|
vaginal facsimile posted:Roku has a fantastic moat, no competition at all. Great earnings and bright outlook. Sarcasm?
|
#
?
Nov 9, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
paternity suitor posted:Sarcasm? 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:07
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:Well maybe you are still looking at the bullshit numbers that don't resemble the actual plan that is starting to take shape? It's a complete disaster. Is it a disaster for the stock market? Obama's administration saw the deficit double from $10 trillion dollars to $20 trillion dollars, but the stock market skyrocketed. paternity suitor posted:Sarcasm? It was dripping in it, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:17
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:Is it a disaster for the stock market? Obama's administration saw the deficit double from $10 trillion dollars to $20 trillion dollars, but the stock market skyrocketed. I love when people who don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit" have opinions on economics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:27
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:Is it a disaster for the stock market? Obama's administration saw the deficit double from $10 trillion dollars to $20 trillion dollars, but the stock market skyrocketed. This retort is almost as bad as the guy who runs his mouth about the market and yet said 'no, I don't do valuation modeling because I have a day job' the other day
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 00:33
|
|
|
In 2014, the top 90% of incomes paid ~70% of the federal income tax receipts. The top 25% of incomes paid ~87%. The bottom 50% pays 2.75%. If we define the "middle class" as between 25% and 75% percentile of incomes, you are looking at less than 13% of total tax revenue to play with. We can therefore reason that any attempt at tax-code changes are going to affect the wealthy substantially more than the middle class. Since the GOP has taken a policy stance for the reduction rather than the increasing of taxes, it is logical to expect that any such changes will have a greater effect on the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:01
|
|
|
Lmbo no one crying bubble has addressed my point about equity risk premium being reasonable, because the risk free return is so low, but my response that I’m not loving making a model for a tech stock I️ have no interest in is bad. How about another post where we cherry pick a single stock and use that as evidence the whole market is overpriced?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:04
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:In 2014, the top 90% of incomes paid ~70% of the federal income tax receipts. The top 25% of incomes paid ~87%. The bottom 50% pays 2.75%. Ok, but these tax giveaways are to the top 1%, literally. The NY times chart showed even up to 500k you're paying more in taxes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:This retort is almost as bad as the guy who runs his mouth about the market and yet said 'no, I don't do valuation modeling because I have a day job' the other day I've seen you drag your personal politics in here for months, and I get that you only tolerate left-wing orthodoxy. Droo posted:I love when people who don't know the difference between "debt" and "deficit" have opinions on economics. I know the difference between a budget deficit and the national debt, but it was a hastily written internet message board post. Let's not turn into this into the subreddit /r/iamverysmart.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:I've seen you drag your personal politics in here for months, and I get that you only tolerate left-wing orthodoxy. .... what? what does the republican party unravelling and electing donald trump as president have to do with “left wing orthodoxy”? Whats going on right now is very bad for any rational republican, but of course most of them want to attempt to hold the party together so are being relatively polite. The cracks are already showing though- McCain, Collins, Corker, failure of healthcare reform, imminent failure of tax reform. The wing of the republican party in control right now may get votes due to a fairly bewildering confluence of factors, but they are cynical opportunists with no real ideas and its all melting down with shocking speed. I am not a left winger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
LLCoolJD posted:I've seen you drag your personal politics in here for months, and I get that you only tolerate left-wing orthodoxy. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 02:10
|
|
|
vaginal facsimile posted:ROKU up 54% Chart looks spot on 100% right in order 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 02:12
|
|
|
You're right, I'll cut it out. I was dealing with a damaged filling and a fussy toddler. Jack Daniels posted:Chart looks spot on 100% right in order It's wild. I'm not used to seeing this on earnings for companies with market cap in the billions.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 03:41
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:In 2014, the top 90% of incomes paid ~70% of the federal income tax receipts. The top 25% of incomes paid ~87%. The bottom 50% pays 2.75%. So, uh, by these numbers they could reduce taxes on a substantial fraction of the US without drastically affecting receipts? Weird how instead they cut it for the 1%
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 03:52
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:So, uh, by these numbers they could reduce taxes on a substantial fraction of the US without drastically affecting receipts? Weird how instead they cut it for the 1% You must be new to the United States of America.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 04:14
|
|
|
The worst part is explaining this to my lower middle class extended family over thanksgiving. In other news, PEGI keeps coming down...
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 15:37
|
|
|
ROKU opened at +13%. Sheesh.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 15:50
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:So, uh, by these numbers they could reduce taxes on a substantial fraction of the US without drastically affecting receipts? Weird how instead they cut it for the 1% Who knows. I am sure there are some great echo chamber discussions in D&D about this very topic, should you wish to partake. I haven't even read the drat bill, much less its effects. My post was to note that if you are going to broadly cut (or raise) taxes, the absolute tax dollar change will likely be greater for higher income brackets versus lower ones. For example, if congress provided a 1% reduction in taxes across each tax bracket, the top 10% would see 25x more savings than the bottom 50%. The same thing holds true if taxes were raised 1%. This is because the top 10% currently pays 25x more than the bottom 50%. This makes for great charts in the New York Times, but masks what is an even tax change.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
At the same though, a 1% reduction in public services affects the bottom 90% 25x more than it affects the top 10%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:14
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Who knows. I am sure there are some great echo chamber discussions in D&D about this very topic, should you wish to partake. I haven't even read the drat bill, much less its effects. Did you miss the part on that 'great chart in the new York times' where taxes went UP for the people you are talking about? Families with at least one kid making $30k-60k/yr? 60k is basically the median family income. You are a brainwashed apologist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:30
|
|
|
greasyhands posted:Did you miss the part on that 'great chart in the new York times' where taxes went UP for the people you are talking about? Families with at least one kid making $30k-60k/yr? 60k is basically the median family income. You are a brainwashed apologist. Did you miss the part where I said I don't know anything about the recent tax bill and wasn't discussing it specifically? quote:At the same though, a 1% reduction in public services affects the bottom 90% 25x more than it affects the top 10%.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:46
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Who knows. I am sure there are some great echo chamber discussions in D&D about this very topic, should you wish to partake. I haven't even read the drat bill, much less its effects. So in that specific way of changing the tax code, yeah, but you said with any form of changes to the tax code, you would see the receipts from the highest brackets change the most and that just isn't true. quote:We can therefore reason that any attempt at tax-code changes are going to affect the wealthy substantially more than the middle class. Since the GOP has taken a policy stance for the reduction rather than the increasing of taxes, it is logical to expect that any such changes will have a greater effect on the wealthy. My point is that this is absolutely not true. Likely? Yeah, but saying that tax cuts can only mostly help the rich is unfortunate. Congress could (but won't) choose to relieve the middle class without affecting the taxes paid by the top 90% at all. ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 17:51 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:47
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:Did you miss the part where I said I don't know anything about the recent tax bill and wasn't discussing it specifically? So you are just arguing a point with no idea if it applies to the issue at hand? That's even worse. Are you just sharing your wisdom that 'more money = more tax' in absolute dollar terms because gee whiz that's some real insight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:53
|
|
|
ohgodwhat posted:So in that specific way of changing the tax code, yeah, but you said with any form of changes to the tax code, you would see the receipts from the highest brackets change the most and that just isn't true. I suppose you could mess around exclusively with the ~13% of tax revenue that the middle and lower class pays, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room while doing so. That's my point. Any meaningful tax reform is going to disproportionately affect higher incomes because they are a disproportionately greater share of the taxable base. The same thing holds true for the concept of "spending cuts" that the GOP always loves to go for. If you just focus on the relatively minuscule federal agencies and ignore entitlements and defense, you are not going to produce any notable result. quote:So you are just arguing a point with no idea if it applies to the issue at hand? That's even worse. Are you just sharing your wisdom that 'more money = more tax' in absolute dollar terms because gee whiz that's some real insight. Cheesemaster200 fucked around with this message at 18:00 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 17:57
|
|
|
This discussion is as terrible as the tax bill Also, my WEEECOBALT stocks are all up today. This is lovely! Accretionist fucked around with this message at 18:15 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 18:13
|
|
|
Cheesemaster200 posted:I suppose you could mess around exclusively with the ~13% of tax revenue that the middle and lower class pays, but you are ignoring the elephant in the room while doing so. That's my point. Any meaningful tax reform is going to disproportionately affect higher incomes because they are a disproportionately greater share of the taxable base. Eliminating income tax for the bottom 90% seems a lot more meaningful than a tax cut for the top 1%. In dollar terms it's probably just as substantial as the actual proposed cuts. There is nothing requiring the cuts to be distributed across the brackets, and there's plenty of room to adjust taxes without it going entirely to the 1%. Anyway, what's the new MCZ to buy so I can worry more about that and less about taxes? 
ohgodwhat fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Nov 10, 2017 |
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 18:16
|
|
|
It's me, I'm the 500k family for whom the 'tax cut' is actually a tax hike. Surprised markets aren't reacting more badly to the delayed phase-in of the corporate tax cut.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 19:25
|
|
|
I just got the subjective "this is the top of the market" signal that I've been waiting for for like 4 years now. Looking to buy options to short the market over a 4-8 month time frame. Can anyone recommend a leveraged long ETF that I can buy puts on, that actually has a decently tight spread on further out dates? I have looked at a few based on highest ETF volumes and the bid/ask spread is way too high on them all to the point that I would just stick with puts on SPY.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
leveraged ... SPY. My man, let me introduce you to SPX
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 20:28
|
|
|
Is there any downside to using Robinhood? My OptionsHouse got moved to Etrade and the idea of not paying commissions is appealing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 20:34
|
|
|
Real men use Leverage
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 20:38
|
|
|
Bought 200000 shares of penny stock pharma company using my Amex card
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 20:39
|
|
|
skooma512 posted:Is there any downside to using Robinhood? My OptionsHouse got moved to Etrade and the idea of not paying commissions is appealing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
GME having a lovely
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 21:39
|
|
|
Is there a rule of thumb for when to use P/S vs P/E?
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:09
|
|
|
vaginal facsimile posted:Is there a rule of thumb for when to use P/S vs P/E? Rule of thumb for metrics is to use whichever one best supports your thesis in order to mislead or delude most effectively.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 22:31
|
|
|
cowofwar posted:Rule of thumb for metrics is to use whichever one best supports your thesis in order to mislead or delude most effectively. I wish this was short enough to be the thread title.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 23:41
|
|
|
I am a Hubris Trader. Don't even need metrics.
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 23:46
|
|
|
Solice Kirsk posted:I wish this was short enough to be the thread title. the current title is so good tho cause its literally something people would be asking, unironically, every X amount of pages or w/e ITT if it didn't happen to the be the title lol 
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 23:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 13:54 |
|
|
skooma512 posted:Is there any downside to using Robinhood? My OptionsHouse got moved to Etrade and the idea of not paying commissions is appealing. Syrinxx posted:You can't buy foreign stocks and OTCs (yet) but otherwise RH is really good janky broker. I'm always seeing people complain taht they can't see / trade / buy (or even SELL shares that they ahve lol what????  ) random tickers for whatever reasons.... asidie from the OTCs. or really big delays on fills (minutes to HOURS  ), etc etc. I don't know from experience but from the sounds of it its probably fine if youre trading NYSE/Nasdaq big names, thicker the better, more volume the better, etc..... but the broker has consistently sounded janky as gently caress, compared to all other "normal" brokers out there with issues you would NOT normally see!!!!!!!!!but its free iwhtht no commsionss so what else can we say other than YOU GET WHAT YOU PAY FOR
|
|
#
?
Nov 10, 2017 23:50
|
|