|
Sic Semper Goon posted:The American version of Christianity? Ahh yes, Supply Side Jesus. I listened to a Great Courses podcast that explained some about trading on margin puts and calls and holy poo poo that is a fest way to turn a big fortune into a small fortune and in this guy's case a negative fortune. CannonFodder fucked around with this message at 14:47 on Jan 28, 2017 |
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
Mods please change the thread title too Bad With Money - Praying to Supply Side Jesus
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Guys, don't worry. The part you all missed:quote:I am an Apple expert. Without a doubt, Apple is my specialty.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:04
|
|
|
I'm gonna make a band called And Here Comes the Yolo
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:09
|
|
|
Nail Rat posted:I'm gonna make a band called And Here Comes the Yolo
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 18:50
|
|
|
Volmarias posted:That's when the options expire. After that day, they cannot be used. So, whoever has the options on that day will execute them (assuming they're not worthless options to buy above market price or sell below it), and they'll be worth the difference between the option price and the stock price (or zero if that's negative). Thanks friend. ranbo das posted:Mods please change the thread title too Bad With Money - Praying to Supply Side Jesus Will this fit (please say yes) ? Motronic posted:Guys, don't worry. The part you all missed: He called everything right and timed the markets perfectly, that's why he lost $2.5m, obvs curufinor, you've reinvigorated the thread and saved my marriage, cheers
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 19:08
|
|
|
Motronic posted:Guys, don't worry. The part you all missed: He gives a 1 in 10 chance that Tim Cook steps down at the next earnings call lol
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
SquirrelFace posted:What god is he praying to that rewards excess and consumerism? Prosperity Gospel Jesus, also known as Plutus. And they said paganism was dead and buried....
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 20:57
|
|
|
Dwight Eisenhower posted:Actually they are being held responsible if the victim reports the crime to the police and files a police report. The victim provides the police report to the bank, the bank lets the victim off the hook, the bank makes a claim against their insurance policy using the police report, the insurance pays out. If the police can identify and prosecute the identity thief, then they go after the person for damages. Actually they didn't steal any dollars from you, they stole a little information from you and used it to steal thousands of dollars from the bank. The bank ruining your life for something you were not party to is super hosed up and it is weird that you don't see that. The first victim here is the bank that was too dumb to figure out who they were lending to, and then the bank goes and makes someone who is completely uninvolved a victim as well by trashing their credit rating.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:07
|
|
|
C.H.O.M.E posted:Actually they didn't steal any dollars from you, they stole a little information from you and used it to steal thousands of dollars from the bank. The bank ruining your life for something you were not party to is super hosed up and it is weird that you don't see that. The first victim here is the bank that was too dumb to figure out who they were lending to, and then the bank goes and makes someone who is completely uninvolved a victim as well by trashing their credit rating. What would you have banks do to verify who they are lending to? I'm not arguing with you (or anyone else in this thread) but am genuinely curious what you think it is they could do to do a better job because this certainly isn't something I'm an expert on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:25
|
|
|
BAE OF PIGS posted:What would you have banks do to verify who they are lending to? I'm not arguing with you (or anyone else in this thread) but am genuinely curious what you think it is they could do to do a better job because this certainly isn't something I'm an expert on. The point is that when the person it's claimed to be proves it wasn't them, it should be the bank's responsibility to pursue the fraud, not the identity theft victim's.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:29
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The point is that when the person it's claimed to be proves it wasn't them, it should be the bank's responsibility to pursue the fraud, not the identity theft victim's. Fraud is a crime and it's the government's responsibility to go after them, not the banks? 
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
But how do they prove it? I would say a police report is an even lower standard than having to prove anything, but that's apparently not acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:32
|
|
|
monster on a stick posted:Fraud is a crime and it's the government's responsibility to go after them, not the banks? Well, the government won't and can't do so without someone reporting it to them. Nor are they likely to do so without a cooperative victim, which is the whole issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 28, 2017 22:45
|
|
|
reddit really needs a toxx clause; I'm going to be very disappointed if $2.5M uncle guy is fake after AAPL earnings
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:He gives a 1 in 10 chance that Tim Cook steps down at the next earnings call lol That is my favorite part of the whole post. His "expected expectancy" is presented mathematically without any hedging, as if the probabilities aren't just utterly pulled out from the deepest recesses of his rear end.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 00:44
|
|
|
NancyPants posted:Thanks friend. You're welcome! Evil Robot posted:reddit really needs a toxx clause; I'm going to be very disappointed if $2.5M uncle guy is fake after AAPL earnings Prepare for disappointment Hargrimm posted:That is my favorite part of the whole post. His "expected expectancy" is presented mathematically without any hedging, as if the probabilities aren't just utterly pulled out from the deepest recesses of his rear end. This too.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 02:36
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The point is that when the person it's claimed to be proves it wasn't them, it should be the bank's responsibility to pursue the fraud, not the identity theft victim's. And the way that the bank establishes that it was not them or someone working with them to scam the bank is by requiring a police report. If you are not willing to file a police report, there is a good chance you are in on it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 02:53
|
|
|
It comes down to what's worth more to someone. A credit profile that hasn't been razed to the ground and the associated debt, courtesy of a dishonest, conniving parent. Or saving the relationship with that parent by not going after them legally. Personally, that would be the time I would write my parent completely out of my life, file a report with the police, and go after them in civil court.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 03:00
|
|
|
Thesaurus posted:Can someone parse his insane plan for me? All I got was that a guy who has a proven terrible track record , having lost millions, now is hyper confidant that he has a foolproof plan to get rich that "can't lose." He's using leverage to increase his leverage to buy even more leveraged products. Also, he's a troll that "always gets it wrong", which is what he references in that long post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
Reading the Apple YOLO I had the feeling I knew who it was. Checked the link and confirmed it. The dude is routinely bad on wall street bets and doing whatever the opposite he posted netted you some hilarious gains. I haven't seen someone be wrong so consistently. Tuesday going to be fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 06:22
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:The point is that when the person it's claimed to be proves it wasn't them, it should be the bank's responsibility to pursue the fraud, not the identity theft victim's. It is the job of law enforcement to pursue the fraud but the victim has to make a good faith effort to report the theft. The banks and law enforcement know that if the victim is unwilling to talk to the police and fill out a police report they almost certainly know who stole it and are going to withhold information to protect them. It is not necessarily fair but it is the most practical way to deal with it. Forcing the bank to initiate the process means the police get involved when the victim may or may not be cooperative beyond saying 'not me'. If they are not willing to cooperate the investigation is probably a waste of law enforcement time and money so why start it? And some BWM from Reddit: quote:Where I live (Australia) the annual dividend return on major bank stocks is around 6% stable. The actual share price barely changes at all, climbing around 2% per year. I can borrow at a 12 month fixed interest rate of 4.7%. Except for the risk of a market crash, why would I not margin buy when it essentially pays out free cash? Is recession the only risk? Hey guys, I have a plan to make really low returns or lose everything. I think I have hacked the system!
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 07:50
|
|
|
Xenocides posted:Hey guys, I have a plan to make really low returns or lose everything. I think I have hacked the system! 4.7% seems a bit high to pull this off. But I would be totally interested at 2% or 3%. While keeping a reasonable leverage ratio, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 11:28
|
|
|
Xenocides posted:It is the job of law enforcement to pursue the fraud but the victim has to make a good faith effort to report the theft. The banks and law enforcement know that if the victim is unwilling to talk to the police and fill out a police report they almost certainly know who stole it and are going to withhold information to protect them. My point is that the bank should be the victim with the responsibility to report, since they were defrauded. They should not be pushing it onto the person whose name was taken, since the bank controls the quality of vetting. If they required applicants to show up in person with government ID, they would avoid this problem. They want to grow their business by making it easier to apply, and that reduces the quality of vetting. They should bear the cost of that choice. E re Australia: are investment loans tax deductible there? It changes the return dynamics a fair bit if you're effectively paying half the interest rate. Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 29, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 17:55
|
|
|
George H.W. oval office posted:Reading the Apple YOLO I had the feeling I knew who it was. Checked the link and confirmed it. The dude is routinely bad on wall street bets and doing whatever the opposite he posted netted you some hilarious gains. I haven't seen someone be wrong so consistently. He was banned until a week or two ago when some gimmick vote unbanned him and brought the rainbow penis css back.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 18:11
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS9ptA3Ya9E
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 18:35
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:My point is that the bank should be the victim with the responsibility to report, since they were defrauded. They should not be pushing it onto the person whose name was taken, since the bank controls the quality of vetting. If they required applicants to show up in person with government ID, they would avoid this problem. They want to grow their business by making it easier to apply, and that reduces the quality of vetting. They should bear the cost of that choice. The bank here is not the party claiming that the charges are fraudulent. They have a customer identification program in place that has been approved by regulators, and that is generally pretty effective at preventing fraud. In person account fraud also occurs so I am not sure that making every person come and sign at a branch is going to achieve your apparent goal of zero fraud. Filing a police report is not to difficult a bar to meet, and I can assure you that there have been enough cases where the "victim" turns out to be in on the game that it is a reasonable requirement.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 18:54
|
|
|
Sephiroth_IRA posted:Talked co-worker out of going to Full Sail for graphic design the other day. She told me her boyfriend was already 50,000 in debt and was just about to get his degree in game design from Full Sail, his final project is basically a pong clone. A friend of mine got $70,000 in debt from Full Sail but somehow managed to pay it off working a ton of minumum wage jobs over a few year while living at home. But he didn't learn any skills from there, so I guess he's basically gonna keep juggling tons of minimum wage jobs his entire life. Meanwhile I spent 30k to go to an animation school in Canada and now have a job in the field that makes more than minimum wage, and that was still a bad financial decision because this industry is ridiculous. If you know anyone who wants to go into game design, animation, or visual effects who is not an artistic or programming genius, tell them to stop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:My point is that the bank should be the victim with the responsibility to report, since they were defrauded. They should not be pushing it onto the person whose name was taken, since the bank controls the quality of vetting. If they required applicants to show up in person with government ID, they would avoid this problem. They want to grow their business by making it easier to apply, and that reduces the quality of vetting. They should bear the cost of that choice. Customer Identification Programs prove that you are who you say you are when you open the account, not that you're never, ever going to have fraud happen on your debit card. I've done CIP for a financial services firm for the past few years. Opening accounts online is no more or less safe than opening in a branch. All new accounts have their information ran against public records info from a 3rd party vendor. If there's any abnormalities (IP included), it's sent to a human for further review. If after the human review, we're not satisfied, we stop all funds from going into or out of the account. You then need to either call a hotline or go to a branch to prove that you are who you say you are, or we close the account. We do maintain a list of people we don't do business with. To land on that list, you generally need to have committed a major crime (financial or otherwise), or screwed up an account with us in the past. We have people who's ENTIRE job consists of adding, removing, and closing those peoples accounts. False fraud claims with us might land you in that list for us, but we probably won't share that with every financial institution unless a huge court case is involved. Removing a requirement for a police report for financial fraud makes it so that people catch on that you can call anything fraud and we'll just give you your money back. This costs a lot of money and a lot of staff (currently we have 10 people in the entire company handling fraud claims...this would quadruple that over time). Credit and debit card issuers (Visa, etc.) also have rules about how quickly you have to respond to fraud claims and what the requirements are to keep issuing cards with their logo. You do NOT want to cross them. To summarize...CIP can prove that you are who you say you are in most cases. They can't prove you aren't a fraudster, at least not right up front, unless you've been a major one in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 20:17
|
|
|
blackmet posted:Customer Identification Programs prove that you are who you say you are when you open the account In this case, when the account (loan) was opened, the person was not who they said they were.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 20:24
|
|
|
I don't think that apple yolo dude has the worst logic for their stock going down this week. It's just so comical that he could have literally lived on his 2.5 million dollars forever at 4% interest with 100k a year.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 20:25
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:In this case, when the account (loan) was opened, the person was not who they said they were. But they had all the supporting documentation needed to establish that ID. So barring any red-flags associated with that identity, they *were* that person to any entity doing a reasonable effort to verify. What is so difficult for you to understand?
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 22:35
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
John Smith posted:4.7% seems a bit high to pull this off. But I would be totally interested at 2% or 3%. While keeping a reasonable leverage ratio, of course. What's also amusing is that the property bubble in Australia is just about bursting at the seams and the banks are heavily exposed. There's a high chance of a margin call in the future that wipes out more than all of his money when the bank shares drop in value.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 22:51
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:What's also amusing is that the property bubble in Australia is just about bursting at the seams and the banks are heavily exposed. There's a high chance of a margin call in the future that wipes out more than all of his money when the bank shares drop in value. Nah, this bubble's going to rise forever.  I'm trying to sound sarcastic, but for all I know, that may actually be the case.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 22:57
|
|
|
Sic Semper Goon posted:Nah, this bubble's going to rise forever. The bubble in Hong Kong kept going up for 25 years. Their pay is low relative to Australia and New Zealand but they love property. When it finally burst last year prices dropped by 50% and a lot of people went bust. In New Zealand the Auckland property bubble has just passed the peak. The capital flow restrictions put in place by China seem to have slowed things down a lot. Combined with 40% equity needed for investment properties prices almost have the brakes on here. In Australia I don't believe there are any similar restrictions so that bubble will keep going.
|
|
#
?
Jan 29, 2017 23:03
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:The bubble in Hong Kong kept going up for 25 years. Their pay is low relative to Australia and New Zealand but they love property. When it finally burst last year prices dropped by 50% and a lot of people went bust. Like nothing in this paragraph is factually correct, Hong Kong is very wealthy and has a higher PPP per capita than the United States let alone Australia or NZ, and there was definitely not a 50% fall in housing prices in 2016. The only thing that has even dented the market is the government imposing huge taxes on sales. The basic underlying market factors are that Hong Kong is a tiny and very densely populated island with a well developed, globally significant economy and thus housing will probably always be fundamentally expensive there.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 00:09
|
|
|
BEHOLD: MY CAPE posted:Like nothing in this paragraph is factually correct, Hong Kong is very wealthy and has a higher PPP per capita than the United States let alone Australia or NZ, and there was definitely not a 50% fall in housing prices in 2016. The only thing that has even dented the market is the government imposing huge taxes on sales. The basic underlying market factors are that Hong Kong is a tiny and very densely populated island with a well developed, globally significant economy and thus housing will probably always be fundamentally expensive there. Looks like relying on CNBC's reporting was misleading. They talked about these large falls. Now, looking up another article the falls weren't that large and only 95 cases of negative equity by April. Welp.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 02:18
|
|
|
BWM: Paying to feed the aracari while not knowing about minimum focus distance or how to operate a point focus camera.
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 04:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 04:52 |
|
|
H110Hawk posted:BWM: Paying to feed the aracari while not knowing about minimum focus distance or how to operate a point focus camera. No it's GWM because my in-laws insisted on the trip and paid for it. The bird out of focus is BWcameraphone and going was BWL.  Do you want one with the whites blown out instead or shall we continue this exciting conversation about account fraud and parental financial abuse?
|
|
#
?
Jan 30, 2017 07:01
|
|