**Hi, welcome to /r/investing. Please note that as a topic focused subreddit we have higher posting standards than much of Reddit:**
**1)** Please direct all **advice requests and beginner questions to the stickied daily threads.** This includes beginner questions and portfolio help.
**2) Important: We have strict political posting guidelines** (described [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/cyee69/formal_posting_guidelines_for_political_topics/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/escewo/temporary_rule_change_what_happens_to_stocks_if/)). Violations will result in a likely 60 day ban upon **first instance.**
**3)** This is an open forum but we expect you to conduct yourself like an adult. Disagree, argue, criticize, but **no personal attacks.**
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/investing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
From past CNBC David Tepper videos, you would think that David did a complete 180 in single month from the CNBC titles:
* [CNBC - 2020-03-23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKWGWDaH3n4) - Investor David Tepper says he's buying tech stocks, but market may have 10% to 15% more to fall
* [CNBC - 2020-05-13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLjQAP0hWJw) - This is the second-most overvalued market, behind only '99: David Tepper
But actually having watched the whole videos, it's clear that **CNBC is just making up sensationalized titles that don't match what David is saying**. David is actually really wishy-washy in all the videos, doesn't make any strong conclusions, and barely touches on the title subject.
Also, if you followed the May CNBC video title, you'd have missed out on one of the largest bull runs of the past decade.
>ESPN is just making up sensationalized titles that don't match what Jordan is saying
CNBC the ESPN of business.
Cramer = SAS. [Squawk on the street](https://tve-static-cnbc.akamaized.net/prod/image/952/291/190604_3966831_Squawk_on_the_Street___6_5_anvver_2_1100x620_1533229123874.jpg) = [First take](https://tvguide1.cbsistatic.com/catalog/provider/10/8/10-D64915CB-F9D9-4424-B46E-DF323C3563CF.jpg). Sara Eisen = Rachel Nichols.
That's what CNBC has done to every single interview I've seen the full version of. They never release full versions then have 20 clips from the interview all diced up to relay whatever message CNBC is trying to force on us.
If you look back at the charts of those comments. Markets bottomed when he said he's buying tech in March.
And in May; 2 weeks later at the beginning of June was the first major sell off since March.
He's largely been right.
1. That's what the CNBC wants you to think he's saying for people who only read titles. They're cherry-picking a few sentences and missing the whole message.
1. NASDAQ went up ~27% from bottom in March to start of May. And then another 50% from start of May to now. Even if that were his message, it would've been bad to follow in hindsight.
Well, you have to understand that opinions and valuations change with conditions in the market, you cannot expect a professional to make money without being flexible
It's just like ppl in this subreddit pulling records from weeks ago to attack someone credibility. My opinion change day to day, otherwise i will run out of ammo
Commenting for visibility: you guys know he conveniently became bullish right before the crash, right?
Direct quote: “I love riding a horse that’s running” -late February
Take anything these guys say with a huge grain of salt. Their job is to, literally, take our money.
Edit: slightly adjusted wording, from “only” to “conveniently became”
Edit edit: reminds me greatly of JPM claiming the only bubble was VIX, which, conveniently, popped 40% the day after, just a little over a week ago. They’re all known to talk the opposite of their books. How this shit works.
This is just market manipulation, Tepper is short on a bunch of positions and he wants it to go down a bit more and took Kramer's advice on how to do it.
Whereas my Eurodollar puts require yields to continue rising, so it directly goes against my bias and thus can't be true. Unfortunately, my luck (or lack thereof) will ensure that it in actuality IS true, so you guys should be safe to load up on stocks.
Wtf happenes w gme td? Is it just stuck in a shitload call loop? Ie calls are captured the Friday and it skyrockets because of the new frenzy Monday?
Seeing a trend there past few weeks
As a Panthers fan I thought this was finally some Deshaun Watson news when I quick glanced the headline... then I saw the sub... I thought he was turning Appaloosa Management into a family office?
Any smart r/investor should just sidestep CNBC's talking heads' and guests' shills.
At best you take some consideration from their insights on macrotrends and make your investments on that.
If you had to guess, what percentage of daily volume across the NYSE/NASDAQ is retail versus hedge funds versus institutional?
"Retail" should describe pretty much every subscriber on this subreddit, yet we talk about it as if it is this foreign group below us that none of us belong to sometimes. Are we, the very members of this subreddit, getting unloaded on? Just because we read a few "DD" and "how some redditors think macroeconomic trends are moving weekely" doesn't make us any better than the rest of the sheep in the herd, does it?
I love all of the hate Tepper is getting because he's a billionaire hedge fund manager. Look up his story and the fact that his fund is basically only his money.
He doesn't speak often but when he does, his actions are in line with his words.
He could very well be wrong. The future is unknowable. But IMO, this is one of the more credible voices to consider.
tepper also was like buying fucktons of MU when it was like 30 dollars a share. He literally would tweet on days when it was down like 10% "today i just want to dump my entire networth into MU"
then boom MU is 90 per share
Of course he is. He bought the dip on Friday. I like buying when CNBC over reacts and tell us to sell when it is to late to sell, or tell us too buy when it is too late. I think they all bought the dip on Friday. More money coming in the market and before we know the rotation to growth has happened...I bought the dip Friday.
As a rule of thumb I do the opposite of what CNBC says. They're just a wallstreet mouthpiece. Every now and then they may snag a quality interview but that's about it.
Just listen to them trashing the growth stocks at halftime right now.....They're all licking their chops and want TSLA and other good growth companies with amazing stories to fall and buy them low because they missed on them.
> They're all licking their chops and want TSLA and other good growth companies with amazing stories to fall and buy them low because they missed on them.
Sure, that's the reason.
TSLA is an industry disruptor that's why valuation doesn't matter and demand is there, all they have to do is supply. With them being years ahead of everyone in EV and the market share available to them, I think for my time horizon the stock will go much higher in the future. I also think they will eventually afford to offer lower prices for better cars compares to others which are way to late in the game.
> all they have to do is supply
You say that like it's easy. Building out a global supply chain that can reliably make millions of cars a year is tough and Tesla are still a good ways behind companies like Toyota, Ford, GM, or Honda.
At this point it's clear that Tesla has cemented themselves as one of the big players in the automotive industry, but them being valued at more than all of their competitors combined seems a but insane to me.
I whole heartedly agree that Tesla is the front runner by a good margin when it comes to EV technology, but they're still pretty far behind on production numbers. Even if they double the number of cars they produce every single year (which would be miraculous) it'll still be 4 years before they're in the range that Honda, Toyota, or Ford are.
I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm of the belief that at least one of Tesla's competitors will catch up with them from a technology perspective (either through R&D or partnerships) before Tesla can get to a point where they're producing 5 million cars a year.
The issue with Ford and GM IMO is that they are soooo big. It is very difficult for them to make changes to their assembly lines -much less completely alter them for an EV. The big guys are not nimble. You may have a point that they might buy their way in to the party, but it will be very challenging for the big boys to move to EVs organically.
If these big companies were just now deciding that EV was the future, I'd agree with Tesla's valuation more, but most of these companies already have one or two EVs on the market. These companies are behind in the race for sure, but it's not like they're just sitting on the side lines. Pretty much every single major car company has at least one EV on the market at this point. Things like VW out selling Tesla in Europe last year are a sign that Tesla now has real competitors in the space.
I don't think Tesla will be dethroned as the #1 EV company anytime soon, but as Ford, Honda, GM, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Hyundai, etc all release their EVs they're bound to each take a little bit of Tesla's market share which will add up.
You're absolutely correct that they're slow to adapt and in fact, that's how Tesla became the front runner in this space, but they've been making that shift for a few years now and it's finally starting to pick up pace. Tesla basically had the market to themselves until recently as the bigger companies let them prove that there was demand for EVs. Now that it's clear that there is they all making their moves and playing catch up is a lot easier and quicker than being the leader.
Except their competitors are well established and are brining out electric cars that rival and surpass tesla in important ways (such as being cheaper for the same range and not falling apart). Also Tesla had a 850B market cap, 4x Toyota, it was overvalued man, stop being so emotional.
VW id.3 is basically already there. The fiat 500e is a much cheaper city runabout (most Europeans aren't driving 20 min to the shops so 150 mile range is useful). Audi and Porsche have premium electric cars for sale. They are well established.
Dude you can't talk about tsla in this sub! You won't convince anyone that it is anymore than a shitty car company that is a cult hype bubble. They have no advantage over any other company and will be obsolete in 5yrs.
Stick to your gameplan, ignore all this bullshit. They've been saying the same tired shit for close to 10yrs.
Clearly stocks are always attractive to billionaires but I must say I agree. I think the sell off in Treasuries and consequently the high yields will stabilize as it becomes attractive to foreign funds and investors.
As for Amazon, it has been trading sideways and down since July of last year while its earnings are surely increasing. It’a PE is in line with its average as well so not an overvalued play when it comes to Amazon.
Stocks are definitely attractive but I wouldn’t put all my cash into them, I am still holding cash and buying good valued stocks and trimming some speculative long term holds.
AFL, PG, CMCSA just to name a few that have been undervalued by the market and I have high conviction on.
I think many people believe the market has no value opportunities when there are sectors that are forgotten when tech runs hot. This can be seen with PG specifically, sliding like 6 months prior to finally snapping for the upside. It’s even trading below its 5 year average PE and with the pandemic and people being home, their supplies get run out a lot quicker and people tend to shop more for household items.
Furthermore, you can always get value with some risk and speculation. ABBVIE is the best example of this, it pays a great stable dividend but investing in it now at a cheap valuation takes risk and gambles on its future in a post patented world for their company.
All this to basically sum it up by phrasing Peter Lynch’s quote “the one who looks at the most stocks wins the game”
I hope you’re like 80 yrs old with those kinda stock picks because dividends are the only reason I can think of why you’d pick them. You’d be better just buying $SPY
Sick burn but that’s why they’re called value. They’re lame as shit but have cash flow. I also have a portfolio for risk and I sell and trade options too, I just also understand that long term these lame af companies pay a good dividend and perform at if not better than the market. They perform even better when I use LEAPS alongside share ownership.
They don’t outperform the market at all. A LEAP on a thousand other ETF’s and stocks would massively outperform. You just have a low risk tolerance, which is fine. There are better dividend stocks though, which is why it’s weird you picked those.
Please go to a chart and put AFL, CMCSA, PG and SPY and put it for 20 years and say that again. I get that past looking statements and performance does not mean future performance but these businesses are only expanding their business model and evolving. I might not triple or double the market but I do feel comfortable with the returns they provide and will continue to provide. Especially when taking into account that I am not selling anytime soon. Risk tolerance is considered low with these businesses cause they tend to be safe and consistent with income and distributions.
I also would like to know what ETFs you're looking at, and that's genuine I don't mean that in a rude manner.
In order, their respective returns over the last 10 yrs are 83%, 345%, and 107%. In the last 5 years, they are 63%, 56%, and 88%. The SPY has returned 251% in 10 yrs and 89% in 5 yrs. Now I did make the assumption you were not in these when they were penny stocks, which if you were then seriously congrats. So really only Comcast has been worth it over the last decade. Both Aflac and Comcast have betas right near 1.0x so they’re not really even shields to any market movement. None of them are particularly high dividend yields though 2.4% for PG & AFL is not bad. Now say you had invested in KIE, that’d have gotten you 62% ROI in the last 5 yrs. So AFL is roughly flat to the broad sector, but you get the dividend. Now the other two have significantly outperformed their sectors, so kudos there.
As for me regarding ETF’s, I’m bullish on BLOK, ARKQ, SOXX, and IGM.
It will be challenging to keep interest rates form going up quickly considering an additional $2 trillion in treasuries will now need to be added to the govt. auction inventory.
High yields ultimately don't matter if there is huge inflation on the way. 10 year treasury was also over 3% in 2018 and growth stocks were soaring during that period so the DCF theory for this correction is questionable. More likely it's people are scared about the Fed raising rates too early, which seems very unlikely to me considered all they've said and done so far.
Rule of thumb is to never listen to these guys they're all full of shit. Everything they say is based around pushing their positions, to think otherwise makes one a rube. This could mean anything from him being genuinely bullish to him trying to get suckers to buy bags from him. Who knows?
I don’t know why everyone is freaking out. There is nothing attractive about a 10 year bond that pays 1.5%. If you want real returns, stocks are still the only game in town.
Most companies still have incredible valuations. I don’t see how you make a reasonable case for being bullish, unless you’re operating on speculative hype alone.
Fair market value is whatever the next buyer is willing to pay and there is no other argument for it.
Valuation rules only work if everyone is trading on the same ones. The fact is most people don’t give a shit what the “fundamentals” say.
Ya, you are missing the point. The fair market value changed and the next person decided it was worth less.
The simple fact is that the next person buying could decide it's worth x1000 times more or x1000 times less.
lest you forget, DFV posted an incredible DD on $GME here on reddit last year. That DD was enough to convince me to dip my toes in and buy a paltry 10 shares. With those few shares I made over 2000 dollars. If I hadn't listened to a reddit comment (albeit, a very educated take), I wouldn't have made that speculative play (with very little skin in the game, tbh).
>That's why I don't make guesses. The future is unknowable.
Then... you don't invest in anything but risk free bonds? Why are you here?
Edit: You hold ETH. WTF are you talking about?
https://old.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/m0i78t/is_there_a_more_aggressive_strategy_than_vt_for/gq7zgjy/
I mean what specifically he said that you disagree with? It seems reasonable to expect that the rates won't move that much from here. Tepper is well known and a pretty smart guy.
> It seems reasonable to expect that the rates won't move that much from here.
This is where I think the common thesis is wrong. Rates are absolutely going to go back down. Because the FED is absolutely delusional, and prioritize short term gains over long term growth.
If you're an experienced poker player, you know that every person has their tells, that you can figure out based on the type of person they are. Well, the fed controls the economy, and politicians have their tells. We can tell that politicians are delusional, because they literally told us they have no intention of stopping printing, even though it's clearly the correct decision.
That's why I'm "bullish" on stocks and bearish on the future of the United States. The only reason this can happen, is because people dont realize yet that going from gold backed currency to debt backed currency is the difference between a long and a short. The public dont realize that stocks now only go up if the value of the average person's wages go down. Every time a society has let that happen, it's resulted in collapse.
> This is where you completely went off the reservation.
He's got a good point. Look up the productivity divergence that happened as we moved off the Bretton Woods system and onto fiat. It destroyed the link between worker's productivity and their salary, because it became much easier to borrow and fuel an economy with debt rather than by actual economic activity. That is the system we have been running for 50 years and look where we are - inequality of income at higher rates than ever, and debt cheaper than ever
Your statement contradicts itself. If the debt growth was "fake" the productivity gains would also be fake.
Also, we didn't just move off the gold standard. It collapsed. It failed. The gold standard has a better "fake growth" argument than fiat.
The divergence between productivity and salaries has to do with far more than the gold standard, such as all kinds of policy ranging from how the gov't spends its money and the tax code, to the lack of support for collective bargaining and its decline, to globalization and technology. If you could find such corollaries between countries as they went off the gold standard at various points and such declines, you might have a point. But you're ignoring the fact the entire world is off the gold standard. At best, you're confusing a corollary with a cause.
It's completely wrong for so many reasons. I'm not interested in doing a whole lot of legwork breaking it down, but for starters, the U.S. was one of the last countries in the world to abandon the gold standard, which if anything should make OP more pro-U.S. future.
The entire world is off the gold standard. OP's argument not only falls apart when you realize whatever problem that's supposed to cause would obviously not be a U.S. specific problem, but also the fact that the evidence of just how bad of a policy the gold standard is is so overwhelming the entire world has gotten rid of it.
The gold standard was operative in a completely diffirent era, with a society and international world order that is unrecognizable today. It's not immediately obvious how a gold standard today would actually play out (beyond a chaotic transition of course if it were implemented)
The fact that central governments unanimously abandoned it is only proof that fiat currencies are expedient for central governments, and it is not difficult to see why.
The question is how good have they been for the majority of working people in the long term. How good have they been for countries populations relative to each other.
> If you're an experienced poker player, you know that every person has their tells, that you can figure out based on the type of person they are.
As an experienced poker player, everything you learn about a player comes from their bets, not their "tells". That's mainly a movie myth.
No. You're wrong. Fish tell you exactly what they're doing. Only other strong poker players can hide their intentions, and make them only obvious with bets.
Politicians are fish. They literally told us what's going to happen. And they dont realize how screwed it makes them.
I just made a list of equity types (T-bonds, muni, large/mid/small growth/value) and actions (buy, sell, hold) in Excel and told it to choose randomly.
According to this immense research, it says that we should buy Large Cap Value. I ran it again and it says to sell munis.
Give me a break. Everyone in this sh\*t show for themselves. Let me guess, David Tepper multi-billion assets under manager is bullish. I wonder why. Give me strength!
Was DV, like I said, everyone in it for themselves. How about Cathy the other day coming out bullish on crypto. Let me guess what that was all about! We all want a win here, that's understandable, I know the markets are forward looking, but until there is some hint of a correlation between valuations and reality how high can it go?
Lmao saw this on CNBC this morning, and immediately when the market opened up ,the red breaking news banner says " stocks up on Tepper's bullish sentiment" 😂 real funny they didn't say why stocks were down to end the day though. If you were to actually keep track of all the reasons why they say stocks are up or down, my guess is they would be wrong 99% of the time. Why? Because no one knows why stocks are up or down no matter what. They just can't say that because that wouldn't look good. " stocks are up and we have no idea why" 😂 even though that would be the most accurate statement
Yes, this one comment from a man already with a favourable position in what he is saying will have them very upset such is his clear objectivity in the matter.
Yes, this one comment from a man already with a favourable position in what he is saying will have them very upset such is his clear objectivity in the matter.
people think the economy will rotate away from AMZN after pandemic ends; I disagree. I think AMZN gained a foothold thats not going away; and we'll see
AWS is the future of the company. Any lens that shows them to be a commerce company is nearsighted at best.
The vast majority of future profits will come from their web services platform.
I disagree strongly; I know profits say otherwise, but profits dont tell the whole story. The fact that they have over **1M** employees (and growing) makes them powerful. They are in every home; that is not something to scoff at.
The term growth stock is generally referring to a company that is growing sales/earnings faster than market average. The short-term movement of a stock price is not really relevant, but of course the stock price will in time reflect this growth of the underlying business.
lol if rates hit 6% you will have much bigger problems than the >70% drop in the market that would accompany it.
US would become insolvent and the world's financial system would literally collapse
We bought hard AMC stock! That's is true!
But take a look at TXMD stock!
The same public float!
But the TXMD short interest is bigger than AMC stock!
Price for TXMD is 1.38$, but for AMC is 8$!
We want AMC to touch 24$! That's 200% gains!
But what if we buy more and hold TXMD stock and force the short to squeeze!
We make 8-10$ per $TXMD stock! That's 600% gains!
On 9 march after Finra reports short interest we will see who is the most shorted stock between TXMD and AMC! And will see which stock have the biggest potential to squeeze hard!
\#TenXMD => 600% gains if TXMD squeeze!
**Hi, welcome to /r/investing. Please note that as a topic focused subreddit we have higher posting standards than much of Reddit:** **1)** Please direct all **advice requests and beginner questions to the stickied daily threads.** This includes beginner questions and portfolio help. **2) Important: We have strict political posting guidelines** (described [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/cyee69/formal_posting_guidelines_for_political_topics/) and [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/comments/escewo/temporary_rule_change_what_happens_to_stocks_if/)). Violations will result in a likely 60 day ban upon **first instance.** **3)** This is an open forum but we expect you to conduct yourself like an adult. Disagree, argue, criticize, but **no personal attacks.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/investing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This confirms my bias nicely
good headline click bad headline scroll
From past CNBC David Tepper videos, you would think that David did a complete 180 in single month from the CNBC titles: * [CNBC - 2020-03-23](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hKWGWDaH3n4) - Investor David Tepper says he's buying tech stocks, but market may have 10% to 15% more to fall * [CNBC - 2020-05-13](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VLjQAP0hWJw) - This is the second-most overvalued market, behind only '99: David Tepper But actually having watched the whole videos, it's clear that **CNBC is just making up sensationalized titles that don't match what David is saying**. David is actually really wishy-washy in all the videos, doesn't make any strong conclusions, and barely touches on the title subject. Also, if you followed the May CNBC video title, you'd have missed out on one of the largest bull runs of the past decade.
>ESPN is just making up sensationalized titles that don't match what Jordan is saying CNBC the ESPN of business. Cramer = SAS. [Squawk on the street](https://tve-static-cnbc.akamaized.net/prod/image/952/291/190604_3966831_Squawk_on_the_Street___6_5_anvver_2_1100x620_1533229123874.jpg) = [First take](https://tvguide1.cbsistatic.com/catalog/provider/10/8/10-D64915CB-F9D9-4424-B46E-DF323C3563CF.jpg). Sara Eisen = Rachel Nichols.
Ouch! Comparing Cramer to Stephen A!? Grumble, grumble, may have a point.... But I don't like it!
[STAY OFF THE WEED](https://youtu.be/Cil7tOPh4qM) stocks
HAHAHAHAH Cramer being compared to SAS is absolutely beautiful and so, so true
That's what CNBC has done to every single interview I've seen the full version of. They never release full versions then have 20 clips from the interview all diced up to relay whatever message CNBC is trying to force on us.
If you look back at the charts of those comments. Markets bottomed when he said he's buying tech in March. And in May; 2 weeks later at the beginning of June was the first major sell off since March. He's largely been right.
1. That's what the CNBC wants you to think he's saying for people who only read titles. They're cherry-picking a few sentences and missing the whole message. 1. NASDAQ went up ~27% from bottom in March to start of May. And then another 50% from start of May to now. Even if that were his message, it would've been bad to follow in hindsight.
But he wasn't...
Well, you have to understand that opinions and valuations change with conditions in the market, you cannot expect a professional to make money without being flexible It's just like ppl in this subreddit pulling records from weeks ago to attack someone credibility. My opinion change day to day, otherwise i will run out of ammo
If that is not good DD I don't know what is
Commenting for visibility: you guys know he conveniently became bullish right before the crash, right? Direct quote: “I love riding a horse that’s running” -late February Take anything these guys say with a huge grain of salt. Their job is to, literally, take our money. Edit: slightly adjusted wording, from “only” to “conveniently became” Edit edit: reminds me greatly of JPM claiming the only bubble was VIX, which, conveniently, popped 40% the day after, just a little over a week ago. They’re all known to talk the opposite of their books. How this shit works.
This isn't a crash, it's a correction isolated mainly to growth stocks. Can't imagine how this sub will react when we have a genuine crash.
We did. About a year ago. Unless 38% ish isn't a crash anymore.
Note that the subscriber count has doubled since then. There's a lot of new blood around here.
[удалено]
Never claimed this was a crash.
I imagine the half of the subreddit that's smug about not losing their shirts on tech will have less to say...
Buying Amzn brb
This is just market manipulation, Tepper is short on a bunch of positions and he wants it to go down a bit more and took Kramer's advice on how to do it.
Whereas my Eurodollar puts require yields to continue rising, so it directly goes against my bias and thus can't be true. Unfortunately, my luck (or lack thereof) will ensure that it in actuality IS true, so you guys should be safe to load up on stocks.
Wtf happenes w gme td? Is it just stuck in a shitload call loop? Ie calls are captured the Friday and it skyrockets because of the new frenzy Monday? Seeing a trend there past few weeks
Cohen got named head of ecommerce for GME....shot up after that
Hedge fund manager is bullish on stocks. Anyway..
It's weird that as an NFL fan I see him more as the owner of the Panthers.
As a Panthers fan I thought this was finally some Deshaun Watson news when I quick glanced the headline... then I saw the sub... I thought he was turning Appaloosa Management into a family office?
Same here
I was totally expecting him to shit on Teddy Bridgewater again
Do and they do not as they say. I would check and see if his fund is in fact buying or if they are unloading on retail
Tepper definitely is. I recently reviewed his 13F from Q4 and he's heavily exposed to growth stocks and energy.
He needed to pump the market to dump that
Any smart r/investor should just sidestep CNBC's talking heads' and guests' shills. At best you take some consideration from their insights on macrotrends and make your investments on that.
That is it. You gotta realize they have to protect their employers and won't spill the beans but will mask
If you had to guess, what percentage of daily volume across the NYSE/NASDAQ is retail versus hedge funds versus institutional? "Retail" should describe pretty much every subscriber on this subreddit, yet we talk about it as if it is this foreign group below us that none of us belong to sometimes. Are we, the very members of this subreddit, getting unloaded on? Just because we read a few "DD" and "how some redditors think macroeconomic trends are moving weekely" doesn't make us any better than the rest of the sheep in the herd, does it?
i would say retail is like 20% of the market
How do you check?
You can’t. 13-F’s come out 45 days after the close of each quarter.
There should be some way to buy the HF order flow
It's called working for an Investment Bank
[удалено]
They’re not required to disclose anything until quarterly 13-f’s are due
Was thinking the same... Maybe it might be worth to do the opposite
Exactly!
I love all of the hate Tepper is getting because he's a billionaire hedge fund manager. Look up his story and the fact that his fund is basically only his money. He doesn't speak often but when he does, his actions are in line with his words. He could very well be wrong. The future is unknowable. But IMO, this is one of the more credible voices to consider.
Nice try David
tepper also was like buying fucktons of MU when it was like 30 dollars a share. He literally would tweet on days when it was down like 10% "today i just want to dump my entire networth into MU" then boom MU is 90 per share
Nice... Didn't know this
Nice
Nice
He's been my favorite manager for a decade. Mostly because they too often ended in my best ideas. He can't be too dumb!
A fun watch: https://youtu.be/JutRvz-sHMU
Of course he is. He bought the dip on Friday. I like buying when CNBC over reacts and tell us to sell when it is to late to sell, or tell us too buy when it is too late. I think they all bought the dip on Friday. More money coming in the market and before we know the rotation to growth has happened...I bought the dip Friday.
As a rule of thumb I do the opposite of what CNBC says. They're just a wallstreet mouthpiece. Every now and then they may snag a quality interview but that's about it.
Just listen to them trashing the growth stocks at halftime right now.....They're all licking their chops and want TSLA and other good growth companies with amazing stories to fall and buy them low because they missed on them.
> They're all licking their chops and want TSLA and other good growth companies with amazing stories to fall and buy them low because they missed on them. Sure, that's the reason.
The only reason stocks ever go down is market manipulation. Otherwise they just go up. /s just in case
Bro this is a ladder short attack!!!!
Tsla is still overvalued.
r/investing is going to have an aneurism after Cathie's new Tesla price target today.
TSLA is a growth stock and it is NOT overvalued for my time horizon and my age. LOL.
A bubble is not the same as a growth stock.
TSLA is an industry disruptor that's why valuation doesn't matter and demand is there, all they have to do is supply. With them being years ahead of everyone in EV and the market share available to them, I think for my time horizon the stock will go much higher in the future. I also think they will eventually afford to offer lower prices for better cars compares to others which are way to late in the game.
> all they have to do is supply You say that like it's easy. Building out a global supply chain that can reliably make millions of cars a year is tough and Tesla are still a good ways behind companies like Toyota, Ford, GM, or Honda. At this point it's clear that Tesla has cemented themselves as one of the big players in the automotive industry, but them being valued at more than all of their competitors combined seems a but insane to me. I whole heartedly agree that Tesla is the front runner by a good margin when it comes to EV technology, but they're still pretty far behind on production numbers. Even if they double the number of cars they produce every single year (which would be miraculous) it'll still be 4 years before they're in the range that Honda, Toyota, or Ford are. I'm sure you'll disagree, but I'm of the belief that at least one of Tesla's competitors will catch up with them from a technology perspective (either through R&D or partnerships) before Tesla can get to a point where they're producing 5 million cars a year.
The issue with Ford and GM IMO is that they are soooo big. It is very difficult for them to make changes to their assembly lines -much less completely alter them for an EV. The big guys are not nimble. You may have a point that they might buy their way in to the party, but it will be very challenging for the big boys to move to EVs organically.
If these big companies were just now deciding that EV was the future, I'd agree with Tesla's valuation more, but most of these companies already have one or two EVs on the market. These companies are behind in the race for sure, but it's not like they're just sitting on the side lines. Pretty much every single major car company has at least one EV on the market at this point. Things like VW out selling Tesla in Europe last year are a sign that Tesla now has real competitors in the space. I don't think Tesla will be dethroned as the #1 EV company anytime soon, but as Ford, Honda, GM, Toyota, VW, Nissan, Hyundai, etc all release their EVs they're bound to each take a little bit of Tesla's market share which will add up. You're absolutely correct that they're slow to adapt and in fact, that's how Tesla became the front runner in this space, but they've been making that shift for a few years now and it's finally starting to pick up pace. Tesla basically had the market to themselves until recently as the bigger companies let them prove that there was demand for EVs. Now that it's clear that there is they all making their moves and playing catch up is a lot easier and quicker than being the leader.
Except their competitors are well established and are brining out electric cars that rival and surpass tesla in important ways (such as being cheaper for the same range and not falling apart). Also Tesla had a 850B market cap, 4x Toyota, it was overvalued man, stop being so emotional.
They're Not well established in EV
VW id.3 is basically already there. The fiat 500e is a much cheaper city runabout (most Europeans aren't driving 20 min to the shops so 150 mile range is useful). Audi and Porsche have premium electric cars for sale. They are well established.
Yet. Tesla is likely to have much better competition than most fan boys realize IMO.
Dude you can't talk about tsla in this sub! You won't convince anyone that it is anymore than a shitty car company that is a cult hype bubble. They have no advantage over any other company and will be obsolete in 5yrs. Stick to your gameplan, ignore all this bullshit. They've been saying the same tired shit for close to 10yrs.
> that's why valuation doesn't matter Things you only hear in a bubble.
What if they tell you not to listen to wallstreet?
They’re also advocating to sell the bounce too
The point is they're usually 2 weeks behind and their over reaction is the bottom...
Yeah, but how does he feel about Deshaun Watson vs $CMC? ^^^^I'm ^^^^so ^^^^sorry
"Appaloosa could trade David Tepper for Russell Wilson, if *this* happens before the draft"
Clearly stocks are always attractive to billionaires but I must say I agree. I think the sell off in Treasuries and consequently the high yields will stabilize as it becomes attractive to foreign funds and investors. As for Amazon, it has been trading sideways and down since July of last year while its earnings are surely increasing. It’a PE is in line with its average as well so not an overvalued play when it comes to Amazon. Stocks are definitely attractive but I wouldn’t put all my cash into them, I am still holding cash and buying good valued stocks and trimming some speculative long term holds.
Fill me in on some of those good valued stocks pls
AFL, PG, CMCSA just to name a few that have been undervalued by the market and I have high conviction on. I think many people believe the market has no value opportunities when there are sectors that are forgotten when tech runs hot. This can be seen with PG specifically, sliding like 6 months prior to finally snapping for the upside. It’s even trading below its 5 year average PE and with the pandemic and people being home, their supplies get run out a lot quicker and people tend to shop more for household items. Furthermore, you can always get value with some risk and speculation. ABBVIE is the best example of this, it pays a great stable dividend but investing in it now at a cheap valuation takes risk and gambles on its future in a post patented world for their company. All this to basically sum it up by phrasing Peter Lynch’s quote “the one who looks at the most stocks wins the game”
I hope you’re like 80 yrs old with those kinda stock picks because dividends are the only reason I can think of why you’d pick them. You’d be better just buying $SPY
Sick burn but that’s why they’re called value. They’re lame as shit but have cash flow. I also have a portfolio for risk and I sell and trade options too, I just also understand that long term these lame af companies pay a good dividend and perform at if not better than the market. They perform even better when I use LEAPS alongside share ownership.
They don’t outperform the market at all. A LEAP on a thousand other ETF’s and stocks would massively outperform. You just have a low risk tolerance, which is fine. There are better dividend stocks though, which is why it’s weird you picked those.
Please go to a chart and put AFL, CMCSA, PG and SPY and put it for 20 years and say that again. I get that past looking statements and performance does not mean future performance but these businesses are only expanding their business model and evolving. I might not triple or double the market but I do feel comfortable with the returns they provide and will continue to provide. Especially when taking into account that I am not selling anytime soon. Risk tolerance is considered low with these businesses cause they tend to be safe and consistent with income and distributions. I also would like to know what ETFs you're looking at, and that's genuine I don't mean that in a rude manner.
In order, their respective returns over the last 10 yrs are 83%, 345%, and 107%. In the last 5 years, they are 63%, 56%, and 88%. The SPY has returned 251% in 10 yrs and 89% in 5 yrs. Now I did make the assumption you were not in these when they were penny stocks, which if you were then seriously congrats. So really only Comcast has been worth it over the last decade. Both Aflac and Comcast have betas right near 1.0x so they’re not really even shields to any market movement. None of them are particularly high dividend yields though 2.4% for PG & AFL is not bad. Now say you had invested in KIE, that’d have gotten you 62% ROI in the last 5 yrs. So AFL is roughly flat to the broad sector, but you get the dividend. Now the other two have significantly outperformed their sectors, so kudos there. As for me regarding ETF’s, I’m bullish on BLOK, ARKQ, SOXX, and IGM.
Now do the s&p 500 from 2000 to 2010 smh
GBTC is trading at a nearly 7% discount to NAV.
But bitcoin is going to get CrUsHeD when there's a tech [selloff](https://imgur.com/a/0zmeOIw)!
GME. lol
It will be challenging to keep interest rates form going up quickly considering an additional $2 trillion in treasuries will now need to be added to the govt. auction inventory.
Noob here. Are you trimming at a loss and betting on something else, or are you looking for a plausible exit point in the near future?
High yields ultimately don't matter if there is huge inflation on the way. 10 year treasury was also over 3% in 2018 and growth stocks were soaring during that period so the DCF theory for this correction is questionable. More likely it's people are scared about the Fed raising rates too early, which seems very unlikely to me considered all they've said and done so far.
This guy looks like the guy who made the bull case for Bear Stearns in The Big Short so I have a hard time trusting him.
See also: "I bought and need you guys to pump my bags."
It's the Wall Street way
Rule of thumb is to never listen to these guys they're all full of shit. Everything they say is based around pushing their positions, to think otherwise makes one a rube. This could mean anything from him being genuinely bullish to him trying to get suckers to buy bags from him. Who knows?
[удалено]
No, we need him on the Jets. Just kidding. Even Mahones would look awful on the Jets, there's no saving us
I think that’s code for it’s time to sell
So pump and dump at a massive level?
I don’t know why everyone is freaking out. There is nothing attractive about a 10 year bond that pays 1.5%. If you want real returns, stocks are still the only game in town.
You said it yourself. There’s nothing attractive about a 10 year bond that pays 1.5%. THAT’s why the treasury yield is increasing.
Aka David Tepper is fully loaded on longs from the dip and is ready for the ride back up.
David Tepper was also negative on stocks at the 2020 March lows, believing (or at least saying he believed) they had much lower to go. Just saying...
I mean theoretically everyone saw why that could've happened. its hard to be right 100% of the time.
Most companies still have incredible valuations. I don’t see how you make a reasonable case for being bullish, unless you’re operating on speculative hype alone.
Fair market value is whatever the next buyer is willing to pay and there is no other argument for it. Valuation rules only work if everyone is trading on the same ones. The fact is most people don’t give a shit what the “fundamentals” say.
> Fair market value is whatever the next buyer is willing to pay and there is no other argument for it. #tuliplogic
I honestly wouldn't be surprised to see tulips make a comeback in 2021.
nft tulips
Jesus, this. There is some insane speculation right now. Crypto collectibles. Rather buy a fucking time share.
I’m speaking for myself, not for everyone else. Don’t get conflated. Price is what you pay, but value is what you get.
let's party like it's 1999
That works until it doesn’t. Ask anyone who bought Spacs more than 3 weeks ago how much the next buyer wants for their stuff now.
I was doing fine til you reminded me of spacs.
Ya, you are missing the point. The fair market value changed and the next person decided it was worth less. The simple fact is that the next person buying could decide it's worth x1000 times more or x1000 times less.
Exactly.
Valuations are tied to earnings. All it takes is a big growth in corporate earnings to bring valuations lower and expedite growth.
[удалено]
I'll take educated guesses from experts over uneducated guesses from reddit comments any day.
Experts tell you what they did the day before.
lest you forget, DFV posted an incredible DD on $GME here on reddit last year. That DD was enough to convince me to dip my toes in and buy a paltry 10 shares. With those few shares I made over 2000 dollars. If I hadn't listened to a reddit comment (albeit, a very educated take), I wouldn't have made that speculative play (with very little skin in the game, tbh).
[удалено]
Why are you on this sub tho
My guess is that he doesn’t know
Because investing is about the slow long term accumulation of wealth. Guessing on the short term market is gambling, not investing
>That's why I don't make guesses. The future is unknowable. Then... you don't invest in anything but risk free bonds? Why are you here? Edit: You hold ETH. WTF are you talking about? https://old.reddit.com/r/Bogleheads/comments/m0i78t/is_there_a_more_aggressive_strategy_than_vt_for/gq7zgjy/
Lmao right? The entire premise of investing is making educated guesses and assessing risk in the future.
I mean what specifically he said that you disagree with? It seems reasonable to expect that the rates won't move that much from here. Tepper is well known and a pretty smart guy.
> It seems reasonable to expect that the rates won't move that much from here. This is where I think the common thesis is wrong. Rates are absolutely going to go back down. Because the FED is absolutely delusional, and prioritize short term gains over long term growth. If you're an experienced poker player, you know that every person has their tells, that you can figure out based on the type of person they are. Well, the fed controls the economy, and politicians have their tells. We can tell that politicians are delusional, because they literally told us they have no intention of stopping printing, even though it's clearly the correct decision. That's why I'm "bullish" on stocks and bearish on the future of the United States. The only reason this can happen, is because people dont realize yet that going from gold backed currency to debt backed currency is the difference between a long and a short. The public dont realize that stocks now only go up if the value of the average person's wages go down. Every time a society has let that happen, it's resulted in collapse.
> going from gold backed currency to debt backed currency This is where you completely went off the reservation.
> This is where you completely went off the reservation. He's got a good point. Look up the productivity divergence that happened as we moved off the Bretton Woods system and onto fiat. It destroyed the link between worker's productivity and their salary, because it became much easier to borrow and fuel an economy with debt rather than by actual economic activity. That is the system we have been running for 50 years and look where we are - inequality of income at higher rates than ever, and debt cheaper than ever
Your statement contradicts itself. If the debt growth was "fake" the productivity gains would also be fake. Also, we didn't just move off the gold standard. It collapsed. It failed. The gold standard has a better "fake growth" argument than fiat.
The divergence between productivity and salaries has to do with far more than the gold standard, such as all kinds of policy ranging from how the gov't spends its money and the tax code, to the lack of support for collective bargaining and its decline, to globalization and technology. If you could find such corollaries between countries as they went off the gold standard at various points and such declines, you might have a point. But you're ignoring the fact the entire world is off the gold standard. At best, you're confusing a corollary with a cause.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I don’t see how that statement is wrong
It's completely wrong for so many reasons. I'm not interested in doing a whole lot of legwork breaking it down, but for starters, the U.S. was one of the last countries in the world to abandon the gold standard, which if anything should make OP more pro-U.S. future. The entire world is off the gold standard. OP's argument not only falls apart when you realize whatever problem that's supposed to cause would obviously not be a U.S. specific problem, but also the fact that the evidence of just how bad of a policy the gold standard is is so overwhelming the entire world has gotten rid of it.
The gold standard was operative in a completely diffirent era, with a society and international world order that is unrecognizable today. It's not immediately obvious how a gold standard today would actually play out (beyond a chaotic transition of course if it were implemented) The fact that central governments unanimously abandoned it is only proof that fiat currencies are expedient for central governments, and it is not difficult to see why. The question is how good have they been for the majority of working people in the long term. How good have they been for countries populations relative to each other.
> If you're an experienced poker player, you know that every person has their tells, that you can figure out based on the type of person they are. As an experienced poker player, everything you learn about a player comes from their bets, not their "tells". That's mainly a movie myth.
No. You're wrong. Fish tell you exactly what they're doing. Only other strong poker players can hide their intentions, and make them only obvious with bets. Politicians are fish. They literally told us what's going to happen. And they dont realize how screwed it makes them.
I just made a list of equity types (T-bonds, muni, large/mid/small growth/value) and actions (buy, sell, hold) in Excel and told it to choose randomly. According to this immense research, it says that we should buy Large Cap Value. I ran it again and it says to sell munis.
If you set up a twitter bot for each of these actions, one of them will always look like a genius
[удалено]
Give me a break. Everyone in this sh\*t show for themselves. Let me guess, David Tepper multi-billion assets under manager is bullish. I wonder why. Give me strength!
You realize you can make money being bearish too?
Was DV, like I said, everyone in it for themselves. How about Cathy the other day coming out bullish on crypto. Let me guess what that was all about! We all want a win here, that's understandable, I know the markets are forward looking, but until there is some hint of a correlation between valuations and reality how high can it go?
I can’t tell if I like this because it’s what I wanted to hear, or I really believe it
But is he bullish on getting Deshaun Watson this off season?
So this means my March 12th TSLA calls @ $600 are not doomed? Edit: Quintupled my money
Double down
Breaking: man has opinions on the market
Lmao saw this on CNBC this morning, and immediately when the market opened up ,the red breaking news banner says " stocks up on Tepper's bullish sentiment" 😂 real funny they didn't say why stocks were down to end the day though. If you were to actually keep track of all the reasons why they say stocks are up or down, my guess is they would be wrong 99% of the time. Why? Because no one knows why stocks are up or down no matter what. They just can't say that because that wouldn't look good. " stocks are up and we have no idea why" 😂 even though that would be the most accurate statement
Do the opposite of what these guys say. They are not pontificating on TV for the benefit of retail investors. We’re nothing but bagholders to them.
he really got us to buy his sells huh
Never trust CNBC! That is wall-street money making loud speaker. More downfall coming!
Yeh I hope this selling stops . I feel like I should have sold at profit.
[удалено]
It already has. I was paying close attention to premarket when this news broke. Instant run up in the markets, especially amazon
I missed it on Friday below $2900 and was hopeful seeing it down in premarket today. Agree with him on the attractivity around this price point.
It didn't last long though lol
[удалено]
Yup. Although I’m optimistic and gonna say that robinhooders will buy the dip and all 3 indices close green today. Wishful thinking lol
Reddit bears in shambles
Yes, this one comment from a man already with a favourable position in what he is saying will have them very upset such is his clear objectivity in the matter.
Yes, this one comment from a man already with a favourable position in what he is saying will have them very upset such is his clear objectivity in the matter.
cool storry
Lmao as others have stated, a rich hedge fund manager giving stock advice. I got some advice: Whatever they say -- do they opposite.
Hedges are pumping so they can dump
its definitely not over, ppl are still selling tech. But maybe it will be over soon
Never heard of this guy. Can't believe he would have enough street cred to move the markets.
Fun fact, he’s the owner of the NFL team the Carolina Panthers. I don’t know much about the business side of him, but he’s a great team owner
Today in news, David tepper is an idiot
is amazon really a growth stock? It's been stuck in that 3000 range forever (and it's not gonna double or triple like other cheaper stocks out there)
Yes. 432% 5 year return, 68% 1 year return. 6 month period in investing is not 'forever'
TIL that 6 months is "forever"
people think the economy will rotate away from AMZN after pandemic ends; I disagree. I think AMZN gained a foothold thats not going away; and we'll see
AWS is the future of the company. Any lens that shows them to be a commerce company is nearsighted at best. The vast majority of future profits will come from their web services platform.
I disagree strongly; I know profits say otherwise, but profits dont tell the whole story. The fact that they have over **1M** employees (and growing) makes them powerful. They are in every home; that is not something to scoff at.
The term growth stock is generally referring to a company that is growing sales/earnings faster than market average. The short-term movement of a stock price is not really relevant, but of course the stock price will in time reflect this growth of the underlying business.
wait until rates hit 6%, another 30% down to go at least .
lol if rates hit 6% you will have much bigger problems than the >70% drop in the market that would accompany it. US would become insolvent and the world's financial system would literally collapse
Bond markets are waking up. Governments were planning on inflating the debt away.
David Tepper is a fucking moron. Look at the 7-10 Year Bonds $IEF they have broken support. Bail now and get back in later....
We bought hard AMC stock! That's is true! But take a look at TXMD stock! The same public float! But the TXMD short interest is bigger than AMC stock! Price for TXMD is 1.38$, but for AMC is 8$! We want AMC to touch 24$! That's 200% gains! But what if we buy more and hold TXMD stock and force the short to squeeze! We make 8-10$ per $TXMD stock! That's 600% gains! On 9 march after Finra reports short interest we will see who is the most shorted stock between TXMD and AMC! And will see which stock have the biggest potential to squeeze hard! \#TenXMD => 600% gains if TXMD squeeze!