|
cirus posted:Wtf $TOP lol what the hell. I see it peaking over 1000% up in after hours
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 00:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
what was the last random chinese stock to do this? someone's pumping again
lurksion fucked around with this message at 01:00 on Apr 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 00:54
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Amazon had a 45% earnings beat and basically followed meta today. Intel had a 72% beat, but only because they lost less money than expected. If there's a silver lining to their results it's that no delays were announced and they at least claim to still be on track with their aggressive node targets, including the Intel 4 stuff shipping this year, and the 3/2/1.8 stuff in 2024 & 2025.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 01:08
|
|
|
In almost all cases I would wonder how much of this is attributable to layoffs than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 01:49
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:In almost all cases I would wonder how much of this is attributable to layoffs than anything else. Severance packages aren’t even fully paid out for the layoffs in Q4 and some big companies are still doing rounds. Maybe by Q3 earnings this year there might be an impact if simply slashing headcount has the results they want.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 02:31
|
|
|
notwithoutmyanus posted:Amazon had a 45% earnings beat and basically followed meta today. BACED - Buy AMZN Calls Every Day
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 02:41
|
|
|
Hadlock posted:BACED - Buy AMZN Calls Every Day They fumbled the earnings call and is down AH after being up 10%.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 03:33
|
|
|
Bought a few ENPH calls after the 25% earning call drop on Wednesday. I guess the bottom wasn't in. Getting bodied today. Ouch lol
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:08
|
|
|
I'm sure everyone is out on this by now but GOON is really going through it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 15:51
|
|
|
Grem posted:I'm sure everyone is out on this by now but GOON is really going through it. lol have they still not submitted their de novo app yet? I haven't followed them as closely since I closed my position a few years ago.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 16:45
|
|
|
Grem posted:I'm sure everyone is out on this by now but GOON is really going through it. I know it’s a fallacy to consider playing with your winnings as “house money” but I made about $1000 on GOON (realized) so I decided to leave 100 shares to ride just in case (which is now like 5 or 10 shares after the reverse splits), and I still have them, so oops?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 17:10
|
|
|
Anyone ever buy individual corporate bonds? With 30-year yields on A rated companies over 5%, theres potentially a lot of money to be made in the next year or two if rates come down. Or, it could blow up in my face (though provided the company doesnt go bust, earning 5+% coupons for 30 years isnt the worst outcome).
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 18:29
|
|
|
Just invoiced First Republic for a few big assignments, I wonder if they will pay me!!!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
drk posted:Anyone ever buy individual corporate bonds? The new I-Bond fixed rate is apparently .9% (which is to say they pay .9% over inflation, which is likely to average out less than 5% but it's a lot safer than an A grade corporate bond). If you're looking for a long term bond that might be one to consider as well. Either way you might get more of a response on relatively safe long term investments in the long term and retirement investing thread.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 19:36
|
|
|
Elysium posted:I know it’s a fallacy to consider playing with your winnings as “house money” but I made about $1000 on GOON (realized) so I decided to leave 100 shares to ride just in case (which is now like 5 or 10 shares after the reverse splits), and I still have them, so oops? I got in late; my basis is only ~$0.30/share pre-split, and I only put $100 or so in, so I'm holding on till they delist or pop off!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 19:55
|
|
|
Bremen posted:The new I-Bond fixed rate is apparently .9% (which is to say they pay .9% over inflation, which is likely to average out less than 5% but it's a lot safer than an A grade corporate bond). If you're looking for a long term bond that might be one to consider as well. I like I bonds and own them, but they are an entirely different asset class. For one, as non-marketable securities they will not increase in value if market interest rates come down. Buying 30 year bonds in like, Paypal or IBM or Intel seemed like a better question for the gambling thread. I dont think I would want to hold any of those long term.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:13
|
|
|
drk posted:I like I bonds and own them, but they are an entirely different asset class. For one, as non-marketable securities they will not increase in value if market interest rates come down. Ah, sorry, I misunderstood what you're going for. I see what you mean now but I don't have the expertise to answer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:17
|
|
|
drk posted:Anyone ever buy individual corporate bonds? i don't really pay much attention to the corporate bond space, but isn't one of the downsides to those long bonds that they're typically callable?
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:27
|
|
|
Here's a slice of what I'm looking at. They are all callable, but only 6 months before maturity
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:43
|
|
|
drk posted:Here's a slice of what I'm looking at. They are all callable, but only 6 months before maturity based on only my gut, the utilities seem like the most solid as far as credit risk goes. though now that i think about it sce hasn't had the wildfire liabilities that have pounded pg&e (less massive forests and bone dry forests for lines to run through), but who knows what catastrophic climate change related liabilities could pop up over the next 30 years
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:49
|
|
|
Checked the filing on the IBM one "The Notes may be redeemed, as a whole or in part, at the Company’s option, at any time or from time to time, upon notice (by mail, electronic delivery or otherwise in accordance with the depositary’s procedures)" Six months in advance they just switch methods for how the call value is determined.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:54
|
|
|
A 30 year bond that can only be called 6 months before maturity seems really weird to me. That doesn't mean it couldn't be the case, but I'd be very careful that that's what you're getting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:57
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:Checked the filing on the IBM one Hmm interesting. Where did you find those notes? Here's what I see in Vanguard on the call details for the IBM bond:  It certainly doesnt seem to indicate there that they could call at any point before 2052, but I am not experienced in buying corporates
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 20:59
|
|
|
Or are you talking about the make whole part? My understanding is that a make whole call would require them to pay out *all* of the future coupons, not just the par value.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:01
|
|
|
I wouldn't touch Intel with a ten foot pole, the company's in a tailspin. Bonds are typically senior debt in a bankruptcy, so that's better than owning INTC, but... yeah maybe I wouldn't agree with their rating as a A2/A bond. Southern California Edison seems pretty safe to me. The CPUC grants rate increases to match their costs plus a built in profit, so the risks are comparable to those PG&E faced (the judgements against them for killing hundreds of people in fires they negligently caused are, explicitly, not allowed to be paid by rate increases, and instead come out of the profits) but the impression I have is that SCE has not been ignoring maintenance for a century the way PG&E has. No strong opinions on the others. Or on buying individual bonds - I buy bond funds in my retirement account but I'm looking for better returns from my play money.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:03
|
|
|
drk posted:Hmm interesting. Where did you find those notes? The actual EDGAR filing for the notes issued. https://content.edgar-online.com/Ex...221760d1_8k_htm quote:The Notes may be redeemed, as a whole or in part, at the Company’s option, at any time or from time to time, upon notice (by mail, electronic delivery or otherwise in accordance with the depositary’s procedures) not less than 10 days nor more than 60 days prior to the date fixed for redemption to holders of the Notes. Prior to the Par Call Date, the redemption price (expressed as a percentage of principal amount and rounded to three decimal places) for the Notes will be equal to the greater of: Six months in advance is just when they switch methods. If they drop a bit, you'll make out nicely. If rates drop a bunch they'll probably get called. You'll still make money but not as much as you might hope. The sum of present value of the coupons is chunky but not as chunky as the layperson thinks. Bonds are very legalize dense which is why most people avoid them. If I was buying these bonds I would also want to know where I was in the capital stack as well. That is something that doesn't matter until it really does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:09
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:Six months in advance is just when they switch methods. If they drop a bit, you'll make out nicely. If rates drop a bunch they'll probably get called. You'll still make money but not as much as you might hope. The sum of present value of the coupons is chunky but not as chunky as the layperson thinks. Bonds are very legalize dense which is why most people avoid them. Yeah, this is why I get nervous about buying individual bonds. I know I have basically no chance of understanding everything going on. An alternative if you want to try to profit off an interest rate drop might be just to buy shares in a long term bond ETF and sell them if the value goes up due to interest rates dropping.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:20
|
|
|
ranbo das posted:The actual EDGAR filing for the notes issued. Oof, yeah that is complicated (only a lawyer would define a year as having 360 days). But, assuming interest rates do come down in the next couple years, the make whole call doesnt seem like the worst outcome - you are essentially being compensated for the fact that you wouldn't be able to reinvest at as high a rate as the original bond. I see that maybe that would be less valuable than just assuming the market price will soar and cashing in that way. Probably wont do it, but thanks for the thoughts.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:22
|
|
|
drk posted:Oof, yeah that is complicated (only a lawyer would define a year as having 360 days). But, assuming interest rates do come down in the next couple years, the make whole call doesnt seem like the worst outcome - you are essentially being compensated for the fact that you wouldn't be able to reinvest at as high a rate as the original bond. I see that maybe that would be less valuable than just assuming the market price will soar and cashing in that way. I'm not even trying to discourage you from doing so, it might be a great investment! The make whole call isn't necessarily the worst either. If rates dropped by 1% by my back of the envelope math they would have to pay 17% over par, which would be a 25% gain for you. The thing with bonds is if you look at the document, it's so dense that it takes a while to make sure you know what you're buying. You also have to worry about credit rating risk as much as interest rate. If they get downgraded the rates could spike and then you're underwater even in broad interest rates decline. It could be fun to pick one and do a deep dive and invest a bit to just get a feel for them., but bonds are definitely not like equities. I could probably tell you which one of those five were worth investing in over the others, but almost none of the research would be through Vanguard or Fidelity, and it would probably take me a week or two. If you're just looking for an interest rate play, I would stick to treasuries or treasury ETFs (TMF would do nicely). There's less BS to worry about and more pure interest rate exposure. ranbo das fucked around with this message at 21:35 on Apr 28, 2023 |
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:32
|
|
|
I may be talking out of my rear end here but I think even if you're buying senior notes (e.g., they get paid out first in a bankruptcy), a company could subsequently issue even-more-senior debt just by saying so and your only recourse is to sell what you've got if you don't agree with that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:41
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I may be talking out of my rear end here but I think even if you're buying senior notes (e.g., they get paid out first in a bankruptcy), a company could subsequently issue even-more-senior debt just by saying so and your only recourse is to sell what you've got if you don't agree with that. i don't think it's quite as easy as just declaring it, but it is definitely possible especially if the debtor can get some of their major bond holders on board
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 21:45
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I may be talking out of my rear end here but I think even if you're buying senior notes (e.g., they get paid out first in a bankruptcy), a company could subsequently issue even-more-senior debt just by saying so and your only recourse is to sell what you've got if you don't agree with that. Depends on the specifics of the notes! Most/all senior notes prevent this via covenants, but a lot of them allow that covenant to be voided by a majority or a supermajority vote. In the case of a pure majority vote, a lot of times the company will go to 51% of the holders and say "hey we want to issue more senior debt, vote yes and you can buy the senior debt and also we'll upgrade your debt!". Then that 51% gets control and the 49% get screwed. Also depends on the company structure. Notes against holding companies are senior to notes against the top- level company, so you can have junior debt that is actually senior to senior debt because one is against the company and one is against the holding company.
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 23:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I may be talking out of my rear end here but I think even if you're buying senior notes (e.g., they get paid out first in a bankruptcy), a company could subsequently issue even-more-senior debt just by saying so and your only recourse is to sell what you've got if you don't agree with that. Alas, you are talking out of your rear end. It all depends on the contract but if you're a lender, as you'd expect, you don't want to be jumped in priority. So part of the indenture is going to covenant that the borrower shall not issue more than X amount of further debt, further debt must be offered no higher in priority than this note, whatever. There are often financial ratios involved. It can get pretty complicated but generally speaking if you're senior unsecured you're going to do your damnedest to protect your interests. When you get into the more subordinated debt things can get more silly. There's some publicly traded debt out there where the borrower can turn off interest payments for five years. Fun!
|
|
#
?
Apr 28, 2023 23:50
|
|
|
Agronox posted:When you get into the more subordinated debt things can get more silly. There's some publicly traded debt out there where the borrower can turn off interest payments for five years. Fun! Presumably when they do pay interest it would be at quite a high rate to make up for the risk of not getting anything at all?
|
|
#
?
Apr 29, 2023 08:13
|
|
|
Not a stock question per se but I went down a rabbit hole of reading about the Fed's repo and reverse repo facilities this morning and found it to be fascinating after managing to ignore most discussions about it for the past few years. If I understand it correctly, big banks are buying treasury securities from the Fed to solve two problems: excess liquidity on the banks' side, and a constant need for cash on the Fed's side. The overnight lending rate is somewhere in the range of 4.5% I believe. So for example, if I'm Wells Fargo and I lend a billion dollars overnight to the Fed via their RRP program, I stand to clear a nice tidy profit of something in the range of...40 million dollars simply for giving the Fed money it's asking for. If this is happening every single day, or most days, how are big banks not absolutely flush with profit just from the RRP transactions alone? According to this: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RRPONTSYD, the Fed is currently doing business this way with banks to the tune of 2 trillion dollars a day I understand the flipside means banks have less money day to day and therefore are doing less business in the traditional way because of the above arrangement, but still, that's a lot of profit a day for just one small part of their business. Is any of this wrong? If not, then the relevant question to this thread is why are people not rushing in to invest in banks?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:05
|
|
|
The rate is annualized. It’s not 4.5% return for one night.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:22
|
|
|
DNK posted:The rate is annualized. It’s not 4.5% return for one night. Sure, I get they're not settling those transactions every single night, but at the end of the year that's still a lot of money going to the banks, no? https://seekingalpha.com/article/4591412-the-fed-loses-money-for-the-first-time-in-107-years-why-it-matters This estimates the Fed is currently losing 2 billion a week on an annualized basis, and I would bet the majority of those losses is interest paid to all the banks & funds participating in the RRP at 2 trillion a day
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 13:53
|
|
|
One of the main things the Fed does as a central bank is set the price of money. The RRP is one of the main tools that have to do that, because when they let the RRP rate rise, it siphons money out of the parts of the banking system that are paying less than that. Similarly, if they want to lower the price of money, a low RRP rate pushes those dollars to go look for better returns elsewhere. This trickles down to interest rates for everything else in the economy. Central banking. Yay. Also, the list of RRP counterparties is published here: https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/rrp_counterparties. It's mostly not banks, but money market funds. The idea of a) take customer deposits, then b) park them at the Fed RRP, and c) keep a spread for your trouble is called "Narrow Banking", and some people are actually trying to start a narrow bank, and the Fed keeps telling them no. The people at the Fed hate the idea of narrow banking for various reasons, but the main one being that a bank that lends deposits for businesses and mortgages and other economic investments is (usually) beneficial to society, while a bank that just sits on a dragon hoard of Fed deposits is not, and possible actively harmful in a banking confidence crisis because they would siphon all the deposits from other banks. Some Fed people have recently published papers that this is what's actually happening now with MMFs. The combination of the regional bank crisis and just generally lovely deposit rates from many banks is pushing people to withdraw deposits and put them in MMFs. The MMFs put them in t-bills but more and more in the RRP, if they inventory of t-bills isn't enough to beat the RRP rate. So these MMFs now have trillions of dollars payable on demand (sometimes you can even get a atm card and write checks!), with the cash parked at very short term, risk-free government facilities, and are essentially shadow narrow banks. The Fed hates narrow banks, have stumbled onto creating narrow banks in all but name, and aren't sure what to do about it. mrmcd fucked around with this message at 15:25 on May 1, 2023 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:19
|
|
|
Whistling rear end in a top hat posted:Sure, I get they're not settling those transactions every single night, but at the end of the year that's still a lot of money going to the banks, no? 4.5% is on the same level, if not below, what you'd get for treasury bills right now. And a lot of those banks are probably offering a similar interest rate on deposits as well. Sure, I could invest in a bank that will be producing a 4.5% annual return by lending money to the fed, but I'm currently holding a 5.4% CD so that would actually be a loss. They're still in general making money; banks tend to do that. The reason some banks are failing right now is that this is actually causing problems; let's say the bank loans you $100k to buy a house, and you're paying 2% interest. Then the interest rates go up to 5% - you're still paying 2%. And now the people with deposits at the bank aren't happy with 2% interest, so the banks either have to offer a better interest rate (taking a loss) or people will withdraw that money - and the banks no longer have that money. Normally they could "sell" the debt to someone else, but if the loan is paying a lower interest rate than new loans it's actually worth less - IE, if the bank tried to sell $100k worth of debt at 2% interest right now they'd get significantly less than $100k for it. So the higher interest rates can actually cause problems for banks when they go up. There are ways for banks to account for that risk and think ahead, but it's expensive and not all of them did it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 15:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 16:11 |
|
|
Bremen posted:4.5% is on the same level, if not below, what you'd get for treasury bills right now. And a lot of those banks are probably offering a similar interest rate on deposits as well. Ahahaha, no. Banks still pay pretty crap rates on deposits. Here's the average rate paid for savings accounts and interest checking accounts:   Just because you can find 5% CDs doesn't mean most deposits are earning anything close to that.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2023 17:04
|
|