Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
That's the last thing we should do. We should be focused on reducing the cost of education, not removing the means for millions to get educated. Getting a college degree is their ticket to having a fighting chance at doing decently in the world and hopefully much better than their parents. We should all want an educated population, but something tells me you thought the last POTUS was smart.
Zacks? Haha... It's worse than Motley Fool. Nobody should be using these horrendous investment sites that sell themselves as expert investment analysts.
If you see a very strong economy ahead, then you should be factoring in significantly higher interest rates. A portion of current inflation is obviously transitory (i.e., Ukraine, China shutdowns, some of the supply chain issues, etc.), however, you're not factoring in stickier costs like rents, wages, etc. Higher wages leads to stronger consumption / demand and thus, inflation at significantly higher levels than we've seen for the past decade plus. Also, onshoring and climate related investment/energy are inherently inflationary. If the Fed wants inflation at or near 2% (they may settle for 3-4%), it means rates need to move significantly higher (i.e., at least 4%). Also, you've not factored in the Fed has trillions of dollars of QT to unleash over the next couple of years. Sounds like you're up for fighting the Fed.
Everyone says this, yet Bond investors took it in the shorts very badly earlier this year and they think buying 10 - 30 year bonds yield 2-3% is a great investment. But, let's assume your statement "Bond market investors" are right today. If they thought there was going to be very strong economic growth over the next decade, they wouldn't be willing to buy 10 years at sub 3% --- they would demand significantly higher rates. So, either the bond market is right and we'll see significantly lower economic growth ahead, or they are wrong and rates will need to be significantly higher (i.e., 10 year at 5% or higher).
Learn from Optionsaction? Why not just tell people to take advice from Cramer?
If people want to actually learn about options take a class on it, read a couple books on them, etc. There are plenty of great resources to educate oneself and Optionsaction is not one of them.
There was no recession in 1947 after two negative GDP quarters and if you look at NBER's parameters the U.S. is definitely not in recession. If you listen to conference calls / talk to Management teams from small-cap to large cap businesses --- the vast majority are saying we are definitely not in recession. There are obviously sectors getting hit / starting to get hit, however, this is always the case.
It's the bottom of the second and these games always end with fireworks. Fed Fund rates at 4% should start to break things, however, fears of restoking inflation will keep rates higher for longer. Fun times ahead for sure...
There is a difference between trending into a recession and being in one. We're not yet in recession but there's a good chance we see one in 2023 as the Fed raises rates another 150-200 basis points.
First, Twitter has already publicly disclosed its methodology. Second, the executed purchase agreement does not include any provisions related to bots. Third, Twitter's SEC filings are materially correct and can be relied upon.
Elon has no case against Twitter. I recommend you read the SEC filings because all of the above is there and in plain English.
Huh? HGEN has negative net cash per the most recent 10-Q (Q1 2022). Cash per the 10-Q was $68.9 million which is $23.4 million LESS than the $92.3 million of A/P + Accrued Expenses + Long-term Debt.
Did you look at the liabilities and debt section of the balance sheet? How much cash does HGEN have after subtracting current liabilities (A/P, Accrued expenses) and debt?
Sorry to hear that. Next time, please make sure and listen to those that are warning you against such a position. Speculative biotech's are always a wildcard, but it's only money. There will always be another tree that will grow that can be used to make some more.
Congratulations.... This post is in the running for HGEN's Top post of the year award.
Impressive how one can completely disregard any losses from owning a equity that is trading nearly 80% below their average basis. Do you include your HGEN investment or any underwater investment when determining your annual investment returns?
Not sure where you got Elgin, because Crimo lived in Highwood which is next to Highland Park. He dropped out of Highland Park high school and had been living with his dad and uncle.
Thanks DonDon. You're trying very hard to win the Top Post of Year award. You definitely get an "A" for effort.
I love when "investors" think they understand the options market. First, one needs to understand for every HGEN option sold there is a buyer of that option who has incentives that are the exact opposite of the seller. The fact you think the sellers of the $2.50 puts who sold them for $1.00 and thus, have a potential basis in shares at $1.50 need the price to move to $2.50 by July 15th is comical. On the other hand, the put buyers, have every incentive to get the price as low as possible given they need HGEN under $1.50 to make any money. One can argue a put buyer might be hedging a long position, however, nobody hedges downside risk on a stock trading at $1.60.
You're also talking about very puny total dollars at risk in these option trades.
I'll bet you. Loser donates to the charity of the winner's choice, however, $20 is for kids. I'm game for anywhere between $100 to $10,000, and I'll take the side that AMZN doesn't get to $170 by November 2022. Let me know if you're in.
In other words, during the nearly half-century from 1970 to 2018, there was not a single example of Summers' stated condition — unemployment under 4% and inflation over 4% — ever existing.
There are some earlier examples, at least in a limited way.
For about a year in 1951, unemployment was under 4% while inflation was above 4%. But inflation then dropped to 1.1% or less for the six months immediately before a recession in 1953, so this is not unequivocal evidence for Summers’ larger point about high inflation being a precursor to a recession.
We found only one clear example of Summers’ rule holding — a two-year period in 1968 and 1969 when unemployment was under 4% and inflation was above 4%. That came in the immediate run-up to a recession.
Still, this means there’s just one example of Summers’ rule holding over nearly 75 years of economic data. That’s not exactly ironclad empirical evidence.
This is known in data analysis as the "small-n" problem, short for "small number of examples." Social scientists and economists generally warn against drawing sweeping conclusions based on small numbers of examples.
So what’s going on with Summers’ rule?
We didn’t hear back from Summers, but we did hear back from a research collaborator of his, Alex Domash of the Harvard Kennedy School. When Domash walked us through the supporting data, it became clearer to us that the research upon which Summers was basing his formula had more nuances than his talking point to journalists indicated.
Domash pointed us to a blog post that is the source of Summers’ talking point. In it, he and Summers looked at data similar to what PolitiFact used, although they used quarterly figures rather than monthly figures.
A chart in the blog post breaks down the data in some detail. It covers every quarter from 1955 to 2019, or 256 separate quarters.
Using the thresholds cited by Summers in his media interviews — inflation above 4% and unemployment below 4% — they found that the likelihood of a recession was 100%. However, these conditions only existed in seven quarters out of 256, or less than 3% of the time.
Domash told PolitiFact that the "small-n" issue "is a valid critique," and one that he has since sought to improve upon by enlarging the base of research. He said he recently used the same analysis to study 30 member nations in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, a group of richer nations, and found that low unemployment and high inflation made the probability of an impending recession "around 90%."
Still, Summers’ offering of a straightforward formula in the media obscures the reality that there’s barely any historical precedent, making it less than a robust method for extrapolating into the future.
DonDon --- I thought you said HGEN was going to $2.50 today --- you know, max pain at all? Have you ever gotten one of these predictions right?
BTW, who are these entities that are intentionally lowering HGEN's price? Why would they waste time trying to lower a $2 equity when there's thousands of much higher priced equities they could try lowering?
Has anyone noticed the people calling others trolls are actually the people who are being disrespectful. They think they are better, smarter than others they don't even know. Congrats Santafe, you've earned your Trumper badge.
Now that's funny. Maybe some of us have demanding day jobs that limits our ability to spend time on a stupid message board filled with people that think they know more than someone that rarely ever posts. Why would anyone who doesn't have time to be on the board waste money on a subscription? I'd rather be charitable with that money instead.
Thanks for the laugh. It's almost as funny as taking a 4% loss on covered call options on IBM. Clearly, you need more knowledge of options so you actually make money with them.
Someone isn't happy today and it clearly isn't from my post. As I mentioned before my day job limits the companies and industries I can talk about and thus, I don't post very often. Nothing in my posts were accusatory or trolling.
I've been trading options for over 20 years and it takes a financial genius to lose money on a covered call. Clearly, you lost money on the equity piece and not on the actual call option, unless you traded out of the call for a loss. Nick only talks about the call options he sells which is impossible to lose (as I mentioned) unless of course one trades out of the option vs. waiting for the call to expire.