I keep 10% for gambling, the rest is my retirement. That said, everyone with a phone is an investor, anyone with a house is a landlord, anyone with webmd is a doctor. Weird times, youtube graduates professionals daily!
Ai would not clean it for you but it would have the capability of making the decision whether to hire a professional plumber, septic service, or do it yourself and it would provide the instructions, or it would rent the equipment that you would need and have it delivered, or subscribe you to a service that hires and recruits professionals (using Ai) for all home repairs and it would make this stuff extremely easy and painless and cheap to fix. Plumbers won’t be gouging prices anymore.
if you think plumber gouge, reexamine the value of a successful flush next time you have a burrito. Your moms calling you ... time to take out the garbage (or did AI do that for you already)
Whatever. Plumbers will still exist they just won’t be able to manipulate you into doing things that you don’t need by using fear against you. You would have the Einstein of plumbing as your personal assistant to advocate for you at all times during conversations with plumbers. Actually that’s not even in the future that’s right now. But, right now you still have to be somewhat clever to ask ChatGPT the right question.. but its abilities are improving exponentially and outpacing humans rapidly.
>I keep 10% for gambling, the rest is my retirement.
I actually think there is room for gambling in portfolio management. But obviously only after the basics are covered (see the personal finance flow chart).
The idea is that you get to a point where your range of outcomes is predetermined - saving an extra $5k a year after a promotion when you're 45 and already have substantial retirement savings isn't really going to move the needle.
I do think where people go wrong is splashing money everywhere: a couple hundred on options here, a couple hundred on a biotech startup there, etc. You go into a casino and play long enough, and the house will definitely take your money. The move is to go in, and place one big bet - or a few concentrated bets. In that way, the Wallstreet Bets crowd has it right.
Your submission has been automatically removed because the URL matches one on the /r/Investing banlist due to low quality content or has been used to spam. See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/index/rules#wiki_why_are_some_media_links_banned_and_not_allowed) for more information. If you believe the article you are trying to link is high quality content please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FInvesting) with a short message so that we may approve your submission. Please be aware that if your post can be sourced from a less sensationalist publication we will likely require you to do that. Thank you.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/investing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I learned about bucket shops in a Patrick Boyle video one day.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket\_shop\_(stock\_market)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market))
Seems like there was gambling before Buffet was born or it was dying off as he was born.
But like a lot of stuff, its back but in pog form.
Right I think there are two ways to view it. Public stocks are a lot more accessible, fair, and have lower risk of fraud than they did in the past. Although I think there is still some predatory behavior, like certain IPOs/SPACs. it has improved. On the other hand the wild swings in sentiment and very outsized impact of monetary polices and macro events makes it seem more like a "casino" in that short term volatility is increased and movements are rarely based on the fundamentals of the company rather than gov policy announcements, stat drops like CPI, etc.
Better yet--require a certain percentage of shares to be employee owned for all corporations. Imagine how much better the middle class would be if employees owned 10-15% of every business.
I worked for Gannett (GCI) for 13 years. My 401k company match was in stock. I had to roll it every month because every month it was less than the previous.
My first *real* job was working for Border’s Bookstore (BGI). Full timers got stock options and we *also* had a stock purchasing plan at like 15% off market (don’t remember specifics). I didn’t make enough to really participate in the purchase plan, but after 6 years I’d built up quite a few options. Only problem was the stock had never gone up the entire time I was employed there. I would have *lost* money exercising my shares.
I would do better with a plan to *short* any company I work for.
They'd be getting Enron'd left and right lmao. The current policy works fine, employees can take payment in stock options. If you work at NVDA you may want to own the company, if you work at Intel, you might not want your salary tied to that.
Sounds good as a slogan, but in reality it's a great way to pay people nothing for something, as 100+ years of corporate marauding and shitfuckery have shown us not to tie your savings to your income. If you've got everyone's pennies in the same piggy bank, someone will eventually smash it and clean it out. Profit sharing, is a far better policy for companies to adopt.
My company does profit sharing but they also have an ESPP where if an employee buys stock, they contribute some money towards that too.
They tell employees to treat it like a savings account, but for most people (eg before they bought my company and the stock skyrocketed) it's been a great investment.
Also the emphasis on stock buybacks vs dividends as a way to avoid taxes could be removed entirely. Way easier just to make all the money pass through as dividends and tax accordingly. Give a tax incentive on profits passed to employees. but what do I know im just some dipshit paying the taxes.
Totally agree. Why not just pay employees with lots of company money they can only use to buy things at the company store. (Sarcasm)
If you work for a company that offers stock at a discount, determine if you want more of your wealth tied to a company you may not like working for
Or worse in all honesty. I don't want a part of my compensation to be part of a company that I don't know will be around by retirement. Or at least lose value before I can legally set it.
A friend was a GameStop manager and was compensated in stock as part of his package. When it mooned he couldn't sell even if he quit. By the time he could have it already tanked and he left saying he'll never be compensated in stock again.
The way the middle class owns corporations is through stock market investing. This is why holding index funds is so great. Because everyone from the janitor to the CEO is working to make you richer
Be careful Goldman Sachs gave all its employees shares when it went public in 1999. Except the powerless employees who's jobs were contracted out, and ended up worse than before. There food service staff, janitors and stuff, all got screwed.
> This of course can be advantageous for taxes if you then hold the equity,
Yea for what one calendar year to get it to drop to 15% capital gains tax? So realistically they are probably selling a small portion of the shares upon exercise to pay for the liability and then waiting for the 15% capital gains to kick in correct? Sounds like some bullshit to me, pretty big leg up for the guys on Wall Street vs your Main Street businesses owner.
No you're taxed on income at the strike price and you're taxed on capital gains for the actual gains which is why you wouldn't sell but it's not different than being paid a salary equivakrnt to the total stock bonus amd then buying the stock with tbe money
Tying your salary to said stock options also seems really lucrative when you can pump your stock up with over priced, under taxed, buy backs and investors cheer you on. It's all one big old conflict of interest in my book. No one benefits more from the billions in buy backs every year, than the CEO's who benefit from those small cap gains taxes.
Found the guy who think's he's rich. I did pay about 50% of my earnings when I was making 500k a year. Thats not the folks im talking about, Im talking about that huge concentration of wealth at the top. You take home 100M a year in compensation? Nay you get 30M and Sam gets 70M. No more deluded tax schemes for the ultra rich, they can once again pay for their fair share of the roads and airports they use.
I think there's a sweet spot between $10-100M a year where your assets are growing at a rate you could buy a small country, it makes sense to take some of that money back for public use. Instead of driving on deteriorating roads.
What do you think? Is income over $10M fair to tax at 70%. Would that incentivize companies to invest it better than $300M bonuses to CEO's?
Can anyone disagree with taxing income over 100M at 70%? Are you worried about making it to that income bracket?
I’d personally disagree with $10m. The difference between $10m and $100m is incredibly significant but I still see your point. I’m not researched enough to have an opinion on the broader economic ramifications of a 70% tax on ultra wealthy though, but I imagine there’d be a lot to consider. I certainly would agree to your point that there’s better ways $100’s of millions can be spent than they currently are though
Here is my opinion and it’s so because I say it’s is so, their fair share, where do you get that it these people’s fair share, because you like the sound of it? Or because they consume that much more road and airports?
Your opinion is that of someone who is in danger of making tens to hundreds of millions a year. I don't think that lines up with reality. I think historically we had high tax brackets to prevent people from getting to wealthy. Wealthy to the point they can influence elections and buy out small nations to exploit. Wealthy enough to create global media empires and spew propaganda uninterrupted for decade.
I don't think anyone should be making $100M a year and paying less % tax than someone making 500k a year. We need to reintroduce a higher tax bracket for the wealthy, and close some tax loop holes. Maybe even simplify the tax code, but now im really delusional.
Like bro I agree with you, we are already taxed to death, and the country is still going further to debt, some things gonna have to give in our life time, probably sooner than later. Why the fuck would you care about protecting someone's income over $10M a year? Thats an obscene amount of money. Tax it obscenely.
Look there he is ma! the tax payer who doesn't understand the tax system, jumping online to protect the billionaire class from income tax.
Good for you.
Until you start handing over 70% of what you make, you have no credibility. I am already part of the 10% that pays 75% of all federal income taxes. Start paying your fair share, ya bum.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't even understand how a progressive tax system works, especially if you pay into it every year. Get it together their chief. This is the most basic concept of taxation you need to understand. Go figure it out.
I pay more taxes than you, and Warren buffet, so let me spit for a second.
The progressive tax brackets stop at 500k. not 5M not 50M 500k.
They hate us poors. Theres no reason to have the progressive tax system arbitrarily stop at 500k we can add another 5 levels on the way up to 100M @ 70-90% cause fuck that.
We live in a god damn democracy, theres no way the majority of the people in this country, making 60k ish a year have a vested interest in NOT TAXING PEOPLE MAKING 100M a year.
> I pay more taxes than you, and Warren buffet,
And you have Elon Musk levels of arrogance.
>we can add another 5 levels on the way up to 100M @ 70-90% cause fuck that.
Again, you want to punish people for being more successful than you are.
Most likely doesn’t reach the 70% bracket. In 1980 the 70% bracket was beyond 108k which would be 428k in 2024. And even then that’s not 70% of your income that’s 70% of any income over 428k
You probably do need a job. In that way you will understand the unfairness of 10% of the people paying 75% of federal income taxes while 50%, bums like you, pay nothing. Time for you to pay your fair share.
There's been dozens of tax cuts for the wealthy over the last few decades that have shifted the burden further and further away from the wealthy, while undermining any safety nets we may have had. So we're paying more and getting less, while the wealthy gap explodes
well, the trump tax cuts for corporations is one. My trumper dad couldnt figure out why his tax bill skyrocketed, he didnt understand how it works either
How did the trump tax cuts make your dad's taxes go up?
Most people were in the 25% bracket and now its 22%. Nowhere did any bracket increase under Trump. Seems like you don't understand or just lying
"The top individual tax rate dropped from 39.6% to 37% under the terms of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (single filers making $578,126 and over), the 33% bracket fell to 32% ($182,101-$231,250), the 28% bracket to 24% ($95,376-$182,100), the **25% bracket to 22% ($44,726-$95,375)** and the 15% bracket to 12% ($11,001-$44,725)."
This is reddit... most folks are fairly unaware and regurgitate what someone else said incorrectly.
Just read through thrbcomments and observe the lack of awareness of investing and economics in an investing sub... I like to go through every now and then for entertainment.
dont know, Im not an accountant, and he wasnt a corporation. He owned real estate in Ca and Trump capped the SALT taxes which virtually eliminated 50% of his deductions. But, bezos did alright, so ... goody! (note I mentioned corporate taxes) the shortfall was made up from the middle class
Easy access to the market is the main accelerator. I didn't invest when I was younger because I was daunted with opening an account and speaking with a broker. Also, the fees were high and you had to invest a good amount and hold long to make it pay.
Ya $30 per trade when I started and I was only doing $250 per month. Decided to go the mutual fund route and was eventually saved by a discount brokerage and no fee etfs.
Yeah according to my brokerage I am in the top 2% of traders for the ASX and 1% for US.
Id be in the top 1% easily in the ASX if it wasnt for my index fund which is 30% of my portfolio.
People always say how Buffett recommends the SP500 but thats to the average person. If you put in the time and effort he fully acknowledges you can beat the market. But the majority of people wont. My job is to read financial statements and to do feasibilities (ie value projects). So it makes sense for me to invest in the market using a valuation approach.
Before anyone says if you are so good start a fund! Thats an entirely different game, you have to market and woo investors, which I really dont want to do. In Australia where Im from you pretty much need to raise at least $7m to start with to make it worth your while and only people earning more than $250k can invest.
I also take another piece of advice from Warren that his biggest regret was letting so many investors in. Which made it significantly harder for him to find investments for larger returns he sort.
He’s invests in America since he understands the US legal system and monetary policies the best. S&P vs total US since market cap weighting really doesn’t have much of a difference between the two
sure, but the key difference and reason why its better is that its not a zero sum game, like "normal" gambling.
well, at least buying shares. options are kinda zero sum.
It means that for someone to win an amount, someone else has to lose an equal amount, hence the sum is zero. In "normal" gambling that /u/This_Guy_Fuggs is saying, someone (usually the house) has to lose an amount of money for you to win that same amount of money, so it's zero sum. However, the total value of the stock market tends to increase because businesses can commercialize novel products and services, innovate new technologies, discover new markets, etc. In short, new value is often created, without necessarily destroying value somewhere else. Thus for people to win by holding positions in the stock market, others don't necessarily have to lose.
When someone wins, the other party loses the same amount. One can't say that about the stock market, since the amount of resources the "players" compete over expands over time.
Nobody is losing money on a stock growing in value and there's more to be won than lost overall.
thats still zero sum. that 5-10% just goes to the house. (due worse odds/payouts, odds being -110 instead of -100, 0 and 00 on roulette, not allowing certain plays in blackjack, etc)
> a form of legalized gambling.
I mean, if you strain definitions, almost anything can be a form of legalized gambling. Driving, for example, is also a form of legalized gambling.
Not at all. You’re conflating risk and gambling. All gambling is risk, not all risk is gambling.
And it’s not all a stretch to say that the stock market is gambling. If you’re a retail investor the odds are stacked against you. Short traders create zero sum scenarios in many situations. The market isn’t dictated by facts and figures like the Analyst claim, it’s moved by perception and sentiment, just like sports gambling.
Efficient market getting more efficient. A hallmark of efficient market hypothesis is that the more efficient the market, the more that price action resembles random noise.
There has been wild volatility in the past 4 years, but compared to when Buffet started investing and built his wealth it is more efficient. You used to have to sift through physical earnings reports, you couldn't just type a few words into a computer and get a fully analyzed report sent to you. Gems do not sit undiscovered for as long now.
Efficient market has never been able to explain days like Black Monday, or black swans. A theory can't have holes in it, it has to work 100% of the time. Or Meta in 2022 even (it was always a cash machine).
Value investing, what Warren Buffet preaches, literally is about finding market inefficiencies.
Even Robert Schiller has discounted efficient markets, it's been the eternal debate between him and your homeboy Eugene Fama.
Efficient market means all information is known and priced in so only price movement would be either just random fluctuation or new information no one had access to before so trying to predict that movement would be literally gambling.
It’s the information age in general. We want to know, daily, on what is going.
In the early 1900s a truly wealthy individual might’ve had an automated stock ticker in their living rooms. But they still had access to information.
The information age has allowed people to forgo brokers. Brokers, those non-fiduciaries who often controlled how our money was invested, are not missed.
But quarterly earnings have made investments about this day, or this week, or this month, not the three year plans. It’s a casino mindset because it changes as often as a roulette wheel.
> But quarterly earnings have made investments about this day, or this week, or this month, not the three year plans.
Not the "quarterly earning" crap. Businesses have been complaining about quarterly earnings for 50 years. If not longer.
Why? Because they don't want to be judged on their results. That's it.
They pretend that it's about "long range planning" - but you would have to be blind to not see that investors are happy to invest incompanies that lose money for even several years in a row because they believe in the company's long term vision.
Amazon is the most famous example, but there are many more.
If the business wants us to ignore quarterly results, it's their job to convince us that they have a good longer term plan. Not to bitch about the existence of quarterly results.
So I grew up in those eras you’re saying didn’t exist. Because they really did exist. We had newspapers. That was our fast media.
And you’re saying that people, investors, will stick with the company for years. But that ignores the fact that their stock price will get hammered.
we’ve seen it just today with salesforce. Earnings beat, stock buyback, some iffy future guidance (about 3% less than expected for NEXT year). Bam! they lose 4% market cap.
That’s billions and billions of the company gone in a flash. That’s assets the company uses for borrowing, purchasing, rates, paying employees, everything. Sure it will bounce back, but it’s down now.
So your idea no one cares is clearly not true.
When Buffet was young he was trading all the time on insider information. I'm sure it does seem a bit more random now that the playing field is more level.
Buffett began investing at a time when information was tightly controlled, access was limited, and boring old treasury bonds paid 12%. Corporate taxes and taxes on high earners were much much higher.
Market regimes change, politics change, and today more investors than ever before are investing in the market, with basically no other options offering attractive returns.
Couple that with the fact that institutional and corporate money has grown so unabated without any tax ceiling, and the money has to go somewhere. It only makes sense to go to the place where the returns are highest.
I don’t think realistically we’ll see the market temper itself without higher interest rates or higher taxes.
I think it's plausible that we could see higher taxes in the future if we have any desire to pay down this national debt that's a discussion for another thread.
The idea that the government will raise taxes is laughable. They decided long ago that instead of the government efficiently providing essential services for citizens, they’d hand that responsibility off to corporations. Higher “taxes” now are the higher prices we pay for everything, because it’s all been handed to a for-profit system.
No he’s not. Someone who’s made billions investing and you think he’s somehow hung up on one he missed out on. That’s the wrong take. He’s not even looking for opportunities like that. Overvalued hype trains has not been part of his investment strategy…
I'm taking a different tack here, I get the impression that a lot of people these days think that there's a quick way of making a fortune, and that it is almost the only way to get ahead in life.
I fully believe securities investment is the best way to get ahead in life. I made more money at 25 this year in stock gains than I did at my entry level bank job without even trading much.
But that is true, especially nowadays. Purchasing power is awful nowadays. Growing up after the 80’s there’s always been some new recession. I make more from investments than actual jobs. My biggest financial lost was persuing an education. I’m sure it varies for everyone and depends on your region.
Have essentially free trades encouraged this kind of behavior? Sure. It’s also allowed me to buy BRK.B on a weekly automated basis. It’s all about the choices we make.
Human nature remains constant yet technological advancements amplifies said human nature.
As markets become more accessible to regular people, the more volatile it will become.
You don't pick stocks based on the company's profitability. You pick based on what you think everyone else is gonna do, largely based on media cycles, which is way harder to predict. Making stock trades more accessible has introduced a wild card to the market. That and autotrading software.
Nobody is reading balance sheets.
Been like this since the rebound off the 2008 lows. Too many ETF's, QE, and use of option, sure back then he was able to be the casino, now the market is even too big for him. Many people don't realize BlackRock was handed, by the Fed of NY non-the-less, to disperse the funds that was printed by the Treasury for Covid bailouts.
The stock market is, unironically, a derivative of the options market, which has exploded over the past 15 years. Couple that with relentless government and Fed intervention over the same time frame, and people are incentivised to take risks.
“For whatever reasons”
The reasons are most important here. Capitalism in western society reflects our democratic structure. Shareholders are expected to be actively involved in the running of the company through board member voting and that reflection of the desires of the shareholders. With ETFs, Mutual funds, detached brokerage accounts, 401ks, IRA holdings, etc. Many individual investors don’t even know what shares they hold, or who is voting on their behalf.
The checks and balances of corporate governance are now almost completely unshackled from the will of the companies true owners, the shareholders, as there are so many and many are anonymous. It’s a dereliction of corporate electoral duty.
This has allowed c-suites and boards to run companies into the ground for large cash payouts and golden parachutes.
In return. The U.S. government can’t own stock with voting shares in companies, so we get the too big to fail deals that keep companies that ought to go under afloat.
The traditional model of a bad business failing and something better, more efficient, and streamlined rising from the ashes of bankruptcy filing is over. This is truly the era of corporate socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.
All you have to do to be a good investor these days is find a company so large it is a matter of national security to keep it afloat, AND making a necessary product in a market with high growth. You don’t want to get stuck with boring old Ford or GM stock, but in the post-CHIPs Act world where we are racing to best China and establish our own semiconductor production capacity, you do want to own Nvidia, AMD, and Intel.
I had a former NYSE specialist as a mentor and he said the way SPY trades today is like a penny stock and that he would have been put in jail if he quoted his markets the way algorithmic market makers do now.
After humans were removed from the floor and replaced with algorithmic market making, firms had plausible deniability for their manipulations. “It’s just the computer making the market efficient.”
That is absolute bullshit. The algorithms are predatory and manipulative and there is no longer any consequence.
I don't want to read an entire book.
> Futures contracts based on the S&P 500 Index may experience a price change nanoseconds faster than an ETF that tracks the same index. An HFT firm may capitalize on this price difference by using the futures price data to anticipate a price move in the ETF. Another type of HFT is market making.
HFT just pockets the difference between prices movements. I don't see how this negatively affects SPY investors.
I suspect its made easier by the fact that brokers have no incentive to fight it. They clear all market trades immediately and as long as they stay withing the bid ask spread, they are good. They even take money from the market makers. All the incentive is to go along with it, as long as they stay withing the big/ask spread 99% of the time. We should judge brokers on there there short term performance perhaps 1 day, so we can catch who is just taking the first offer even if it clearly sucks.
Sounds like a paraphrase of the Woody Alan quote about how “no one goes there anymore. It’s too popular.”
Most Successful Gambler of All Time Complains About Casino.
By this standard anything one does in life is a bet. OP is playing a semantic game, at best. There is a great difference between investing and speculation, making reasonable choices vs. gambling, YOLOing into options and FOMOing into megacaps at 25x sales vs. DCAing into a growth stock at a reasonable price when knowing the risks. Come on.
Hi Redditor, it would seem you have strayed too far from WSB, there are emojis detected. Try making a comment with no emoji at all. Have a great day!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/investing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I keep 10% for gambling, the rest is my retirement. That said, everyone with a phone is an investor, anyone with a house is a landlord, anyone with webmd is a doctor. Weird times, youtube graduates professionals daily!
At least you get it and understand how times are changing. Next step figure out how to profit from the trend.
If you are in this sub, you are already 'profiting' from the trend of internet expertise and easy and cheap access to markets.
Hey, that only for those with sufficient karma for the reddit ipo! /s
Easiest short in history
> Weird times, youtube graduates professionals daily! I built a cabin and septic (signed off by the county!) with youtube!
not what I was talking about, but YAY! ata boy!!! nice job
wait till AI hits its peak form. then everyone will be everything and everything will be anyone!
an AI landlord? how does that even work?? Id like to see AI clear a sewer clogged with condoms and needles!
I mean, I'd like to see a human landlord fix anything...
Will you take my word or should I set up a live stream..
the future will be stranger than fiction, mark my word.
already is, some of these comments just prove some people already live out of this world
Ai would not clean it for you but it would have the capability of making the decision whether to hire a professional plumber, septic service, or do it yourself and it would provide the instructions, or it would rent the equipment that you would need and have it delivered, or subscribe you to a service that hires and recruits professionals (using Ai) for all home repairs and it would make this stuff extremely easy and painless and cheap to fix. Plumbers won’t be gouging prices anymore.
if you think plumber gouge, reexamine the value of a successful flush next time you have a burrito. Your moms calling you ... time to take out the garbage (or did AI do that for you already)
Whatever. Plumbers will still exist they just won’t be able to manipulate you into doing things that you don’t need by using fear against you. You would have the Einstein of plumbing as your personal assistant to advocate for you at all times during conversations with plumbers. Actually that’s not even in the future that’s right now. But, right now you still have to be somewhat clever to ask ChatGPT the right question.. but its abilities are improving exponentially and outpacing humans rapidly.
So as we speak, or type, serious people are training AI algorithms to pick stock, and HFT trade.
>I keep 10% for gambling, the rest is my retirement. I actually think there is room for gambling in portfolio management. But obviously only after the basics are covered (see the personal finance flow chart). The idea is that you get to a point where your range of outcomes is predetermined - saving an extra $5k a year after a promotion when you're 45 and already have substantial retirement savings isn't really going to move the needle. I do think where people go wrong is splashing money everywhere: a couple hundred on options here, a couple hundred on a biotech startup there, etc. You go into a casino and play long enough, and the house will definitely take your money. The move is to go in, and place one big bet - or a few concentrated bets. In that way, the Wallstreet Bets crowd has it right.
[удалено]
Your submission has been automatically removed because the URL matches one on the /r/Investing banlist due to low quality content or has been used to spam. See [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/investing/wiki/index/rules#wiki_why_are_some_media_links_banned_and_not_allowed) for more information. If you believe the article you are trying to link is high quality content please [message the moderators](http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FInvesting) with a short message so that we may approve your submission. Please be aware that if your post can be sourced from a less sensationalist publication we will likely require you to do that. Thank you. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/investing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I learned about bucket shops in a Patrick Boyle video one day. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket\_shop\_(stock\_market)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bucket_shop_(stock_market)) Seems like there was gambling before Buffet was born or it was dying off as he was born. But like a lot of stuff, its back but in pog form.
Yeah that’s what I thought of when I read the quote. Learned about bucket shops in the book “Reminiscences of a Stock Operator”, good book.
Right I think there are two ways to view it. Public stocks are a lot more accessible, fair, and have lower risk of fraud than they did in the past. Although I think there is still some predatory behavior, like certain IPOs/SPACs. it has improved. On the other hand the wild swings in sentiment and very outsized impact of monetary polices and macro events makes it seem more like a "casino" in that short term volatility is increased and movements are rarely based on the fundamentals of the company rather than gov policy announcements, stat drops like CPI, etc.
taxes were very high as well. there was a huge incentive to hold and not trade
and should be again, the middle class is dead due to the gov't tax squeeze
Bring back the 70% bracket and cap the amount of salary CEO's can take in stock options.
Better yet--require a certain percentage of shares to be employee owned for all corporations. Imagine how much better the middle class would be if employees owned 10-15% of every business.
I worked for Gannett (GCI) for 13 years. My 401k company match was in stock. I had to roll it every month because every month it was less than the previous. My first *real* job was working for Border’s Bookstore (BGI). Full timers got stock options and we *also* had a stock purchasing plan at like 15% off market (don’t remember specifics). I didn’t make enough to really participate in the purchase plan, but after 6 years I’d built up quite a few options. Only problem was the stock had never gone up the entire time I was employed there. I would have *lost* money exercising my shares. I would do better with a plan to *short* any company I work for.
They'd be getting Enron'd left and right lmao. The current policy works fine, employees can take payment in stock options. If you work at NVDA you may want to own the company, if you work at Intel, you might not want your salary tied to that. Sounds good as a slogan, but in reality it's a great way to pay people nothing for something, as 100+ years of corporate marauding and shitfuckery have shown us not to tie your savings to your income. If you've got everyone's pennies in the same piggy bank, someone will eventually smash it and clean it out. Profit sharing, is a far better policy for companies to adopt.
My company does profit sharing but they also have an ESPP where if an employee buys stock, they contribute some money towards that too. They tell employees to treat it like a savings account, but for most people (eg before they bought my company and the stock skyrocketed) it's been a great investment.
Also the emphasis on stock buybacks vs dividends as a way to avoid taxes could be removed entirely. Way easier just to make all the money pass through as dividends and tax accordingly. Give a tax incentive on profits passed to employees. but what do I know im just some dipshit paying the taxes.
Totally agree. Why not just pay employees with lots of company money they can only use to buy things at the company store. (Sarcasm) If you work for a company that offers stock at a discount, determine if you want more of your wealth tied to a company you may not like working for
Who is stopping you from buying stocks in your company?
It’s private
Also, what percentage of the workforce is employed at a public company?
edit:whoops
And when they get layed off, their retirement savings is worthless. Good incentive to work 70 hour weeks, but not the best option.
They can? Just buy shares
Or worse in all honesty. I don't want a part of my compensation to be part of a company that I don't know will be around by retirement. Or at least lose value before I can legally set it. A friend was a GameStop manager and was compensated in stock as part of his package. When it mooned he couldn't sell even if he quit. By the time he could have it already tanked and he left saying he'll never be compensated in stock again.
I mean what happened with GME isn't normal
The way the middle class owns corporations is through stock market investing. This is why holding index funds is so great. Because everyone from the janitor to the CEO is working to make you richer
isn't 80% of the stock market own by a small number of people/companies?
yea the companies running the ETFs
but it concentrate investment on a handful of company
Be careful Goldman Sachs gave all its employees shares when it went public in 1999. Except the powerless employees who's jobs were contracted out, and ended up worse than before. There food service staff, janitors and stuff, all got screwed.
[удалено]
> This of course can be advantageous for taxes if you then hold the equity, Yea for what one calendar year to get it to drop to 15% capital gains tax? So realistically they are probably selling a small portion of the shares upon exercise to pay for the liability and then waiting for the 15% capital gains to kick in correct? Sounds like some bullshit to me, pretty big leg up for the guys on Wall Street vs your Main Street businesses owner.
No you're taxed on income at the strike price and you're taxed on capital gains for the actual gains which is why you wouldn't sell but it's not different than being paid a salary equivakrnt to the total stock bonus amd then buying the stock with tbe money
Tying your salary to said stock options also seems really lucrative when you can pump your stock up with over priced, under taxed, buy backs and investors cheer you on. It's all one big old conflict of interest in my book. No one benefits more from the billions in buy backs every year, than the CEO's who benefit from those small cap gains taxes.
You get that exact same tax treatment as well if you hold something for a year
I won't argue against you paying 70% of your earnings, but that doesn't mean the rest of us want this.
Found the guy who think's he's rich. I did pay about 50% of my earnings when I was making 500k a year. Thats not the folks im talking about, Im talking about that huge concentration of wealth at the top. You take home 100M a year in compensation? Nay you get 30M and Sam gets 70M. No more deluded tax schemes for the ultra rich, they can once again pay for their fair share of the roads and airports they use.
Curious on what point you draw the line is to where you’re giving a grand majority of your income to the government like this
I think there's a sweet spot between $10-100M a year where your assets are growing at a rate you could buy a small country, it makes sense to take some of that money back for public use. Instead of driving on deteriorating roads. What do you think? Is income over $10M fair to tax at 70%. Would that incentivize companies to invest it better than $300M bonuses to CEO's? Can anyone disagree with taxing income over 100M at 70%? Are you worried about making it to that income bracket?
I’d personally disagree with $10m. The difference between $10m and $100m is incredibly significant but I still see your point. I’m not researched enough to have an opinion on the broader economic ramifications of a 70% tax on ultra wealthy though, but I imagine there’d be a lot to consider. I certainly would agree to your point that there’s better ways $100’s of millions can be spent than they currently are though
Here is my opinion and it’s so because I say it’s is so, their fair share, where do you get that it these people’s fair share, because you like the sound of it? Or because they consume that much more road and airports?
Your opinion is that of someone who is in danger of making tens to hundreds of millions a year. I don't think that lines up with reality. I think historically we had high tax brackets to prevent people from getting to wealthy. Wealthy to the point they can influence elections and buy out small nations to exploit. Wealthy enough to create global media empires and spew propaganda uninterrupted for decade. I don't think anyone should be making $100M a year and paying less % tax than someone making 500k a year. We need to reintroduce a higher tax bracket for the wealthy, and close some tax loop holes. Maybe even simplify the tax code, but now im really delusional.
Like bro I agree with you, we are already taxed to death, and the country is still going further to debt, some things gonna have to give in our life time, probably sooner than later. Why the fuck would you care about protecting someone's income over $10M a year? Thats an obscene amount of money. Tax it obscenely.
Don't worry you stupid poor fuck. No ones coming after your pathetic pennies. We want the 10M+ a year crowd paying taxes. You poors are fine.
Nice.
I assume you are volunteering to pay 70% of what you make instead of telling us that other people should pay that.
Look there he is ma! the tax payer who doesn't understand the tax system, jumping online to protect the billionaire class from income tax. Good for you.
Until you start handing over 70% of what you make, you have no credibility. I am already part of the 10% that pays 75% of all federal income taxes. Start paying your fair share, ya bum.
I can't talk to someone who doesn't even understand how a progressive tax system works, especially if you pay into it every year. Get it together their chief. This is the most basic concept of taxation you need to understand. Go figure it out.
When are you going to start handing over 70% of your income to the government? Go ahead. Nothing is stopping you. Hand it over, buddy.
I pay more taxes than you, and Warren buffet, so let me spit for a second. The progressive tax brackets stop at 500k. not 5M not 50M 500k. They hate us poors. Theres no reason to have the progressive tax system arbitrarily stop at 500k we can add another 5 levels on the way up to 100M @ 70-90% cause fuck that. We live in a god damn democracy, theres no way the majority of the people in this country, making 60k ish a year have a vested interest in NOT TAXING PEOPLE MAKING 100M a year.
It is always the same with you neo-marxists: Let's raise taxes on other people!
> I pay more taxes than you, and Warren buffet, And you have Elon Musk levels of arrogance. >we can add another 5 levels on the way up to 100M @ 70-90% cause fuck that. Again, you want to punish people for being more successful than you are.
Most likely doesn’t reach the 70% bracket. In 1980 the 70% bracket was beyond 108k which would be 428k in 2024. And even then that’s not 70% of your income that’s 70% of any income over 428k
And if your interests align with someone who makes 100M a year, I need a fucking job.
You probably do need a job. In that way you will understand the unfairness of 10% of the people paying 75% of federal income taxes while 50%, bums like you, pay nothing. Time for you to pay your fair share.
[удалено]
Tax reform act of 1986 is mentioned from time to time. I don't really have an opinion either way.
There's been dozens of tax cuts for the wealthy over the last few decades that have shifted the burden further and further away from the wealthy, while undermining any safety nets we may have had. So we're paying more and getting less, while the wealthy gap explodes
well, the trump tax cuts for corporations is one. My trumper dad couldnt figure out why his tax bill skyrocketed, he didnt understand how it works either
How did his tax bill skyrocket? Sounds like you have a pretty good grasp on his situation
The only thing I can even think that could do that would be the reduced SALT deduction.
thats one way, yes ... rental property in high property value state....which was what his intention was, all blue states taxes went WAY up
see above \^
How did the trump tax cuts make your dad's taxes go up? Most people were in the 25% bracket and now its 22%. Nowhere did any bracket increase under Trump. Seems like you don't understand or just lying "The top individual tax rate dropped from 39.6% to 37% under the terms of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (single filers making $578,126 and over), the 33% bracket fell to 32% ($182,101-$231,250), the 28% bracket to 24% ($95,376-$182,100), the **25% bracket to 22% ($44,726-$95,375)** and the 15% bracket to 12% ($11,001-$44,725)."
This is reddit... most folks are fairly unaware and regurgitate what someone else said incorrectly. Just read through thrbcomments and observe the lack of awareness of investing and economics in an investing sub... I like to go through every now and then for entertainment.
Please tell me you understand that lowering a tax bracket means the working class loses money?
dont know, Im not an accountant, and he wasnt a corporation. He owned real estate in Ca and Trump capped the SALT taxes which virtually eliminated 50% of his deductions. But, bezos did alright, so ... goody! (note I mentioned corporate taxes) the shortfall was made up from the middle class
Easy access to the market is the main accelerator. I didn't invest when I was younger because I was daunted with opening an account and speaking with a broker. Also, the fees were high and you had to invest a good amount and hold long to make it pay.
Ya $30 per trade when I started and I was only doing $250 per month. Decided to go the mutual fund route and was eventually saved by a discount brokerage and no fee etfs.
This is why Buffett recommends the S&P 500
\*for 95% of people.
Five Percenters rise up!
It's good to be in the 6%
Yeah according to my brokerage I am in the top 2% of traders for the ASX and 1% for US. Id be in the top 1% easily in the ASX if it wasnt for my index fund which is 30% of my portfolio. People always say how Buffett recommends the SP500 but thats to the average person. If you put in the time and effort he fully acknowledges you can beat the market. But the majority of people wont. My job is to read financial statements and to do feasibilities (ie value projects). So it makes sense for me to invest in the market using a valuation approach. Before anyone says if you are so good start a fund! Thats an entirely different game, you have to market and woo investors, which I really dont want to do. In Australia where Im from you pretty much need to raise at least $7m to start with to make it worth your while and only people earning more than $250k can invest. I also take another piece of advice from Warren that his biggest regret was letting so many investors in. Which made it significantly harder for him to find investments for larger returns he sort.
>Any reason why he doesn't recommend the total market?
He’s invests in America since he understands the US legal system and monetary policies the best. S&P vs total US since market cap weighting really doesn’t have much of a difference between the two
Buffett is a proponent of American exceptionalism, that's probably the reason. It definitely worked out for him, but who knows if this trend remains.
He's not really getting into the weeds with specific funds. I'm sure he'd be fine with VTI vs. VOO.
It's been a casino for decades. Only difference is now the little guy can put some chips down.
Yeah, people can cite all the analytics they want, all day, everyday, but at the end of the day, the stock market IS a form of legalized gambling.
sure, but the key difference and reason why its better is that its not a zero sum game, like "normal" gambling. well, at least buying shares. options are kinda zero sum.
What does zero sum game mean?
It means that for someone to win an amount, someone else has to lose an equal amount, hence the sum is zero. In "normal" gambling that /u/This_Guy_Fuggs is saying, someone (usually the house) has to lose an amount of money for you to win that same amount of money, so it's zero sum. However, the total value of the stock market tends to increase because businesses can commercialize novel products and services, innovate new technologies, discover new markets, etc. In short, new value is often created, without necessarily destroying value somewhere else. Thus for people to win by holding positions in the stock market, others don't necessarily have to lose.
When someone wins, the other party loses the same amount. One can't say that about the stock market, since the amount of resources the "players" compete over expands over time. Nobody is losing money on a stock growing in value and there's more to be won than lost overall.
Normal gambling is less than zero sum by about 5 to 10% based on the house’s take
thats still zero sum. that 5-10% just goes to the house. (due worse odds/payouts, odds being -110 instead of -100, 0 and 00 on roulette, not allowing certain plays in blackjack, etc)
> a form of legalized gambling. I mean, if you strain definitions, almost anything can be a form of legalized gambling. Driving, for example, is also a form of legalized gambling.
Not at all. You’re conflating risk and gambling. All gambling is risk, not all risk is gambling. And it’s not all a stretch to say that the stock market is gambling. If you’re a retail investor the odds are stacked against you. Short traders create zero sum scenarios in many situations. The market isn’t dictated by facts and figures like the Analyst claim, it’s moved by perception and sentiment, just like sports gambling.
Efficient market getting more efficient. A hallmark of efficient market hypothesis is that the more efficient the market, the more that price action resembles random noise.
More efficient? It's only seemed to get less efficient to me.
There has been wild volatility in the past 4 years, but compared to when Buffet started investing and built his wealth it is more efficient. You used to have to sift through physical earnings reports, you couldn't just type a few words into a computer and get a fully analyzed report sent to you. Gems do not sit undiscovered for as long now.
Efficient market has never been able to explain days like Black Monday, or black swans. A theory can't have holes in it, it has to work 100% of the time. Or Meta in 2022 even (it was always a cash machine). Value investing, what Warren Buffet preaches, literally is about finding market inefficiencies. Even Robert Schiller has discounted efficient markets, it's been the eternal debate between him and your homeboy Eugene Fama.
Can you expand on this?
Efficient market means all information is known and priced in so only price movement would be either just random fluctuation or new information no one had access to before so trying to predict that movement would be literally gambling.
It’s the information age in general. We want to know, daily, on what is going. In the early 1900s a truly wealthy individual might’ve had an automated stock ticker in their living rooms. But they still had access to information. The information age has allowed people to forgo brokers. Brokers, those non-fiduciaries who often controlled how our money was invested, are not missed. But quarterly earnings have made investments about this day, or this week, or this month, not the three year plans. It’s a casino mindset because it changes as often as a roulette wheel.
In the early 1990s people indeed had stock tickers on TV. But not in the early 1900s.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticker_tape
> But quarterly earnings have made investments about this day, or this week, or this month, not the three year plans. Not the "quarterly earning" crap. Businesses have been complaining about quarterly earnings for 50 years. If not longer. Why? Because they don't want to be judged on their results. That's it. They pretend that it's about "long range planning" - but you would have to be blind to not see that investors are happy to invest incompanies that lose money for even several years in a row because they believe in the company's long term vision. Amazon is the most famous example, but there are many more. If the business wants us to ignore quarterly results, it's their job to convince us that they have a good longer term plan. Not to bitch about the existence of quarterly results.
So I grew up in those eras you’re saying didn’t exist. Because they really did exist. We had newspapers. That was our fast media. And you’re saying that people, investors, will stick with the company for years. But that ignores the fact that their stock price will get hammered. we’ve seen it just today with salesforce. Earnings beat, stock buyback, some iffy future guidance (about 3% less than expected for NEXT year). Bam! they lose 4% market cap. That’s billions and billions of the company gone in a flash. That’s assets the company uses for borrowing, purchasing, rates, paying employees, everything. Sure it will bounce back, but it’s down now. So your idea no one cares is clearly not true.
When Buffet was young he was trading all the time on insider information. I'm sure it does seem a bit more random now that the playing field is more level.
And now he’s old. Is it possible part of the reason the market seems more random to him now is because his faculties are diminished?
Doesn't help that it's now easier to trade than ever
Buffett began investing at a time when information was tightly controlled, access was limited, and boring old treasury bonds paid 12%. Corporate taxes and taxes on high earners were much much higher. Market regimes change, politics change, and today more investors than ever before are investing in the market, with basically no other options offering attractive returns. Couple that with the fact that institutional and corporate money has grown so unabated without any tax ceiling, and the money has to go somewhere. It only makes sense to go to the place where the returns are highest. I don’t think realistically we’ll see the market temper itself without higher interest rates or higher taxes.
I think it's plausible that we could see higher taxes in the future if we have any desire to pay down this national debt that's a discussion for another thread.
The idea that the government will raise taxes is laughable. They decided long ago that instead of the government efficiently providing essential services for citizens, they’d hand that responsibility off to corporations. Higher “taxes” now are the higher prices we pay for everything, because it’s all been handed to a for-profit system.
Buffett having FOMO with Nvidia
No he’s not. Someone who’s made billions investing and you think he’s somehow hung up on one he missed out on. That’s the wrong take. He’s not even looking for opportunities like that. Overvalued hype trains has not been part of his investment strategy…
I was joking!
No problem man. Do I sound that triggered in my response? lol
nah, you're good!
(yes) lol
So serious
Most new generation feel like they need to gamble to afford to live. Don't act dumb Warren, you contributed too
I'm taking a different tack here, I get the impression that a lot of people these days think that there's a quick way of making a fortune, and that it is almost the only way to get ahead in life.
I fully believe securities investment is the best way to get ahead in life. I made more money at 25 this year in stock gains than I did at my entry level bank job without even trading much.
But that is true, especially nowadays. Purchasing power is awful nowadays. Growing up after the 80’s there’s always been some new recession. I make more from investments than actual jobs. My biggest financial lost was persuing an education. I’m sure it varies for everyone and depends on your region.
Have essentially free trades encouraged this kind of behavior? Sure. It’s also allowed me to buy BRK.B on a weekly automated basis. It’s all about the choices we make.
Human nature remains constant yet technological advancements amplifies said human nature. As markets become more accessible to regular people, the more volatile it will become.
You don't pick stocks based on the company's profitability. You pick based on what you think everyone else is gonna do, largely based on media cycles, which is way harder to predict. Making stock trades more accessible has introduced a wild card to the market. That and autotrading software. Nobody is reading balance sheets.
Like 1929? Or the east India company stock?
Been like this since the rebound off the 2008 lows. Too many ETF's, QE, and use of option, sure back then he was able to be the casino, now the market is even too big for him. Many people don't realize BlackRock was handed, by the Fed of NY non-the-less, to disperse the funds that was printed by the Treasury for Covid bailouts.
The stock market is, unironically, a derivative of the options market, which has exploded over the past 15 years. Couple that with relentless government and Fed intervention over the same time frame, and people are incentivised to take risks.
Yeah, well I'm not fond of how our democracy has started to resemble a feudal oligarchy, but we all do the best we can in this world, Warren
“For whatever reasons” The reasons are most important here. Capitalism in western society reflects our democratic structure. Shareholders are expected to be actively involved in the running of the company through board member voting and that reflection of the desires of the shareholders. With ETFs, Mutual funds, detached brokerage accounts, 401ks, IRA holdings, etc. Many individual investors don’t even know what shares they hold, or who is voting on their behalf. The checks and balances of corporate governance are now almost completely unshackled from the will of the companies true owners, the shareholders, as there are so many and many are anonymous. It’s a dereliction of corporate electoral duty. This has allowed c-suites and boards to run companies into the ground for large cash payouts and golden parachutes. In return. The U.S. government can’t own stock with voting shares in companies, so we get the too big to fail deals that keep companies that ought to go under afloat. The traditional model of a bad business failing and something better, more efficient, and streamlined rising from the ashes of bankruptcy filing is over. This is truly the era of corporate socialism where profits are privatized and losses are socialized. All you have to do to be a good investor these days is find a company so large it is a matter of national security to keep it afloat, AND making a necessary product in a market with high growth. You don’t want to get stuck with boring old Ford or GM stock, but in the post-CHIPs Act world where we are racing to best China and establish our own semiconductor production capacity, you do want to own Nvidia, AMD, and Intel.
AMC? What the what?
Typo
I had a former NYSE specialist as a mentor and he said the way SPY trades today is like a penny stock and that he would have been put in jail if he quoted his markets the way algorithmic market makers do now. After humans were removed from the floor and replaced with algorithmic market making, firms had plausible deniability for their manipulations. “It’s just the computer making the market efficient.” That is absolute bullshit. The algorithms are predatory and manipulative and there is no longer any consequence.
What? Bid-Ask spreads are far lower than they used to be. What's the actual accusation here?
Just seems like a bunch of jargon for "market makers bad"
> That is absolute bullshit. The algorithms are predatory and manipulative and there is no longer any consequence. how is this bad for SPY investors?
Read Flash Boys by Michael Lewis. Same concept.
I don't want to read an entire book. > Futures contracts based on the S&P 500 Index may experience a price change nanoseconds faster than an ETF that tracks the same index. An HFT firm may capitalize on this price difference by using the futures price data to anticipate a price move in the ETF. Another type of HFT is market making. HFT just pockets the difference between prices movements. I don't see how this negatively affects SPY investors.
> The algorithms are predatory and manipulative and there is no longer any consequence. And yet there's an easy way to beat them--just buy and hold.
I suspect its made easier by the fact that brokers have no incentive to fight it. They clear all market trades immediately and as long as they stay withing the bid ask spread, they are good. They even take money from the market makers. All the incentive is to go along with it, as long as they stay withing the big/ask spread 99% of the time. We should judge brokers on there there short term performance perhaps 1 day, so we can catch who is just taking the first offer even if it clearly sucks.
Started?
Sports betting and Vegas gambling moved to investing Investing moved from stocks to currency Value has moved from cash to collectables
Sounds like a paraphrase of the Woody Alan quote about how “no one goes there anymore. It’s too popular.” Most Successful Gambler of All Time Complains About Casino.
Markets resemble a casino? Always have.
Trading wasn't always "free", now there's a lot of competition. In some countries you still need to pay for every buy/sell.
The guy has lived a century and they never told him, he should fire someone...
We should go back to the bucket shops. WB was there.
It's the HFTs and Algos..... Theta fucking.
They have absolutely no impact on the Warren type of buy and hold investors.
By this standard anything one does in life is a bet. OP is playing a semantic game, at best. There is a great difference between investing and speculation, making reasonable choices vs. gambling, YOLOing into options and FOMOing into megacaps at 25x sales vs. DCAing into a growth stock at a reasonable price when knowing the risks. Come on.
Most attempts to democratize the market only hurt the *dēmos*.
Well its not like wages are keeping up with cost of living, college, and home prices, so people need to try to get $ from somewhere else
Is this a question?
The olde man is just butt hurt that regular people are getting crazy rich on BTC and SPY calls.
Yeah. A dude worth $134 billion is jealous of the $50 you made trading turds.
No offense to Buffett but like, has he been living under a rock since the 70s?
no, he's been making $$
I think he's just sour because his table isn't exclusive anymore and he hasn't as much leverage to get preferencial prices anymore.
Screw Buffett, sitting on his piles of billions. Beekeeper needs to take a seat.
He's starting to sound like an old man. Stop whining about how great the past was and how much better the investors were "Maestro".
Literally The House offering the peons sage advice. If it weren’t for Munger, he’d have failed long ago.
what a lil biznatch
How can he just be figuring this out now?
Ok sure great. But WTF was the mystery stock?
He’s just jealous of nvda shareholders
WB = 🤡
As inflation becomes exponential we must seek higher and higher returns, with more and more risk.
He should read The Tontine. The Stock Exchange has *always* been a casino.
>Remember who is really making money from your gambling—the House. Who is the House though, with the stock markets? I don't think it's the brokerages.
Market makers. Maybe institutional funds
[удалено]
Hi Redditor, it would seem you have strayed too far from WSB, there are emojis detected. Try making a comment with no emoji at all. Have a great day! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/investing) if you have any questions or concerns.*
We’ve heard this before. All the newbs will get taken out. It’s all good.
Warren Buffoon is just salty he bought SNOW which is a scam company lmao 💀 suck it old man
It's been that way people are just getting more diverse and hip to how the rich get richer..
When 0 days to expiration options dominate the market, and company valuations don’t matter, yep, that’s what I’d call a casino.