Downloading...
Download

Bagholding

An overlooked rule: Wait for the gamblers to have their funMarkets in general sort of always manage to find the nobs breaking point. After big rallies, some may say bubbles, what is known as "dumb money" is attracted, and you might hear that "oh they don't mean dumb in that sense" if you believe this bs you know you are one of them. Where does this experession come from then? They used the word dumb but without meaning it? "They meant you didn't take the time to think" ye that's right, dumb money didn't take the time to think before buying, or before doing anything, which is also known as "being dumb period". Serious investors know these creatures, these "emotionals", are morons. They don't want to get all unpopular so they don't just say the truth directly. The market is not a separate entity, it moves because its participants move it. Those nobs that get all excited, the gamblers and the breakeven idiots, they prevent the price from going up for 2 reasons: - Gamblers buy & sell randomly, 1 because they are gamblers, 2 because they are stupid enough to be gamblers therefore are unable to make any correct prediction, if they try they'll be the kind to get excited twice a day and change their mind based on the latest fractal or magical secret indicator they saw (often accompanied by "I am a legend"). - Breakeven idiots love to breakeven. They buy randomly the latest hyped thing, might be a ponzi, might not, they are full random, if they only bought scams there would be some value to them obviously, but nope, full random. They are bad, they look to get rich quick, and hold bags. They hold to zero on the way down, and to nothing at all on the way up. After bagholding they get desperate to breakeven (see the GME clowns that bought at $350 and above), same with dotcoms. How many idiots were relieved they could finally sell their Amazon shares at $30? Congrats man you got me you get last word well done you were right to hold your bag. You got your $30 a share back. Now Amazon is $3000. So it's obvious what I'm getting at. Once these clowns get wiped out by a scary red candle after bagholding for years (Bitcoin first half of 2020) there basically is no more resistance, the few bagholders left will breakeven at key levels but it won't stop the uptrend, the majority of the breakeven bagholder herd got ripped to pieces by crocs when they crossed the river. Nasdaq, Bitcoin, etc. The more gamblers and breakeven bagholders get attracted to something, the more vertically it goes up after they get wiped out. And until they get wiped out the market never bottoms. They will never win. They are the ultimate illustration of what being BAD at something is. Fun fact you will always hear from the 1% of this herd that got lucky, the ones with survivor bias "ye sure this river is safe to cross for wildebeests just look at me". Wildebeests are the dumbest creatures I have ever seen, after weekend "investors" of course. The behavior, not sarcasm I am serious, the behavior is the same. Do you want to be on the side of wildebeests or the side of crocodiles? The survivor bias ones celebrate their "gains" showing their extreme ignorance, they act like the herd made money, but data says otherwise. We used to have robintrack for example, also the UK regulator which banned BTC in the UK but even in Europe because too many people were losing too much money. We could see visually the data directly. GME, Tesla... (GME from Citadel among others). With Tesla when they buy "the dip" and the price bounces they ALL end up selling on the way up, "breakeven", oh gosh myfxbook is mindblowing for this it's absolutely insane, the 95% on the wrong side of a trend, the average winner size and loser, the awful entries and exits etc. And while TSLA goes up no retailer buys UNTIL THE TOP, and you know exactly what happens: THIS TIME THEY HOLD. Get rid of winners, hold losers. Brilliant. They have this ability to buy at the very top, absolute genius. Hear some news then "sidelines" like they aren't late enough, then crack "OK NOW IS THE RIGHT TIME TO BUY"! The vast majority of crypto bagholders and "dip" buyers that were desperate to catch the bottom ended up missing out. Isn't that amazing? > Do not trade corrections in general > When the gambling bagholding herd joins, get ready to exit and then stay away > Let the gamblers have their fun, and get back into a market after they leave It has always worked this way and it will keep working this way. Gamblers will ALWAYS lose. Bottoms will ALWAYS happen once they get wiped out and never before that, no matter how hard they try to "HODL". If it's not clear enough, if a Tesla or GME or BTC baggy is reading, it's not just about value investors: TREND FOLLOWERS FOLLOW TRENDS. TREND FOLLOWERS CREATE TRENDS. THE PRICEY NO GOY UP IF NO TREND HAPPEN BECAUSE BREAKEVEN TRADERS ARE SELLING. TREND START AFTER BREAKEVENERS AND RANDOM GAMBLERS GET OUT AND SELLING PRESSURE GO GO HOME. THEN PRICE GO GO UP NATURALLY THEN TREND FOLLOWERS FOLLOW TREND AND PRICEY GO GO UP MORE. IF NO TREND THEN TREND FOLLOWERS NO SEE TREND AND NO BUY AND NO PUSH PRICEY UP. I'll make another idea where I get into this, more clean, and without using the word idiot every sentence :D Funny how bagholders try so hard to get everyone else to hold when this is precisely what is holding them back, ignorance and stupidity are cruel jokes.
NASDAQ:TSLAEducation
by MrRenev
14
Baghodlers wiped out at the bottom as usual + time to go to ath***************** Part 1: An expensive but valuable lesson for Bitcoin bulls ***************** I have not heard much from Bitcoin "investors" in the past 12 months. This is what I kept repeating back then (2018-2019): " The bear market is not over/2019 is a fake bull market (hundreds of them laughed at me) They will refuse to sell until Bitcoin goes into panic mode and there is extreme violent selling, THEN they will disappear (maybe a bit before maybe a bit later) You won't hear again from them They will miss the actual next bull market " And what did happen? Haven't heard from them since then 😏 A few people had youtube channels so we can see them closing them, also not posting anymore, and a few have at least made a goodbye video. I think the bulk really left in Q4 2019 - Q1 2020. Mostly during the scaaaary selling. I am not making this up. You can view my past ideas. Here is the last BTC idea that got a lot of attention from haters calling me an idiot. Feb 21. 54 comments. After this it stopped. I was not getting dozens of hate comments anymore. They just went poof. Who's the idiot now? Checking some profiles, no ideas in 7 months I wonder why. Oh someone is bullish on alts that are down and never going up. I posted an alarmist idea in March 2019 when Bitcoin was really down and bagholders were very scared. The amount of hatred I got was interesting. I got even way more than usual. They were in anxiety mode. And they are all gone. Markets are very good at finding peoples breaking point. Bitcoin found crypto investors breaking point. A very valuable lesson. Some of them might return to trading in the future, like some people came back "older and wiser" after getting burned during the dot-com bubble. And the cycle will repeat itself endlessly. This is actually the most Bitcoin has falling in 24 hours at least since 2013. On Bitfinex, bottom 2 was more scary. Still, the March 2020 scare was a 50% drop in 24 hours and this never happened before as far as I know. Not only was it brutal but there was a first part with a massive drop in a couple of hours then a break where baggies were relieved for sure "the worse it over", and then just a few hours later they got hit with another brutal candle that went much further down. The 2013-2015 bear market ended with 30% drops "only". For sure Bitcoin bulls panicked and saw it going straight to zero "this is it", "it's the end". They clearly were an over emotional bunch. Glad most of them are gone. I want to look at it one more time. It feels good to. You know I tried catching the bottom but that was ridiculous Posted these ideas 3 days apart (Bitcoin going to zero and Bitcoin going to 10,000 when it was at 8300): ***************** Part 2: Bitcoin long target reached ***************** Follow up to this: Got to target but does not mean it is over. European regulators banning bitcoin cfd right when the bagholders were about to make some money 👍 So typical and therefore so predictable People can keep criticizing me insult me but I will keep being right Already 8.5R here! This means it would cover 8 losses. I could be the biggest fool and lost 8 times in a row and still come out ahead. And it's just the start imo. Because I am waiting for the vertical move and I have no seen it yet. My trailing stop is at 4R right now.
GEMINI:BTCUSD
by MrRenev
5
5 years lawsuit: Guess how much "investors" got back?Before giving the answer, what happened? Apple had sapphire glass on its home button and camera. They lend money to their supplier, GTAT, a few hundred millions. Absolute masterminds had the genius idea that if Apple was going to have their phones whole screen in sapphire then demand skyrockets and share price goes up... infinity? Oh and this "investment" was "a sure thing". Well the company exited the business, shut down its plants, sold off its furnaces and announced plans to settle its debt. It gave back to Apple most of the money. Apple plans were to use sapphire for their watch apparently. People can't speculate they shouldn't even try. They're so delusional they think they can. Apple agrees to settle GT Advanced Technologies lawsuit for $3.5 million. So, bagholders that got rekt did the thing these losers always do: whine to judges. They filed a lawsuit saying GTAT was partially responsible for a "disastrous deal" costing "investors" more than $1 billion. Remember, that "disastrous deal" is what got them all excited and investing. "GTAT’s former top executives settled for $27 million and its underwriters for $9.5 million." ==> Total bagholders got around $40 million, compared to the estimated $1 billion they lost. 4 percent . If you are wondering, cryptos are not regulated are not run by anyone and investors will get 0% back. Good luck suing computers. Here is a "heartbreaking story" of an "investor" that lost everything (gambling most of his life savings on a rumor): www.businessinsider.fr Try not to laugh challenge. "I cried for 24 hours knowing I ruined the future for my family," wrote Cooper. It would probably be severly condemned by society if someone would start laughing hysterically at this announcement? I couldn't hold myself. I remember hearing bagholders of some stocks complain that lawyers were laughing in court when they told their story. Can't remember what it was in particular, and search engines are useless, and these stories don't get advertised too much. Might be a dumb rumor. And I wonder why rekt investors stay silent. Interesting chart. Remember what studies found "high IQ investors tend to have better results due to diversifying more". I'm more of an OTP and disgusted by "investing" in 50 companies or holding 30 trades at any given time, but going all in on a single trade, or investing entire lifesavings on a single company, not even just a single sector or correlated assets, literally a single company, that's just so dumb. Guess what? OF COURSE THE GTAT INVESTOR FORUM GOT REMOVED! Come on we want to learn from their mistakes, and have a good laugh at the same time. Investors sued them so they wouldn't want to keep the forum open, plus they're not public like they were anymore. And who was pushing apple suppliers to retail investors? Good old Cramer ;) Imagine a business that isn't diversified at all, that has only 1 client, on a recent technology that can change anytime. Now imagine retail investors - known for "averaging down", never cutting losses, never hedging, and going all in at once (😆), not understanding what they buy, being emotional and following the herd.... buying those businesses! I might be into macro speculating but even I know that a business like this is risky and certainly not something to go all in in. Here is an article that has screenshots of rekt "investors": www.joshuakennon.com That's run by an individual not a company, and he puts investors in quotes like me, good I like this guy. He probably cracked up and laughed while laughing. He can only be a good person thought, he's gay. Maybe I should pretend to be gay to be considered a good person. And also do some "philantropy and charity" (biggest scams). Telling people about this will help as opposed to being an emotional "carer" that "wouldn't dare laugh at others misery" and is telling every one to get all excited and telling them about the time Bitcoin went up 5 million percent or some crap, and "positive" let's just focus on the 0.1% of companies that went way up and ignore the 99% that collapsed completely, that'll help novices / noobs make the right calls! So many destroyed "investors" that "bought in cheap". You can make so much money when you buy high and sell low, and inversingly, you can lose so much buying cheap and selling high. If regulators want to do something useful, and not discriminate (based on IQ or education or anything), just prohibit leverage to those with less than a few years of experience or less than a certain number of operations (and not for EVERYONE including profitable participants over a great number of operations!), maybe even set a rule limiting novices position size to 50% of proven assets. I don't think there's really a point to protect very dumb people savings (must hurt to work 25 years and then lose it all at once lel), but regulators want to, so do something smart. Regulators are the ones that can't make money speculating or investing, and not even writting about it, so they regulate, and therefore they won't be able to come up with solutions and are always too late too useless etc. A little story about r-words that lost everything they saved (£180k at 50 yo) gambling on stocks to "get their money back" using borrowed money (leverage): www.telegraph.co.uk I heard so many times "I lost money investing so I started trading to make it back" in particular in crypto. If a family member or close friend said this to me I'd insult them, prob hit them actually. Hard to stay polite with that amount of stupidity and delusional. And I heard stories of people that got shrekt in bubbles, got their money back, and quit at breakeven. I heard stories of someone that let someone close trade their money (a pro (pro means wagecuck) trader), make a killing - the one trading it, and the second the amount they made was equal to the amount they lost they pulled it all out (these people really deserve to get wiped out). As investing becomes more popular to anyone (anyone... can you imagine), the rekt stories are more common. The average person is deeply stupid, now imagine that half of the population is worse than that 😐 And they can all invest speculate and have access to all sort of tools, including borrowing money. There's just going to be more and more regulations, but those come slow. It's kind of pressuring profitable traders that don't yet have accounts bigger than say 100k to take more risk to try to make money faster. Charlie Munger said you have a 20 slot punchcard, but some people manage to end up with a single slot punchcard (it was Charlie that said this right? Every one is crediting Warren Buffet). John Templeton had bought 104 companies shares when he started but that was a protection against ignorance and he was a macro investor, maybe I should follow his example then. Alot of very successful speculators make big one sided bets rather than diversify but first of all it's usually macro, and second of all they are diversified in time, they use stops, they don't go all in, etc. I don't know that many investors, and the only recent ones are from movies and tv. About Michael Burry: "Burry was speaking from experience. According to his own blog posts, he too started with an ultra-concentrated portfolio, around four to six stocks, but as Burry's strategy developed and he grew as an investor, so did his portfolio. Soon, the number of individual positions had increased to nine and then later, this number went up to 18." Well Buffet says he'd be very happy with just 3 or so stocks but he is longer term, and he would still have cash and probably some bonds too. And he wrote "10 to 30" (not just stocks all investments). Michael Burry is right in that range. I might just use indices tbh, but when i finally invest I'd just go for a few, really few. 3 to 5. But 1 can mean "30 companies from a country I want to invest in" I would be betting on the country economy not on 30 different companies. I think I'll always have some cash. You can speculatively buy & sell using borrowed money using investments as collateral but I'll have cash in accounts anyway. About those "investments" it can be argued it was or was not stupid. We can talk about doing your research. About not averaging on losers or "buying cheap". But 1 thing cannot be argued: Dumb money is the money that goes all in a single company with no rules, and it's not called dumb money because they are intelligent but unlucky. Rule number 1 = Don't lose money Rule number 2 = Never forget nb 1 Rule number 3 = Don't go all in / Invest in at least 3 issues / set a maximum risk per investment that should always be less than 33% (and 33% is so huge). Graham's largest gain was from GEICO, which his Graham-Newman Partnership purchased 50% of in 1948 for $712,000. The position grew to $400 million by 1972, contributing more to the portfolio than all of Graham-Newman's other investments combined. Oof don't diversify too much. Graham, one of the very very very rare book writter and economist that actually made money. Oh no wait, the only one. They call him an economist but he finished university at 20 and went to Wall Street, yet another success that didn't waste too much time in useless school go figure. Going to university was pretty rare back then thought. Diploma inflation hit hard. When I think of how many years I wasted for nothing... Some people don't even risk 100%, they borrow and risk more than 100% MYGAWD. R words. R words. Absolute rwords. "When you combine ignorance and leverage, you get some pretty interesting results."
GEducation
by MrRenev
15
Beyond meat short sellers are going to have to learn to codeShorting was already super expensive. But now, now that the company had their first quaterly earnings release since IPO, the thing is taking off. Sales rose 215% and are expected to grow tremendously in the future. Now I do not know how it works, but the company is not profitable. Earnings are something like -1$ per share or so. A growth stock. If they sell way more then they will be profitable? Maybe they have some flat costs that kill their revenue now but they wo'nt have these costs later on? I am just interested in following this story and added this stock to my watchlist. Going to explode. I hope short sellers had options hedging them or something :D Maybe we see an absolute explosion in share price followed by a short squeeze and an absolute explosion. Again. BUT I think with the shorting prices being so high and the shares being almost entirely held by insiders and retail investors (that do not lend shares for shorting because they are noobs & morons), there are very few bears in this market. Also... if most longs are full noobs/imbeciles... Looks like potentially a massive bubble ahead. With painfully obvious phases. And just keeps going up. And bounces on the way down "this was the bottom" and obvious stop loss levels. Looks like something we could call inefficient. Dumb money that make decisions out of greed and "beating wall street" and "showing to the man" (whatever that means). Downside should be limited if most people involved are retail baggies? Right? I am not an expert on this tbh. Should be a super easy one, easy edge just get in and be the first to get out once it stops going up, retail baggies won't be running for the exits, np. Another point for education purpose, best not to short sell hype stocks dominated by retail until there is a big complacency? Seems to make sense... This feels like looking at penny stock trading which is literally taking advantage of moron baggies that FOMO and not having the pros competition (since stocks are too small for the pros). When I look at noob stocks, I never see them gap down 20% like Facebook did a while ago. They do gap up, alot. But I never saw one gap down. But as I said I am not experimented with this. What they do though, is they consolidate for a really long time. Looking at Robinhood top hold here: Actually Bitcoin is the same. 0 institutional interest, they all think it is a ponzi scheme, full inexperienced retail and just bagH0DL all the time. Super boring, but once in a while it gets to a support and every time "this was the bottom". Once could make a strategy hunting stocks that are mainly held by unsophisticated retail investors and buying at supports before big rallies, or even simply FOMO buying... (the edge and the difference being of course the experience trader knows when to get out). I saw somewhere that Activision was a retail favorite. Idk this could be interesting... to be more diversified in the future. I probably just stick to currencies commodities and trade bigger and bigger eventually just use options to protect myself. And stocks just for investing in solid both growth & value companies. Like a one trick pony. 2 trick pony. Focussing on what I am good at, huge markets I don't need more. Modern portfolio theory sucks. I rather find rare perls and make big one sided bets.
NASDAQ:BYNDEducation
by MrRenev