Castanza

not a YOLO trade? booo I was all for it until the halt. Not interested in having stuff locked up for who knows how long. I think that list of unreadable stocks will continue to grow the next few weeks as WSB continues to pick new targets.

People will understand the risk and reality of losses when it’s reflected in their bank accounts. Let it alone and let the market work.

Sorry but that simply isn't a rational argument unless you consider brokerage platforms as financial advisors. People are ok with ARK pumping companies with terrible fundamentals the past four years and allowing retail investors to buy in. But all of a sudden it's about protecting free individuals from making conscious decisions with their own money. You're picking winners and losers if you intervene. I mean the head of NASDAQ said that trading should be halted so firms can reposition accordingly. That is absurd as it gets and she should immediately be removed for suggesting something like that.

fwiw I sold my NOK at a $200 loss ;D

While I agree, I think they had no other choice. There are only 70 million shares in existence. Probably 50-60 million that are not in index funds or owned by the new CEO. Half of which is probably in large positions, so you only need a million people trying to buy 100 shares or an option, and the system breaks down. With option expiration tomorrow GME could literally have gone to the moon. Big mistake that they added more strikes this week. Right now IB does not allow opening any positions on GME or its options, long or short, not even rolling the short leg of calendar spreads. I wonder if that's legal, certainly could f*k up a lot of option strategies. It's going to cost retail investors millions while protecting large hedge funds. Options may expire tomorrow, but short positions held by large firms do not. You can't "short" on Robinhood and you can't sell naked puts. I think it's pretty clear as day what's going on. I hope there is a class action lawsuit because of this.

Looks like Robinhood is restricting trading for GME, BB, AMC, and NOK. That's pretty criminal in my opinion. The SEC has to allow this to play out. It's a bad look to step in to save the big guys and crush the retailers.

Could there be other non-retailers who want to see Melvin/Citadel suffer? Probably But it’s more likely other non-retailers who just want a slice of the pie.

+1 He covered a lot of companies and provided solid analysis. PCYO, MSGS (E), AYR just to name a few.

There must have been a karma requirement or something because it kicked me and everyone I know out. It's back up and running First post I see “I MISSED YOU GUYS SOO MUCH!” Old salty hedge funds are just mad these kids are having fun and making a ton of money.

What crime? What crime is the average Joe committing? How can a participant in an idea with no central or governing body be committing a crime?

There must have been a karma requirement or something because it kicked me and everyone I know out.

Even Citron spoke out against this

The average Robinhood account is only 6.9k (ironic I know). Most of these individuals don't have day trading accounts. So there is some limitation to how many times they can day trade.

I bought 1k shares...I mean, it's not trading that far off fair value so if I'm going to engage in any shenanigans this seems the least risky...

Question is, who will this affect more?

Looks like NOK is next Maybe they will find LUMN next ;D

You can pretty much buy whatever right now and make money due to IV. What’s it 300+% now? I traded around a bit and then ended up using the gains to buy some $20 Jan 2023 puts. Nothing substantial though. I have friend who have no investing experience, piling into this thing with calls and shares. Same with AMC and other stocks.....who’s the idiot? Depends what timeframe you look at and how lucky you get.

Interesting question. Keeping everything else equal and on a first-level basis, Keystone XL not coming through would increase demand for railway carload petroleum products transport for BNSF. But: -Coal transport is much more significant in volume (18% of freight revenues year 2019) and the policy 'intent' behind the Keystone decision would likely spill over into a more rapid decline in coal transport over time. Eventually, the intent would also involve moving away from natural gas, another accentuation of previous trends for the mid to long term. -Unlike coal, railway petroleum volumes are highly dependent on shale oil price dynamics. Fluctuating and hard-to-forecast demand is not ideal for the railway operator (logistics, equipment, etc). -Keystone not occurring is more likely to be marginally (and temporarily) beneficial for CDN railway operators like CN as the output related to tar sands will tend to go elsewhere than in the US and railways may play a role to reach export terminals. At any rate, the long term moat of BNSF relies on the fact that it will retain its comparative advantage to carry any of many potential products, from point A to point B. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. It’s a dilemma of sorts because the opportunity exists, but as you said many dynamics make it difficult to forecast logistics. Does anyone have info on how these contracts are written? I’m not super familiar with rail transport, but I would imagine it’s not much different than container shipping where you have a range or “quote” of price and the contract acts more as a “we get the business” type of deal.

Another way to look at this -- they converted their long duration bond portfolio into a set of income producing real assets at BHE and BNSF. The yields are better and the risks are better than long duration bonds at this point in the bond market cycle. Further, based on Christopher Bloomstran's deep dive, they used the accelerated depreciation credits at BHE and BNSF as a secondary method of reducing tax payments and increasing cashflows. As well, based on Brooklyn Investor's charts, they have built up a large cash component in their portfolio to backstop insurance losses and to provide optionality for opportunistic acquisitions. This is not all black and white but the big asset allocation shift of the last ten years (see attached) has been the movement of funds from longer term fixed income to cash and equivalents. This movement raises two questions (the indirect one raised by wabuffo and a direct one). The indirect (and retrospective) one: Returns would have been better if the longer term fixed income portion would have grown proportionally to float. The direct one: Does the current (and growing) allocation offer potentially significant optionality value? (my answer is yes) Part of the decision in shifting from bonds to other assets (cash, owned income producing assets) is about expected future returns. The move seems correct, but the unexpected happened during the recent COVID panic -- government became a lender of first resort where normally Berkshire would have had its pick of distressed assets. A similar crossroads is appearing now for Berkshire. AAPL is starting to flatline in terms of its EBIT growth and topline sales growth, but it's priced for some large expectations out of the business. Does Berkshire exit, partially exit or hold due to the expected tax hit? In 1998, Berkshire was facing a similar question with very sizable paper gains in Coca Cola, Gillette and American Express in particular. Berkshire had an out where they turned a ~3x BV share price into General Re with a merger where they acquired a substantial amount of float and a bond-heavy portfolio that they turned into cash. So, giving up a bit of equity to acquire a cashable asset was enough to de-risk an overvalued portfolio without incurring a very sizable capital gains hit from selling KO, G or AXP. Do they interrupt compounding at lower rates going forward and take the sizable capital gains tax hit? History says no, but the new answer may be something creative just like the last time. IIRC he has said not selling KO at the peak was a mistake. I think he is an expert at learning from mistakes. Maybe a swap for like the deal they did with Graham holdings somehow? This was brought up when Apple was trading at $120. Apple is good as any investment at this point. If the market crashes and opportunities arise, he's got $100 plus billion to work with to make ample returns. He had his opportunity this last year though. This thesis still holds weight, but actions speak louder than ideas at this point no? BRK hit $162 and hardly any buybacks.

Careful, don’t break your own rules :P Jk jk, but I would suggest considering my idea! Would help everyone hold each other accountable and reinforce behavior if you continually get posts removed by an algo. You could even make it so the site has two “lenses”. One which filters politically flagged posts, and another that doesn’t. This could prevent or help mitigate some troll farm accounts from shadow banning tons of posts. I think the main benefits would be, not stifling content and allowing people to take it to their end. If it crosses a line then it’s gone by unanimous consent. And it helps mitigate the ban hammer for individuals who do contribute a lot of good ideas to the board, but decided to hit the whiskey early and post a night of political banter. Plenty of individuals on here have said their peace. But there is always the case for repeat offenders who get banned permanently. Anyways...fwiw ;)

WFC, BRK

USB, PNC, AAPL, PLNT

Cubs, Greg is gone now. You're next if you don't stop the political posts. Zero tolerance going forward for board members, so everyone else, pay attention! Cheers! I would argue to simply remove or archive the whole Coronavirus thread. Nobody on here is a virologist (that I’m aware of). There are a handful of doctors. Beyond that it’s mostly just political commentary regarding lockdowns, govt decisions, etc. If all that’s desired is some type of fact sheet for Covid-19; then people should go to their respective government website (CDC.gov). Zero tolerance is open to much subjectivity in my opinion. The above exchange amount between four users is completely political. However, Greg at least provides solid content on a lot of different threads. I would argue there needs to be some gray areas. Are we allowed to discuss policies regarding taxes if it’s based around investments? KMI and the O&G stocks will certainly have policy come into play, but what’s the acceptable level of discussion? The whole Fannie thread hinges on politics while walking that fine line. Can we discuss Fed decisions? I’m not sure if it’s possible for this website, but a tool which allows users to flag a post as political would be useful. And perhaps if say 5+ users flag it as political it’s removed automatically with automation. This would help filter out noise and keep conversations of value on track.

Anyone else contemplating how BNSF could stand to benefit from the Keystone XL closing? That 800k barrels a day has to go somewhere right?

Up 50% For those of you holding this. Does this throw the value proposition out the window?