Stocks - G7 nations back deal to tax multinationals

G7 nations back deal to tax multinationals
Microsoft wins U.S. antitrust okay for $16 billion purchase of Nuance
Wall Street Reins In Hedge Funds’ Short Bets on Meme Stocks
Is naked shorting truly a common practice?
What do you all think of Coinbase $COIN?
Other forums with stock advice??? Sick of newbies talking about meme stocks.
Thoughts on ARKX
Wall Street Week Ahead for the trading week beginning June 7th, 2021
The Misdeeds of Culper & Hindenburg Research
Banking with stock brokers?
Is there any way that I, a non us citizen, can invest into the American stock market? If so, what do I have to do?
Best Brokerage for Short Selling?
How to Sell Certified Stock?
Should I get out of DISCA entirely or just sell it and buy DISCK (class c shares)?
Do I have to put up with overnight fees and margins when trading long-term?
Question about selling calls, where does the obligation of providing the shares go?
Is there some advantage for an investment firm to hold less than 10% of stock for a company?
Most tax efficient account type for US vs. CDN stocks/funds?
$NVO impact of fda approval of Ozempic for obesity?
Lululemon first-quarter sales rise 88%, topping estimates, as store traffic rebounds
Public offering Atlis motorvehicle
Anyone worked for a Broker? Educated in Finance? Interesting Question for you I have always wondered..

G7 nations back deal to tax multinationals

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 05:03 AM PDT

The G7 group of advanced economies has reached a "historic" deal on taxing multi-national companies, the UK's Chancellor of the Exchequer, Rishi Sunak says. Finance ministers meeting in London agreed to commit to the principle of a minimum corporate tax rate of 15%.

The deal - from the US, UK, France, Germany, Canada, Italy and Japan - will put pressure on other countries to follow suit, including at a meeting of the G20 next month.

At the moment companies can set up local branches in countries that have relatively low corporate tax rates and declare profits there.

That means they only pay the local rate of tax, even if the profits mainly come from sales made elsewhere. This is legal and commonly done.

The deal aims to stop this from happening in two ways.

Firstly, the G7 want a global minimum tax rate so as to avoid a "race to the bottom" where countries can undercut each other with low tax rates.

Secondly, the rules will aim to make companies pay tax in the countries where they are selling their products or services, rather than wherever they end up declaring their profits.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-57368247

From what I understand this means companies like Amazon would have to pay taxes on the sales made in each country it operates in. 15% of all profit in UK, 15% of all profit in the US etc etc. Happy to be corrected.

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

Microsoft wins U.S. antitrust okay for $16 billion purchase of Nuance

Posted: 04 Jun 2021 05:39 PM PDT

https://news.yahoo.com/microsoft-wins-u-antitrust-okay-215335634.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Microsoft Corp has won U.S. antitrust approval for its deal to buy artificial intelligence and speech technology company Nuance Communications Inc, according to a filing made by Nuance to the government.

It is definitely a positive news for msft. It will enhance msft capability to expand more revenue sources. It also shows that msft is not under antitrust issue and able to keep expanding. It will pass apple to become the most valuable company this year if apple keep trading under $130.

Thanks for the awards.

submitted by /u/coolcomfort123
[link] [comments]

Wall Street Reins In Hedge Funds’ Short Bets on Meme Stocks

Posted: 04 Jun 2021 06:13 PM PDT

(Bloomberg) -- Wall Street's top brokers are quietly tightening their rules for who can bet against retail traders' most-popular meme stocks.

Goldman Sachs Group Inc., Bank of America Corp., Citigroup Inc. and Jefferies Financial Group Inc. are among firms that have adjusted their risk controls at prime-brokerage operations, according to people familiar with the moves. The banks are trying to protect themselves against fallout from extreme surges and dips that have characterized trading in companies including AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc., MoV*n Inc. and GameStop Corp.

The changes mean some hedge funds and other institutional investors now face higher collateral requirements or are limited from shorting certain stocks, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing internal policy decisions.

"Until further notice, Jefferies Prime Brokerage will no longer offer custody on naked options" in GameStop, AMC and MoV*n, the firm said in a memo to clients seen by Bloomberg News. Naked options allow investors to short a stock without owning the underlying securities. Jefferies, which told clients that other stocks may be added to the list, will also no longer permit short sales of those securities.

Representatives of Goldman, Bank of America,Citigroup and Jefferies declined to comment. It's not unusual for banks to adjust their risk controls as market conditions change.

The measures may change the fortunes of retail investors lighting up Reddit message boards with their forays into day trading. Increased margin requirements could hasten the short squeezes small investors have been rushing to capitalize on. On the other hand, if hedge funds pull back on short bets due to the new restrictions, the Reddit crowd won't have as many opportunities to chase short squeezes.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/wall-street-banks-rein-hedge-190856404.html

submitted by /u/nams0
[link] [comments]

Is naked shorting truly a common practice?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 09:36 AM PDT

Hi there. I'm curious to know is you fine folks believe that naked shorting is honestly as common as a practice as they're claiming it is with the meme stocks? I apologize if it's a silly question but I'm new to investing as meme stocks did introduce me.

submitted by /u/0neG0al
[link] [comments]

What do you all think of Coinbase $COIN?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 10:15 AM PDT

I'm a noob, and I only go off basic numbers, but it seems to me that Coinbase is a great bet as a company. Down 33% since opening and has a decent revenue stream. With ETH going to proof of stake, Coinbase can make truckloads off of stake-mining while continuing to charge an arm and a leg in fees for the ever growing group of people becoming interested in crypto.

I read some articles that the price is still far too high because the original valuation already assumed ridiculously high profits. And a quick Google shows P/E of 97.88 which is kind of insane. What does everyone here think? A bad buy? Their business model seems to be insanely scalable.

Edit: Thank you all for a great discussion. A lot of good points to consider here!

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

Other forums with stock advice??? Sick of newbies talking about meme stocks.

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 02:10 PM PDT

I'm not sure if this is against the rules, but are their any forums that have more serious traders on the internet. I love the good advice I get from like 5% of you but since, wallstreetbets hit like ten million users, they all spilled into the good stock subreddits. I'm just curious if there is a forum out there with a higher percentage of mature users with more profesional experience. Not trying to be rude I'm sure some of you get my point.

submitted by /u/External-Anywhere-70
[link] [comments]

Thoughts on ARKX

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 11:36 AM PDT

Since it's debut about 2 months ago, Cathy's latest fund has performed with little fanfare. It's actually been surprising stable, consistently trading between $19 - $21 for the duration of its existence. It's also had remarkably low volume (less than 200,000 per day). I know there was some grumbling about the perceived randomness of its holdings (NFLX, Deere, etc), and the fact that they've recently sold off all of their SPCE holdings, but what's your opinion on the funds long term viability?

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

Wall Street Week Ahead for the trading week beginning June 7th, 2021

Posted: 04 Jun 2021 09:42 PM PDT

Good Friday evening to all of you here on r/stocks. I hope everyone on this sub made out pretty nicely in the market this past week, and are ready for the new trading week ahead.

Here is everything you need to know to get you ready for the trading week beginning June 7th, 2021.

AMC, meme stocks could spark more heat in the week ahead as investors await inflation news - (Source)

Inflation data is a highlight of the week ahead, as investors focus on economic news in the void between earnings season and the next Fed meeting.

May's consumer price index is scheduled to be reported Thursday, and it could be hot after it surged in April. Inflation is viewed as an important trigger that could cause the Federal Reserve to step back from its easy policies, if rising prices appear to be hotter and more persistent than expected.

Equities were higher in the past week, but the meme stocks were far hotter. AMC Entertainment gained another 100% and was up 2,700% since January.

Energy was the best-performing major sector, gaining more than 6.7% as oil prices jumped nearly 5% in the past week. REITs were the second-best performer, up 3.1%, followed by financials, up 1.2% and technology, also up 1.2%.

But it's the meme stocks that took the headlines, and also contributed to concerns about froth in the stock market.

"People think this is new. It completely isn't," Dan Niles, founder of Satori Fund, said of the trading frenzy. He noted there was similar froth in individual stocks in 1999, when companies added dot-com to their names to attract investor attention.

"What's new is the fact that these traders are armed with stimulus checks. They can organize more easily on things like WallStreetBets, they can work from home, and there's no-cost trading. Those are the differences," Niles said on CNBC.

"So, if it gets people interested in investing, that's great. What I don't like is when you have people sort of taking out mortgages on their home, and putting themselves at risk if the thing collapsed," he added. "You want to be able to invest what you can afford to lose if you're going to play in something like this."

Steve Massocca, managing director at Wedbush Securities, said the trading in names like GameStop and Bed Bath & Beyond is one of the things that has made him more cautious about the market. He said the high valuations on the meme names are unlikely to last. "It's going to be around as long as cicadas are," he said.

The S&P 500 in the past week gained 0.6%, rising to 4,229, just 9 points from its all-time high. The Dow was up 0.7% to 34,756, and the Nasdaq gained 0.5% to 13,814.

Watching the inflation signs

Massocca said investors should stay focused on things like inflation, since that could be what makes the Federal Reserve reverse its easy policy. The Fed has so far said it sees the higher inflation readings as transitory.

Economists expect CPI to be up 4.7% year over year, after April's 4.2% pace, according to Dow Jones. Core inflation is expected to be up 0.4% for the month and 3.4% year over year.

"I'm getting nervous. I'm seeing signs of a top. I'm systematically raising cash. I think the market looks too expensive," Massocca said. "We're going to shake off the dust from Covid. The economy is going to be very, very good and as a rule, I think monetary policy is going to respond to some degree."

He said the memes mania is just one sign, but the spark for a sell-off could be anything including a hawkish comment from the Fed.

"Who knows what it is, but the kindling is building and as soon as a match hits it, the market is setting up for a 7% to 10% pullback at some point," he said. "Who knows what starts it. ... One of the candidates very likely will be some kind of reductions in monetary policy."

Fear of the Fed stepping back from its easy policy has been hanging over the market.

Friday's May employment report was being watched closely, but the lower-than-expected job gains reinforced that the Fed could continue to hold off on policy changes for the time being. There were 559,000 jobs added in May, well below the 671,000 expected.

Now the CPI report is the next point of focus, ahead of the Fed's June 15-16 meeting. The question is, will it be so hot that the central bank may have to reassess its view about the temporary nature of inflation, or could it show that price increases are peaking?

"There's inflation out there. You can see it everywhere," said Massocca.

Taper talk

The market has been expecting the Fed to begin to talk about unwinding its bond buying later this year, with many strategists targeting the Fed's Jackson Hole, Wyoming, symposium at the end of August. The Fed is expected to first discuss cutting back its purchases months ahead of taking action. Then it will slowly reduce its buying.

After that, it could consider interest rate hikes, now not expected by the market until 2023.

Niles said the meme stock trend has been fueled in part by the Fed. The markets are awash in liquidity as the central bank keeps rates at zero and maintains its monthly purchases of at least $120 billion in Treasury and mortgage securities.

"When the Fed backs off of that with tapering, I think that's when you can go in and say, 'OK' we can potentially go after and short some of these highly valued names because that's when the free money disappears and you actually start to contract some of that free money," he said. "That's when things start to get dangerous to the downside."

For now, Niles said he's staying away from the names that are heavily sought by retail investors or have large short interest and are targeted by Wall Street. "You want to stay away from this stuff now unless you're doing it in very small size," he said.

There are just a few earnings in the week ahead. One of the handful of names reporting is meme name GameStop on Wednesday. Campbell Soup also reports that day, and Chewy reports Thursday.

G-7 finance ministers meet this weekend, and President Joe Biden will attend a meeting of the organization's leaders in Cornwall, England, on Friday.

This past week saw the following moves in the S&P:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL S&P TREE MAP FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

S&P Sectors for this past week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE S&P SECTORS FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

Major Indices for this past week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE MAJOR INDICES FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

Major Futures Markets as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE MAJOR FUTURES INDICES AS OF FRIDAY!)

Economic Calendar for the Week Ahead:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ECONOMIC CALENDAR FOR THE WEEK AHEAD!)

Percentage Changes for the Major Indices, WTD, MTD, QTD, YTD as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

S&P Sectors for the Past Week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Major Indices Pullback/Correction Levels as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Major Indices Rally Levels as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Most Anticipated Earnings Releases for this week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Here are the upcoming IPO's for this week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Friday's Stock Analyst Upgrades & Downgrades:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!)

May Payrolls Not Too Hot, Not Too Cold

Before diving into today's jobs report for May, it will be a useful exercise to recall the curveball that April's report threw at investors.

One of the more hotly contested topics investors have been debating recently is what to make of the jobs report released one month ago, where the consensus expectation was for 1,000,000 new jobs and we only got 266,000 (since revised up to 278,000). On the one hand, data releases are volatile by nature and it is possible that the large miss could have been broadly dismissed as a "one off" among a package of otherwise very healthy economic data. On the other hand, it did confirm anecdotal evidence of difficult hiring conditions facing companies and reinforced the notion that some workers may be reluctant to return to the workforce for a whole host of reasons. Moreover, if the April report really did unearth new evidence of a weaker-than-expected jobs market in this latter scenario, should we view the effect as temporary or does it have staying power that could spell new trouble for the overall economic recovery?

Against this backdrop, investors were hoping that today's May jobs report would go a long way towards providing some definitive answers to these important questions.

It did not. But, that might actually be a good thing. Here are some key takeaways:

The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' May employment report revealed that the domestic economy added 559,000 jobs in May, slightly below Bloomberg-surveyed economists' median forecast for a gain of 675,000. The prior two months also received net positive revisions of 27,000 jobs.

The unemployment rate fell more than expected to 5.8%, though that was paired with a disappointing drop in the labor force participation rate, which moved from 61.7% to 61.6%.

Average hourly earnings rose 0.5% month over month, again signaling lower-wage workers did not rejoin the workforce to the degree expected. More new lower-wage jobs would be expected to put more downward pressure on wage increases.

"It is hard to view 559,000 added jobs as a disappointment, but it does leave something to be desired," explained LPL Financial Chief Market > Strategist Ryan Detrick. "There is strong potential for job prints in excess of one million over the coming months, but the truth is as strong as the economy is right now, the employment backdrop is clearly lagging what we were all expecting just a few months ago."

As seen in the LPL Chart of the Day, May's jobs number did jump above April's disappointment, but still came well short of making a fresh new high for 2021.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Where do we go from here? The US economy is still 7.6 million total payrolls shy of its peak prior to the recession, and given the magnitude of that number, we still believe there is the potential for strong upside surprises for at least the next several months. Several catalysts should also lend a helping hand in the near future. Enhanced unemployment benefits may be deterring lower-wage workers from returning to the labor market, as they reduce the relative attractiveness of a paycheck from an employer. In the last month, about half of all states have started eliminating these added benefits in order to reduce the disincentive. We believe this should show up in the data starting with the June employment report. Also, schools might be closing for the summer, but daycare centers are reopening more broadly, freeing parents up to find jobs. Warmer weather, ever-improving vaccination trends, and increasing comfort reengaging in normal activities should all play their parts as well.

The labor market will always be inextricably linked to the inflation outlook, this cycle perhaps more than past cycles, and for many that is the real story today. The Federal Reserve (Fed) has made it clear it will tolerate near-term inflation overshoots in order to achieve "substantial further progress" towards its employment goals before it begins taking measures to combat higher inflation. Recent hotter-than-expected inflation reports have increasingly turned the spotlight towards the Fed's timeline for reducing their asset purchases, which, given their stated position, will depend on strong payroll reports. As such, we find ourselves (to a degree) in a "good news is bad news" scenario, as strong labor market readings could hasten the Fed's timetable to begin normalizing monetary policy.

Today's report likely did little to convince the Fed that the labor market is closer to meeting its "substantial further progress" goal on employment, and therefore, all else equal, will not compel them to consider reducing asset purchases sooner rather than later. There is much ground still to be made up in the labor market, and we believe the Fed will need to see a string of strong reports, likely in the one million range, before it begins to take action. From a Fed intervention standpoint, today's employment report likely found a sweet spot, and the early indications are that equity markets are breathing a sigh of relief.

For a deeper dive into the inflation picture, check the blog on Thursday, June 10, when data for the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of inflation is set to be released.

Big First 5 Months Gains Consolidate Over Worst Months

S&P 500 is up an impressive 11.9% for the first five months of 2021. That is the 16th best gain for the first five months since 1950. As illustrated in the graph above, gains do beget gains and this bodes well for the year as a whole. But this does not diminish the seasonal pattern of consolidation and mostly sideways market action over the Worst Six Months May-October and even more so over the Worst Four Months July-October.

We tabulated the gains for the top 20 first five month gains since 1950 and the gains for the last seven months of the year are still pretty solid averaging 9.4% vs. 14.7% for the top 20 first five months. But the bulk of those gains as you can see in the graph come from late-October to yearend.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

June Swoon?

Although there was some notable weakness in the middle of May, the S&P 500 Index was able to rally late in the month to finish with a modest gain. Incredibly, this was the eighth year out of the past nine that stocks gained during in May. Who said Sell in May?

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

As we noted a month ago, the worst six months of the year indeed are May through October, so we are still in the thick of a potentially challenging period based on seasonality. "After a nearly 90% rally off the lows, stocks could be ripe for a pullback, especially during the historically weak month of June," explained LPL Financial Chief Market Strategist Ryan Detrick. "But with the improving economy, coupled with historic fiscal and monetary stimulus, we expect any weakness to be short-lived."

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Here are some stats to think about regarding S&P 500 performance in June:

Since 1950, June is the 4th worst month of the year (September, February, and August are worse).

It has been higher the past 5 years in a row, the longest since a stretch of 6 in a row in the late 1990s.

The past 10 years, though, June was up 1.0% on average, ranking as the 7th best month.

According to Sam Stovall of CFRA, only 5 market declines in excess of 5% started in June versus an average of 8 for all 12 months (since WWII). In other words, it isn't common for major market weakness to start in June.

Building on this, when the S&P 500 is lower in June, it is down by 2.9% on average. This is the second smallest average loss, with only December better at -2.5%.

We wouldn't be surprised at all if stocks took a well-deserved break in June, but this month is rather misunderstood, as a massive sell-off or the start of significant weakness isn't likely, as that isn't what June typically brings.

Lastly, last Wednesday marked the 100th trading day of the year for the S&P 500. In fact, the S&P 500 was up more than 10% on the 100th day, which historically is a great start to the year, but also has meant continued strong performance the rest of the year is quite normal.

As shown in the LPL Chart of the Day, when stocks are up more than 10% on day 100, the rest of the year has been higher 84.2% of the time and up 8.6% on average, both well above what the average year does. We continue to recommend an overweight to equities and underweight to fixed-income position relative to investors' targets, as appropriate.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Less Than 20% Bearish For the First Time in 115 Weeks

Bullish sentiment measured through the AAII weekly survey was at the lowest level since the fall last week, but after jumping 7.7 percentage points, it is now at the highest level since the end of April. Not only is it high relative to the past few weeks, but the increase also brings bullish sentiment 6 percentage points back above its historical average. Additionally, the week over week increase was the largest since the week of April 8th when the reading had risen 11.1 percentage points.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

In recent weeks, neutral sentiment had been surging; topping 37% last week for the highest reading since the first week of 2020. Although it reversed lower this week down to 36.2%, neutral sentiment remains around some of the strongest levels in over a year.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

With the pickup in bullish sentiment, bearish sentiment plummeted to 19.8% on a 6.6 percentage point decile; the largest since February. Falling below 20%, bearish sentiment took out its March and April lows and is now at the lowest level since January 2018.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Not only is that one of the lowest readings in bearish sentiment in recent history, but that drop below 20% brought to an end a 115-week long streak of readings in bearish sentiment above that level. As shown below, that surpassed a three-week shorter streak ending in December 2017 to make for the second-longest such streak on record. The longest streak which ended in December 2010 went on for more than twice as long as this most recent run.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Historically, lower readings in bearish sentiment have tended towards weaker performance for the S&P 500 going forward as shown below. But when it comes to the past times that bearish sentiment has broken below 20% for the first time in at least 50 weeks, performance has actually tended to consistently be positive. In fact, across each of the past six instances, the S&P 500 has been higher six months out every time. Granted, for the most part the typical move higher is usually smaller than other periods.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Typical June Trading: Any Early Gains Tend to Fade Especially After Mid-Month

Over the last twenty-one years, the month of June has been a rather lackluster month for the market. DJIA, S&P 500 and Russell 1000 have all recorded average losses in the month. NASDAQ and Russell 2000 have faired better with modest average gains. Historically the month has opened respectably, advancing on the first and second trading days. From there the market then drifted sideways and lower into or near negative territory depending upon index just ahead of mid-month. Here the market rallied to create a nice mid-month bulge that quickly evaporated and turned into losses. The brisk, post, mid-month drop is typically followed by a month end rally lead by technology and small-caps.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Main Street Sentiment Strongest in Over a Decade

The U.S. economy is opening up and overall sentiment on Main Street is the strongest it's been since our earliest analysis in 2005, according to LPL Research's proprietary Beige Book Barometer (BBB). The result is based on our analysis of the Federal Reserve's Beige Book, a publication released two weeks before each Fed policy meeting that captures qualitative observations made by community bankers and business owners—what we like to think of as "Main Street" rather than "Wall Street." The BBB gauges Main Street's sentiment by looking at how frequently key words and phrases appear in the text.

In the most recent Beige Book, "strong" words were near their highest since we first began tracking data in 2005 while weak words were their lowest on record, resulting in the strongest overall sentiment reading since inception. The strong reading is likely driven more by a change in direction than in overall activity, but even that is a welcome shift.

"The country and the economy are going through a disruptive but positive change as most COVID-related restrictions are lifted and the economy reopens," said LPL Financial Chief Market Strategist Ryan Detrick. "Sentiment is up and that's a great sign for the direction of the economy."

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

This was an important Beige Book in other ways. Mentions of COVID-related words (virus, COVID, pandemic) fell to their lowest level since the March 2020 Beige Book, when the words first started to appear. More concerning, words related to inflation also rose to their highest level since our earliest analysis. The downside of the economy's rapid acceleration has been a mismatch between demand, which can ramp up quickly, and supply, which comes on line more slowly, while labor markets have also been slow to keep pace with reopening.

Overall, the fundamental backdrop for the economy remains positive. Supply chain disruptions can slow the pace of the economic rebound but are likely temporary, while we expect reopening to be enduring. There is still some risk around variants, however, and full supply chain relief will likely need support from accelerated global vaccine distribution. US economic acceleration will probably peak in the second quarter, but there's still plenty of scope for growth to moderate and still remain above average. Much of the positive news is already priced in for equity markets, which are forward looking, and gains may not come as easily, but we still see solid potential for upside as the economy continues to rebound.

S&P 500 Returns Relative to History

May has moved back to the rearview mirror and with that, we wanted to provide an update on how current long-term returns for the S&P 500 stack up relative to history. The chart below compares the trailing one, two, five, ten, and twenty-year annualized total returns of the S&P 500 to the S&P 500's historical average returns over those same time periods since 1928.

We're starting to move away from the 'easy comps' in terms of market returns relative to the March 2020 lows, but the S&P 500 is still up more than 40% over the last 12 months which is nearly four times the historical average one year return. Over the last two years, the S&P 500's annualized return of 25.8% still comes in at more than twice the historical average of 10.6%. On a five and ten-year basis, the S&P 500's annualized gain also remains comfortably above 10%. All in all, the last decade has been very good for US equity investors. The only time period where the S&P 500 has experienced below-average returns is at the 20-year window where the 8.4% annualized gain clocks in at 2.5 percentage less than the historical average of 10.9%.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

The chart below compares the S&P 500's current returns over the last one, two, five, ten, and twenty years to all other periods on a percentile basis. With mostly above-average returns, it comes as no surprise that most of the percentile readings rank above the 50th percentile, and for most time periods, the percentile rank comes in well above 50%. The one-year total return of more than 40% actually ranks just above the 93rd percentile, while the two-year return isn't far from the 90th percentile either. Moving further out, each of the other readings going out to ten years are all well above the 50th percentile. The only percentile rank below the 50th percentile is the 20-year window and that reading isn't even close. On the one hand, the last ten years have been phenomenal for equity investors, but the last 20 years haven't even been mediocre.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Throughout history, many investors have always worked under the assumption that long-term returns for the equity market are about 10%. History has shown that to be the case over the last decade at least, as the average annualized one-year gain of the S&P 500 has been well above 10%. With the S&P 500's current 20-year annualized gain currently at just 8.4%, though, what will it take for the S&P 500 to reach double-digit gains on an annualized basis over a 20-year window?

For an idea, given the strong performance of the last ten years, a number of commentators suggest that the next ten years for equities will be weak with a reversion to the mean. Only time will tell, but if we operate under the (unlikely) assumption that the S&P 500 stays at the exact same level it is now going forward for the next ten years, its annualized twenty-year return would top 10% for the first time since August 2008 next September. After that brief period above 10% from September 2022 through March 2023, it wouldn't again top that level until February 2029. In spite of the fact that the annualized 20-year return would top 10% in those two periods, though, it still wouldn't get as high as the historical average of 10.9% in either of those periods. This reflects the fact that although the last ten years for US equities have been very strong, they also came shortly after one of the worst ten-year periods for US equities on record.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Here are the most notable companies (tickers) reporting earnings in this upcoming trading week ahead-

(T.B.A. THIS WEEKEND.)

(CLICK HERE FOR NEXT WEEK'S MOST NOTABLE EARNINGS RELEASES!)

(CLICK HERE FOR NEXT WEEK'S HIGHEST VOLATILITY EARNINGS RELEASES!)

Below are some of the notable companies coming out with earnings releases this upcoming trading week ahead which includes the date/time of release & consensus estimates courtesy of Earnings Whispers:

Monday 6.7.21 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR MONDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES LINK!)

Monday 6.7.21 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR MONDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES LINK!)

Tuesday 6.8.21 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR TUESDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Tuesday 6.8.21 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR TUESDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Wednesday 6.9.21 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR WEDNESDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Wednesday 6.9.21 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR WEDNESDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Thursday 6.10.21 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR THURSDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Thursday 6.10.21 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THURSDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES LINK!)

Friday 6.11.21 Before Market Open:

([CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES LINK!]())

(NONE.)

Friday 6.11.21 After Market Close:

([CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!]())

(NONE.)

(T.B.A. THIS WEEKEND.)

(T.B.A. THIS WEEKEND.) (T.B.A. THIS WEEKEND.).

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

DISCUSS!

What are you all watching for in this upcoming trading week?

I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and a great trading week ahead r/stocks!

submitted by /u/bigbear0083
[link] [comments]

The Misdeeds of Culper & Hindenburg Research

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 08:03 AM PDT

Hindenburg & Culper Research: A Danger To Free Markets

Disclosure:

I am writing this article to expose the dangers that malicious short selling research companies pose to markets, and why it is essential for regulators to address the issues surrounding the unlawful tactics that short sellers may employ in order to drastically reduce the share price of publicly traded companies. I am writing this article using the example of On trak Behavioural Health Services ("The Company" hereafter), a publicly traded company. I have owned shares of this company in the past, and may purchase shares of this company in the future. I will also include a few examples of other companies in this due diligence, and everything written herein is merely my opinion. I am not a financial advisor. Please do your own research. This article is for entertainment purposes only. Let's get to it.

What happened and why am I writing this?:

The Company provides online mental health and behavioural health services for people suffering with mental illness, and the platform is actually genious. The Company saw the need for access to 24/7 1-on-1 mental health care via online service, which is much more accessible for individuals who require immediate care or are care avoidant. The service is widely used by people with substance abuse issues, veterans, trauma survivors, etc. Furthermore, The Company's modelling showed that providing this type of health care online caused a huge savings benefit for the medical system and insurance companies on the whole, because it treated the issues at the source, online and often prevented very expensive post incident care (think of police and hospital resources). Insurance companies, and even Medicare and Medicaid, were aware of the savings and included The Company's services in their health insurance plans. The Company's stock saw a meteoric rise from about $3 to over $100 as more insurance companies signed on to the service.

Then what?:

In early 2019, The Company's stock was trading between $10-$15. A short selling research company under the name "Culper Research" began covering the stock, and took particular issue with The Company's CEO at the time. Culper Research itself is neither a company or really a legit entity. It operates under pseudonyms and behind proxy servers, with no real way of contacting them through any legitimate means. Often, websites that they operate to provide their "research" publicly are registered to law offices or shell companies in the Caribbean or South Pacific. They mostly attack companies through social media platforms like twitter, stocktwits, shady websites, etc and then pay to have articles submitted through the newswire via their offshore company. Anyway, it was Culper's opinion at the time that The Company would be unable to secure insurance companies into their behavioural health services system so they provided research attacking "The Company's" CEO.

The intial Culper hit piece was fairly tame, it questioned The Company's fundamentals and ability to sign clients. Culper took particular beef with the CEO and filled the report with the usual FUD. The report coincided with a hedge fund taking a MASSIVE SHORT POSITION AGAINST THE COMPANY, AMOUNTING TO 40% OF ALL AVAILABLE SHARES. So there was a lot of money behind this "research" and a huge interest in The Company's failure. Things didn't go well for Culper and the hedge funds associated with them, and The Company signed more insurance companies and clients and the stock kept rising.

This is when things turned ugly. Let me say this, I have never seen anything so disgusting published across the newswire without any sort of legal repercussion. Culper Research paired with Hindenburg Research and stepped up their attacks immensely. You apes familiar with the GME short seller reports know how ugly they can get. In the subsequent reports, Culper and Hindenburg accused the CEO of embezzlement, sex crimes, fraud, misapproriation of shareholder money and even supporting wars. Racist jabs and questioning the character of the care providers were all listed in the report. The Company's stock briefly fell, but recovered and kept rising in spite of the report. Upon reading it, I contacted The Company's investor relations and notified them of the report, which they said they were aware of and could not discuss how they were addressing this legally. The report was deleted from Culper and Hindenburg's website at a later date (of course).

Well, the stock kept rising.

Culper and Hindenburg needed to step it up because their hedge fund clients were losing hundreds of millions of dollars. And step it up they did. They began publishing reports almost twice a week and referring to them over the newswire and spamming them across twitter. Stock message boards became flooded with individuals who would hyperlink the reports they issued and spread FUD. Message boards that were generally quiet were flooded with bearish messages and false statements. Culper and Hindenburg stepped up their illegal activity, which was admitted in their own reports, by contacting health care workers who work for the platform by pretending to need to behavioural health services they provided. They would mask as being suicidal or depressed, and then they would press the health care workers about their pay, compensation packages, what they know about the CEO and the company, which health care insurance companies did they use, etc. Culper and Hindenburg then released their findings in their weekly (almost daily) reports. For example, they'd write 'when we contacted the clinician using their service, they told us that they only worked 20 hours a week and that they were not receiving compensation for mental stress'.

Still, the stock kept rising. Once again I contacted The Company and notified them that Culper and Hindenburg were contacting health care employees to uncover confidential information, and that they were spinning it to create FUD. The Company said that they were aware of the issue and that they were advising their staff to be wary.

Culper and Hindenburg then began issuing reports which had patient information included. This was done to scare patients into thinking that their information was not secure. Once again, this was all in their reports. My guess is that they had one of their own people hired by The Company, and this 'health care provider' proded patients for information. Either that, or they were just flat out lying. The reports would say, 'patient did not have any reduction in suicidal thoughts', 'patient did not feel better at the end of the session', 'several patients felt confused after the session'. They would couple this information with a decline in client retention rates or turnover. Remember, these are extremely vulnerable, often care avoidant individuals, who are desperate for mental health care. This is a sickening act in my opinion! I contacted The Company and notified them that Culper and Hindenburg were releasing client information and discussions in their reports and The Company gave me the usual response. The stock kept rising.

In my opinion, their latest nasty shot at The Company could very well be the worst. This is opinion and can not be proven, but I suspect it to be true. The Company's largest signed client was Aetna Health Insurance followed by Cigna. It is my opinion that Culper and Hindenburg began to lobby Aetna and Cigna with their false reports, accusations, FUD, and the patient information on an almost daily basis. The goal was to have these health insurance providers drop The Company's mental health services from their insurance plans. Many veterans and individuals locked at home with abusers or their own thoughts during the Covid crisis are dependant on these services in order to get through their day-to-day, and can not afford the care unless it is covered by their health insurance plans. Well, if they were lobbying, it worked. Aetna abruptly terminated their agreement with The Company, and thousands of patients were forced to lose care with their health care provider or be transitioned to another provider. This was devastating. Hundreds of health care service providers lost their jobs, and thousands of patients will likely no longer get the care they require. Upon announcing the termination of the contract with Aetna, the stock dropped from $105 to about $28 or so.

I notified the company that Aetna was likely lobbied by Culper and Hindenburg, and they responded that they needed to focus on patient care and patient transitioning at the moment, but that A NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS HAD MADE THEM AWARE OF THIS. Culper and Hindenburg have since deleted all these reports from their websites and Twitter accounts, however The Company has all the reports and so do I.

Now the hedge funds that backed Culper and Hindenburg still have a big problem. Despite the fall in the stock price, the trading volume has been extremely low and they have been unable to cover most of their short position. The stock is still currently shorted to the tune of about 36% of the free float. On top of that, much of their short position was taken between $10-$15 per share, so they are still way underwater. On top of that, the company is recovering. They are signing Medicare and Medicaid care contracts. They are signing a service provision contract with Veteran's Affairs directly. Recently, the Biden administration has earmarked $96bn for the VA and VA mental health services in the new $6tn budget. The CEO of The Company resigned his position and a new CEO, a veteran in the health care industry, was brought on as CEO. I believe the new CEO will be much more ruthless with Culper and Hindenburg, and I believe that this is why they have deleted a lot of their research. If I were a betting man, I'd say that they have multiple lawsuits coming their way.

Why did I write this?:

A friend of mine was a military helicopter pilot who served in Afghanistan. He was a career military kind of guy, who really loved his job and serving his Country. When he came back from Afghanistan, he completely changed. A normally outgoing person, he became withdrawn, anti-social, and began behaving oddly. He confided in his close friends that he was struggling with mental health issues, but was afraid to seek help because of the stigma attached to it and fear of losing his rank. This is someone who would have benefited immensely from these services because they are 24/7, confidential, and covered through health insurance. Sadly, he didn't get the help he needed and committed suicide in 2017.

Was Culper or Hindenburg ever held responsible for their actions? Do they simply withdraw into the woodwork? Will they continue to lobby other insurance providers in an attempt to drive the price down further? How many lives were lost and will be lost by people who are told that they no longer have access to mental health care services?

I'm watching it closely, but I feel like I have been beating my head against the wall because no one does anything to hold them accountable.

Josh

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

Banking with stock brokers?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 01:14 PM PDT

Can anyone give advice or have experience with banking with a stock broker like Sofi? What I'm hesitant to do is change banks and not have a separate account that does not have a risk of losing principal but gains some interest. What I'm trying to do is get my money in one place. I currently have money scattered across Wealthfront, robinhood, and my bank.

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

Is there any way that I, a non us citizen, can invest into the American stock market? If so, what do I have to do?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 04:29 AM PDT

I'm from Albania and I wanted to get into investing into stocks. I read that apparently theres some investment security that i need or whatever but i really couldn't understand it. It would be great if someone here can dumb it down for me. Also, do i need to be a US citizen?

submitted by /u/Kev-1-n
[link] [comments]

Best Brokerage for Short Selling?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 09:28 AM PDT

I've been testing a strategy which uses short selling for a while now, but it's Paper Trading. It has worked well, so I'm going to try it with real money. I'm in the EU and I don't know what broker is best for shorting. I'm looking for low fees, but also plenty of options of stocks to short. I only need American Stocks but I'm not shorting massive companies.

Thanks!

submitted by /u/1megabyte-brain
[link] [comments]

How to Sell Certified Stock?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 08:14 AM PDT

Hi so I have certified stock that my great grandfather bought for me when I was born. majority of it is certified, 1/4 of that is in planned holdings. and theres a separate account with like 26 shares in planned holdings as well (dont know why theres a separate account for this either). I am curious on how to sell the certified I have the original documents i just dont know what to do with them.

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

Should I get out of DISCA entirely or just sell it and buy DISCK (class c shares)?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 10:57 AM PDT

I have a position in DISCA that is currently at -28%, and I know that Discovery is merging with Warner. All shares of Discovery are gonna be treated as equal during the merger regardless of the price.

Should I just sell DISCA at a loss and suck it up or should I sell it to buy DISCK at a cheaper price and hope that after the merger, the combined company's stock will go up?

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

Do I have to put up with overnight fees and margins when trading long-term?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 04:37 AM PDT

I'm still relatively new to trading and this is something I don't really understand. It seems unlikely to me, that to hold for half a year for example, you would have to pay a fee every single day and live with knowing that your position could just be closed ar any point because of margins. I thought i understood how things worked and then i opened a demo account on capital.com (because i'm still looking for a platform that works well for me) and it's as if it was something completely different. Am i missing something? Or is the context the same for day and long-term trading?

I appreciate any help in this matter and would be thankful for platform suggestions you may have as well. Thank you

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

Question about selling calls, where does the obligation of providing the shares go?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 08:21 AM PDT

I apologize if this is a common/repeated question, but I haven't been able to get a solid answer.

As I understand, trading options can be very risky, so I am a ways off before I'm comfortable doing so. I'm really just trying to understand how they work right now.

I've heard about selling your call options but I'm not sure how it works. Let's say I bought a call through my broker (I'm using Robinhood, might change soon). I know I have the right but not obligation to buy 100 shares at the strike price at/before my expiration. Who is the entity that has the obligation of providing those shares? Is it Robinhood, or just who ever wants to take the risk of selling shares at a loss? For the next part of the question I will refer to this original seller as person A. Now, let's say my call goes in the money. But I don't want to buy thousands of dollars worth of shares. The only reason I'd be in this situation is that I've heard I can sell calls, so lets say I sell it to person B (person, entity, whatever). But as it is I don't have 100 shares in my possession. Am I now obligated to sell person B 100 shares if they decide to exercise the call, or is person A (who sold me the contract originally) still obligated?

I've been researching but haven't got a straight answer. From what I've read, this would be considered selling a naked call, but I am not sure if that is accurate because I understood naked calls as I am person A in my example, but I don't have 100 shares at the time of selling the option. I've also heard of selling to close, which I think is the situation I'm describing but I'm also not sure exactly what happens to the option and how money is earned from that. So can anyone explain if I can sell call contracts, and how that works. Also anywhere I can read more about this type of situation would be good too.

submitted by /u/Mrsum10ne
[link] [comments]

Is there some advantage for an investment firm to hold less than 10% of stock for a company?

Posted: 04 Jun 2021 04:58 PM PDT

Sorry if this is too much of a greenhorn question, but I noticed that one company I own some stock in has a few big investors with 9-9.99% of stock in the company and I was just curious if that 10% mark somehow means something. Thanks for any thoughts.

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

Most tax efficient account type for US vs. CDN stocks/funds?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 01:06 PM PDT

In order to receive the tax benefits for dividends, is it better to place US (or US based stocks/funds) in a non-registered account (such as a margin account)? Or a TFSA? I also have the same question if they are Canadian stocks/funds? Again for the dividend tax benefits. I use Questrade. Thanks!

submitted by /u/zanoo911
[link] [comments]

$NVO impact of fda approval of Ozempic for obesity?

Posted: 05 Jun 2021 01:05 PM PDT

Reading about the FDA approval of Ozempic, it looks like a massive revenue boost incoming for NVO. This thing will be discussed at half the annual checkups in America next year, basically competing with lap bands for the 30-35 BMI market. Is the upside here already baked into NVO's share price? Seems like an obvious buy to me but might be too good to be true. Any insights here would be appreciated.

submitted by /u/MarquisGrissom89
[link] [comments]

Lululemon first-quarter sales rise 88%, topping estimates, as store traffic rebounds

Posted: 04 Jun 2021 08:34 PM PDT

Lululemon Athletica said Thursday its fiscal first-quarter revenue soared 88%, topping analysts' estimates, as shopper traffic steadily rebounded to its stores.

The athletic apparel maker also issued a strong forecast for its fiscal second quarter and raised full-year estimates, saying momentum for its brand is growing across all geographies.

Its stock rose less than 1% on the news in extended trading.

Here's how Lululemon did for the period ended May 2, compared with what analysts were anticipating, based on a Refinitiv survey:

Earnings per share: $1.16 adjusted vs. 91 cents expected Revenue: $1.23 billion vs. $1.13 billion expected Net income grew to $145 million, or $1.11 per share, from $28.6 million, or 22 cents per share, a year earlier. Excluding one-time charges, Lululemon earned $1.16 a share, better than the 91 cents per shares that analysts estimated.

Revenue rose to $1.23 billion from $652 million a year earlier, when its stores were temporarily shut. That came in ahead of expectations for $1.13 billion.

On a two-year basis, sales grew 57%. Lululemon also said its men's business grew faster from 2019 levels than its women's.

The Covid pandemic has fueled shopper demand for fitness gear to wear around the house and to dress for at-home workouts such as running and spin biking. The trend, which hasn't appeared to slow down, has benefited companies including Lululemon, Nike and Under Armour. It has also boosted more traditional retailers such as Gap, which recently said activewear sales continue to drive sales at both its Athleta and Old Navy banners.

Lululemon's direct-to-consumer revenue climbed 55% to $545.1 million year over year. Sales in North America were up 82% and increased 125% internationally.

CEO Calvin McDonald told analysts Thursday that Lululemon still expects its international business will grow in size to be equal to its North American operations in the near future. At the end of 2020, international sales represented only 14% of Lululemon's total business.

The company also owns the at-home fitness platform Mirror, a rival to Peloton. Lululemon expects Mirror to drive between $250 million and $275 million in revenue this year.

CFO Meghan Frank said momentum has remained strong in recent weeks. The company continues to invest in innovative merchandise to drum up excitement. It recently launched a line of products that use lower-impact dyes, and it is piloting a trade-in and resale program.

For its fiscal second quarter, Lululemon expects adjusted earnings per share to be in a range of $1.10 to $1.15, on sales of $1.3 billion to $1.33 billion. Analysts had been looking for earnings of $1.01 per share on revenue of $1.20 billion, according to a Refinitiv survey.

For the year, it's calling for adjusted earnings of $6.73 to $6.86 per share, on sales of $5.83 billion to $5.91 billion. Analysts expected it to earn $6.48 per share on sales of $5.68 billion.

Previously, Lululemon had been calling for fiscal 2021 revenue to be in a range of $5.55 billion to $5.65 billion.

"We were performing well before the pandemic, I think we led the peer group during the pandemic, and we're excited about ... our ability to continue to perform post-pandemic," McDonald said.

Lululemon shares are down about 9% year to date. It has a market cap of $41.4 billion. Lululemon Athletica said Thursday its fiscal first-quarter revenue soared 88%, topping analysts' estimates, as shopper traffic steadily rebounded to its stores.