WSB are majority of the put buyers and the minority are the put sellers.

Your post won’t get traction. The fear narrative will be milked until puts expire worthless on Friday.

Then the loss porn hits from put buyers.

Word salad, no substance.

Also, and i can’t help myself,….

What a dick.

(Ray, obviously)

Thank you for sharing this.

I love the China situation for him.

Has anyone checked his balance sheet? His China exposure has to be ungodly

Schwab bought think or swim for their retirement book.

The accounts they acquired padded against their risk assets exceptionally well by multiples.

I’m not worried about Schwab Or any other bank for that matter, least of all Schwab.

The doomers are astroturfers talking their apocalypse book.

I have been using a cash account to day trade equities since 2016, before free commission. I'm not going to take this conversation personally because I know how complicated it is to get your head wrapped around GFVs.

Buying the security without having settled funds is a good faith violation.And per your own link - if you sell that position before you have deposited funds to cover that settlement, as in, if you attempt to simply sell the position and let that pay for the original purchase- you have a freeriding violation.

You cannot regularly commit GFVs in a cash account. You made it seem like you can but you can't, even if you hold it overnight - you have to deposit cash and let it settle to cover that initial purchase. These are not broker specific rules, these are banking regulations. It's basic accounting.

This might have a bit of leeway if you're trading cash-settled option. My experience is in equities.As you pointed out, 3 GFVs in a year and your account is restricted at a minimum. But many brokers will simply close your account - mostly because it shows you don't know what youre doing and youre making a mess of their books, making regulators look at them, etc.

Edit: TL;DR If you buy a position with unsettled funds, that is a good faith violation whether you hold it overnight or not. The purchase is a violation. Selling the position before you have added money to cover that settlement is another violation. You cannot do this regularly, as you implied.

You really can’t, they call it a good faith violation and if you read the terms of service it’s grounds for terminating your account if it’s a regular occurrence. While you can technically enter a position if it’s a situation where you plan to deposit money, you could get away with it. But selling instead of depositing funds is a secondary violation. These are banking laws, not broker laws.

VS has shitty lingerie. And shit everything else.

I would shop lingerie at target before i would bother with VS trash.

There. I said it.

And then sex trafficked the angels

That brand will go bankrupt and none too soon.

Sounds like someone that doesn’t shop at VS lol ‘fun times’?

VS has a perpetual brand problem. VS is the R. Kelly of the mall.

Sorry, was talking equities. Habit.

Markets are shifting to a T+1 settlement next May.
This should be less and less of an issue, hopefully. It used to be t+3 when I started.

Cash account is easy. Tell your broker to set your account to only trade with settled funds.

Split your account in half.

Trading with unsettled funds is a good faith violation, and there's another violation if you then SELL that same opened position before the first buy transaction was settled. But if you set your account to reject orders if you don't have settled funds, you're good in most cases.

You can take as many trades as you have the cash to cover it.
So you can take one trade with your entire amount (half your account), or you could take 10 trades using 10% of your settled balance for that day. Either way, more ability to trade than with PDT restrictions - except no margin.

Margin = pdt restrictions
Cash = no PDT restrictions, but you have to use settled cash

Next year when the market shifts to T+1, you will be able to trade with your entire account each day.

The headlines over the past week are so ALL OVER the place that I assume bankers are having mental break downs.

But I for sure know that none of them know what the heck is going on.

1. Cash on the books during inflation is bad math, it’s losing value rapidly

2. Buy backs increase price - historically, more buy backs before an economic downturn. In this case, the company doesn’t see the stock as undervalued as much as inflation as a risk to cash

3. Buy back runs price up which makes it easy to justify a split. A split obscures the overpriced nature of the stock. Many see the lower price but don’t look at the valuation being unchanged. Makes it easier to sell the top to less knowledgeable traders/investors because some are not paying attention etc

4. Unrealized Capital gains are not taxed but return of capital and dividends are. Better to have the option to defer taxes

Everyone is panicking over numbers while traditional finance completely ignores the crypto holdings (or at least what is left)

The amount lost in crypto implosion is not dampening the massive gains.

As crypto continues to liquidate back into the equities market, you’ll see more and more headlines about doom trying to shake retail out so institutions can buy the dip.

Institutions were the money backing most of the exchanges that collapsed, looking for those 200,000% gains as owners of exchanges burned them. Retail rugged them hard.

Someone commented but I can't see the comment for some reason.
The competitor was Affinity by Serif.

There is an Adobe creative suite competitor that doesn’t use a monthly subscription model. I hope Adobe goes up in flames. I have an old computer i keep around just for the CS4 suite so i can get into old Adobe files, but i use the newer competitor for current work. I would rather relearn complex competitor software than reward Adobe for their shit treatment of digital artists and entrepreneurs. The ethically bankrupt Adobe can go to zero. Duck those guys.

I personally hate Adobe. Anyone that locks people out of their files after forcing people to monthly subscriptions can get bent

I’m not saying they’re going to happen.

Everything you just described has already happened.

>Fed aint doing that coz it thinks job market is still strong and inflation is sticky

I'm not trying to hound you but I think you might be missing a piece of information.

Powell gave an interview shortly after his last FOMC speech. They had new numbers come out and he was talking at some event.

What he said was that they didn't think there was a wage/price spiral anymore, they didn't think inflation was sticky anymore, because they had not taken into account the border closure preventing immigrant workers getting in (I think there was an unspoken 'illegal labor' implication here, but that's not the point really).

And he was VERY chipper about it but said they would keep an eye on the numbers.
I'm curious if you saw this interview of his or if you perhaps missed this (there is so much info out there, it's easy to miss)

I think that inflation is already dropping and it will steepen. I’m seeing the rhetoric shifting away from inflation at that point and more aggressively towards war.

If inflation is handling itself then the market will need a reason to rally or else we risk subways stagnation.

While the U.S. economy might not have wanted to pull that lever, two other major economies are struggling and are positioning.

I think the WH tapping the more dovish fed Governor is a signal for the fed to lean aggressive in the short term, to get things done.

Circling back to your EPS estimate, then, i would disagree because the war positioning would rally the market.

The U.S. had already positioned for stateside manufacturing as of last September so that’s why i think the bearish sentiment is misplaced.

We can remain overvalued (eps) for an extended period of time in the ramp up and then justify in hindsight that we achieved ‘more accurate’ valuation because production increased.

We are in this euphoric bubble that just won’t pop.

Prior to Powells recent statements i would be agreeing with you on the majority but I’ve had to switch my views as the situation changed.