Interesting read here from Yahoo Finance:
Crypto has tended to move with the stock market for most of 2021. I think crypto is an essential part of a diversified investment portfolio, but I do think it is important to keep this correlation in mind. Just because you may be 50% or even 100% allocated in crypto, you will likely not be insulated from the effects of a stock market crash. And vice versa, crypto adoption has gotten so large that a crash for any reason in the crypto market could potentially take stocks with it.
That's another reason why the amount of leverage trading in crypto is scary. As the crypto market gets larger and larger, its effects spill over into other markets, for good or for bad.
GG also only talked about looking into one stock.
DFV only talked about one stock.
MSM have only kept one stock out of the news cycle or when discussed it's discussed only negatively.
I know it, you know it.
It's GME
All other "memestonks" are distractions with weak/shill leadership and even weaker fundementals.
This is why we do not discuss them or post screenshots with them. It's super simple.
GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME, GME
Buy and hold GME.
Edit: David Lauer has bought GME.
https://www.reddit.com/r/Superstonk/comments/naoqr9/bought_some_gme_yesterday
Some bees in bonnets below. Pop po out in force for some reason, on a GME sub, from accounts with no GME post history. Goes to show ya folks
Edit 2: There appears to be brigading happening in the comments! Remember apes, don't touch the poop and upvote your mates!
Edit 3: sticky floor folks need to chill. No one even mentioned y'all and suddenly theres a bunch of people defending them by name. Doesn't seem sus at all...
Some serious aggression coming out. GME apes being polite and as awesome as ever, love you guys :) <3
Those that hold both: hope they both pay off for you. I'm just stating facts
Edit 4: wow a lot have come out of the woodwork saying suspiciously similar things. Very similar things infact! Almost scripted....
Edit 5: Got my first ever suicide prevention message. Thanks guys :) x
Edit 6: I want to be clear: I hope everyone makes some bank. Fact is fundamentally GME is the only real play if: you want an awesome company, want a great leader and team, want to stick it to the man, and want to actually invest in a company and not only bet a squeeze. My 2 pennies :)
If you believe a stock is a memestock that's on you. I don't believe GME is a "memestock" by any stretch other than it's popular.
GME is the stock!
Inspired on a related video posted shortly ago. The WS shooter mentioned things along the lines of whites being attacked for being white and so forth, "thank god someone is finally admitting," and things like that.
Even if the anti-racist discourse (or research-related literature) does not really attack whites in any way, you'll often see some elements that many people (who are at least not openly racist) feel as attacks against white people. "Triggers," so to speak. "White privilege" and related stuff probably being the main source.
Of course racists would ultimately always try to twist things and notions in ways to foster their sense of victimization/persecution, but I think it would be worth a shot to try to make it harder by thinking of language and framing that sounds friendlier to people at risk of such ideologies.
Versus a "I have no obligation to make the oppressor feel comfortable" take on things, which is prone to ultimately being counter-productive to the anti-racist ideals.
Ideally we'd research their narratives and how they twist the mainstream discourses on racism/anti-racism, and try to phrase the original thing in ways that would be somehow less susceptible to that distortion.
I think that often a highlight on some overlap with class privileges and disadvantages would also help.
I think people are going to be baffled when we finally find out how deep this rabbit hole goes. At this point I would not be surprised if brokers are receiving phone calls from their lenders as cost to borrow rates for stupid bears continues to soar. It’s hard to say whether forced liquidation is imminent, but when the dominos start to fall brokers are going to be tripping over each other to slap that ask. You set the price here.
Today the total stablecoin token market cap sits at about approximately $150 billion. At $73 billion Tether accounts for almost half the stablecoin market cap. Most exchanges have pairings with USDT which effectively means the majority of crypto investors have some exposure to USDT in their portfolio.
Tether has not been audited since 2018. Their claim of $1 in reserve to back every token is wildly misleading, as it's primarily backed by US commercial papers. This means it holds a lot of short-term unsecured debts from US companies with no guarantee of recovery except for goodwill. Banks are also unwilling to take Tether's cash as deposits due to reputational concerns. Which is no surprise for a company whose executives are facing potential criminal bank fraud charges.
If you hold a small portion of your portfolio in stablecoins you might think whether Tether is solvent or not is not a big concern. However being in a high-risk asset category, the crypto markets shake out at even the slightest negative news. With increased regulatory scrutiny, I can't imagine the chaos it would cause in the market if USDT is found to be insolvent. The repercussions of the third-largest market cap token failing would definitely end the bull market but will likely affect markets outside the crypto space.
For an average retail investor, we don't know how much of USDT is actually backed by collateral such as the US dollar or secured debt. With a booming DEFI ecosystem more investors are taking up the opportunity to earn yields on their stable coin.
Personally, for me, I prefer USDC and BUSD. As USDC is backed by a publicly traded corporation seems to be a safe option. Binance is regularly audited and BUSD is backed by US dollar held in FDIC insured US banks. This is my individual preference so not a recommendation. However, if you are keeping a significant chunk of your portfolio in stablecoins, consider spreading out your position to be not too reliant on any single one.
p.s Please don't make comments such as US $ is backed by faith in the Federal Reserve/US government. This discussion is not about a post-fiat paradigm where BTC is the standard.
https://preview.redd.it/jkx9jwp6fn381.png?width=798&format=png&auto=webp&s=729d83fc511a3da1f4de0487edfeb6ac5e69964b
LinkedIn article, 3 December 2021 by A.P. Mathew MBA, MS of Finance 3rd degree connection 3rd Equities, Securities and Derivatives trading.
Reference: https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/citadel-securities-systemic-risk-problem-still-havent-a-p-/
Not Financial Advise, but an interesting read about the current circumstances and an intelligent bit of sleuthing on a possible future this month.
📷
A.P. Mathew MBA, MS of Finance
Equities, Securities and Derivatives trading
2d
My most recent article on Citadel and Citadel Securities. It's a short read but it's worth the time, especially if you are an active retail or institutional investor. #hedgefund #privateequityfirms #institutionalinvestors #retailinvestors #hedgefundmanagers
📷
Citadel Securities' systemic risk problem: They still haven't covered their…
A.P. Mathew MBA, MS of Finance on LinkedIn
Its a bold claim. Here is the Data:
- The options book: Sept17 call option deliveries from $35-$85 would require delivery of about 4.2 mil additional shares. About 7.2 mil shares are ALREADY in the money. That's 13.5 million shares dealers owe when SPRT breaks above $85. Most options holders paper hand (settle for cash) on the delivery date. But back in Jan, many call holders in GME were so deep itm they actually elected for delivery. I believe that threw gasoline on the short squeeze. Same can happen in SPRT.
Reminder SPRT's float is only 9.2 mil, and is borrowed short another 7 mil +, AND has possibly another million or more 'FTD' shares held by longs! FTD data is delayed 2+ weeks. But the amount on loan is pretty up to date. There appears to currently be up to17 mil+ shares owned by longs, 9.2 million are real float.
So where in the world can these options holders find that much stock to deliver for September alone!
October is bad too: another 1 million shares up to the $85 strike, and even scarier 5 mil are already ITM. Another 6 million of trouble for October delivery.
- Indicators of real systemic stress have started taking place this week.
SPRT stock loan markets could be 'freezing' up as retail brokerages pump customers to enroll in stock loan and refuse to lend inventory to other firms:
Utilization dropping, while borrow interest rate skyrocketing is this mornings big data. At first glance utilization dropping sound bearish (now 80% in the iborrow network, a retail brokerage firm stock lending platform). Its sounds like there is more stock coming available for shorting. If so, why does the average interest rate of outstanding loans go so high? Its the highest i've ever seen 162%:
We have confirmation from ORTEX on the high borrow fees
... keep reading on reddit ➡Thinking this is going to be a fun ride, because Mr. Alder doesn't consider the Bond market to be a threat to the stability of the Hedge Funds collateral should Evergrande become insolvent. Will this age well?
https://reddit.com/link/rcf1nx/video/6ysxncf5wh481/player
The short positions put on by the hedge funds are posing a systemic risk to the market. Bail out both sides by liquidating the hedge funds, but not the brokers or clearinghouses, but also put a buy order in for $10k per share to allow GME shareholders to exit. Isn’t $700 billion better than a financial meltdown? Just like last time you can ‘put rules in place to make sure this won’t happen again’
In 2008 the banks held risky assets and got bailed out because they said the innocent normal people would be hurt even more if you didn’t bail them out, so the government did it.
We posed a risk to the liquidity of the hedge funds, brokers, and clearinghouses yesterday. By bankrupting them it would probably cause a temporary stock market crash as they liquidate their positions.
Are we not now in the same position as the banks were in 2008? Buy us out of our positions for $700 billion to save the rest of the market and the normal people right?
Edit because it got attention: if this ever was a reality it would in the form of a loan to clearinghouses and brokers to cover any losses up to $10k per share. They would have to pay it back over time. The government would get the money back and reimburse taxpayers, while at the same time collecting taxes from the gains of the retail investors. Long term the clearinghouses and brokers recover, the market continues to function, and then they never let hedge funds put on a risky play like that ever again. The hedge funds involved are deservedly bankrupt, and the retail traders get the reward they deserve by playing the free market game by the rules.
Thanks for reading. I like the fucking stock. 🚀🚀🚀
Edit: to those saying it won't crash the market, have you seen what happens when we start going parabolic? The market starts bleeding out of its eyes. What is GME's beta value at right now, anyway? Still -8?
It's like SOME of you don't even want the squeeze to happen. Weird.
Edit2: Wow, #2 on my favorite subreddit. I am a warm and fuzzy ape. Thanks for the awards!
I wanted to clarify something I posted in my first edit about beta value. First type in negative beta in google and you get this:
"A negative beta correlation means an investment moves in the opposite direction from the stock market. When the market rises, a negative-beta investment generally falls. When the market falls, the negative-beta investment will tend to rise."
Here is some DD about GME's beta value from 2 weeks ago. Long story short GME's beta was -2.07 on 03/17 and I got the same value when I looked for it just now. What it means to me is that when GME goes BRRRRRRRR market goes GUHHHHH. Smarter apes can explain the deeper mechanics and nuance but that is it in a nutshell.
INFINITY EDIT: WOULD YOU LIKE TO KNOW MORE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS SHREWDNESS OF APES, SERIOUSLY THATS WHAT GROUPS OF APES ARE CALLED, WTF
https://www.reddit.com/r/GME/comments/meoht6/intro_to_the_gme_standoff_for_newcomers_plz_read/
APES STRONG TOGETHER!
SORRY FOR CAPS I'M JUST FEELING APEISH TONIGHT.
Credit to ISDA.org
Abstract
Systemic risk in the banking sector is usually associated with long periods of economic downturn and very large social costs. On one hand, shocks coming from correlated exposures towards the real economy may induce correlation in banks’ default probabilities thereby increasing the likelihood for systemic-tail events like the 2008 Great Financial Crisis. On the other hand, financial contagion also plays an important role in generating large-scale market failures, amplifying the initial shocks coming from the real economy. To study the sources of these rare phenomena, we propose a new definition of systemic risk (i.e. the probability of a large number of banks going into distress simultaneously) and thus we develop a multilayer microstructural model to study empirically the determinants of systemic risk. The model is then calibrated on the most comprehensive granular dataset for the euro area banking sector, capturing roughly 96% or EUR 23.2 trillion of euro area banks’ total assets over the period 2014-2018. The output of the model decompose and quantify the sources of systemic risk showing that correlated economic shocks, financial contagion mechanisms, and their interaction are the main sources of systemic events. The results obtained with the simulation engine resemble common market-based systemic risk indicators and empirically corroborate findings from existing literature. This framework gives regulators and central bankers a tool to study systemic risk and its developments, pointing out that systemic events and banks’ idiosyncratic defaults have different drivers, hence implying different policy responses.
