-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
[Video / Finance] - This Singaporean financial expert shows you how to make lots of money from Tesla stocks & shares
- Thread starter UltimaOnline
- Start date
I always wonder why people are so willing to share their get-rich tips ?
What kind of lunatic would share his golden goose with others?
What kind of lunatic would share his golden goose with others?
Last edited:
The good thing sbout tesla is it does not need to store its cars. All cars are sold before its made.
Wanna compare papa john i made how much
He sold atm puts ...look at tesla in the last Week.
remember one thing... there’s a reason why some ppp try to make money out of teaching... cos they are just not very good at doing it themselves.
u think he’s teaching for the sake of making everyone rich ? Think again
u think he’s teaching for the sake of making everyone rich ? Think again
cheebye,
uncle here started trading currencies and equities for banks since 1983 till 2016 when I retired, this joker probably not born yet,
so fucking easy, everyone no need to work already
trading can make you some small pocket money and buy yourself a good dinner, that's achievable
if you think you can beat the market and trade big, you are dreaming, the big boys always win,
the market will fuck you up when least expected and when you are comfortably long....or short
and btw, in the trading rooms, for the most fucked up non performing traders, the big boss will ask them go become analysts and go bullshit
the public that watch tv with their 'expert' advice....haha
uncle here started trading currencies and equities for banks since 1983 till 2016 when I retired, this joker probably not born yet,
so fucking easy, everyone no need to work already
trading can make you some small pocket money and buy yourself a good dinner, that's achievable
if you think you can beat the market and trade big, you are dreaming, the big boys always win,
the market will fuck you up when least expected and when you are comfortably long....or short
and btw, in the trading rooms, for the most fucked up non performing traders, the big boss will ask them go become analysts and go bullshit
the public that watch tv with their 'expert' advice....haha
What happened to stocks that gives regular DIVIDENDS? Non speculative stocks?
Trading for a living is pure bullshit. Get rich quick ponzi.
Self styled gurus are instant puke. Lan Jiao!
Self styled gurus are instant puke. Lan Jiao!
He sold 790 strike puts on 100. The stock is down 200. Probably will pick up shares to stroke his ego further.
Elon Musk's historic wealth gains unravel with $36 billion loss in tech stock sell-off
Mr Musk's tumble only underscores the hard-to-fathom velocity of his ascent.
PHOTO: REUTERS
6 MAR 2021
NEW YORK (BLOOMBERG) - Mr Elon Musk set records last year for one of the fastest streaks of wealth accumulation in history. The reversal is underway, and it's steep.
The Tesla chief executive officer lost US$27 billion (S$36.24 billion) since Monday (March 1) as shares of the carmaker tumbled in the sell-off of tech stocks.
His US$156.9 billion net worth still places him No. 2 on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, but he's now almost US$20 billion behind Mr Jeff Bezos, whom he topped just last week as the world's richest person.
Mr Musk's tumble only underscores the hard-to-fathom velocity of his ascent. Tesla shares soared 743 per cent in 2020, boosting the value of his stake and unlocking billions of dollars in options through his historic "moonshot" compensation package.
His gains accelerated into the new year. In January, he unseated Mr Bezos as the world's richest person.
Mr Musk's fortune peaked later that month at US$210 billion, according to the index, a ranking of the world's 500 wealthiest people.
Consistent quarterly profits, the election of US President Joe Biden, with his embrace of clean technologies and enthusiasm from retail investors, fuelled the company's rise, but for some, its swelling valuation was emblematic of an unsustainable frothiness in tech.
The Nasdaq 100 Index fell for the third straight week on Friday, its longest streak of declines since September.
Mr Musk's fortune hasn't been solely subject to the forces buffeting the tech industry. His net worth has risen and slumped recently in tandem with the price of bitcoin.
Tesla disclosed last month it had added US$1.5 billion of the cryptocurrency to its balance sheet. Mr Musk's fortune took a US$15 billion hit two weeks later after he mused on Twitter that the prices of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies "do seem high."
Extreme volatility has roiled many of the world's biggest fortunes this year. Asia's once-richest person, Chinese bottled-water tycoon Zhong Shanshan, relinquished the title to Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani last month after losing more than US$22 billion in a matter of days.
Quicken Loans chairman Dan Gilbert's net worth surged by US$25 billion on Monday after his mortgage lender Rocket Cos was said to be the next target of Reddit day traders. His fortune has since fallen by almost US$24 billion.
Alphabet co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are among the biggest gainers on the index this year. They've each added more than US$13 billion to their fortunes since Jan 1.
Mr Musk's tumble only underscores the hard-to-fathom velocity of his ascent.
PHOTO: REUTERS
6 MAR 2021
NEW YORK (BLOOMBERG) - Mr Elon Musk set records last year for one of the fastest streaks of wealth accumulation in history. The reversal is underway, and it's steep.
The Tesla chief executive officer lost US$27 billion (S$36.24 billion) since Monday (March 1) as shares of the carmaker tumbled in the sell-off of tech stocks.
His US$156.9 billion net worth still places him No. 2 on the Bloomberg Billionaires Index, but he's now almost US$20 billion behind Mr Jeff Bezos, whom he topped just last week as the world's richest person.
Mr Musk's tumble only underscores the hard-to-fathom velocity of his ascent. Tesla shares soared 743 per cent in 2020, boosting the value of his stake and unlocking billions of dollars in options through his historic "moonshot" compensation package.
His gains accelerated into the new year. In January, he unseated Mr Bezos as the world's richest person.
Mr Musk's fortune peaked later that month at US$210 billion, according to the index, a ranking of the world's 500 wealthiest people.
Consistent quarterly profits, the election of US President Joe Biden, with his embrace of clean technologies and enthusiasm from retail investors, fuelled the company's rise, but for some, its swelling valuation was emblematic of an unsustainable frothiness in tech.
The Nasdaq 100 Index fell for the third straight week on Friday, its longest streak of declines since September.
Mr Musk's fortune hasn't been solely subject to the forces buffeting the tech industry. His net worth has risen and slumped recently in tandem with the price of bitcoin.
Tesla disclosed last month it had added US$1.5 billion of the cryptocurrency to its balance sheet. Mr Musk's fortune took a US$15 billion hit two weeks later after he mused on Twitter that the prices of bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies "do seem high."
Extreme volatility has roiled many of the world's biggest fortunes this year. Asia's once-richest person, Chinese bottled-water tycoon Zhong Shanshan, relinquished the title to Indian billionaire Mukesh Ambani last month after losing more than US$22 billion in a matter of days.
Quicken Loans chairman Dan Gilbert's net worth surged by US$25 billion on Monday after his mortgage lender Rocket Cos was said to be the next target of Reddit day traders. His fortune has since fallen by almost US$24 billion.
Alphabet co-founders Sergey Brin and Larry Page are among the biggest gainers on the index this year. They've each added more than US$13 billion to their fortunes since Jan 1.
Last edited:
His video was put up on 15 Feb, recommending to write put at $815 for $60 premium.
His calculation = $60/$815 = 7.4% return a month!
And expects that this premium can be earned over 12 months i.e. annualised = $60 x12 = $720
He likens put option to underwriting an insurance policy, just like insurance companies.
However, insurance companies do not just set aside $815. They need to set aside a bigger amount (reserves) in case there is a claim.
Likewise, to write the put option, he said need to set aside $815 x100 shares per contract = $81,500 in case the put is exercised.
$60 / $81,500 = 0.074% return a month.
Annualised (i.e. assuming the premium of $60 holds over one year), the return is still only 0.88% a year.
The earliest one could act on his advice is on 16 Feb, when Tesla stock price closed at $796.22
So writing a put with a strike price at $815 seems pretty smart and is easy money, right?
He said if the put is exercised, the cost of buying Tesla is only $755 ($815 - $60).
Tesla stock has now fallen to $597.95 (5 Mar closing).
If the buyer of his put option exercises his option and sell Telsa stock to him at $815, he is now sitting on a paper loss of ($815-$597.95) x 100 shares = $21,705.
Lose $21,705 just to earn $60?
Why earn $60 if one could have waited after 15 Feb for the market to correct and buy Tesla cheaper?
Why buy at $755 when one could have bought lower?
Yes, this is with hindsight but even without hindsight, one should have worked out the downside scenario.
Isn't the risk/reward ratio better than writing a put option at $815 just to earn $60?
In every bull market, there will be some winners (stock picking, trading options etc).
He is one of the winners.
But, statistically, is this skill, or just luck?
And in every bear market, there will be losers.
But we don't hear about the losers because the losers don't brag about their losses to the world world.
His calculation = $60/$815 = 7.4% return a month!
And expects that this premium can be earned over 12 months i.e. annualised = $60 x12 = $720
He likens put option to underwriting an insurance policy, just like insurance companies.
However, insurance companies do not just set aside $815. They need to set aside a bigger amount (reserves) in case there is a claim.
Likewise, to write the put option, he said need to set aside $815 x100 shares per contract = $81,500 in case the put is exercised.
$60 / $81,500 = 0.074% return a month.
Annualised (i.e. assuming the premium of $60 holds over one year), the return is still only 0.88% a year.
The earliest one could act on his advice is on 16 Feb, when Tesla stock price closed at $796.22
So writing a put with a strike price at $815 seems pretty smart and is easy money, right?
He said if the put is exercised, the cost of buying Tesla is only $755 ($815 - $60).
Tesla stock has now fallen to $597.95 (5 Mar closing).
If the buyer of his put option exercises his option and sell Telsa stock to him at $815, he is now sitting on a paper loss of ($815-$597.95) x 100 shares = $21,705.
Lose $21,705 just to earn $60?
Why earn $60 if one could have waited after 15 Feb for the market to correct and buy Tesla cheaper?
Why buy at $755 when one could have bought lower?
Yes, this is with hindsight but even without hindsight, one should have worked out the downside scenario.
Isn't the risk/reward ratio better than writing a put option at $815 just to earn $60?
In every bull market, there will be some winners (stock picking, trading options etc).
He is one of the winners.
But, statistically, is this skill, or just luck?
And in every bear market, there will be losers.
But we don't hear about the losers because the losers don't brag about their losses to the world world.
Last edited:
Writing (selling) naked options is like picking up nickels in front of a steam roller.
Can earn small income when the markets are up or flat but will be killed in a big-enough market correction.
Last edited:
20-Year-Old Robinhood Customer Dies By Suicide After Seeing A $730,000 Negative Balance
Sergei KlebnikovForbes Staff
Markets
I cover billionaires and their wealth.
Antoine GaraForbes Staff
Hedge Funds & Private Equity
Alexander E. Kearns.
KEARNS FAMILY
With additional reporting by John Dobosz and Jeff Kauflin
The note found on his computer by his parents on June 12, 2020, asked a simple question. “How was a 20 year old with no income able to get assigned almost a million dollars worth of leverage?” The tragic message was written by Alexander E. Kearns, a 20-year-old student at the University of Nebraska, home from college and living with his parents in Naperville, Illinois. Earlier that day, Kearns took his own life.
Robinhood’s founders have since responded to Kearns’ death by suicide, pledging major changes to their platform—especially around options trading.
PROMOTED
Like so many others, Kearns took up stock investing during the pandemic, signing up with Millennial-focused brokerage firm Robinhood, which offers commission-free trading, a fun and easy-to-use mobile app and even awards new customers free shares of stock. During the first quarter of 2020, Robinhood added a record 3 million new accounts to its platform. As the Covid-19 stock market swung wildly, Kearns had begun experimenting, trading options. His final note, filled with anger toward Robinhood, says that he had “no clue” what he was doing.
In fact, a screenshot from Kearns’ mobile phone reveals that while his account had a negative $730,165 cash balance displayed in red, it may not have represented uncollateralized indebtedness at all, but rather his temporary balance until the stocks underlying his assigned options actually settled into his account.
Silicon Valley-based Robinhood is not sharing details of Kearns’ account, citing privacy concerns: “All of us at Robinhood are deeply saddened to hear this terrible news and we reached out to share our condolences with the family over the weekend.”
It’s impossible to know all of the factors contributing to suicide, especially in young people. Still, the tragic demise of Alexander Kearns is a cautionary tale of the serious risks associated with the race to the bottom in the brokerage business. Robinhood, E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, Interactive Brokers, Fidelity and even Merrill Lynch have all embraced commission-free trading and zero-minimum balances in an effort to attract younger customers, many of whom have little understanding of the securities and markets they are dabbling in.
“I thought everything was going fine,” says Bill Brewster, Kearns’ cousin-in-law and a research analyst at Chicago-based Sullimar Capital Group. His father said he was loving the markets and really enjoying investing, Brewster told Forbes, “and then on Friday night, we got this call from his mom, and he had died.”
Kearns apparently fell into despair late Thursday night after looking at his Robinhood account, which appeared to have $16,000 in it but also showed a cash balance of negative $730,165. In his final note, seen by Forbes, Kearns insisted that he never authorized margin trading and was shocked to find his small account could rack up such an apparent loss.
“When he saw that $730,000 number as a negative, he thought that he had blown up his entire future,” says Brewster. “I mean this is a kid that when he was younger was so conscious about savings.”
Although Robinhood won’t release the details of his account, it‘s possible that Kearns was trading what’s known as a “bull put spread.” Put options give buyers the right to sell the stock at the strike price anytime until expiration, while put-sellers are on the hook to buy the underlying stock at the strike price, if assigned. This happens automatically at expiration if the price of the underlying stock closes that day at a price one penny or more below the strike price.
In Kearns’ note, he says that the puts he bought and sold “should have cancelled out,” because normally a bull put spread involves selling put options at a higher strike price, and buying puts at a lower strike price, both with the same expiration. The trade generates a net credit, which the options trader keeps if the stock price stays above the higher strike price through expiration. It’s generally considered a limited risk strategy because the simultaneous purchase and sale of put options means the maximum loss on a per-share basis is the difference between the strike prices, less the amount earned when the puts are sold initiating the trade.
There can be wrinkles, however, when the price of the underlying stock at expiration is between the two strike prices, or in the case of early assignment, which may have occurred in Kearns’ account.
Here’s an example of how a bull put spread could produce an unexpectedly large stock position in your portfolio. On June 16, Amazon (AMZN) trades at $2,615 per share. If you’re neutral to bullish on Amazon, you could sell put options that expire on July 17 with a $2,615 strike price for $28 per option. To limit your risk, the other leg of the trade is to purchase puts at a lower strike price, $2,610, for a cost of $26. That two-dollar differential (multiplied by 100) generates $200 for every contract you sell. Do three contracts and you generate $600. If Amazon closes on July 17 above $2,615, you’re in the clear and keep all of the proceeds, as both puts expire worthless. If the stock closes below $2610, you will encounter your maximum loss of $900: $5.00 (difference between strike prices) minus $2.00 (proceeds earned up front) times three contracts.
When the stock closes between the two strike prices, the put you bought at the lower strike price expires worthless, but the one you sold is in the money and legally binds you to buy the stock at the strike price. In the case of three contracts of $2,615 Amazon puts, that would be $784,500 to purchase 300 shares. Over a weekend, say, you may see a –$784,500 debit to buy the stock, but you would not see the stock among your holdings until Monday.
Kearns may not have realized that his negative cash balance displaying on his Robinhood home screen was only temporary and would be corrected once the underlying stock was credited to his account. Indeed it’s not uncommon for cash and buying power to display negative after the first half of options are processed but before the second options are exercised—even if the portfolio remains positive.
“Tragically, I don’t even think he made that big of a mistake. This is an interface issue, they have slick interfaces. Confetti popping everywhere,” says Brewster referring to the shower of colorful confetti Robinhood routinely deploys after customers make trades. “They try to gamify trading and couch it as investment.”
Says Robinhood: “We are committed to continuously improving our platform and are reviewing our options offering to determine if any changes may be appropriate.”
Sergei KlebnikovForbes Staff
Markets
I cover billionaires and their wealth.
Antoine GaraForbes Staff
Hedge Funds & Private Equity
Alexander E. Kearns.
KEARNS FAMILY
With additional reporting by John Dobosz and Jeff Kauflin
The note found on his computer by his parents on June 12, 2020, asked a simple question. “How was a 20 year old with no income able to get assigned almost a million dollars worth of leverage?” The tragic message was written by Alexander E. Kearns, a 20-year-old student at the University of Nebraska, home from college and living with his parents in Naperville, Illinois. Earlier that day, Kearns took his own life.
Robinhood’s founders have since responded to Kearns’ death by suicide, pledging major changes to their platform—especially around options trading.
PROMOTED
Like so many others, Kearns took up stock investing during the pandemic, signing up with Millennial-focused brokerage firm Robinhood, which offers commission-free trading, a fun and easy-to-use mobile app and even awards new customers free shares of stock. During the first quarter of 2020, Robinhood added a record 3 million new accounts to its platform. As the Covid-19 stock market swung wildly, Kearns had begun experimenting, trading options. His final note, filled with anger toward Robinhood, says that he had “no clue” what he was doing.
In fact, a screenshot from Kearns’ mobile phone reveals that while his account had a negative $730,165 cash balance displayed in red, it may not have represented uncollateralized indebtedness at all, but rather his temporary balance until the stocks underlying his assigned options actually settled into his account.
Silicon Valley-based Robinhood is not sharing details of Kearns’ account, citing privacy concerns: “All of us at Robinhood are deeply saddened to hear this terrible news and we reached out to share our condolences with the family over the weekend.”
It’s impossible to know all of the factors contributing to suicide, especially in young people. Still, the tragic demise of Alexander Kearns is a cautionary tale of the serious risks associated with the race to the bottom in the brokerage business. Robinhood, E-Trade, TD Ameritrade, Charles Schwab, Interactive Brokers, Fidelity and even Merrill Lynch have all embraced commission-free trading and zero-minimum balances in an effort to attract younger customers, many of whom have little understanding of the securities and markets they are dabbling in.
“I thought everything was going fine,” says Bill Brewster, Kearns’ cousin-in-law and a research analyst at Chicago-based Sullimar Capital Group. His father said he was loving the markets and really enjoying investing, Brewster told Forbes, “and then on Friday night, we got this call from his mom, and he had died.”
Kearns apparently fell into despair late Thursday night after looking at his Robinhood account, which appeared to have $16,000 in it but also showed a cash balance of negative $730,165. In his final note, seen by Forbes, Kearns insisted that he never authorized margin trading and was shocked to find his small account could rack up such an apparent loss.
“When he saw that $730,000 number as a negative, he thought that he had blown up his entire future,” says Brewster. “I mean this is a kid that when he was younger was so conscious about savings.”
Although Robinhood won’t release the details of his account, it‘s possible that Kearns was trading what’s known as a “bull put spread.” Put options give buyers the right to sell the stock at the strike price anytime until expiration, while put-sellers are on the hook to buy the underlying stock at the strike price, if assigned. This happens automatically at expiration if the price of the underlying stock closes that day at a price one penny or more below the strike price.
In Kearns’ note, he says that the puts he bought and sold “should have cancelled out,” because normally a bull put spread involves selling put options at a higher strike price, and buying puts at a lower strike price, both with the same expiration. The trade generates a net credit, which the options trader keeps if the stock price stays above the higher strike price through expiration. It’s generally considered a limited risk strategy because the simultaneous purchase and sale of put options means the maximum loss on a per-share basis is the difference between the strike prices, less the amount earned when the puts are sold initiating the trade.
There can be wrinkles, however, when the price of the underlying stock at expiration is between the two strike prices, or in the case of early assignment, which may have occurred in Kearns’ account.
Here’s an example of how a bull put spread could produce an unexpectedly large stock position in your portfolio. On June 16, Amazon (AMZN) trades at $2,615 per share. If you’re neutral to bullish on Amazon, you could sell put options that expire on July 17 with a $2,615 strike price for $28 per option. To limit your risk, the other leg of the trade is to purchase puts at a lower strike price, $2,610, for a cost of $26. That two-dollar differential (multiplied by 100) generates $200 for every contract you sell. Do three contracts and you generate $600. If Amazon closes on July 17 above $2,615, you’re in the clear and keep all of the proceeds, as both puts expire worthless. If the stock closes below $2610, you will encounter your maximum loss of $900: $5.00 (difference between strike prices) minus $2.00 (proceeds earned up front) times three contracts.
When the stock closes between the two strike prices, the put you bought at the lower strike price expires worthless, but the one you sold is in the money and legally binds you to buy the stock at the strike price. In the case of three contracts of $2,615 Amazon puts, that would be $784,500 to purchase 300 shares. Over a weekend, say, you may see a –$784,500 debit to buy the stock, but you would not see the stock among your holdings until Monday.
Kearns may not have realized that his negative cash balance displaying on his Robinhood home screen was only temporary and would be corrected once the underlying stock was credited to his account. Indeed it’s not uncommon for cash and buying power to display negative after the first half of options are processed but before the second options are exercised—even if the portfolio remains positive.
“Tragically, I don’t even think he made that big of a mistake. This is an interface issue, they have slick interfaces. Confetti popping everywhere,” says Brewster referring to the shower of colorful confetti Robinhood routinely deploys after customers make trades. “They try to gamify trading and couch it as investment.”
Says Robinhood: “We are committed to continuously improving our platform and are reviewing our options offering to determine if any changes may be appropriate.”
Last edited:
Similar threads
