Now if only AAPL would follow TSLA back up. Unlike the rest of you who seem to all be 180% invested in TSLA, some of us have been milking other cows for a while and hate to see them go dry.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
If you had told me last year "The Fed will raise interest rates in June, and it will cause TSLA to dip", I would have believed you. If you had said "The Fed will raise interest rates in June, and it will cause TSLA to dip from $382 to $378", I would have been extremely skeptical!
Reciprocity
Active Member
Wow, then I wonder what a squeeze will look like. That was 6x in 9 months or so, VW was 200 to 1000 and back down to 500 in about 14 days. So 5x in a day or two. I think I see the difference.. So what do you do, put in sells in 20% increments at 800,1000,1200,1400 and 1600? then Buys in 20% increments at 800,700.. etc.
380.66 close
Funny day today, but I'll take it.
Funny day today, but I'll take it.
This isn't some sort of subversive poetry is it? Just trying to figure out why we dipped below $380.
Dipped below 380?
If you're talking about that small hour where went to 377, I can understand you find my post poetic
I'm barely 60% invested in TSLA tbh, and if you're willing to wait 5-10 years, I think APPL still has an entire other reserve of milk in it... maybe even 2...
Last edited:
Based on these very precise definitions, I much prefer "not squeeze"
Yeah not squeezes are better.
2013 wasn't a true short squeeze (although many expected to see one). I don't think you'll ever see a true short squeeze with TSLA. IMO we'll see a continuum of covering rallies with brief pullbacks
[agree with @neroden posts re: terminology]
3-4 trillion, in 15 years yes.
After that we'll slowly approach a world where money won't matter anymore (because of AI doing everything better than a human), and so the stock market will probably disappear....
I prefer a short covering rally, followed by a 4x short squeeze, where I sell at the top, and buy back when it's down again
Just had a chance to look this up. The '08-09 drop was about 50%. For those using margin or other leverage, I still think a moat to withstand 33% based on just irrationally falling temporarily because of a bear market is advisable. I get that some may not like this, I don't like it... but not sure why one would disagree with this.
I prefer a short covering rally, followed by a 4x short squeeze, where I sell at the top, and buy back when it's down again
I think that is the source of all the short squeeze interest. Mark this as "funny" if you have fantasized about riding a leveraged position to the top of a VW type squeeze, selling at the tippy top, going long on puts then selling them 2 days later when things return to earth, thus making a mint on both sides of the spike.
the rate hike is not such a big deal, i feel the problem is in here:
imo no way the fed can remove trillions of dollars of liquidity from our financial system without causing some meltdowns. it won't happen overnight. heck even in 6-9 months they will have only removed < $200 billion of 4 trillion. but as we go further out in time beyond that, some sort of liquidity crunch should develop. it will be into 2019 before they even cross the trillion dollar mark, so not like this is an imminent threat.
With rates on the rise, the Fed has said that it will soon begin to dismantle the last part of its post-crisis economic stimulus campaign by reducing its portfolio of more than $4 trillion in Treasuries and mortgage-backed securities. On Wednesday it described its plans, though not the exact timing.
The Fed said it would initially reduce its holdings by $10 billion a month for three months, divided 60-40 between Treasuries and mortgage bonds. It will then increase the pace by $10 billion every three months, maintaining the same division, until the reduction reaches $50 billion a month.
The Fed said it would initially reduce its holdings by $10 billion a month for three months, divided 60-40 between Treasuries and mortgage bonds. It will then increase the pace by $10 billion every three months, maintaining the same division, until the reduction reaches $50 billion a month.
imo no way the fed can remove trillions of dollars of liquidity from our financial system without causing some meltdowns. it won't happen overnight. heck even in 6-9 months they will have only removed < $200 billion of 4 trillion. but as we go further out in time beyond that, some sort of liquidity crunch should develop. it will be into 2019 before they even cross the trillion dollar mark, so not like this is an imminent threat.
Hmm, that's definitely an idea. Frankly I don't know. I'm bad at short term!
Reciprocity
Active Member
Same, would love to hear what people are planning. I am just as happy to stay long and have the stock grind up, but going 5x in a few days would be a shame to miss half that upside on the whipsaw effect after the big spike.
Waiting4M3
Active Member
Even with the MS and MX problems in 2013 and 2015-16 respectively, the drop is TSLA recovered within 2-3 months, so I'm not at all worried about it. If M3 ramp/profitability is delayed by a quarter, who cares.
Macro worries me more. Even with the iPhone, AAPL dropped from 28 to 13 in 2008, and didn't come back until a year later in 2009, so one needs to be prepared to ride out a dip of 1-2 years. Even if you own LEAP it may not be completely safe. Even if it's all stocks, what if one lose his/her job? Can one ride out 1-2 years without being forced to sell stocks?
Fed accounting bears little resemblance to reality. When the Fed buys Treasuries or mortgage bonds, what is it paying for them with, specifically? When it sells them, what is it getting paid with? I don't think it's actually affecting the circulating count of Federal Reserve Notes.
Anyway, the short-term effect will be a crush in the price of T-bills (rising yields) and likewise rising yields on mortgage bonds. This should cause some rotation out of stocks. The longer-term effect is harder to gauge because most liquidity is created by banks or shadow banks, and it's very shadowy. Will we see the return of questionable products like "money market funds" being advertised as "as good as money"? Probably. I'm not sure what sector they'll come out of.
In 1929 a lot of banks were either heavily invested in stocks or were lending money to brokerages, meaning that a stock market drop caused bank failures. Right now, this is true again -- and in addition a large part of the stock market is banking stocks, meaning that a bank failure will cause a stock market drop (as in 2008). That's not a good combination, because it causes a positive-feedback-loop collapse. Industrials get hit quickly if they can't refinance, so I actually hope Tesla will issue more stock now and reduce its need for lending (although Tesla's already quite unleveraged).
The lending of money from banks to other banks or to brokerages is a form of money creation. When there's less high-powered (Fed) money this sort of thing happens more, to make up the difference.
Just thinking, no conclusions here...
Perhaps one possibility is Chinese liquidity. Ready to be paid in renminbi?
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Article
