cost basis. There have been 29 declines of 10-20% in the S&P in the last 75 years--and among those the declines average 14%--and only nine 20-40% declines, which average a 28% decline (source). So unless you're day trading or swing trading, trailing stop losses seem to be best used to protect yourself from March-like situations.

    Speaking of which, I don't have a good way to backtest more complex strategies like this, but if someone else does, I'd be interested to see how they would have fared in March.

    Anyway, thought I'd share what I found. Personally, I went through and put 18% trailing stop losses on most of my positions after I did all this research! Seems like a good way to split the difference.

    submitted by /u/z74al
    [link] [comments]

    SLV/GLD Market Value Premium

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 08:51 PM PDT

    Are anyone of you concerned about AP's collecting spreads(market value-nav) on paper gold/silver? GLD posted 382MM in outflows for last month, which makes me think that this is already taking place. The spread between SLV Market price and NAV is currently 43.29%. I've been closely monitoring the price action of SLV and silvers spot price the last 2 weeks and I noticed somewhat of a divergence in the way they trade relative to one another. I know they're not perfectly correlated, but I just wanted to see if anyone can make sense of the price action and what it might mean for paper silver/gold. Thanks in advance for your input.

    Update: nav figure i pulled is inaccurate. Ignore this lol.

    submitted by /u/trenxr
    [link] [comments]

    $FSLY - Bullish or Bearish?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 11:06 AM PDT

    What are your thoughts on FSLY's current position?

    Q2 Earnings showed an EPS and Revenue beat as well as raised guidance.

    It came out that 12% of their revenue was attributed to Tik-Tok which caused many investors to sell their positions based on Tik-Tok's uncertain future.

    $FSLY is currently trading at $79.5 at the time of this post, down 33% from their highs just last week but up 300% on the year.

    Buy the dip or stay cautious?

    In my opinion this is about the bottom. I don't expect a V-shaped rebound but I think it levels out in the 75-80 range for a few weeks. I believe this massive drop is price adjustment based on earnings as well as the market pricing in the loss of Tik-Tok. I'm bullish moving forward at this price point. Would love to hear what you all think though!

    submitted by /u/Chewie_Defense
    [link] [comments]

    Is buying TIPS a good strategy right now?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 02:09 PM PDT

    Question for all of you gurus. Given the uncertainty of the market environment, coupled with Fed's unlimited printing, do you think TIPS is a good strategy right now for capital preservation than let's say MM funds? I'm hesitant to put it all in the stock (I'm dollar cost averaging right now back into it). Held mostly cash in the beg of the year.

    submitted by /u/horseandblinders
    [link] [comments]

    Risk Parity with zero rates

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 12:58 PM PDT

    Im trying to build an "all weather" portfolio, but without bonds, as with zero rates there is absolutely no point for me (I've worked in fixed income for 2 decades).

    Im looking into precious metals, land REITS, some long volatility.

    Also, It seems the "stock" part should be a global index.

    Have you think about this? Id love to know your ideas!

    Thanks!!!

    submitted by /u/RealPerro
    [link] [comments]

    Question About trading Nintendo Stock Through OTC

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 08:38 PM PDT

    Hello,

    I have little experience with non U.S stock exchange companies.

    Is it possible to daytrade/ swing trade nintendo Stock without much problem with liquidity or anything odd happening? Treat it like daytrading MSFT or AAPL without much issue. I'm looking at regularly trading Nintendo ( NTDOY) at an 8th of a share or ( NTDOF ) since I'm a fan of the company.

    Are there any pitfalls to watch out for?

    submitted by /u/MattTheCasual
    [link] [comments]

    How do I compare a stock portfolio to the S&P 500?

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 02:23 PM PDT

    Are there any tools that will let me compare a stock portfolio with the S&P 500 over the past X years?

    I tried finding tools at PortfolioVisualizer.com but they don't seem to have anything.

    I tried MorningStar but found the UI to be very clunky.

    Any tools or Excel sheet recommendations would be very helpful!

    submitted by /u/ccc_c0mb0breaker
    [link] [comments]

    $LYFT - analysts lower expectations ahead of Q2 results, now expecting more gradual recovery

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 08:18 AM PDT

    Jefferies: "We are lowering our PT and ests as the recovery in ridehailing is progressing slower than expected. 4 data points: 1) slow recovery in Lyft ride volume, 2) Uber's Q2 Rides bookings miss, 3) flat to declining DAU app data from SimilarWeb, and 4) our proprietary survey of 750+ respondents. While LYFT is levered to the U.S. economic recovery and valuation is cheap for L-T investors, N-T headwinds impede a quick recovery to the stock."

    Credit Suisse: "Whereas our prior thought process was that Lyft's riders will be returning back to work (to generating income) prior to spending on travel - hence from asector perspective rideshare should recover prior to travel - we now believe work/commute related activity will take some time to recover as corporations should behave in a more risk averse manner about bringing employees back into the office in favor of work-from-home. This hence affects a greater percentage of Lyft's activity, as airport related rides represented only ~9% of total pre-crisis. Our prior estimates had contemplated no material volume recovery 2Q20-4Q20, followed by a sharp V-shaped recovery by 1Q21 back to 2019 levels. We have decreased our rider and ride frequency expectations primarily for 2021 and 2022, as we now anticipate a more gradual pace of sequential recovery. Our first quarter for an anticipated shift to positive Adjusted EBITDA now stands at 2Q22.We maintain our Outperform rating based on the following: 1) large, fragmented, and underpenetrated addressable market of $745b, 2) autonomous and subsequent decrease to pricing offers optionality for earlier entry into steeper part of consumer adoption S-curve, 3) upside potential longer-term to generate ongoing operating leverage as the US ride share sector remains a rational duopoly."

    submitted by /u/street-guru
    [link] [comments]

    Question about merging and cost basis

    Posted: 10 Aug 2020 01:37 PM PDT

    Back in June 2018, I invested in ZF. I bought 466 shares at $10.70 a piece for a total investment of slightly below $5,000. In November 2019, ZF merged with ZTR with a 1.039 shares of ZTR being deposited for each share of ZF. My broker is E*TRADE and when I look at the cost basis for ZTR, it looks way off (note: there are several downstream DRIP investments, which are the additional transactions). I put together a table to demonstrate:

    ​

    Date ZF Shares ZF Cost Basis ZF Value ZTR Shares ZTR Cost Basis ZTR Value Value Difference
    06/19/2018 466 $10.70 $4,986 484.27 $8.62 $4175 $811
    07/19/2018 15.16 $10.79 $168 16.21 $9.01 $146 $22
    10/18/2018 18.31 $9.50 $174 19.03 $8.09 $154 $20
    01/09/2019 20.88 $8.64 $180 21.70 $7.27 $158 $22
    04/18/2019 19.25 $9.77 $188 20.01 $8.70 $174 $14
    07/18/2019 17.94 $10.87 $195 18.65 $10.11 $188 $7
    10/18/2019 17.44 $11.55 $201 18.13 $11.11 $201 $0

    When trying to measure the performance of my portfolio this is a bit problematic because the cost basis seems wrong for the older transactions. Particularly, when using the new cost basis it looks like ZTR performed less badly than it actually did when using the raw cash values I invested. This impacts amount of capital loss if and when I sell the shares.

    I haven't wrapped my head around the math yet, but here is what I am hypothesizing:

    - The cost basis are actually the value of ZTR (which I presume existed as a ticker symbol) on those particular dates
    - The share ratio (1.039) basically results in a loss for me in the cases where the difference between the prices of ZTR / ZF was < 1.039.
    - There is no way for me to capture this loss for taxes when I sell the ZTR shares because the cost bases are lower than they would have been for ZF.

    Is all of this correct?

    submitted by /u/antipoopsuperstar
    [link] [comments]
    Read more
    at

    No comments:

    Post a Comment