Bitcoin

leatherback said:
guess I am out for a bit.
Click to expand...

Well one thing's for certain, because there is no intrinsic value in Bitcoin, it is only worth the sum total of currency that people put into it. It has no direct utility - certainly not when compared to alternatives that are more convenient and more widely accepted. And now that governments have fully decoded the blockchain, the whole "let me hide from the authorities" aspect is gone. The game of currency wack-a-mole, where people hide in bitcoin only to get caught the moment they pop out, has been broadly publicized enough now that people should be fully aware that the Feds are waiting... and watching. That is why so many bitcoin holders are trying to get 3rd parties to accept bitcoin as payment - they think they will be able to hide their gains if they can transfer their bitcoin balance into cars or boats instead of taking it in cash. But the blockchain never forgets :)

So it IS a game of musical chairs. But that doesn't mean that you can't convince other people to give you their money :)
 
Last edited:
leatherback said:
a sucker is born every minute?
Click to expand...
Let's put it this way... there are a lot of extremely sophisticated organizations who stand to make a lot of money by hyping bitcoin. I have learned never to bet against a super-computer. I prefer to have the super computer working on my side.

And now retail investors are waking up and thinking bitcoin is suddenly different or better than it was two years ago? Has anything changed to suddenly make it worth 4x or 10x as much? Anything? When people start to tell you something is worth 10x as much because it suddenly costs 10x as much... I duck out. If you were buying a car you'd think they were insane. However because people don't understand bitcoin, they buy the hype... and it can become a self-fulfilling prophecy to some extent. Until it isn't.
 
Last edited:
Bonsai Nut said:
Has anything changed to suddenly make it worth 4x or 10x as much? Anything?
Click to expand...
A few professional parties have started adding it to their portfolio. And I think paypall now allows payment in btc?

That being said.. I believe in soap bubbels. And the effect of just a tiny hole in the surface. So when the walls seem to thin, and take a breather. What goes up, can go down, fast. I hope for many who have dropped their savings in that it will not.
 
The Emperor has no clothes. This time it's different. General Motors has Market Cap of $61b and Enterprise Value of $147b which means that stockholders own $2.40 of hard assets for $1 share of stock. TSLA has Market Cap $834b and Enterprise Value the same. It might have 5 or $10b in assets and $825b in good will, IMHO. That's not insane, it's Blue Sky. TSLA has a Market Cap higher than the 9 largest car makers in the world. We're heading for a market correction that will subtract a $trillions in wealth from the market in a few heartbeats. This time it is different, it's BIGGER.
 
Forsoothe! said:
The Emperor has no clothes. This time it's different. General Motors has Market Cap of $61b and Enterprise Value of $147b which means that stockholders own $2.40 of hard assets for $1 share of stock. TSLA has Market Cap $834b and Enterprise Value the same. It might have 5 or $10b in assets and $825b in good will, IMHO. That's not insane, it's Blue Sky. TSLA has a Market Cap higher than the 9 largest car makers in the world. We're heading for a market correction that will subtract a $trillions in wealth from the market in a few heartbeats. This time it is different, it's BIGGER.
Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not going to defend TSLA :) I think it is a good example of an irrational valuation. Or is it? I was just talking with my son about this the other day. I believe all people behave rationally, and if we don't understand how they are behaving we don't understand their rationality. There are definitely people who are investing in TSLA for reasons other than standard financial ones. What could they be? And if they are paying a premium to "feel good" about their investment... does that make it irrational?

For example, I know there are entire stock funds out there dedicated to social causes. If you believe strongly in a social cause and want to invest in organizations who support it, you may end up paying a premium for your investment, since the fund valuation will be higher than what would be indicated based solely on underlying fundamentals. But if it makes you happy... does that make it wrong?

I told my son that for some people owning a share of TSLA might be like owning a share of the Green Bay Packers :) But I crossed the line the moment I started talking about his football team, for which any possible valuation is too low :)
 
Bonsai Nut said:
Hey, I'm not going to defend TSLA :) I think it is a good example of an irrational valuation. Or is it? I was just talking with my son about this the other day. I believe all people behave rationally, and if we don't understand how they are behaving we don't understand their rationality. There are definitely people who are investing in TSLA for reasons other than standard financial ones. What could they be? And if they are paying a premium to "feel good" about their investment... does that make it irrational?

For example, I know there are entire stock funds out there dedicated to social causes. If you believe strongly in a social cause and want to invest in organizations who support it, you may end up paying a premium for your investment, since the fund valuation will be higher than what would be indicated based solely on underlying fundamentals. But if it makes you happy... does that make it wrong?

I told my son that for some people owning a share of TSLA might be like owning a share of the Green Bay Packers :) But I crossed the line the moment I started talking about his football team, for which any possible valuation is too low :)
Click to expand...
Can’t speak unkindly of the Packers anywhere HERE, either.

When we play Uno.. the Green Fours are “Brett Favres”... which is to be expected.. but ALSO... Red and Blue Fours are just “Red and Blue Brett Favres”

🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 
Certainly, there are different motivations affecting personal systems for valuing what people own or honor. In Detroit we have individual toilets named for the entire Green Bay team.:rolleyes: If someone owns TSLA stock as an investment to support the concept of electric cars, good for them. If they own it in expectation of a profit, -that's different. Electric cars don't pay road tax, yet, so they are cheaper to operate. The residential electrical grid in the USA won't support more than a very small percentage of the private auto fleet, even if more people wanted electric cars. California can't produce enough electricity for its declining population now, is not making any moves to deal with that, and yet has set a goal that requires a lot more electricity during the evening when all those cars would be charging up for the next day. They're planning for the future in California just the way politicians always have: do what sounds nice and hope to be in a different office when a deadline is reached so you can take shots at whomever replaces you for as not following through on your plans. Somebody will get the bad end of the stick.

If that's not enough, all the other car makers in the world will have electric models soon enough and there will be a glut in the market. TSLA will experience the same phenomenon that all other car companies do from time-to-time: a full pipeline with too few leaving the other end. Shut downs, lay-offs, lower selling prices. That will happen in 2021 and then the stock price will look silly.
 
Forsoothe! said:
Certainly, there are different motivations affecting personal systems for valuing what people own or honor. In Detroit we have individual toilets named for the entire Green Bay team.:rolleyes: If someone owns TSLA stock as an investment to support the concept of electric cars, good for them. If they own it in expectation of a profit, -that's different. Electric cars don't pay road tax, yet, so they are cheaper to operate. The residential electrical grid in the USA won't support more than a very small percentage of the private auto fleet, even if more people wanted electric cars. California can't produce enough electricity for its declining population now, is not making any moves to deal with that, and yet has set a goal that requires a lot more electricity during the evening when all those cars would be charging up for the next day. They're planning for the future in California just the way politicians always have: do what sounds nice and hope to be in a different office when a deadline is reached so you can take shots at whomever replaces you for as not following through on your plans. Somebody will get the bad end of the stick.

If that's not enough, all the other car makers in the world will have electric models soon enough and there will be a glut in the market. TSLA will experience the same phenomenon that all other car companies do from time-to-time: a full pipeline with too few leaving the other end. Shut downs, lay-offs, lower selling prices. That will happen in 2021 and then the stock price will look silly.
Click to expand...
Agreed, about the football.. people take it WAAAY too seriously. I can remember seeing statistics, at some point in my life, relating spikes in domestic violence calls following Packers losses.. AND spikes in OWIs following Packers victories.

I’m not actually a “watching/paying attention to organized sports guy” but it’s a GREAT time watching with those SUPER-enthused! 🤓
 
ok, I need to share this. This video is so hilarious, mainly because it’s so true
 
Just from a distance. I've owned stocks pestered by shorts and I hate them. I'm pleased to see Robinhood the target of a class-action lawsuit.
 
My understanding is that hedge funds heavy in big tech and big retail have had their sights on Gamestop for years because GameStop is the single largest competition on the video game retail market to traditional general retailers (like Walmart or the like) and online game streaming by gaming platforms.

Essentially, why would PlayStation try to make PS+ compete with GameStop for sales when they can send GameStop under by holding their stock down? When your new favorite company goes under despite it's popularity, this is often why. Stock trading rules have practically eliminated the consumer from the game of competition.

A bunch of folks on reddit decided to change that by getting people to drop a chunk of their stimulus money on GameStop, costing the hedge funds billions.
 
Sending a Hedge down the tubes is worth the $200 bid I have for 1 share which I will hold until Hell freezes over. The price will eventually go to whatever it's actually worth, but it's important that all the bad guys lose their whole position because they couldn't cover by the end of the contract. GME should be selling a modest amount too, while the price is up to help their balance sheet and give them some working cap for the future. All companies evolve up or out and if it's out for them I can afford to lose $200. I think my mindset is more common than the big shooters thought and there is going to be a million one share owners for the duration. I am even more aggravated that the some of the brokers were selling naked in spite of that being outlawed in '07/08 for the little people. That's the loophole where the 140% came from.
 
I have no money in GME, AMC or Blackberry, but I love following how this is going.

Something big is happening here. Since the little guys can see - at such a large scale - what the data is showing, it seems that these hedge funds know how to, and have been the ones manipulating the stock market for a while.
The way the big guys bought up advertising space, newspaper interviews and even TV airtime, shows that they're losing their own game now that their influence is being capped by the people.
 
Wires_Guy_wires said:
it seems that these hedge funds know how to, and have been the ones manipulating the stock market for a while.
Click to expand...
It almost comes across as if you are surprised?
I think if you have been trading stocks for a bit, you notice very distinct jumps in prices, for a week or so. I call it, shaking out, after all the individual investors loose their guts, the big boys reap the loose stock from the floor for pennies, after which the stock soars.
 
leatherback said:
It almost comes across as if you are surprised?
I think if you have been trading stocks for a bit, you notice very distinct jumps in prices, for a week or so. I call it, shaking out, after all the individual investors loose their guts, the big boys reap the loose stock from the floor for pennies, after which the stock soars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am kind of surprised. I thought that governments and law agencies would've checked and prevented or prosecuted such actions, at least after the last crisis.
I'm even more surprised by how far those arms reach, how they basically cast a net over the internet and the offline world by spreading fake news AND websites and news agencies doing their bidding. No fact checking or rectifications whatsoever.
 
Wires_Guy_wires said:
Yeah, I am kind of surprised. I thought that governments and law agencies would've checked and prevented or prosecuted such actions, at least after the last crisis.
I'm even more surprised by how far those arms reach, how they basically cast a net over the internet and the offline world by spreading fake news AND websites and news agencies doing their bidding. No fact checking or rectifications whatsoever.
Click to expand...
Well.. Multi-nillion dollar pockets have a lot of influence..
 
Actually, to my understanding at least, it's not uncommon for big companies to intentionally short sell competitors' stock as an aggressive business tactic. Forces their dept up while reducing liquid capital. Attack their stock value vs. competing directly for market share. If you've ever heard the term, "hostile takeover," in business terms, this is frequently how they start. Short sell the competition until the cost of their stock is more affordable, then buy up a huge amount to gain a controlling interest. Finish it off by calling in the debt you forced on them in the form of buy out.
 
The real crime is just now finding out that brokers can effectively support short sellers by "lending" shares that have not been borrowed yet, and then dragging their feet on finding a source to lend them those shares. This is a double whammy: The brokers are still collecting the borrowing fee while not paying a lender a fee and the very worse part is those shares are naked for that time gap which misleads the rest of the traders into believing that fewer shares are being shorted than is actually so. When too many brokers do this all at once you see shorts exceeding shares issued. When the share price jumps wildly as GME, the brokers drag their feet even more hoping the price will drop so they can cover their ass. But when all the local bank robbers show up at the corner bank at the same time, nothing goes as planned...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom