Because the lenders are responsible for screening each individual to ensure they are solvent and have means of generating income to meet all their financial responsibilities

Nice!

I sold the red open for a little 34% gain. 👍🏼

So the lenders were "shitty" because they gave loans to poor people? Why are the poor people not "shitty" for entering into a contract they couldn't fulfill? Are you saying the poor people are stupid? Are you aware the banks used to NEVER give loans to poor people until the 90s when political action groups like ACORN started harassing the executives at big banks to force them to. They had even broken into boardroom meetings with illegal protests just to force the banks to relax their standards, calling them racist.

>The 2008 financial crisis was caused by a number of factors, including subprime mortgage lending, derivative securities, and the failure of major financial institutions. The housing market bubble burst in 2007-2008, leading to widespread foreclosures and evictions. This led to a domino effect throughout the economy, as businesses failed and people lost their jobs. The stock market crashed in September 2008, losing trillions of dollars in value. Major banks collapsed and had to be bailed out by the government. The recession lasted for several years afterwards, causing hardship for millions of people around the world. There are a few ways that investors can profit from a recession: buying distressed assets at low prices (such as foreclosed homes), shorting stocks or investing in inverse ETFs (which go up when markets fall), or simply holding cash until conditions improve.

As an outsider I’m getting the impression to do the opposite of whatever Jim Cramer says.

Reddit Inc. has banned Seeking Alpha articles sitewide.

To get around this, please repost your comment/thread with the link removed, and the relevant parts of the article copy and pasted.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

“First Citizens Bank outperforms market on Monday”

-SeekingAlpha at 4 pm, probably

Shit! I’m still holding puts!

Wut?

So: What happens when Uncle Sam stops being able to reliably PAY bonds?

I know this may be a bit beyond this sub's field of view, but don't forget we're talking about an empire in the final days of its Red-Supergiant-Stage here....

That's nuts.

Two years ago, I was trying to ship a single 20' container from Kuwait to the east coast and nobody would touch it for less than $30K.

As for China specifically, I do remember reading somewhere that the average wage in China now is higher than Mexico, so aside from projects that require massive amounts of manpower (i.e. Apple), it just isn't as cost effective to build things in China anymore, even with shipping costs dropping.

My point here is exactly that this is short/mid term bullish for companies pocketing this money. The question is which companies are pocketing the most. Depends also on how much shipping costs weight on the goods value

Well, hardyrekshin here on WSB claims a ~65% win rate with his daily wrinkle plays posted here. However backtesting his 0317 plays shows win rate closer to 40%. Still green overall at expiry, though so there we some big winners.

That's better than nothing

Fuck the greedy banksters. Let them jump. They are robbing billions of citizens of their wealth worldwide.

i'm tired of saying this, no one wants to see prices going down, once inflation gets them up it's really hard to ever see a decrease unless things get really bad. This is an historical fact.

If you can sell less quantity for the same margin, profits go up.

We don't use money. We use debt notes.

Probably the issue is why are imported products from China not going down in cost as a result in the reduced overhead costs associated with shipping…..I.E. are sellers pocketing the savings from shipping cost reduction but not reducing the prices of their goods for sale.

This analysis forgets the inherent delay associated with these kinds of inputs. Prices won’t fall until competitive pressures make them. If everyone importing a certain widget is selling for a stable price of $x, why would they reduce that price unless demand falls to a level they’re forced to consider $x-y = more sales (and more profit)?

Nvidia is still one that makes no sense to me

Caputs.

Most aren’t, but there are a lot of them, and any group with a thousand members is gonna have a few that are quite regarded.

+0