Margin-trading volatility and stock price crash risk ...

@binance: #Binance Margin Trading Increases Maximum Leverage to 5x and Enables Leverage Adjustment Function https://t.co/IIbZkoHyZM https://t.co/1ixnob4E8z

submitted by rulesforrebels to BinanceTrading [link] [comments]

Three major trading brokers Admiral Markets, Dukascopy, and IG changed leverage for margin trading on the same day. https://www.financebrokerage.com/brokers-adjust-leverages-cope-covid-19-volatility/

Three major trading brokers Admiral Markets, Dukascopy, and IG changed leverage for margin trading on the same day. https://www.financebrokerage.com/brokers-adjust-leverages-cope-covid-19-volatility/ submitted by FinanceBrokerage to u/FinanceBrokerage [link] [comments]

Looking to setup a new trade on ETHUSD I adjusted the margin.. it's altered the margin on my open order.. and won't return to x10 only Cross or >x10

Is this affecting the order I currently have open - i.e. I now have it set to Cross the only option other than x25 x35 x50 which I CAN select..
Thanks, excuse if this has been asked I could not find a ref.
submitted by interzonez to BitMEX [link] [comments]

Post margin with multiple currencies and coins simultaneously and easily adjust your margin on the fly allowing for unparalleled flexibility with your capital Receive 50% off all trading fees @ btse.com/mcc #MCC2019 #BTSE #CRYPTO #GotBTSE? #BTC #FUTURES

Post margin with multiple currencies and coins simultaneously and easily adjust your margin on the fly allowing for unparalleled flexibility with your capital Receive 50% off all trading fees @ btse.com/mcc #MCC2019 #BTSE #CRYPTO #GotBTSE? #BTC #FUTURES submitted by btsecom to btsecom [link] [comments]

The TSLA 2K Play - A Trade Retrospective on Taking a $.21 Credit to Make $8.34 More

There are different ways to play TSLA to $2000 this past week. Here’s my thought process on how I approached trading the move up, without paying a debit (but uses margin).

The Entry

On Monday, August 17, besides TOS being absolutely atrocious, TSLA was lurching higher, and at around 11am PST or so, when it broke out to new highs, my thought was that there’s probably going to be a short squeeze again that takes us to $2000, the target that basically everyone was looking at. So, I looked to put on a play that captured something to that $2000 price level by Friday, Aug 21 expiration.
I began by looking at the 1980/2000 long call vertical. At the time, that spread cost $2.28 debit. So if I were to just put on that vertical, I would be paying $2.28 to make potentially $17.72. But I don’t really like paying large debits (large is anything above $.25 per spread), especially for these types of short-term directional bets.
So I looked for other ways to reduce the debit. Alongside the purchase of the long call vertical, I also sold the 1650/1625 put vertical, for $2.05 credit. The reason for placing the short strike of the put vertical at 1650 is that it was under Monday’s low, and the reason for the long strike at 1625 was that it made the put vertical wide enough to collect a decent credit. Now, the total debit on the trade became $2.28 (debit of 1980/2000 call vertical) - $2.05 (credit from 1650/1625 put vertical), or $.23.
$.23 was pretty cheap, and honestly I could’ve stopped there. But as I was thinking about the trade, I realized I didn’t really like how the short put verticals actually added more downside risk to the trade. So I was thinking that as early as I could, I would buy back that short put vertical once it drained in value, as TSLA continued running up with the momentum it had. And given the huge upside momentum that day, I thought that TSLA would probably gap and continue higher the following day, or at the very least just move sideways, which would drain the value of the short put vertical and allow me to buy it back for a low debit.
However, if I bought back the put vertical before it fully drained to 0, then my overall debit on the trade wouldn’t just cost $.23 anymore - it would cost more. So in the spirit of keeping the debit as low as possible, I needed to actually collect more credit from somewhere else, if I really didn’t want to pay for this trade. So, I decided that I was going to sell a call vertical above the 1980/2000 long call vertical. And a safe enough distance above the long call vertical, would be up at 2200, which gives me 200 points of runway above 2000. So I sold to open the 2200/2250 call vertical, for $1.27 credit.
I felt safe about selling the 2200/2250 call vertical, because for it to really be at risk, TSLA would first need to move above 2000, the psychological level, and by the time it starts to get near 2200, the 1980/2000 call vertical will be 20 points deep ITM, so I have 20 points of coverage. Of course there’s still 30 points of risk (given that the 2200/2250 short call vertical is 50 points wide), but time is on my side. Assuming that TSLA even gets near 2200 on the last day, given how little time left there is, that short call vertical would probably be trading for maybe $10 or so, and the 1980/2000 long call vertical in front of that short call vertical, would be deep ITM and worth $20, so I can just close the entire spread at a profit anyway.
So after selling that 2200/2250 call vertical, the trade went from $.23 debit to $1.04 credit (because $.23 - $1.27 = -$1.04, or $1.04 credit). Now I’m getting paid to play the breakout to TSLA 2K.

The Adjustment

On Tuesday, TSLA gapped up higher, and right off the bat, the short put verticals basically drained from $2.05 to $.83. I closed that out to remove any downside risk, so that if TSLA decides to reverse and tank, or hang out sideways and never make it to 2000, no harm no foul, I have the upside play on for a credit. Recall that $.23 (the debit of the initial entry) - $1.27 (the credit collected from the sale of the 2200/2250 call vertical) + $.83 (the debit of buying back the short put vertical) is -$0.21, which is a $.21 credit, after adjustments. And now, I just have to manage TSLA to the upside.
The result of this adjustment left me with a 4 legged spread where I’m long the 1980/2000 call vertical and short the 2200/2250 call vertical (this 4-legged spread is also called a condor, specifically a Call condor).
Throughout Tuesday and all of Wednesday, TSLA just moved sideways, and I was fine with that. Others who purchased naked long calls far OOM were worried about the premium drain, but I was fine knowing that I got paid to play the move to 2K, whether it happened or not. It completely did not matter if TSLA moved sideways or tanked, because it wouldn’t negatively impact the equity curve. Another reason why I actually liked TSLA hanging sideways is that it gives TSLA less of a chance to surge higher and run over that 2200/2250 short call vertical with the time left before expiry.

The Exit

Thursday was where the magic happened (for pretty much everyone). As we know at around 7:45 am PST, TSLA rallied from around $1900 to almost $2000, and the Call condor really started to expand in value. When TSLA was at $1990, the call condor spread expanded to $8.34.
Recall that the cost on this trade (after the closing the short put vertical) put my cost at a $.21 credit. Now, I can sell this condor out and pocket another $8.34. That’s pretty sweet. Getting paid $.21 to make another $8.34.
(At this moment, I noted what the legs were trading for. The long vertical of the condor was trading for $9.27, and the short vertical was actually trading for $.93. Recall that when I entered the short vertical on Monday, I actually collected a $1.27 credit on it. Now, even after the 150 point move up in TSLA, even after volatility expansion, that short vertical was still worth $.34 LESS - that’s the power of theta decay).
So at that point, I pretty much just closed out the entire position. I was pretty happy with essentially getting paid $.21 to make another $8.34 (in hindsight, I could’ve milked another $11.66 per spread, but that’s besides the point).

FAQ

TL;DR - I collected a $.21 credit to make an additional $8.34, netting $8.55 profit per spread.
submitted by OptionsBrewers to options [link] [comments]

[OC] Other "Coach of the Year" ballots may have more legitimacy or accuracy, but this is the only one that ranks the candidates from # 1 all the way to # 30

The NBA league office announced that all awards will be officially based on play PRIOR to the bubble. With that, the cases are locked, the campaigns are closed, and the voting will begin.
Rather than give a traditional "Coach of the Year" ballot that ranks from 1-3, I thought it may be an interesting (and indulgent) exercise to go all the way from 1-30.
Some caveats:
--- We're ranking coaches based on their performance THIS SEASON only. Obviously, Billy Donovan isn't as good of a coach as Gregg Popovich. However, if you were only ranking their "Coach of the Year" candidacy for this particular season, Donovan has a better campaign argument.
--- Since I don't watch every game for every team, I'm going to have to resort to a bigger picture analysis. If you're a diehard fan of your team who watches every game, you'd have a lot better insight into a coach's game management and situational adjustments. Let us know how you feel about that -- is your coach underrated? Overrated?
--- Personally, I'm going to rank coaches that started the year (as opposed to interim replacements.) That’s important to mention off the bat, because it applies right away —
the complete COACH OF THE YEAR Ballot
(30) David Fizdale, N.Y. Knicks: 4-18 record
David Fizdale became a head coach with so much fanfare and media approval that his fall from grace has been more dramatic than Icarus. This year, he got fired 22 games into his second season on the job. Amazingly, this isn't the first time that's happened to him. Back in Memphis, he also got fired 19 games into his second season on the job.
We don't know exactly what goes on behind the scenes, but it can't be good. Do you know how bad things must be going to get fired 20 games into a season? That's like being halfway through sex with someone and saying: ya know, I think I need to leave... Something seriously FUNKY must have going on in there. Raging herpes. Oozing puss. Rotten vagina.
I don't want to call David Fizdale the rotten vagina of coaches, but his tenure with the Knicks did smell pretty funky. The team (right or wrong) signed a bunch of veterans with the intention to strive for the 8th seed, but they flopped. Ultimately, the real goal was giving their young prospects an environment to grow, but that didn't happen either. Dennis Smith and Kevin Knox are somehow getting worse and worse.
The Knicks did a full house cleaning, but it may be some time before the smell is out of the building.
(29) John Beilein, Cleveland: 14-40 record
If you think it's difficult to get fired 20 games into a season, imagine getting fired halfway through your first year on the job right after you've signed a lucrative FIVE-YEAR contract.
With John Beilein, we know more clearly what went wrong. In hindsight, it was a mistake to think that the 67-year-old Beilein could make the transition to the NBA after a lifetime in college. He simply didn't mesh with the "thugs/slugs" in the NBA, causing the Cavs to pull the plug before a full-out mutiny.
Given this disaster, how can we rank Beilein higher than Fizdale? We're splitting hairs, but there are a few more positives. Beilein's Cavs had a better record than Fizdale's Knicks despite lower expectations (based on oveunder.) Beilein also "resigned," meaning the decision to part was at least somewhat mutual. He realized the error of his ways, and handed things over to an experienced assistant in J.B. Bickerstaff. As embarrassing and costly as the Beilein era may have been, it's hard to see much long-term damage for the franchise.
(28) Scottie Brooks, Washington: 24-40 record
With John Wall injured, the Washington Wizards would have a hard time competing for the playoffs. Still, Scottie Brooks didn't help matters. The team ranked dead last in defensive rating by a good margin, indicating some serious issues with the system and the effort level. Even Bradley Beal looked disengaged on that end, ranking as one of the worst defenders in the league.
More than anything, Brooks' crime is a slow adjustment to that problem. Despite their defensive issues, he continued to start league LVP Isaiah Thomas for 37 games. Brooks seems like a likable guy, but his slow trigger has defined and tarnished his coaching career so far.
(27) Jim Boylen, Chicago: 22-43 record
Even his defenders would say Jim Boylen is about as cuddly as a cactus and charming as an eel. His players' support for him ranges behind tepid indifference and downright annoyance. Still, sometimes it takes a Grinch to get young players locked in on defense. To his credit, Boylen did improve the Bulls on that end. Their defensive rating leapt up from 25th to 14th this season.
But at the end of the day, the overall results simply aren't here. Despite offensive-minded youngsters like Zach LaVine and Lauri Markkanen (marginalized this year), the Bulls ranked 27th in offensive rating. Largely as a result, they were on pace to win 27.7 games, well short of their 33.5 oveunder. Being "likable" and being "successful" don't go hand in hand, but NBA coaches need to check 1 of those 2 boxes to survive. So far, Boylen has gone 0 for 2.
(26) Lloyd Pierce, Atlanta: 20-47 record
The Atlanta Hawks hired Lloyd Pierce on the basis of his defensive reputation, but we've seen little evidence of that on the court so far. In his first year on the job, the Hawks ranked 27th in defensive rating. After a full year of training and development in his system, they climbed all the way up to... 28th. Through it all, franchise player Trae Young looks completely lost, grading as a worse defender than our LVP Isaiah Thomas.
There's not much evidence that Pierce is a BAD coach, but there's not much evidence that he's going to be able to cure what ails them either. He'll probably get another season or two on the job from the patient franchise, but he needs to make some improvements eventually. Young is an albatross on defense, sure, but one little guard shouldn't be enough to sink you like this. (For evidence, consider Boston ranked 4th in defense during lil' Isaiah Thomas' near-MVP season.)
(25) Kenny Atkinson, Brooklyn: 28-34 record
Our third coach who got fired midseason actually ranks higher than others. On the court, it's hard to find much fault in Kenny Atkinson's performance. Despite having two max players on the shelf, he still had his Nets in the playoff race. They weren't any great shakes, but they were competitive.
However, we have to acknowledge that the job of an NBA coach goes beyond offensive and defensive ratings. It's also about managing a locker room, and managing egos. The Nets had built a good culture before this, but that culture presumably got rocked by the arrival of their new stars. It's up to Atkinson to bridge that gap, and instead it swallowed him whole.
(24) Ryan Saunders, Minnesota: 19-45 record
The Minnesota Timberwolves will fall well short of their preseason expectations (35.5 oveunder), and will continue to waste Karl-Anthony Towns' historically good offensive talent. It's still unclear if young pup Ryan Saunders should have been handed this job at such a young age; he hasn't proven that he deserves it yet.
If there's any consolation, it's that Saunders appears in lock step with executive Gersson Rosas in terms of preferred playing style. Rosas came over from Houston with a desire to create more of a Morey-Ball approach. Saunders is doing his part, cranking up the gas to keep the team 3rd in pace, 3rd in three-point attempts, 3rd in free-throw attempts. The results don't match up yet, but at least they're on the same page. For now. Time will tell whether a new ownership group will come in and rip up that playbook.
(23) Gregg Popovich, San Antonio: 27-36 record
I imagine this low ranking will be among the least popular picks on the board. After all, Gregg Popovich is a legend. Even at this age, he's still a top 10 coach overall.
That said, legends aren't bullet proof or immune from criticism. Popovich needs to take some blame for an underwhelming year in San Antonio. The unconventional mid-range offense actually works better than you'd expect (11th in rating), but the problems come on the other end. The Spurs have struggled mightily on D this year, ranking all the way down at 25th. The rotations have been an issue there, with too much Bryn Forbes and Marco Bellinelli and probably too little Jakob Poeltl.
It still may feel weird to rank Pop in the bottom half for his performance this year, but I'd ask you: if this team was coached by a random dude named "Joe Schmo," where would you put him?
(22) Brett Brown, Philadelphia: 39-26 record
This hasn't been a banner year for Gregg Popovich, and it hasn't been a banner year for his protege Brett Brown either. The Sixers made some head-scratching decisions this offseason. They grabbed the biggest pieces they could find, and jammed them together without much regard for "fit." Still, there's a lot of talent here. There's enough talent to justify their 54.5 preseason oveunder, and there's enough talent to compete with everyone in the East (outside of Milwaukee, perhaps.)
Instead, the Sixers stumbled along on a 49-win pace, on track for the 6th seed. If this was a normal year without the COVID-bubble, then that would be a much bigger problem. The team is starting to make some adjustments and add more shooters like Shake Milton into the lineup, but it may be too little, too late.
(21) Dwane Casey, Detroit: 20-46 record
It's hard to judge veteran Dwane Casey either way based on the returns this season so far. The Pistons will fall well short of preseason expectations (37.5 oveunder), but there are obvious reasons why. Star Blake Griffin got injured again, and pseudo-star Andre Drummond got traded away.
To Dwane Casey's credit, he's tried to make a meal with the leftovers in the cupboard. Derrick Rose continues to be a fan favorite (if not an analytical darling), and PF Christian Wood appears to be a breakout success. Overall, there's no real identity or grand plan in place here, but perhaps that will change if the lottery balls go their way.
(20) Terry Stotts, Portland: 29-37 record
Terry Stotts and Dwane Casey may have a few beers after the season and commiserate together about their challenges this year. Like Casey, Stotts has been overwhelmed by injuries -- to Jusuf Nurkic -- to Zach Collins -- to Rodney Hood -- to Trevor Ariza -- etc. All this from a team that didn't have much depth to start.
Stotts and the Blazers drew a stroke of good luck with this bubble format. They'll be in the 9th spot right now, and well within range to sneak into the playoffs. If it wasn't for that, Stotts may be drawing more fire. The team's defense has slipped to 27th overall, which is hard to excuse no matter what roster problems you have. Stotts is a good and respected coach in general, but there's a chance his message may have run stale here. If they bomb out in the bubble, I wouldn't be surprised if they look for a fresh voice like assistant Nate Tibbetts for next year.
(19) Luke Walton, Sacramento: 28-36 record
Luke Walton and the Kings got off to a disastrous start given their expectations. It's never a good sign when your fanbase grumbles, he's no Dave Joerger.
But after weathering the storm, there are some signs of hope on the horizon. A bold decision to bring Buddy Hield off the bench has worked out, with the team rattling off a 13-7 stretch before the shutdown. They had a slim chance to rally and make the playoffs if we played a full schedule, and they'll have some chance to do the same in the bubble. Overall, a disappointing start for Walton, but not a complete disaster.
(18) James Borrego, Charlotte: 23-42 record
It's very difficult to judge James Borrego, because it's difficult to judge exactly what was going on in the twisted minds of the Charlotte front office. On paper, Borrego did an admirable job to take a bad roster and lead them to a decent mark of 23 wins. In fact, their oveunder coming into this year was only 23.5 over a full 82 games (lowest in the NBA). P.J. Washington's had a nice rookie year, and PG Devonte' Graham has been better than expected (although he's cooled off.)
At the same time, is this what the Hornets wanted? A "not THAT bad" team? As a result, they'll end up in the 8th slot prior to the NBA Draft lottery, in that dreaded middle ground. In a sense, Borrego did too good of a job squeezing out a few extra wins. I'm inclined to give him props for that because the franchise must have given him a mandate to compete (why else sign Terry Rozier to a big contract?). As a franchise, the team gets poor grades, but as a coach, it's hard to fault him here.
(17) Alvin Gentry, New Orleans: 28-36 record
James Borrego hasn't had much talent to work with in Charlotte. Down in Nawlins, Alvin Gentry may have too much. Earlier in the season, he appeared overwhelmed by all the pieces on the roster and struggled to develop a consistent rotation for the team. If it wasn't for Brandon Ingram's breakout, the Pelicans could have been in too deep of a whole to dig their way out.
Of course, some stocky rookie waddled in, and looked pretty darn good. Zion Williamson gives this team an entirely new ceiling, and has been worked into the lineup in a smart, prudent fashion. For that, Gentry deserves credit. He also deserves credit for having a consistent philosophy. His team is going to run, run, run like Forrest Gump. They've finished in the top 3 in pace each season for the past three years. It hasn't worked like a charm overall, as Gentry will be on track to finish with a losing record for the 4th time in his 5 years, but perhaps they'll finally hit their stride in the bubble.
(16) Steve Clifford, Orlando: 30-35 record
By this point, what you see is what you get with coach Steve Clifford. We've come to expect a top 10 defense (# 9 this year), but a record around the .500 mark. In his defense, the offensive talent is limited, and Jon Isaac (arguably their best overall player) missed significant time. Still, for Clifford to jump in these yearly rankings, we need to see more of an offensive system in place.
(15) Steve Kerr, Golden State: 15-50 record
WTF? Why is the coach with the worst record in the league doing all the way up here?
Allow me to explain. Being a head coach is like being a jockey. You need to know when to trot, when to stay with the pack, and when to crack the whip and turn up the gas down the stretch. And, sadly, you need to know when your horse is lame and needs to be shot and put out of its misery.
Steve Kerr and the Golden State Warriors realized they had a wobbly, broken-down horse early on, and put the breaks on sooner than later. As a result, they'll be locked into the # 1 spot among their NBA lottery odds. In theory that doesn't matter much because the top three teams (GS, CLE, MIN) all have the same odds at # 1 overall. However, if they slide down, Golden State will remain ahead of the others; the worst pick they can get is # 5. That type of patience is rare and admirable for a veteran coach like Kerr; after years of being in "win now" mode, he's showing a long-term vision as well.
(14) Nate McMillan, Indiana: 39-26 record
The Indiana Pacers continued to chug along with another playoff appearance despite Victor Oladipo missing more time. Coach Nate McMillan (and assistant Dan Burke) deserve a lot of credit for their strength defensively; they finished in the top 10 in defense for the second season in a row. Their scheme works well, and covers for some limited players along the way.
If there's any criticism of McMillan, it'd be on the offensive end. The Pacers found a little something with Domatas Sabonis as a playmaker (5.0 assists per game), but it's still not enough to make the team formidable offensively. Their "MoreyBall" rating is the worst in the league -- they finished last in both free-throw attempts and three-point attempts. Some teams can overcome that playing style, but the Pacers haven't been one of them; their offensive rating is # 18 for the second straight year. Given that need, I'd be curious to see if the team could develop Doug McDermott into a Bojan Bogdanovic - type player for them -- he hit 44.5% of his threes, but got only 20.0 minutes a game.
(13) Monty Williams, Phoenix: 26-39 record
This ranking may seem too high for the coach of a 26-39 team, but we need to consider some context here. The Phoenix Suns had finished with an average record of 20-62 over the last two seasons, so this 33-win pace is a marked step up for them. They've also gotten into the top 20 in offensive and defensive rating. That may sound like mediocrity to you, but again it's a big jump up from the previous year (28th offensive, 29th defense.)
Better still, we're seeing some strong player development from this club. Deandre Ayton still looked strong post PED suspension, and Mikal Bridges played well in the second half of the year. After all the mess and goat stink in Phoenix, there are actual good vibes here, and Monty Williams deserves credit for that.
(12) Quin Snyder, Utah: 41-23 record
Quin Snyder is an awesome coach, only penalized here by his own lofty expectations. Coming into the season, a few pundits though the Jazz may have what it took to be the top seed in the West, but they're going to fall short of that and even fall short of their preseason oveunder (of 53.5 wins). Of course, it didn't help that Mike Conley forgot how to shoot for the few month or two of the season. Still, Snyder's bunch continues to be well coached on both ends, with ball movement on offense and discipline on defense. They'd have been an interesting playoff darkhorse if not for the bad corona-vibes and the unfortunate Bojan Bogdanovic injury.
(11) Mike Malone, Denver: 43-22 record
Denver's Mike Malone is in the same boat as Quin Snyder; he did a good job, but he's expected to do a good job. I'm going to rank him slightly higher because the Nuggets were slightly ahead, and were also set to slightly exceed their preseason win total (on track to win 54, 1 game better than their 53.0 estimate.)
Going forward, it'll be interesting to see if Malone can take his offense up a notch. They play at a very slow pace (29th) and don't shoot many threes (26th). To actually win the title, their shooters will need to step it up. If Gary Harris won't break out of his prolonged slump, then it's imperative that Michael Porter Jr. fulfills his potential and provides that third scoring punch.
(10) Doc Rivers, L.A. Clippers: 44-20 record
Stars and shooting aren't a problem for the Los Angeles Clippers. It's fair to say they're the most talented roster in the entire NBA. Given that, is their 44-20 record a disappointment? Eh. Maybe. But I'd counter that it doesn't really matter. Doc Rivers' primary mission this regular season was to make it to the playoffs healthy, and the team appears on track to do just that.
If there's any criticism here (of a team with a top 5 offense and defense) it's that their best players may not have gotten enough reps together. Do the new kids on the block Kawhi Leonard and Paul George fit with the old guard in Lou Williams and Montrezl Harrell? What's the best starting lineup? Best closing lineup? There are still some unanswered questions here that need to be addressed in a hurry if they're going to fulfill their title aspirations in the bubble.
(9) Taylor Jenkins, Memphis: 32-33 record
Personally, I expected the Memphis Grizzlies to have the worst in the Western Conference, so it's downright shocking that they're in the 8th spot at the moment. The NBA may be trying to steal that playoff berth away from them, but that won't change the great job that rookie coach Taylor Jenkins has done this year.
Are the Grizzlies actually this good? Probably not. Their advanced stats are worse than their record, and Jaren Jackson Jr. hasn't taken the expected leap on defense yet. Still, wins are wins, and a coach shouldn't be penalized for collecting more than he should.
(8) Mike D'Antoni, Houston: 40-24 record
Based on the simple matter of wins versus preseason expectations (and an oveunder of 54.0), the Houston Rockets have been slightly underwhelming this year. Still, veteran Mike D'Antoni deserves a lot of credit for remaking the team on the fly. Changing from Chris Paul to Russell Westbrook may not be a huge difference in quality, but it's a huge difference in playing style. As a result, the Rockets leapt up from the 26th fastest pace last year all the way up to 4th this season. They'll looking like a proper D'Antoni and Morey team right now.
In fact, they've taken that bold experiment up another notch this year by ditching Clint Capela and emulating Rick Moranis. So far, so good. These Smallball Rockets still have some lingering question marks about their defense and their rebounding, but they're extremely dangerous right now nonetheless. It's hard to imagine too many older coaches understanding and embracing this like D'Antoni has.
(7) Brad Stevens, Boston: 43-21 record
Brad Stevens has always been a media darling, and he's justifying that reputation this year. The Celtics lost Kyrie Irving and Al Horford, but are still top 5 in offense and top 5 in defense. Life without Kyrie has gone swimmingly, opening up some air for young stars Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown to breathe; they're both in the running for Most Improved Player.
As with Mike D'Antoni, Stevens also deserves credit for working with a limited hand at center. But rather than force the issue and overplay some stiffs, he's understood that the team just may be better off with 6'8" Daniel Theis manning the fort instead.
(6) Frank Vogel, L.A. Lakers: 49-14 record
It's never a good sign when you sign a new contract with a team, and are immediately placed among the favorites for "First Coach Fired" in Vegas. Frank Vogel walked that tightrope this season, with plenty of spectators expecting him to fail and fall to his demise.
Instead, Vogel has kept his head down, and kept his focus, and helped this Lakers team grab the # 1 seed out West. Obviously it's an easier task when you have LeBron James and Anthony Davis, but this isn't a loaded roster otherwise. Moreover, there are a lot of moving parts and new pieces to work in. The fact that Vogel has this largely-old team ranked # 3 in defensive rating is a true testament to his success this year.
(5) Mike Budenholzer, Milwaukee: 53-12 record
Milwaukee's Giannis Antetokounmpo is on track to win his second consecutive MVP award. While we tend to think the media likes new "narratives," but we've seen repeat winners before. Since 2000, Tim Duncan repeated as MVP, Steve Nash repeated as MVP, LeBron James repeated as MVP (on two separate occasions), and Steph Curry repeated as MVP as well.
Coaches don't get the same luxury. In fact, since the award was created in 1962, the Coach of the Year winner has NEVER repeated the following season. You win once, you get to the back of the line. That tendency has really hurt Mike Budenholzer's candidacy this year. On paper, he should absolutely be in the running. The Bucks are once again # 1 in defense, # 1 in overall rating, # 1 in W-L record. They're on a better pace than last year's team, despite losing Malcolm Brogdon over the summer. If Giannis can repeat for the same feat twice, why shouldn't Budenholzer be allowed to do the same?
(4) Rick Carlisle, Dallas: 40-27 record
Everyone expected the Milwaukee Bucks to be dominant, but no one expected the Dallas Mavericks to be this good, this early. They've jumped the line and arrived in the playoffs earlier than schedule. They're only 1 win away from beating their preseason oveunder of 40.5 despite all the missed games.
Like Mike Budenholzer, Rick Carlisle has benefited in that endeavor from a transcendent player in Luka Doncic. At the same time, this Mavs' machine has been rolling with and without Doncic. They rank # 1 in offensive efficiency this year, and depending on whether you want to factor in pace and league trends or not, they may have one of the best offenses we've ever seen from a statistical standpoint. It's quite an achievement from a coach who cut his stripes as a defensive specialist, and indicates the type of attitude that coaches need to adapt and evolve over time.
(3) Erik Spoelstra, Miami: 41-24 record
The Miami Heat pulled a free agency coup by signing Jimmy Butler away from Philadelphia. Still, it's not like people expected that to vault them to the top of the East. Butler was a good player, but a difficult one to manage. He blended into the crowd as well as a skinhead at a Bar Mitzvah. Overall, adding Butler only boosted the team's preseason oveunder win total to a modest 43.5.
Turns out, Butler fit in better with the Heat than anyone expected, on and off the court. Butler hasn't shot well from the field, but his attacking and playmaking helped open up the offense (6th in the league) and propelled the team to a 51.7-win pace. He's fit in like a glove in terms of their tough-dude culture as well.
Erik Spoelstra should get huge props for developing that culture and that system. But more than anything, he deserves credit for their player development system. Sure, Jimmy Butler is a star, and Bam Adebayo had star talent. At the same time, no one had ever heard of players like Kendrick Nunn and Duncan Robinson at this time last year. These are complete randos who will make a combined $3M this season -- just half of Cristiano Felicio's salary. Having a coach who can grow talent like that in his backyard is a huge advantage for any franchise.
(2) Billy Donovan, Oklahoma City: 41-24 record
After Oklahoma City blew it up this summer by trading Russell Westbrook and Paul George, coach Billy Donovan felt like a dead man walking. Instead, Donovan and those fireproof zombie hordes in OKC sieged to a 41-24 record. How good is that? Hell, it's an even better winning percentage than the team had last year with Westbrook and George (in a career year.)
Given all this surprising success, Donovan would be a fair winner of this award. He's managed to take in a bunch of new bodies and form a cohesive team. He's even had success playing three point guards together (CP3, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, and Dennis Schroder.)
If you want to nitpick his candidacy, you could point out that the hodgepodge roster has a lot of talent scattered throughout. Chris Paul had become underrated, and Danilo Gallinari has always been underrated as well. The team's low preseason oveunder total (32.5) was largely based on the uncertainty about further trades. Everyone knew that this team had the talent to be competitive if they stayed together. Still, no one expected them to be this good.
(1) Nick Nurse, Toronto: 46-18 record
Last season, Nick Nurse finally got his first chance as an NBA head coach. He ended up having as good of a rookie year as anyone since Henry Rowengartner. Nurse coached circles around some of the best in the business en route to a championship season.
Amazingly, he may have been even more impressive this year. Without Kawhi Leonard and Danny Green, the Toronto Raptors held steady and didn't miss much of a beat. In fact, they're on pace to win 58.9 games, over a dozen more than their preseason oveunder of 46.5.
Technically, Nurse still has limited experience as an NBA head coach, but he's already proven to be one of the masters. If we were to judge based on the results of this (semi-)season only, he'd be my personal "Coach of the Year."
submitted by ZandrickEllison to nba [link] [comments]

The dollar standard and how the Fed itself created the perfect setup for a stock market crash

Disclaimer: This is neither financial nor trading advice and everyone should trade based on their own risk tolerance. Please leverage yourself accordingly. When you're done, ask yourself: "Am I jacked to the tits?". If the answer is "yes", you're good to go.
We're probably experiencing the wildest markets in our lifetime. After doing some research and listening to opinions by several people, I wanted to share my own view on what happened in the market and what could happen in the future. There's no guarantee that the future plays out as I describe it or otherwise I'd become very rich.
If you just want tickers and strikes...I don't know if this is going to help you. But anyways, scroll way down to the end. My current position is TLT 171c 8/21, opened on Friday 7/31 when TLT was at 170.50.
This is a post trying to describe what it means that we've entered the "dollar standard" decades ago after leaving the gold standard. Furthermore I'll try to explain how the "dollar standard" is the biggest reason behind the 2008 and 2020 financial crisis, stock market crashes and how the Coronavirus pandemic was probably the best catalyst for the global dollar system to blow up.

Tackling the Dollar problem

Throughout the month of July we've seen the "death of the Dollar". At least that's what WSB thinks. It's easy to think that especially since it gets reiterated in most media outlets. I will take the contrarian view. This is a short-term "downturn" in the Dollar and very soon the Dollar will rise a lot against the Euro - supported by the Federal Reserve itself.US dollar Index (DXY)If you zoom out to the 3Y chart you'll see what everyone is being hysterical about. The dollar is dying! It was that low in 2018! This is the end! The Fed has done too much money printing! Zimbabwe and Weimar are coming to the US.
There is more to it though. The DXY is dominated by two currency rates and the most important one by far is EURUSD.EURUSD makes up 57.6% of the DXY
And we've seen EURUSD rise from 1.14 to 1.18 since July 21st, 2020. Why that date? On that date the European Commission (basically the "government" of the EU) announced that there was an agreement for the historical rescue package for the EU. That showed the markets that the EU seems to be strong and resilient, it seemed to be united (we're not really united, trust me as an European) and therefore there are more chances in the EU, the Euro and more chances taking risks in the EU.Meanwhile the US continued to struggle with the Coronavirus and some states like California went back to restricting public life. The US economy looked weaker and therefore the Euro rose a lot against the USD.
From a technical point of view the DXY failed to break the 97.5 resistance in June three times - DXY bulls became exhausted and sellers gained control resulting in a pretty big selloff in the DXY.

Why the DXY is pretty useless

Considering that EURUSD is the dominant force in the DXY I have to say it's pretty useless as a measurement of the US dollar. Why? Well, the economy is a global economy. Global trade is not dominated by trade between the EU and the USA. There are a lot of big exporting nations besides Germany, many of them in Asia. We know about China, Japan, South Korea etc. Depending on the business sector there are a lot of big exporters in so-called "emerging markets". For example, Brazil and India are two of the biggest exporters of beef.
Now, what does that mean? It means that we need to look at the US dollar from a broader perspective. Thankfully, the Fed itself provides a more accurate Dollar index. It's called the "Trade Weighted U.S. Dollar Index: Broad, Goods and Services".
When you look at that index you will see that it didn't really collapse like the DXY. In fact, it still is as high as it was on March 10, 2020! You know, only two weeks before the stock market bottomed out. How can that be explained?

Global trade, emerging markets and global dollar shortage

Emerging markets are found in countries which have been shifting away from their traditional way of living towards being an industrial nation. Of course, Americans and most of the Europeans don't know how life was 300 years ago.China already completed that transition. Countries like Brazil and India are on its way. The MSCI Emerging Market Index lists 26 countries. Even South Korea is included.
However there is a big problem for Emerging Markets: the Coronavirus and US Imports.The good thing about import and export data is that you can't fake it. Those numbers speak the truth. You can see that imports into the US haven't recovered to pre-Corona levels yet. It will be interesting to see the July data coming out on August 5th.Also you can look at exports from Emerging Market economies. Let's take South Korean exports YoY. You can see that South Korean exports are still heavily depressed compared to a year ago. Global trade hasn't really recovered.For July the data still has to be updated that's why you see a "0.0%" change right now.Less US imports mean less US dollars going into foreign countries including Emerging Markets.Those currency pairs are pretty unimpressed by the rising Euro. Let's look at a few examples. Use the 1Y chart to see what I mean.
Indian Rupee to USDBrazilian Real to USDSouth Korean Won to USD
What do you see if you look at the 1Y chart of those currency pairs? There's no recovery to pre-COVID levels. And this is pretty bad for the global financial system. Why? According to the Bank of International Settlements there is $12.6 trillion of dollar-denominated debt outside of the United States. Now the Coronavirus comes into play where economies around the world are struggling to go back to their previous levels while the currencies of Emerging Markets continue to be WEAK against the US dollar.
This is very bad. We've already seen the IMF receiving requests for emergency loans from 80 countries on March 23th. What are we going to see? We know Argentina has defaulted on their debt more than once and make jokes about it. But what happens if we see 5 Argentinas? 10? 20? Even 80?
Add to that that global travel is still depressed, especially for US citizens going anywhere. US citizens traveling to other countries is also a situation in which the precious US dollars would enter Emerging Market economies. But it's not happening right now and it won't happen unless we actually get a miracle treatment or the virus simply disappears.
This is where the treasury market comes into play. But before that, let's quickly look at what QE (rising Fed balance sheet) does to the USD.
Take a look at the Trade-Weighted US dollar Index. Look at it at max timeframe - you'll see what happened in 2008. The dollar went up (shocker).Now let's look at the Fed balance sheet at max timeframe. You will see: as soon as the Fed starts the QE engine, the USD goes UP, not down! September 2008 (Fed first buys MBS), March 2009, March 2020. Is it just a coincidence? No, as I'll explain below. They're correlated and probably even in causation.Oh and in all of those scenarios the stock market crashed...compared to February 2020, the Fed balance sheet grew by ONE TRILLION until March 25th, but the stock market had just finished crashing...can you please prove to me that QE makes stock prices go up? I think I've just proven the opposite correlation.

Bonds, bills, Gold and "inflation"

People laugh at bond bulls or at people buying bonds due to the dropping yields. "Haha you're stupid you're buying an asset which matures in 10 years and yields 5.3% STONKS go up way more!".Let me stop you right there.
Why do you buy stocks? Will you hold those stocks until you die so that you regain your initial investment through dividends? No. You buy them because you expect them to go up based on fundamental analysis, news like earnings or other things. Then you sell them when you see your price target reached. The assets appreciated.Why do you buy options? You don't want to hold them until expiration unless they're -90% (what happens most of the time in WSB). You wait until the underlying asset does what you expect it does and then you sell the options to collect the premium. Again, the assets appreciated.
It's the exact same thing with treasury securities. The people who've been buying bonds for the past years or even decades didn't want to wait until they mature. Those people want to sell the bonds as they appreciate. Bond prices have an inverse relationship with their yields which is logical when you think about it. Someone who desperately wants and needs the bonds for various reasons will accept to pay a higher price (supply and demand, ya know) and therefore accept a lower yield.
By the way, both JP Morgan and Goldmans Sachs posted an unexpected profit this quarter, why? They made a killing trading bonds.
US treasury securities are the most liquid asset in the world and they're also the safest asset you can hold. After all, if the US default on their debt you know that the world is doomed. So if US treasuries become worthless anything else has already become worthless.
Now why is there so much demand for the safest and most liquid asset in the world? That demand isn't new but it's caused by the situation the global economy is in. Trade and travel are down and probably won't recover anytime soon, emerging markets are struggling both with the virus and their dollar-denominated debt and central banks around the world struggle to find solutions for the problems in the financial markets.
How do we now that the markets aren't trusting central banks? Well, bonds tell us that and actually Gold tells us the same!
TLT chartGold spot price chart
TLT is an ETF which reflects the price of US treasuries with 20 or more years left until maturity. Basically the inverse of the 30 year treasury yield.
As you can see from the 5Y chart bonds haven't been doing much from 2016 to mid-2019. Then the repo crisis of September 2019took place and TLT actually rallied in August 2019 before the repo crisis finally occurred!So the bond market signaled that something is wrong in the financial markets and that "something" manifested itself in the repo crisis.
After the repo market crisis ended (the Fed didn't really do much to help it, before you ask), bonds again were quiet for three months and started rallying in January (!) while most of the world was sitting on their asses and downplaying the Coronavirus threat.
But wait, how does Gold come into play? The Gold chart basically follows the same pattern as the TLT chart. Doing basically nothing from 2016 to mid-2019. From June until August Gold rose a staggering 200 dollars and then again stayed flat until December 2019. After that, Gold had another rally until March when it finally collapsed.
Many people think rising Gold prices are a sign of inflation. But where is the inflation? We saw PCE price indices on Friday July 31st and they're at roughly 1%. We've seen CPIs from European countries and the EU itself. France and the EU (July 31st) as a whole had a very slight uptick in CPI while Germany (July 30th), Italy (July 31st) and Spain (July 30th) saw deflationary prints.There is no inflation, nowhere in the world. I'm sorry to burst that bubble.
Yet, Gold prices still go up even when the Dollar rallies through the DXY (sadly I have to measure it that way now since the trade-weighted index isn't updated daily) and we know that there is no inflation from a monetary perspective. In fact, Fed chairman JPow, apparently the final boss for all bears, said on Wednesday July 29th that the Coronavirus pandemic is a deflationary disinflationary event. Someone correct me there, thank you. But deflationary forces are still in place even if JPow wouldn't admit it.
To conclude this rather long section: Both bonds and Gold are indicators for an upcoming financial crisis. Bond prices should fall and yields should go up to signal an economic recovery. But the opposite is happening. in that regard heavily rising Gold prices are a very bad signal for the future. Both bonds and Gold are screaming: "The central banks haven't solved the problems".
By the way, Gold is also a very liquid asset if you want quick cash, that's why we saw it sell off in March because people needed dollars thanks to repo problems and margin calls.When the deflationary shock happens and another liquidity event occurs there will be another big price drop in precious metals and that's the dip which you could use to load up on metals by the way.

Dismantling the money printer

But the Fed! The M2 money stock is SHOOTING THROUGH THE ROOF! The printers are real!By the way, velocity of M2 was updated on July 30th and saw another sharp decline. If you take a closer look at the M2 stock you see three parts absolutely skyrocketing: savings, demand deposits and institutional money funds. Inflationary? No.
So, the printers aren't real. I'm sorry.Quantitative easing (QE) is the biggest part of the Fed's operations to help the economy get back on its feet. What is QE?Upon doing QE the Fed "purchases" treasury and mortgage-backed securities from the commercial banks. The Fed forces the commercial banks to hand over those securities and in return the commercial banks reserve additional bank reserves at an account in the Federal Reserve.
This may sound very confusing to everyone so let's make it simple by an analogy.I want to borrow a camera from you, I need it for my road trip. You agree but only if I give you some kind of security - for example 100 bucks as collateral.You keep the 100 bucks safe in your house and wait for me to return safely. You just wait and wait. You can't do anything else in this situation. Maybe my road trip takes a year. Maybe I come back earlier. But as long as I have your camera, the 100 bucks need to stay with you.
In this analogy, I am the Fed. You = commercial banks. Camera = treasuries/MBS. 100 bucks = additional bank reserves held at the Fed.

Revisiting 2008 briefly: the true money printers

The true money printers are the commercial banks, not the central banks. The commercial banks give out loans and demand interest payments. Through those interest payments they create money out of thin air! At the end they'll have more money than before giving out the loan.
That additional money can be used to give out more loans, buy more treasury/MBS Securities or gain more money through investing and trading.
Before the global financial crisis commercial banks were really loose with their policy. You know, the whole "Big Short" story, housing bubble, NINJA loans and so on. The reckless handling of money by the commercial banks led to actual money printing and inflation, until the music suddenly stopped. Bear Stearns went tits up. Lehman went tits up.
The banks learned from those years and completely changed, forever. They became very strict with their lending resulting in the Fed and the ECB not being able to raise their rates. By keeping the Fed funds rate low the Federal Reserve wants to encourage commercial banks to give out loans to stimulate the economy. But commercial banks are not playing along. They even accept negative rates in Europe rather than taking risks in the actual economy.
The GFC of 2008 completely changed the financial landscape and the central banks have struggled to understand that. The system wasn't working anymore because the main players (the commercial banks) stopped playing with each other. That's also the reason why we see repeated problems in the repo market.

How QE actually decreases liquidity before it's effective

The funny thing about QE is that it achieves the complete opposite of what it's supposed to achieve before actually leading to an economic recovery.
What does that mean? Let's go back to my analogy with the camera.
Before I take away your camera, you can do several things with it. If you need cash, you can sell it or go to a pawn shop. You can even lend your camera to someone for a daily fee and collect money through that.But then I come along and just take away your camera for a road trip for 100 bucks in collateral.
What can you do with those 100 bucks? Basically nothing. You can't buy something else with those. You can't lend the money to someone else. It's basically dead capital. You can just look at it and wait until I come back.
And this is what is happening with QE.
Commercial banks buy treasuries and MBS due to many reasons, of course they're legally obliged to hold some treasuries, but they also need them to make business.When a commercial bank has a treasury security, they can do the following things with it:- Sell it to get cash- Give out loans against the treasury security- Lend the security to a short seller who wants to short bonds
Now the commercial banks received a cash reserve account at the Fed in exchange for their treasury security. What can they do with that?- Give out loans against the reserve account
That's it. The bank had to give away a very liquid and flexible asset and received an illiquid asset for it. Well done, Fed.
The goal of the Fed is to encourage lending and borrowing through suppressing yields via QE. But it's not happening and we can see that in the H.8 data (assets and liabilities of the commercial banks).There is no recovery to be seen in the credit sector while the commercial banks continue to collect treasury securities and MBS. On one hand, they need to sell a portion of them to the Fed on the other hand they profit off those securities by trading them - remember JPM's earnings.
So we see that while the Fed is actually decreasing liquidity in the markets by collecting all the treasuries it has collected in the past, interest rates are still too high. People are scared, and commercial banks don't want to give out loans. This means that as the economic recovery is stalling (another whopping 1.4M jobless claims on Thursday July 30th) the Fed needs to suppress interest rates even more. That means: more QE. that means: the liquidity dries up even more, thanks to the Fed.
We heard JPow saying on Wednesday that the Fed will keep their minimum of 120 billion QE per month, but, and this is important, they can increase that amount anytime they see an emergency.And that's exactly what he will do. He will ramp up the QE machine again, removing more bond supply from the market and therefore decreasing the liquidity in financial markets even more. That's his Hail Mary play to force Americans back to taking on debt again.All of that while the government is taking on record debt due to "stimulus" (which is apparently only going to Apple, Amazon and Robinhood). Who pays for the government debt? The taxpayers. The wealthy people. The people who create jobs and opportunities. But in the future they have to pay more taxes to pay down the government debt (or at least pay for the interest). This means that they can't create opportunities right now due to the government going insane with their debt - and of course, there's still the Coronavirus.

"Without the Fed, yields would skyrocket"

This is wrong. The Fed has been keeping their basic level QE of 120 billion per month for months now. But ignoring the fake breakout in the beginning of June (thanks to reopening hopes), yields have been on a steady decline.
Let's take a look at the Fed's balance sheet.
The Fed has thankfully stayed away from purchasing more treasury bills (short term treasury securities). Bills are important for the repo market as collateral. They're the best collateral you can have and the Fed has already done enough damage by buying those treasury bills in March, destroying even more liquidity than usual.
More interesting is the point "notes and bonds, nominal". The Fed added 13.691 billion worth of US treasury notes and bonds to their balance sheet. Luckily for us, the US Department of Treasury releases the results of treasury auctions when they occur. On July 28th there was an auction for the 7 year treasury note. You can find the results under "Note -> Term: 7-year -> Auction Date 07/28/2020 -> Competitive Results PDF". Or here's a link.
What do we see? Indirect bidders, which are foreigners by the way, took 28 billion out of the total 44 billion. That's roughly 64% of the entire auction. Primary dealers are the ones which sell the securities to the commercial banks. Direct bidders are domestic buyers of treasuries.
The conclusion is: There's insane demand for US treasury notes and bonds by foreigners. Those US treasuries are basically equivalent to US dollars. Now dollar bears should ask themselves this question: If the dollar is close to a collapse and the world wants to get rid fo the US dollar, why do foreigners (i.e. foreign central banks) continue to take 60-70% of every bond auction? They do it because they desperately need dollars and hope to drive prices up, supported by the Federal Reserve itself, in an attempt to have the dollar reserves when the next liquidity event occurs.
So foreigners are buying way more treasuries than the Fed does. Final conclusion: the bond market has adjusted to the Fed being a player long time ago. It isn't the first time the Fed has messed around in the bond market.

How market participants are positioned

We know that commercial banks made good money trading bonds and stocks in the past quarter. Besides big tech the stock market is being stagnant, plain and simple. All the stimulus, stimulus#2, vaccinetalksgoingwell.exe, public appearances by Trump, Powell and their friends, the "money printing" (which isn't money printing) by the Fed couldn't push SPY back to ATH which is 339.08 btw.
Who can we look at? Several people but let's take Bill Ackman. The one who made a killing with Credit Default Swaps in March and then went LONG (he said it live on TV). Well, there's an update about him:Bill Ackman saying he's effectively 100% longHe says that around the 2 minute mark.
Of course, we shouldn't just believe what he says. After all he is a hedge fund manager and wants to make money. But we have to assume that he's long at a significant percentage - it doesn't even make sense to get rid of positions like Hilton when they haven't even recovered yet.
Then again, there are sources to get a peek into the positions of hedge funds, let's take Hedgopia.We see: Hedge funds are starting to go long on the 10 year bond. They are very short the 30 year bond. They are very long the Euro, very short on VIX futures and short on the Dollar.

Endgame

This is the perfect setup for a market meltdown. If hedge funds are really positioned like Ackman and Hedgopia describes, the situation could unwind after a liquidity event:The Fed increases QE to bring down the 30 year yield because the economy isn't recovering yet. We've already seen the correlation of QE and USD and QE and bond prices.That causes a giant short squeeze of hedge funds who are very short the 30 year bond. They need to cover their short positions. But Ackman said they're basically 100% long the stock market and nothing else. So what do they do? They need to sell stocks. Quickly. And what happens when there is a rapid sell-off in stocks? People start to hedge via put options. The VIX rises. But wait, hedge funds are short VIX futures, long Euro and short DXY. To cover their short positions on VIX futures, they need to go long there. VIX continues to go up and the prices of options go suborbital (as far as I can see).Also they need to get rid of Euro futures and cover their short DXY positions. That causes the USD to go up even more.
And the Fed will sit there and do their things again: more QE, infinity QE^2, dollar swap lines, repo operations, TARP and whatever. The Fed will be helpless against the forces of the market and have to watch the stock market burn down and they won't even realize that they created the circumstances for it to happen - by their programs to "help the economy" and their talking on TV. Do you remember JPow on 60minutes talking about how they flooded the world with dollars and print it digitally? He wanted us poor people to believe that the Fed is causing hyperinflation and we should take on debt and invest into the stock market. After all, the Fed has it covered.
But the Fed hasn't got it covered. And Powell knows it. That's why he's being a bear in the FOMC statements. He knows what's going on. But he can't do anything about it except what's apparently proven to be correct - QE, QE and more QE.

A final note about "stock market is not the economy"

It's true. The stock market doesn't reflect the current state of the economy. The current economy is in complete shambles.
But a wise man told me that the stock market is the reflection of the first and second derivatives of the economy. That means: velocity and acceleration of the economy. In retrospect this makes sense.
The economy was basically halted all around the world in March. Of course it's easy to have an insane acceleration of the economy when the economy is at 0 and the stock market reflected that. The peak of that accelerating economy ("max velocity" if you want to look at it like that) was in the beginning of June. All countries were reopening, vaccine hopes, JPow injecting confidence into the markets. Since then, SPY is stagnant, IWM/RUT, which is probably the most accurate reflection of the actual economy, has slightly gone down and people have bid up tech stocks in absolute panic mode.
Even JPow admitted it. The economic recovery has slowed down and if we look at economic data, the recovery has already stopped completely. The economy is rolling over as we can see in the continued high initial unemployment claims. Another fact to factor into the stock market.

TLDR and positions or ban?

TLDR: global economy bad and dollar shortage. economy not recovering, JPow back to doing QE Infinity. QE Infinity will cause the final squeeze in both the bond and stock market and will force the unwinding of the whole system.
Positions: idk. I'll throw in TLT 190c 12/18, SPY 220p 12/18, UUP 26c 12/18.That UUP call had 12.5k volume on Friday 7/31 btw.

Edit about positions and hedge funds

My current positions. You can laugh at my ZEN calls I completely failed with those.I personally will be entering one of the positions mentioned in the end - or similar ones. My personal opinion is that the SPY puts are the weakest try because you have to pay a lot of premium.
Also I forgot talking about why hedge funds are shorting the 30 year bond. Someone asked me in the comments and here's my reply:
"If you look at treasury yields and stock prices they're pretty much positively correlated. Yields go up, then stocks go up. Yields go down (like in March), then stocks go down.
What hedge funds are doing is extremely risky but then again, "hedge funds" is just a name and the hedgies are known for doing extremely risky stuff. They're shorting the 30 year bond because they needs 30y yields to go UP to validate their long positions in the equity market. 30y yields going up means that people are welcoming risk again, taking on debt, spending in the economy.
Milton Friedman labeled this the "interest rate fallacy". People usually think that low interest rates mean "easy money" but it's the opposite. Low interest rates mean that money is really tight and hard to get. Rising interest rates on the other hand signal an economic recovery, an increase in economic activity.
So hedge funds try to fight the Fed - the Fed is buying the 30 year bonds! - to try to validate their stock market positions. They also short VIX futures to do the same thing. Equity bulls don't want to see VIX higher than 15. They're also short the dollar because it would also validate their position: if the economic recovery happens and the global US dollar cycle gets restored then it will be easy to get dollars and the USD will continue to go down.
Then again, they're also fighting against the Fed in this situation because QE and the USD are correlated in my opinion.
Another Redditor told me that people who shorted Japanese government bonds completely blew up because the Japanese central bank bought the bonds and the "widow maker trade" was born:https://www.investopedia.com/terms/w/widow-maker.asp"

Edit #2

Since I've mentioned him a lot in the comments, I recommend you check out Steven van Metre's YouTube channel. Especially the bottom passages of my post are based on the knowledge I received from watching his videos. Even if didn't agree with him on the fundamental issues (there are some things like Gold which I view differently than him) I took it as an inspiration to dig deeper. I think he's a great person and even if you're bullish on stocks you can learn something from Steven!

submitted by 1terrortoast to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

On UP-C IPO, Reverse Merger and TRA : PRPL, PBF, GNW, CCC

On UP-C IPO, Reverse Merger and TRA : PRPL, PBF, GNW, CCC
Disclaimer : I'm not a tax attorney or CPA, I trade from my mom's basement and my day job is handing out flyers while wearing a hotdog costume.
Previous Post https://www.reddit.com/wallstreetbets/comments/ia18vv/prpl_lousyand_kind_of_shady_tax_receivable/
Right since wsb like small caps now, let's take a moment to learn about public companies with Umbrella Partnership C Corporation (UP-C) IPO structure. This won't actually give you any trading edge whatsoever, but will help you to lose money more slowly or flatten the loss porn curve shall we say. PRPL went public by a reverse merger with a shell company but ended up having pretty much the same corporate structure as a typical UP-C IPO.
We will compare last week favourite meme stock PRPL with other small caps PLC that also have UP-C structure. I couldn't do it with sector peers because none of TPX, SNBR and CSPR have it.
TRA and UP-C started in early 2000s have been gaining popularity since.

https://preview.redd.it/wdvyi08slkh51.png?width=696&format=png&auto=webp&s=401a90effe15f988b826f46f67ee88e9cb8b540d
Despite it's name, Tax Receivable Agreement (TRA) functions mostly as a way for pre-IPO owners to siphon cash from public companies. There are plenty of other ways for a public company to get step up basis on tax without TRA, it's just the only one that siphon cash back to the pre-IPO owners. It has always been somewhat controversial and challenged many times, several legislation was introduced but on all occasions congress chose not to pass it.
Now a UP-C IPO is when the income generating company is actually a LLC or partnership. in PRPL case this is Purple LLC. It's basically a clever way for the pre-IPO shareholders/partners to retain pass trough treatment of income and to avoid double taxation (corporate and shareholder level). Here's a small diagram of what it looks like

https://preview.redd.it/upzadeixlkh51.png?width=996&format=png&auto=webp&s=c2b72c62746cb77aaf1e673d5476c4f5c6905699
This UP-C structure have added inherent risk for public shareholders such as
  1. Dividends and assets
The public company have no material assets besides ownership of common units in the partnership, thus the ability to generate revenues and pay dividends will depend on the partnership results and distributions received.
  1. Control
The original partners may have majority voting power in the partnership after IPO, this is not the case for PRPL but this relates to PRPL income statement, where they state the income due to non controlling interest in EPS calculation
  1. Tax Receivable Agreement (TRA)
Which we are about to discuss

For PRPL, Purple LLC would be the original partnership and PubCo would be Purple Innovation PLC. Also similar is the class A and Class B stocks. Class B which are retained by the original partners exchangeable to Class A stock. When they actually exchange/sell the class B stock into Class A, on a typical UP-C this will trigger a step up basis under TRA(Tax Receivable Agreement).

https://preview.redd.it/1vy252zylkh51.png?width=544&format=png&auto=webp&s=b1e310c2ae1d16d473bcbe5bbc224420b6ec7fd1
So when the partners of the partnership sell, they not only get the proceeds but also a amortizable tax deductions from goodwill. Example of a simplified case; if the pre-IPO value is 10$ and current stock price is 30, the basis step up would be 20$ x amount of shares sold booked as liability in the public company. Say Partner X exchange and sells 1 million of class B stock in the market, besides getting 30 MM USD, he will also get a certain percentage of the step up basis (usually 80%) or about 20 MM USD * 0.8 = 16 MM USD. This 16 MM USD is booked as TRA liability in the public company. Payable by cash to the partner when that tax benefit is realized, on the basis of with/without calculation. Some TRAs may even include the Net Operating Loss (NOLs) and other tax assets in the partnership on stock sale. A typical TRA sharing percentage is about 80% for the partner and 20% for the public company with a duration of 10-15 years. TRA is not specifically tied to stock ownership, for example in PRPL, innoHold may sell all their stake when PRPL stock reaches an all time high. Besides the sales proceeds they would then continue to receive cash for realized stock benefit from the step up for 10-15 years after they ceased to be stock holders.
Furthermore the way this is recorded in the balance sheet may use a "more likely then not" threshold so it won't actually appear until the company starts making a taxable profit. But they usually have a little note in the income tax section regarding it.
FROM PRPL 10-Q Q1 in notes on financial statements (income taxes)
Early Warning of Possible Valuation Allowance Reversal in Future Periods
The Company recorded a valuation allowance against all of the deferred tax assets as of March 31, 2020 and December 31, 2019. The Company intends to continue maintaining a full valuation allowance on the deferred tax assets until there is sufficient evidence to support the reversal of all or some portion of these allowances. However, given the current earnings and anticipated future earnings, the Company believes there is a reasonable possibility that within the next 12 months, sufficient positive evidence may become available to allow the Company to reach a conclusion that a significant portion of the valuation allowance will no longer be needed. Release of the valuation allowance would result in the recognition of certain deferred tax assets and a decrease to income tax expense for the period the release is recorded. In addition, the full potential future TRA Liability will be required to be recognized. The exact timing and amount of the valuation allowance release are subject to change on the basis of the level of profitability that the Company is able to actually achieve.
FROM PRPL 10-Q Q2 in notes on financial statements (income taxes)
For the period ended June 30, 2020, and in assessing the realizability of deferred tax assets, management determined that it is now more likely than not that its net deferred tax assets will be realized and that a full valuation allowance for its deferred tax assets is no longer appropriate. As of the period ended June 30, 2020, the Company is no longer in a three-year cumulative loss position. As a result of the removal of this negative evidence and other items of positive evidence, the Company has determined that the deferred tax assets are now more likely than not to be realized.
Due to the release of the Company's valuation allowance on the deferred tax assets to which the Tax Receivable Agreement liability relates, only $78.7 of the $81.5 million has been recorded to date ($0.5 million in 2019 and an incremental $78.2 million through June 30, 2020). Of the total liability recorded during 2020, $45.3 million relates to current year exchanges and was recorded as an adjustment to equity and $32.9 was recorded to expense in order to reestablish the TRA related to prior year exchanges. The additional $2.8 million is expected to be recorded in the third and fourth quarters of the year ending December 31, 2020.
Great now that the company have started making money, time to surprise public stock holders with instant liability.
PRPL Balance sheet Q2
Another cool feature of TRA is the Indemnification/clawback obligations.
No assurance can be given that the IRS will agree with the allocation of value among our assets or that sufficient subsequent payments under the tax receivable agreement will be available to offset prior payments for disallowed benefits. As a result, in certain circumstances, payments could be made under the tax receivable agreement in excess of the benefit that we actually realize in respect of the increases in tax basis resulting from our purchases or exchanges of LLC Units and certain other tax benefits related to our entering into the tax receivable agreement
And even more wicked
Some companies pay interest on their TRA liability, even before the tax benefit is realized
To top it off on a few TRAs spotted in the wild
Furthermore, payments under the tax receivable agreement will give rise to additional tax benefits and therefore additional payments under the tax receivable agreement itself
Yep, paying the TRA will lead to another tax benefit attributed to the TRA leading to an increase in the TRA liability. It's like a perpetual motion machine.
Besides PRPL, The public markets have a history of underestimating and not fully understanding TRA impact
Let's take a look at PBF Energy TRA liability,
pre IPO it was estimated to be only about 96.8 MM USD
https://preview.redd.it/yttj5bg7mkh51.png?width=802&format=png&auto=webp&s=bdb041cf455bf0e74daf55ec2fef7ed42b97703d
The drop you see in 2017 was due to the TCJA legislation enacted reducing corporate tax rate. Because of rona PBF market cap has fallen off a cliff since then, but you get the point, TRA liability increases in size along with company market cap and assets.
In order to avoid the swelling cost of TRAs,
Some companies have negotiated a cap on TRA payments. For example, when Genworth Financial (GNW) entered into a TRA with General Electric following their separation, the companies agreed on a maximum aggregate payment to GE of $640 million. As described in Genworth’s March 1, 2005 10-K filing: To put that number in context, $640 million is 35% of Genworth’s 2004 EBITDA. PRPL currently doesn't have any such cap.
For getting out of a TRA,
Clarivate Analytics(CCC) recently sought early termination / buyout of their TRA
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/clarivate-analytics-announces-buyout-of-tax-receivable-agreement-300905700.html
The amount is usually NPV of potential tax benefits, which as you can imagine is very imprecise and will depend a lot on partners discretion.

Comments from Tax Professionals on TRA:
TRAs fundamentally change the nature of IPOs by transferring value from public shareholders to the pre-IPO owners. This Article shows that TRAs have rapidly risen in popularity and have very recently evolved in ways that make them universally available to any IPO. This Article analyzes the ways that TRAs transfer wealth from public companies to pre-IPO owners, presents previously overlooked economic and disclosure issues arising in these transactions, and argues that the SEC should require companies to publicly disclose these material risks.
Vanderbilt Law Review
A few theories have emerged as to why the public markets do not factor a TRA in to the valuation of a business and its stock price. Foremost is the argument that public companies are valued in terms of multiples of their earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation, and amortization and that “accounting items like a reduction in a deferred tax asset or a tax expense aren’t reflected in EBITDA.”
Taxnotes, Special Report August 2017

What those lawyers are saying is basically that TRAs are made possible by retards buying stocks and not reading the fine print.

TL;DR: When you do DD on a company it's not just about topline and gross margin, verify the corporate structure and liabilities agreements so you won't be surprised come earnings.

submitted by indonesian_activist to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

PRPL Q2 2020 Earnings Expectations

PRPL Q2 2020 Earnings Expectations

tl;dr - Earnings is gonna be lit!

PRPL earnings is tomorrow, 8/13, after hours. Any other date is wrong. Robinhood is wrong (why are you using Robinhood still!?!).
I'm going to take you through my earnings projections and reasoning as well the things to look for in the earnings release and the call that could make this moon even further.

Earnings Estimates

https://preview.redd.it/w3qad4gb9ng51.png?width=854&format=png&auto=webp&s=7a88656a9867d0e40710736f61974a22b5f4a631
I'm calling $244M Net Revenue with $39.75M in Net Income, which would be $0.75 Diluted EPS. I'll walk you through how I got here

Total Net Revenue

I make the assumption that Purple is still selling every mattress it can make (since that is what they said for April and May) and that this continued into June because the website was still delayed 7-14 days across all mattresses at the end of June.
May Revenue and April DTC: The numbers in purple were provided by Purple here and here.
April Wholesale: My estimate of $2.7M for Wholesale sales in April comes from this statement from the Q1 earnings release: " While wholesale sales were down 42.7% in April year-over-year, weekly wholesale orders have started to increase on a sequential basis. " I divided Q2 2019's wholesale sales evenly between months and then went down 42.7%.
June DTC: This is my estimate based upon the fact that another Mattress Max machine went online June 1, thus increasing capacity, and the low end model was discontinued (raising revenue per unit).
June Wholesale: Joe Megibow stated at Commerce Next on 7/30 that wholesale had returned to almost flat growth. I'm going to assume he meant for the quarter, so I plugged the number here to finish out the quarter at $39.0M, just under $39.3M from a year ago.

Revenue Expectations from Analysts (via Yahoo)
https://preview.redd.it/notxd6hhbng51.png?width=384&format=png&auto=webp&s=aa0453414f467aa6c5bf72ce8a8046c0ae6e62a5
My estimate of $244M comes in way over the high, let alone the consensus. PRPL has effectively already disclosed ~$145M for April/May, so these expectations are way off. I'm more right than they are.

Gross Margins

I used my estimates for Q3/Q4 2019 to guide margins in April/May as there were some one time events that occurred in Q1 depressing margins. June has higher margin because of the shift away from the low end model (which is priced substantially lower than the high end model). Higher priced models were given manufacturing priority.

Operating Expenses

Marketing and Sales
Joe mentioned in the Commerce Next video that they were able to scale sales at a constant CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost). There's three ways of interpreting this:
  1. Overall customer acquisition cost was constant with previous quarters (assume $36M total, not $93.2M), which means you need to add another $57M to bottom line profit and $1.08 to EPS, or
  2. Customer Acquisition Costs on a unit basis were constant, which means I'm still overstating total marketing expense and understating EPS massively, or
  3. Customer Acquisition Costs on a revenue basis were constant, which is the most conservative approach and the one I took for my estimate.
I straightlined the 2.2 ratio of DTC sales to Marketing costs from Q1. I am undoubtably too high in my expense estimate here as PRPL saw marketing efficiencies and favorable revenue shifts during the quarter. So, $93.2M
General and Administrative
A Purple HR rep posted on LinkedIn about hiring 330 people in the quarter. I'm going to assume that was relative to the pre-COVID furloughs, so I had June at that proportional amount to previous employees and adjusted April and May for furloughs and returns from furlough.
Research and Development
I added just a little here and straight lined it.

Other Expenses

Interest Expense
Straightlined from previous quarters, although they may have tapped ABL lines and so forth, so this could be under.
One Time and Other
Unpredictable by nature.
Warrant Liability Accrual
I'm making some assumptions here.
  1. We know that the secondary offering event during Q2 from the Pearce brothers triggered the clause for the loan warrants (NOT the PRPLW warrants) to lower the strike price to $0.
  2. I can't think of a logical reason why the warrant holders wouldn't exercise at this point.
  3. Therefore there is no longer a warrant liability where the company may need to repurchase warrants back.
  4. The liability accrual of $7.989M needs to be reversed out for a gain.
This sucker is worth about $0.15 EPS on its own.

Earnings (EPS)

I project $39.75M or $0.75 Diluted EPS (53M shares). How does this hold up to the analysts?
EPS Expectations from Analysts (via Yahoo)
https://preview.redd.it/o2i1dvk6hng51.png?width=373&format=png&auto=webp&s=27e63f7934d85393e1f7b87bf2e2066c28047202
EPS Expectations from Analysts (via MarketBeat)
https://preview.redd.it/psu5rajfhng51.png?width=1359&format=png&auto=webp&s=0612d43777c644789b14f8c5decbe36f41925f5e
These losers are way under. Now you know why I am so optimistic about earnings.
Keep in mind, these analysts are still giving $28-$30 price targets.

What to Watch For During Earnings (aka Reasons Why This Moons More)

Analysts, Institutionals, and everyone else who uses math for investing is going to be listening for the following:
  • Margin Growth
  • Warrant Liability Accrual
  • Capacity Expansion Rate
  • CACs (Customer Acquisition Costs)
  • New Product Categories
  • Cashless Exercise of PRPLW warrants

Margin Growth
This factor is HUGE. If PRPL guides to higher margins due to better sales mix and continued DTC shift, then every analyst and investor is going to tweak their models up in a big way. Thus far, management has been relatively cautious about this fortuitous shift to DTC continuing. If web traffic is any indicator, it will, but we need management to tell us that.
Warrant Liability Accrual
I could be dead wrong on my assumptions above on this one. If it stays, there will be questions about it due to the drop in exercise price. It does impact GAAP earnings (although it shouldn't--stupid accountants).
Capacity Expansion Rate
This is a BIG one as well. As PRPL has been famously capacity constrained: their rate of manufacturing capacity expansion is their growth rate over the next year. PRPL discontinued expansion at the beginning of COVID and then re-accelerated it to a faster pace than pre-COVID by hurrying the machines in-process out to the floor. They also signed their manufacturing space deal which has nearly doubled manufacturing space a quarter early. The REAL question is when the machines will start rolling out. Previous guidance was end of the year at best. If we get anything sooner than that, we are going to ratchet up.
CACs (Customer Acquisition Costs)
Since DTC is the new game in town, we are all going to want to understand exactly where marketing expenses were this quarter and, more importantly, where management thinks they are going. The magic words to listen for are "marketing efficiencies". Those words means the stock goes up. This is the next biggest line item on the P&L besides revenue and cost of goods sold.
New Product Categories
We heard the VP of Brand from Purple give us some touchy-feely vision of where the company is headed and that mattresses was just the revenue generating base to empower this. I'm hoping we hear more about this. This is what differentiated Amazon from Barnes and Noble: Amazon's vision was more than just books. Purple sees itself as more than just mattresses. Hopefully we get some announced action behind that vision. This multiplies the stock.
Cashless Exercise of PRPLW Warrants
I doubt this will be answered, even if the question is asked. I bet they wait until the 20 out of 30 days is up and they deliver notice. We could be pleasantly surprised. If management informs us that they will opt for cashless exercise of the warrants, this is anti-dilutive to EPS. It will reduce the number of outstanding shares and automatically cause an adjustment up in the stock price (remember kids, some people use math when investing). I'm hopeful, but not expecting it. The amount of the adjustment depends on the current price of the stock. Also, I fully expect PRPL management to use their cashless exercise option at the end of the 20 out of 30 days as they are already spitting cash.

Positions


https://preview.redd.it/tho65crvkng51.png?width=1242&format=png&auto=webp&s=6241ff5e8b26744f9d7119ddef7da86f163c741d
I'm not just holding, I added.
PRPLW Warrants: 391,280
PRPL Call Debit Spreads: 17.5c/25c 8/21 x90, 20c/25c 8/21 x247
Also, I bought some CSPR 7.5p 8/21 x200 for fun because I think that sucker is going to get shamed back down to $6 after a real mattress company shows what it can do.

UPDATES

I've made some updates to the model, and produced two different models:
  1. Warrant Liability Accrual Goes to Zero
  2. Warrant Liability Accrual Goes to $47M
I made the following adjustments generally:
  • I reduced marketing expenses signifanctly based upon comments made by Joe Megibox on 6/29 in this CNBC video to 30% of sales (thanks u/deepredsky).
  • I reduced June wholesale revenue to 12.6M to be conservative based upon another possible interpretation of Joe's comments in this video here. It is a hard pill to swallow that June wholesale sales would be less than May's. The only reasoning I can think of is if May caused a large restock and then June tapered back off. The previous number of $19.0M was still a retrenchment from the 40-50% YoY growth rate. I'm going to keep the more conservative number (thanks again u/deepredsky).
  • I modified the number of outstanding shares used for EPS calculations from 53M (last quarters number used on the 10-Q) to almost 73M based upon the fact that all of the warrants and employee stock options are now in the money. Math below. (thanks DS_CPA1 on Stocktwits for pointing this out)
Capital Structure for EPS Calculations
From the recent S-3 filing for the May secondary, I pulled the following:
https://preview.redd.it/qw7awg8w7sg51.png?width=368&format=png&auto=webp&s=66c884682ddb8517939468ab1e6780742f55d427
I diluted earnings by the above share count.

Model With Warrant Liability Going to Zero
https://preview.redd.it/cz2ydomi4sg51.png?width=852&format=png&auto=webp&s=53cc457a3143cabb16bfff9a1503054a9a8c0fca
Model With Warrant Liability Going to $47M
https://preview.redd.it/o2hltrgf5sg51.png?width=853&format=png&auto=webp&s=41cbe73a7aa0894a86a09ccc9179b100e9d3372d
A few people called me out on my assumption, that I also said could be wrong. My favorite callout came from u/lawschoolbluesny who started all smug and condescending, and proceeded to tell me about June 31st, from which I couldn't stop laughing. Stay in law school bud a bit longer...
https://preview.redd.it/dd4tcdue4sg51.png?width=667&format=png&auto=webp&s=d27f3ad40c702502ee62f106b6135f0db2c1e7be
One other comment he made needs an answer because WHY we are accruing MATTERS a lot!
Now that we have established that coliseum still has not exercised the options as of july 7, and that purple needs to record as a liability the fair value of the options as of june 31, we now need to determine what that fair value is. You state that since you believe that there is no logical reason that coliseum won't redeem their warrants "there is no longer a warrant liability where the company may need to repurchase warrants back." While I'm not 100% certain your logic here, I can say for certain that whether or not a person will redeem their warrants does not dictate how prpl accounts for them.

The warrant liability accrual DOES NOT exist because the warrants simply exist. The accrual exists because the warrants give the warrant holder the right to force the company to buy back the warrants for cash in the event of a fundamental transaction for Black Scholes value ($18 at the end of June--June 31st that is...). And accruals are adjusted for the probability of a particular event happening, which I STILL argue is close to zero.
A fundamental transaction did occur. The Pearce brothers sold more than 10M shares of stock which is why the exercise price dropped to zero. (Note for DS_CPA1 on Stocktwits: there is some conflicting filings as to what the exercise price can drop to. The originally filed warrant draft says that the warrant exercise price cannot drop to zero, but asubsequently filed S-3, the exercise price is noted as being able to go to zero. I'm going with the S-3.)
Now, here is where it gets fun. We know from from the Schedule 13D filed with a July 1, 2020 event date from Coliseum that Coliseum DID NOT force the company to buy back the warrants in the fundamental transaction triggered by the Pearce Brothers (although they undoubtably accepted the $0 exercise price). THIS fundamental transaction was KNOWN to PRPL at the end Q4 and Q1 as secondary filings were made the day after earnings both times. This drastically increased the probability of an event happening.
Where is the next fundamental transaction that could cause the redemption for cash? It isn't there. What does exist is a callback option if the stock trades above $24 for 20 out of 30 days, which we are already 8 out of 10 days into.
Based upon the low probability of a fundamental transaction triggering a redemption, the accrual will stay very low. Even the CFO disagrees with me and we get a full-blown accrual, I expect a full reversal of the accrual next quarter if the 20 out of 30 day call back is exercised by the company.
I still don't understand why Coliseum would not have exercised these.
Regardless, the Warrant Liability Accrual is very fake and will go away eventually.

ONE MORE THING...

Seriously, stop PMing me with stupid, simple questions like "What are your thoughts on earnings?", "What are your thoughts on holding through earnings?", and "What are your thoughts on PRPL?".
It's here. Above. Read it. I'm not typing it again in PM. I've gotten no less than 30 of these. If you're too lazy to read, I'm too lazy to respond to you individually.

submitted by lurkingsince2006 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Former investment bank FX trader: some thoughts

Former investment bank FX trader: some thoughts
Hi guys,
I have been using reddit for years in my personal life (not trading!) and wanted to give something back in an area where i am an expert.
I worked at an investment bank for seven years and joined them as a graduate FX trader so have lots of professional experience, by which i mean I was trained and paid by a big institution to trade on their behalf. This is very different to being a full-time home trader, although that is not to discredit those guys, who can accumulate a good amount of experience/wisdom through self learning.
When I get time I'm going to write a mid-length posts on each topic for you guys along the lines of how i was trained. I guess there would be 15-20 topics in total so about 50-60 posts. Feel free to comment or ask questions.
The first topic is Risk Management and we'll cover it in three parts
Part I
  • Why it matters
  • Position sizing
  • Kelly
  • Using stops sensibly
  • Picking a clear level

Why it matters

The first rule of making money through trading is to ensure you do not lose money. Look at any serious hedge fund’s website and they’ll talk about their first priority being “preservation of investor capital.”
You have to keep it before you grow it.
Strangely, if you look at retail trading websites, for every one article on risk management there are probably fifty on trade selection. This is completely the wrong way around.
The great news is that this stuff is pretty simple and process-driven. Anyone can learn and follow best practices.
Seriously, avoiding mistakes is one of the most important things: there's not some holy grail system for finding winning trades, rather a routine and fairly boring set of processes that ensure that you are profitable, despite having plenty of losing trades alongside the winners.

Capital and position sizing

The first thing you have to know is how much capital you are working with. Let’s say you have $100,000 deposited. This is your maximum trading capital. Your trading capital is not the leveraged amount. It is the amount of money you have deposited and can withdraw or lose.
Position sizing is what ensures that a losing streak does not take you out of the market.
A rule of thumb is that one should risk no more than 2% of one’s account balance on an individual trade and no more than 8% of one’s account balance on a specific theme. We’ll look at why that’s a rule of thumb later. For now let’s just accept those numbers and look at examples.
So we have $100,000 in our account. And we wish to buy EURUSD. We should therefore not be risking more than 2% which $2,000.
We look at a technical chart and decide to leave a stop below the monthly low, which is 55 pips below market. We’ll come back to this in a bit. So what should our position size be?
We go to the calculator page, select Position Size and enter our details. There are many such calculators online - just google "Pip calculator".

https://preview.redd.it/y38zb666e5h51.jpg?width=1200&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=26e4fe569dc5c1f43ce4c746230c49b138691d14
So the appropriate size is a buy position of 363,636 EURUSD. If it reaches our stop level we know we’ll lose precisely $2,000 or 2% of our capital.
You should be using this calculator (or something similar) on every single trade so that you know your risk.
Now imagine that we have similar bets on EURJPY and EURGBP, which have also broken above moving averages. Clearly this EUR-momentum is a theme. If it works all three bets are likely to pay off. But if it goes wrong we are likely to lose on all three at once. We are going to look at this concept of correlation in more detail later.
The total amount of risk in our portfolio - if all of the trades on this EUR-momentum theme were to hit their stops - should not exceed $8,000 or 8% of total capital. This allows us to go big on themes we like without going bust when the theme does not work.
As we’ll see later, many traders only win on 40-60% of trades. So you have to accept losing trades will be common and ensure you size trades so they cannot ruin you.
Similarly, like poker players, we should risk more on trades we feel confident about and less on trades that seem less compelling. However, this should always be subject to overall position sizing constraints.
For example before you put on each trade you might rate the strength of your conviction in the trade and allocate a position size accordingly:

https://preview.redd.it/q2ea6rgae5h51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=4332cb8d0bbbc3d8db972c1f28e8189105393e5b
To keep yourself disciplined you should try to ensure that no more than one in twenty trades are graded exceptional and allocated 5% of account balance risk. It really should be a rare moment when all the stars align for you.
Notice that the nice thing about dealing in percentages is that it scales. Say you start out with $100,000 but end the year up 50% at $150,000. Now a 1% bet will risk $1,500 rather than $1,000. That makes sense as your capital has grown.
It is extremely common for retail accounts to blow-up by making only 4-5 losing trades because they are leveraged at 50:1 and have taken on far too large a position, relative to their account balance.
Consider that GBPUSD tends to move 1% each day. If you have an account balance of $10k then it would be crazy to take a position of $500k (50:1 leveraged). A 1% move on $500k is $5k.
Two perfectly regular down days in a row — or a single day’s move of 2% — and you will receive a margin call from the broker, have the account closed out, and have lost all your money.
Do not let this happen to you. Use position sizing discipline to protect yourself.

Kelly Criterion

If you’re wondering - why “about 2%” per trade? - that’s a fair question. Why not 0.5% or 10% or any other number?
The Kelly Criterion is a formula that was adapted for use in casinos. If you know the odds of winning and the expected pay-off, it tells you how much you should bet in each round.
This is harder than it sounds. Let’s say you could bet on a weighted coin flip, where it lands on heads 60% of the time and tails 40% of the time. The payout is $2 per $1 bet.
Well, absolutely you should bet. The odds are in your favour. But if you have, say, $100 it is less obvious how much you should bet to avoid ruin.
Say you bet $50, the odds that it could land on tails twice in a row are 16%. You could easily be out after the first two flips.
Equally, betting $1 is not going to maximise your advantage. The odds are 60/40 in your favour so only betting $1 is likely too conservative. The Kelly Criterion is a formula that produces the long-run optimal bet size, given the odds.
Applying the formula to forex trading looks like this:
Position size % = Winning trade % - ( (1- Winning trade %) / Risk-reward ratio
If you have recorded hundreds of trades in your journal - see next chapter - you can calculate what this outputs for you specifically.
If you don't have hundreds of trades then let’s assume some realistic defaults of Winning trade % being 30% and Risk-reward ratio being 3. The 3 implies your TP is 3x the distance of your stop from entry e.g. 300 pips take profit and 100 pips stop loss.
So that’s 0.3 - (1 - 0.3) / 3 = 6.6%.
Hold on a second. 6.6% of your account probably feels like a LOT to risk per trade.This is the main observation people have on Kelly: whilst it may optimise the long-run results it doesn’t take into account the pain of drawdowns. It is better thought of as the rational maximum limit. You needn’t go right up to the limit!
With a 30% winning trade ratio, the odds of you losing on four trades in a row is nearly one in four. That would result in a drawdown of nearly a quarter of your starting account balance. Could you really stomach that and put on the fifth trade, cool as ice? Most of us could not.
Accordingly people tend to reduce the bet size. For example, let’s say you know you would feel emotionally affected by losing 25% of your account.
Well, the simplest way is to divide the Kelly output by four. You have effectively hidden 75% of your account balance from Kelly and it is now optimised to avoid a total wipeout of just the 25% it can see.
This gives 6.6% / 4 = 1.65%. Of course different trading approaches and different risk appetites will provide different optimal bet sizes but as a rule of thumb something between 1-2% is appropriate for the style and risk appetite of most retail traders.
Incidentally be very wary of systems or traders who claim high winning trade % like 80%. Invariably these don’t pass a basic sense-check:
  • How many live trades have you done? Often they’ll have done only a handful of real trades and the rest are simulated backtests, which are overfitted. The model will soon die.
  • What is your risk-reward ratio on each trade? If you have a take profit $3 away and a stop loss $100 away, of course most trades will be winners. You will not be making money, however! In general most traders should trade smaller position sizes and less frequently than they do. If you are going to bias one way or the other, far better to start off too small.

How to use stop losses sensibly

Stop losses have a bad reputation amongst the retail community but are absolutely essential to risk management. No serious discretionary trader can operate without them.
A stop loss is a resting order, left with the broker, to automatically close your position if it reaches a certain price. For a recap on the various order types visit this chapter.
The valid concern with stop losses is that disreputable brokers look for a concentration of stops and then, when the market is close, whipsaw the price through the stop levels so that the clients ‘stop out’ and sell to the broker at a low rate before the market naturally comes back higher. This is referred to as ‘stop hunting’.
This would be extremely immoral behaviour and the way to guard against it is to use a highly reputable top-tier broker in a well regulated region such as the UK.
Why are stop losses so important? Well, there is no other way to manage risk with certainty.
You should always have a pre-determined stop loss before you put on a trade. Not having one is a recipe for disaster: you will find yourself emotionally attached to the trade as it goes against you and it will be extremely hard to cut the loss. This is a well known behavioural bias that we’ll explore in a later chapter.
Learning to take a loss and move on rationally is a key lesson for new traders.
A common mistake is to think of the market as a personal nemesis. The market, of course, is totally impersonal; it doesn’t care whether you make money or not.
Bruce Kovner, founder of the hedge fund Caxton Associates
There is an old saying amongst bank traders which is “losers average losers”.
It is tempting, having bought EURUSD and seeing it go lower, to buy more. Your average price will improve if you keep buying as it goes lower. If it was cheap before it must be a bargain now, right? Wrong.
Where does that end? Always have a pre-determined cut-off point which limits your risk. A level where you know the reason for the trade was proved ‘wrong’ ... and stick to it strictly. If you trade using discretion, use stops.

Picking a clear level

Where you leave your stop loss is key.
Typically traders will leave them at big technical levels such as recent highs or lows. For example if EURUSD is trading at 1.1250 and the recent month’s low is 1.1205 then leaving it just below at 1.1200 seems sensible.

If you were going long, just below the double bottom support zone seems like a sensible area to leave a stop
You want to give it a bit of breathing room as we know support zones often get challenged before the price rallies. This is because lots of traders identify the same zones. You won’t be the only one selling around 1.1200.
The “weak hands” who leave their sell stop order at exactly the level are likely to get taken out as the market tests the support. Those who leave it ten or fifteen pips below the level have more breathing room and will survive a quick test of the level before a resumed run-up.
Your timeframe and trading style clearly play a part. Here’s a candlestick chart (one candle is one day) for GBPUSD.

https://preview.redd.it/moyngdy4f5h51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=91af88da00dd3a09e202880d8029b0ddf04fb802
If you are putting on a trend-following trade you expect to hold for weeks then you need to have a stop loss that can withstand the daily noise. Look at the downtrend on the chart. There were plenty of days in which the price rallied 60 pips or more during the wider downtrend.
So having a really tight stop of, say, 25 pips that gets chopped up in noisy short-term moves is not going to work for this kind of trade. You need to use a wider stop and take a smaller position size, determined by the stop level.
There are several tools you can use to help you estimate what is a safe distance and we’ll look at those in the next section.
There are of course exceptions. For example, if you are doing range-break style trading you might have a really tight stop, set just below the previous range high.

https://preview.redd.it/ygy0tko7f5h51.png?width=1200&format=png&auto=webp&s=34af49da61c911befdc0db26af66f6c313556c81
Clearly then where you set stops will depend on your trading style as well as your holding horizons and the volatility of each instrument.
Here are some guidelines that can help:
  1. Use technical analysis to pick important levels (support, resistance, previous high/lows, moving averages etc.) as these provide clear exit and entry points on a trade.
  2. Ensure that the stop gives your trade enough room to breathe and reflects your timeframe and typical volatility of each pair. See next section.
  3. Always pick your stop level first. Then use a calculator to determine the appropriate lot size for the position, based on the % of your account balance you wish to risk on the trade.
So far we have talked about price-based stops. There is another sort which is more of a fundamental stop, used alongside - not instead of - price stops. If either breaks you’re out.
For example if you stop understanding why a product is going up or down and your fundamental thesis has been confirmed wrong, get out. For example, if you are long because you think the central bank is turning hawkish and AUDUSD is going to play catch up with rates … then you hear dovish noises from the central bank and the bond yields retrace lower and back in line with the currency - close your AUDUSD position. You already know your thesis was wrong. No need to give away more money to the market.

Coming up in part II

EDIT: part II here
Letting stops breathe
When to change a stop
Entering and exiting winning positions
Risk:reward ratios
Risk-adjusted returns

Coming up in part III

Squeezes and other risks
Market positioning
Bet correlation
Crap trades, timeouts and monthly limits

***
Disclaimer:This content is not investment advice and you should not place any reliance on it. The views expressed are the author's own and should not be attributed to any other person, including their employer.
submitted by getmrmarket to Forex [link] [comments]

M1 Plus Review

Intro:
Bought into M1 Plus from a $60/yr Promotion 2 months ago. I had an investment account already, and even one of the first spend accounts. I had declined the offer for M1 Plus at $125/yr.
This is a first review of M1 Plus after two months of use and a bit of a dive into the value of its features from a financial and user experience point of view.
Value:
This is a pretty simple one. Do the math. The interest vs. your other checking account multiplied by the amount of cash you’d be keeping in there for M1 Spend. If you’re borrowing from M1 too, the 1.5% difference (or whatever difference there is between M1 Borrow and your next best offer) multiplied by the amount of money you’d like to borrow. If all these add up to greater than whatever annual fee is offered, go for it.
Otherwise, it’d be a very expensive metal card. But if 4 waived ATM fees go a long way to save you money, that should be worth considering too, however, there are tons of cards and products that’ll waive said fees, some even for unlimited transactions and no upfront cost. Just because M1 is offering this benefit as part of a premium package doesn’t mean it’s impossible to find for free somewhere else.
XP:
It is a great experience. I constantly invest lumps of $500 into my portfolio all the time. It’s quick, easy, and immediately fulfilling. Not that other brokerages don’t do this. But M1 is clearly focused on showing you your long term progress on your investment goals. It uses a money weighted return formula so that you know how much your capital has been making you to easily compare to the return of bank accounts and investments. There’s a reason their product is called “Invest” and not “Trade”, more on that later. But this means it’s primarily suited for this purpose. During the Covid crash, I took to Robinhood to place my Put Options on the S&P because high frequency derivatives trading and M1 basically speak different languages. All this to say, it feels amazing to watch your investments accounts slowly creep up as you continue to dollar cost average into the market, but this has some drawbacks.
Pies. While fun and easy to build, mix and match, they are not a very common mechanic to implement on amateur portfolios. Selling stocks can be quite the process on M1, and the platform will try its darnest to discourage you from making any but the most basic adjustments to your portfolio. Its really only suited for the “set it and forget it” mindset, which is not to say you can’t mess around with your money as you please, but it’s just so perfect for investing and watching your money grow with a long time horizon. The plots will show you your progress and encourage you to keep a regular deposit schedule. But try trading into and out of a stock, or a set amount of shares, or even thinking about playing with derivatives and other financial instruments: slim pickings.
The numbers make a lot of sense, too. I’ve been investing for about 5 years now, and my latest craze has been leverage. I’ve read about how the optimal leverage ratio for the S&P on average was 2.0 or 100% levered up, and looked up the historical comparisons to corroborate. Shopping around for margin accounts and available capital, it’s tough to beat the 2% rates at the moment. I’ve been slowly levering up during the latest market rally to great effect and the low interest really pumps up those numbers. Having this much cheap capital, not just for leverage, but also for life is worth more than just the time value of money. I would make the point that this is made even more valuable by having all your financial services on the same platform, as you really get to do with your money as you please and move it around to withdraw it to your hearts content.
My real issue was with Spend. Not a problem with the product but myself, in trying to justify the annual fee. I weighed how much money it would make sense to keep in Spend as opposed to an online savings account. To keep cash a couple of months ago, it made more sense to opt for ally or marcus as they were offering close to 1.55% on cash. But as their rates have plummeted, getting 1.0% on a CHECKING account has been an absolute godsend in this crazy economy. This account works for just about anything with the notable exception of checks... in a checking account which I suspect is the reason for the “Spend” branding the product was marketed with. When it’s hard to even find 1% on a savings account, a 1% APY on checking is no-worries approach to cash investment.
Ultimately, having all of these balances displayed together on the Transfers tab is huge in terms of consumer experience. This, however, should not be a replacement for true “Dashboard” that could show an overview of all your money moves and account balances.
Ideas:
M1 Trade. Admittedly, I do see how this can be very contrary to the philosophy, product and experience that M1 has worked to create. That being said, thinking that your customer will always prefer to have their money invested into automatically allocated pies is a little short-sighted.
Opening a much more DIY Trading product on M1 would of course have them incur tons of costs in handling and verifying transactions of all the individual financial, but many places already offer such services for free, some are even profitable at it. An M1 Trade product would also need integrating the Invest product because regardless of what you’re doing on the platform, you still consider your money your investments and want to see it all together. Pies and individual Buys would have to play nice together, and that does sound like a difficult endeavor.
I keep a couple of accounts with different mixtures of my pies for all my purposes. I also handle the investments for a few of my family members, which will become relevant shortly. You can obviously set up as many accounts as you wish and move money into them as you desire, but this can get you into some warmer water. If two of your pies hold most the same securities and you just want to have a different pie for a different account, you’ll have to call up to pause trading so that your pies have a chance to get to know each other and not force you to sell and buy right back into the same assets just to incur the taxes. It’s a bit of a hassle, and I would argue, on purpose.
For Pies themselves, I often find myself wanting to make small tweaks to pies but then quickly let it go as removing slices would automatically trigger a massive sell off that incurs taxes. From a conversation with tech support, I gathered that the best way to do this was simply pause trading on your account, and change the pie you want all your money to go into. Editing pies is fine and easy, but completely swapping a pie for another one led me to believe that it would sell put of all my holdings even if the old and new pie had many of those same holdings. If this is me being stupid, good, if it’s a gap in features, I hope M1 lets you simply swap a pie for any other and gives you the option either sell everything, sell only what is 0 in the second pie, or sell nothing and simply continue aiming for the allocation of the new pie without touching your previous investments.
Lastly, an iPad app. I’m a big fan of the iPad and the iPad Pro in particular. I’ve found myself using it far more than my laptop which is now strictly reserved for long work sessions (I write and edit for a YouTube Channel) and watching content in groups of people (15” MBP Speakers are the stuff of legend). But for anything else, I subconsciously grab the iPad. It’s annoying to have the website be the best M1 experience on the iPad. I understand that making a compelling iPad investing app is its own mountain to climb, but a lot of the Mobile app’s functionality can be ported over without too much of a hassle. Charles Schwab has an iPad app based 99% on the iPhone app that still performs all the same functions, just on the bigger screen, which is the whole point of the iPad in the first place. While it’s not a top shelf iPad app (there are only a select few) the Schwab app is lovely and I’m begging M1 for anything that doesn’t force me to use my iPad in portrait mode to use a blown up iPhone app. Again, this app doesn’t have to be a world beater, just a decent looking and bigger version of the iPhone app that would go a long way to boost the M1 customer experience.
Closing Remarks:
Obligatory YMMV disclosure: it’s about the math, I won’t bore you with my own, but I was just over the line when it made sense for me to opt into the $60/yr promo.
That being said, M1’s value has been a lot about the experience. The future of finance is free. No brokerage should be making money on transaction commissions or administrative fees, it’s a relic from the before times when you needed people who knew people on wall street to do your trading. At this point its not even worth any perceived convenience.
The clever ones reading this will point out that, while true, many brokerages already offer a wide variety of free services. Many of them, even, that M1 doesn’t offer.
The true spirit of this review is to express my personal opinion on the value of M1 Plus and how the customer experience is its edge in the ebrokerage market. Rates are competitive, but it is a brand new way to consider finance and its role in your life and society.
TL;DR
Spend is pretty competitive for a checking account, and as long as you’re not using checks too often, its a no brainer for anyone with close to $10,000 in cash just sitting somewhere.
Invest is beautiful, but the free version is exactly as good, more windows means very little with the limited trading you’re allowed to do anyway.
Borrow is brilliant, hella flexible and competitive rates.
8/10 Would recommend to a friend.
submitted by TomasFCampos to M1Finance [link] [comments]

The importance of crosshair placement, why you're doing it wrong, and how to fix it.

The importance of crosshair placement, why you're doing it wrong, and how to fix it.

Valorant and the importance of crosshair placement.



Introduction

Hey guys, I'm Twix, and I'm back with another informative post, this time concerning the aspect of crosshair placement. Through this post I will be discussing the importance of crosshair placement within the tac shooter genre, going over the most common mistakes I see people make in my experience as a coach, and offering structured routines to remedy the majority of these mistakes. If you haven't read through any of my posts before ( I wouldn't they're too long ) I am an FPS player which mainly played CS:GO competitively, with around 7k hours and multiple level 10 faceit accounts and LAN wins in the past 5 years, who transitioned towards the end of my CS:GO days into being an FPS coach, I mainly worked with people trying to gain a competitive edge in CS, but later moved to coaching Apex players, and following the closed beta release of Valorant, I have been coaching Valorant players for the past few months, with unanimously positive feedback. If you haven't read my first post which is a comprehensive general guide for players looking to improve in Valorant, I highly recommend you look at it here before continuing on to this post. In relation to other qualifications / achievements, I have hit top 30 as hitscan DPS in Overwatch, maintained top 500 ranking in Apex ( PC ) for a couple of seasons, and hold numerous 1% rankings on various Kovaak's FPS Aim Trainer maps. My main goal in creating these posts is to contribute to the Valorant community by sharing my knowledge gained over 10k collective hours of FPS experience ( mainly Tactical fps ) and hopefully help the people reading my posts improve and gain that competitive edge they need to progress into their desired ranking. For those of you interested in learning more about my coaching service, or looking for a community of Valorant players looking to improve, I will link my Discord server at the end of this post.

Why is crosshair placement important?


If I was asked about the importance of consistent crosshair placement in games such as PUBG, Apex, Overwatch, Fortnite, etc. I would probably answer by saying that while it's beneficial to maintain solid crosshair placement, it's by no means the most important aspect in relation to performing well in those games, in tactical shooters however, it's a whole different story. Tactical shooters are low TTK ( time to kill ) games, and for the most part, a single bullet to the head is enough to eliminate a player, this means that in contrast to AFPS games, or games like Overwatch or Apex, which have a much higher TTK, first shot accuracy is of extreme importance in Valorant, inevitably leading to the fact that crosshair placement is also extremely important. In a game with higher TTK, even if your first shot accuracy isn't perfect in an aim duel, you can win the fight if you land more shots on the opposing player over x amount of time that you trade with them, while in Valorant, whoever needs to make the least amount of adjustment to their crosshair when engaging in a 1v1 scenario wins the exchange. It doesn't matter if your raw aim is out of this world, even if you have the most precise flicks known to the FPS community, if your crosshair placement is sub-optimal, you will lose vs. someone with consistent crosshair placement, this is simply due to the fact that all they need to do, is click once your head moves into their crosshair, often without even needing to move their mouse. Crosshair placement may very well be the most important aspect in relation to gunplay and generally the mechanical aspect of tac shooters such as CS:GO or Valorant, as it's the deciding factor in the majority of aim duels.

Common mistakes


A large amount of players tend to underestimate the importance of crosshair placement in Valorant, and especially the underlying complexity of maintaining consistency in that context. People think that all you need to do to maintain solid crosshair placement is aim high enough to hit headshots, meaning that the only factor that affects crosshair placement is vertical positioning, others still stick to making their main source of information on game improvement being players who make statements as un-informative and vague as "just click heads", my main goal is to break down and explain the multiple factors that go into proper crosshair placement. Lets start with the basics:

Vertical Positioning:
As mentioned above, one of the elements which ties into crosshair placement is vertical positioning. this is the set distance that you need to position your crosshair at in relation to the ground to be able to align your crosshair's horizontal axis with player model head-level. The good thing about vertical positioning, is that you can get accustomed to the head level that the player models have in Valorant quite rapidly, as the hitbox sizes in this game are identical, meaning you can always use the ground as a point of reference to determine where the enemy player's head would be.
In Valorant, the head level always remains a set distance from the ground
In order to train your general ability to place your crosshair at the correct height, try to make a habit out of constantly reminding yourself to place your crosshair at head level, regardless of where you are or what you're doing on the map. What I mean by this, is that even if there isn't any imminent threat of enemy players peeking you, try to keep constantly keep your crosshair at head level, the more time you spend doing this, the faster it will become a habit and become something you do subconsciously, without having to actively focus on the action. This habit allows you to build muscle-memory during otherwise useless down-time, another way to do this is to track your teammate's heads with your crosshair while rotating, leaving spawn etc.
While vertical positioning is something that people get used to relatively easily, I have come across a recurring issue among the VODs of people I coach, and that is that people generally struggle with adapting the vertical component of their crosshair's position to varying points of elevation. Here's an image to help you visualize a scenario where this could be an issue:
Peeking C Long, Positions marked: Cubby ( right ), Platform ( left ), back-site ( back )
In the image above I am peeking into C back-site from C long on the map 'Haven', I have highlighted three different positions / angles where an enemy could potentially peak from in an in-game reenactment of this scenario, Platform, Cubby, and back-site. What you'll notice is that these positions all have different points of elevation, meaning that while using the ground as reference will allow me to maintain my crosshair at head-level if someone peeks my position from ground level on C site, in order to clear cubby and platform, I would need to adjust my crosshair accordingly, using their lower levels as a reference for where the head-level position would be in those angles.
Unfortunately, if you are struggling with this due to the fact that you aren't familiar with the map layout yet, the only thing that will remedy your situation is more time spent playing the game, if however, your issue stems from a mechanical inability, meaning that your mouse control isn't good enough to allow you to make such adjustments comfortably, the routine provided later in the guide may help you get past that issue.

Horizontal Positioning:
Just as with vertical positioning, horizontal positioning is pretty self-explanatory in terms of it's function. Knowing at what height to position your crosshair at in relation to the environment is far easier to do than knowing where to position it on a horizontal axis, the reasoning behind this is that with vertical placement you will always have the ground or lower level of the object the opponent is standing on as a point of reference which allows you to instantly know at what height head-level is. When focusing on the horizontal aspect of crosshair placement, there isn't a set point of reference at all times; Sometimes you need to hold wide angles, sometimes you need to move along with the object you're playing against, and sometimes you need to pre-aim to swing effectively, all this variability makes it much harder for a newer player to grasp crosshair placement and horizontal positioning is just as crucial as vertical positioning if not even more important.
A very common mistake which I see a lot of in the VODs I review as a coach, is newer players holding angles too tightly, meaning that they're playing in a position where they anticipate an enemy push and are waiting for the engagement, and their crosshair is a position where it's hugging the edge of the wall the enemy will peek from. Here is a visual representation of what I'm talking about:

Example of incorrect horizontal placement
In the image above, I'm holding an angle where if someone crosses moving parallel to the wall I'm looking at, I'll have under 50 ms to react, my crosshair is so close to the edge of the wall that I will need to click my LMB the milli-second I see the enemy. By holding this angle, chances are that by the time I click the enemy will have already crossed to the left of my crosshair resulting in a miss and most likely my death; It would take inhuman reaction times for anyone to hit a player while holding like this, especially if the enemy player is swinging. Instead, you should allow some distance from your crosshair to the edge of the angle you're holding, allowing yourself to spot the enemy's player model, and then time your click effectively. Here is a visual representation of correct crosshair placement while holding the same angle:

Example of correct horizontal placement
As you can see, in the image above I am allowing for some space between the wall and my crosshair, giving me a significantly longer time window to spot an enemy player and react. Holding an angle that's too "tight" would mean I need to make a larger adjustment to hit the enemy, and therefore I increase my margin of error due to vertical overshoot ( see below ). There are exceptions to the rule when it comes to the distance you need to hold at, if the angle you are holding only allows forward movement ( into your crosshair ) you can hold a narrow line of sight. If you are clearing an angle ( moving along it to check for enemies ) and you are the agressor, you can hold tight and move along with the wall / LOS to allow for a faster reaction if you spot an enemy during your movement. If you are the agressor and you want to swing into an angle that you believe / know an enemy is holding, it is sometimes optimal to pre-aim, meaning you position your crosshair in a way where without moving your mouse it will be aimed at the enemy's head once you swing out the angle.

Vertical Offset:
The final common issue I would like to bring up which ties into both crosshair placement and horizontal click-timing, is something I call "vertical offset" or "vertical overshoot", this is a player's inability to move his crosshair horizontally while maintaining the same vertical placement. Vertical offset is a big issue when it comes to switching angles or flicking horizontally, I have seen many scenarios where a player is holding an angle properly with their crosshair at a pixel-perfect vertical position in relation to head level, only to make a 30 degree turn to check a different angle and end up shooting at an enemy's chest and losing the duel. Usually, the larger the movement, the more the player's crosshair deviates vertically. Here is a depiction of what vertical offset / overshooting looks like in-game:

Example of margin of error caused by vertical offset / overshooting
In the image above the green dot is where the crosshair should end up in an ideal scenario while flicking from it's current position to the target dummy, while the green lines represent a theoretical margin of error for overshooting. Fortunately for people that face this issue, I have come up with multiple Kovaak's maps and firing range excercises to help combat it and largely reduce your margin of error when moving your crosshair / flicking horizontally.

Settings: What sensitivity / crosshair should I use?


This part of the post discusses a topic which is highly subjective, both the sensitivity you use and the crosshair you use are something preference-based that you should decide upon on your own, the reason I'm adding this section into the post is for players which are newer to the tac-shooter genre; There are a few guidelines that will help them narrow down the settings that work the best for them.
First off, don't by any means copy your favorite pro's config, just because something works for a professional player that has probably spent well above 10,000 hours playing FPS games and decided upon their ideal sensitivity and crosshair within that massive period of time, doesn't mean that it's going to work for you, use whatever you're most comfortable with. Other than individual preference, and having gotten used to their sensitivity, the Pros you watch may be using gear which feels different at their sensitivity setting. A lighter mouse, faster mouse-pad, and faster feet can feel very different in terms of mouse movement, even if you're playing on the same sensitivity value on paper. In relation to grip-styles and what mice are ideal for each hand size, make sure to check out my first post in this sub before moving forward with this guide, as playing on hardware that caters to your individual preferences plays an important role in increasing your mechanical potential.

Sensitivity:
As I stated in the paragraph above, sensitivity is something quite subjective and while there's no general rule as to which single sens value is superior, Valorant and CS:GO professionals tend to stick to e-dpi or cm/360 much lower than professional players in other titles and FPS subgenres. Your e-dpi is your in-game sensitivity value multiplied by your mouse's DPI setting. The average e-dpi used by Valorant professionals is around 250 e-dpi, which would be a value of 0.625 in-game @ 400 DPI, or around 50 cm/360.

Pro player & Streamer sensitivity settings (e-dpi)
cm/360 is a universal format for sensitivity measurement, it's the amount of centimeters you need to move your mouse in order to perform a full rotation. This is the format adopted within aimer communities due to the simple fact that you asking someone "what sensitivity do you play on?" And them responding with "1.5 in CSGO" is pretty useless information as they could be playing at any DPI range, and you don't necessarily know what each CSGO sens corresponds to in relation to physical movement, or even movement in other games. "e-dpi" solves the issue of different DPI x Sens measurements within the same game, but the cm/360 format is easily transferable from title to title.
The reason professional players in the tac shooter genre use lower sens on average, is due to the fact that in contrast with other FPS games, tac shooters don't require larger or extended movements, instead they require you to hold or clear angles while maintaining stable crosshair placement, the least adjustments you need to make to your crosshair's position on your screen, the better your "aim" will be. The majority of players I have coached report that it has been significantly easier for them to maintain consistent crosshair placement at lower sensitivities. For newer players that still haven't found a "main" sensitivity that they feel comfortable on, I would recommend for them to stick to the range of 200-300 e-dpi, while for more experienced players coming from CS or other similar games, I would recommend a similar range with a higher cap, at 200-400 e-dpi ( very few professional players play above 300 e-dpi ).

Crosshair settings:
This is something even more subjective and preference-based than sensitivity even, so what I will do in this section is simply post my own settings which I use for my in-game crosshair, and explain why I picked each value within the menu.

Crosshair Settings
So, lets break my crosshair down setting by settings:
  • Color: I use "Cyan" as it stands out quite well for me with my current color settings, any color that doesn't match your enemy outline color works perfectly fine here.
  • Inner Line Opacity: This setting basically determines how see through your crosshair will be, I like setting mine at "1" as It makes the crosshair stand out more.
  • Inner Line Thickness: I set this to "1" which is the lowest value, a lot of professional players like to use "2", I think setting the value to "1" makes it easier to align your crosshair with heads or with other objects in the environment, it is also less obstructive, so I highly recommend either this or "2" to newer players
  • Inner Line Offset: This setting determines how large the gap is in your crosshair, I like setting this to "1" as the gap is as small as possible without disappearing, larger gaps make it more difficult to determine where the exact center of your screen is, which can act as a hnderance in your first shot accuracy at longer range engagements.
  • Movement & Firing Error: These settings just turn your crosshair into a dynamic crosshair and make the gap widen significantly while moving or shooting respectively in order to give you a visual representation of how the innacuracy factor works. Useless and distracting, would highly suggest that you keep these both off unless you're very new and still don't understand how movement / spray accuracy works.
  • Outer Lines: Everything is off here, I don't think playing with outer lines provides any benefit whatsoever and it's an extra distraction.

Crosshair Placement Improvement Routine:

A large portion of improving your crosshair placement is based on simply playing the game more, crosshair placement is largely based on muscle memory, part of having good crosshair placement is simply based on having experience in-game allowing it to become a subconscious habit, and the rest is based on your ability to anticipate player model movement and learn to make horizontal movements without simultaneously your crosshair vertically. The routine I will provide is not only a great way to work on your crosshair placement, but also highly beneficial to the click-timing aspect of your aim, which is basically the only element of aiming required in Valorant, as good tracking is unecessary in such a low TTK game. If you are already training using a daily routine on Kovaak's ( as you should be ) you can just implement this into your daily scenarios.

Kovaaks:
( These are all maps which require you to make horizontal movements without overshooting vertically, thus good aim training for those struggling with crosshair placement, see my other posts for a larger variety of Kovaaks maps )

  • 1 wall 2 targets horizontal - 10 minutes ( focus on your flicks, work on hitting both targets in the same movement, not pausing in between )
  • Valorant Small flicks - 10 minutes ( Great routine as head level is that of Valorant, and vertical deviation will cause you to miss, forcing you to maintain head level as you play through it )
  • PatTarget Switch small - 10 minutes ( Works on your ability to swap from one target to another while maintaining head level crosshair placement, keep LMB held while playing, only go for heads )

HSDM:

  • Valorant doesn't currently offer it's own deathmatch servers, therefore the next best thing is practicing in CS:GO. HSDM is a headshot only modifier for community FFA servers in CS:GO. To access these maps go to "Community Server Browser" and simply type in "HSDM", any server with decent population will do ( preferably 128 tick ). Playing FFA on headshot only forces you to maintain head-level crosshair placement as body shots don't count. I advise going for taps rather than spraying, as it limits the RNG, also spraying in CS:GO isn't transferable to Valorant as a mechanic. Make it a challenge for yourself to maintain positive K/D while playing. Use the AK in rifle servers, and the USP-S in pistol servers.

Firing Range:

  • Set the target dummy position to static, and practice your click timing by only going for the targets furthest to the left and furthest to the right interchangeably, do this for around 10 minutes.
  • Play Spike Rush and set it to hard. When set on "Hard" the AI will one shot you as soon as you peek if it has seen you, and one shot you after around half a second if you shift-peek it. Pretty decent warmup in relation to crosshair placement as you will die every single time if you aren't instantly headshotting the targets the moment you peek. Play this for another 10 minutes.

Link to my Discord server for further questions / coaching inquiries:

---------- https://discord.gg/6ZYVZ6x

New twitter : https://mobile.twitter.com/Twix_v2
submitted by Hi_Im_TwiX to VALORANT [link] [comments]

I bought six PRPL mattresses today. You should buy PRPL too (it's undervalued).

I bought six PRPL mattresses today. You should buy PRPL too (it's undervalued).
tl;dr: Buy PRPL stock, warrants (PRPLW) or calls based upon your preference. They are closing out a killer quarter and are undervalued. PRPL 22.5c 8/21 if you really need a strike.

I decided to appeal to both WSB audiences today with two different types of DD:
  1. A completely irrelevant story with some pictures and a position
  2. Numbers and Other Stuff

I bought six Purple Mattresses today.

Yep. I moved to Utah a few weeks ago (absolutely true) in order to do better DD for you in Purple's hometown (not true at all), so I decided to trek down to the Purple Factory Outlet to scope out the scene.
Purple Factory Outlet in a crappy part of Salt Lake - Sign on the door says \"NO CASH INSIDE\"
Family informed me they were coming to visit in three days (who does that to someone when they just moved!?!). My wife said we needed sleeping arrangements, so I said Purple mattresses.
After speaking with my Mattress Firm friend, he told me that Mattress Firm is entirely out of stock of twin mattresses in the Salt Lake City market (Purple's hometown). Worse, the mattresses aren't coming back as the original (the only mattress to come in twin) is being discontinued.

https://preview.redd.it/qd4u5bo3oy751.png?width=1242&format=png&auto=webp&s=3417ffb0eca481dbd797b67be2cb9c06c7a58a65
This is a screenshot of an internal Mattress Firm memo on the discontinuance of the Original Purple Mattress (the cheapest one by far) What can I say? He isn't a photographer.
  • The original is going away
  • Floor models are NOT to be sold as they are traffic drivers
https://preview.redd.it/tsevapzpoy751.jpg?width=3024&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=04399eff4e38e98ad17fa55d6db0e511f799bc67
I figured the Purple branded store would have stock, if it existed. And because they are being discontinued, I didn't want to be left short-handed in the future. So, I walked out of the store with six Purple mattresses. And some pillows. And sheets. And mattress protectors. Aaaaaand because I took delivery, it counts towards Q2 revenue (the best part).
For all of those who will inevitably accuse me of pumping the stock, I admit that purchasing six mattresses will pump revenue and therefore pump the stock after earnings. Now, where are all of those people who asked me for a free mattress?

This was a sign.
Most importantly, when I pulled out of the parking lot, a purple Dodge Challenger zoomed right by me. I was barely able to get this zoomed in picture of it. This means PRPL stock is going to zoom up.
PRPL 22.5c 8/21. I bought ten of those contracts today too. It was cheaper than the mattresses.

Numbers and Other Stuff

I put forward that because Purple is a high revenue growth company, the best valuation metrics are revenue multiples (as opposed to EBITDA multiples or P/E ratios). You're welcome to debate this, but frankly, the forward looking EBITDA and Earnings look beautiful as well.
Additionally, I put forward that Enterprise Value / Revenue is superior to Market Cap / Revenue, but I'll let you do that research yourself.
From Yahoo Finance:
Enterprice Value / Revenue
Ticker As of 6/28/20 2020 Q1 2019 Q4 2019 Q3 2019 Q2 2019 Q1
PRPL 2.01 2.52 3.94 3.61 3.73 3.09
TPX 1.71 4.84 7.39 7.34 8.07 6.88
SNBR 0.98 2.36 4.40 3.79 4.97 3.78
CSPR 0.53 0.91
Yes, COVID has happened, but unlike TPX, SNBR or Serta Simmons Bedding (which just completed a pseudo-bankruptcy), Purple has actually benefited from COVID and its prospects have never looked better with a shift to higher revenue- and margin-per-unit DTC as well as insatiable demand from its wholesale partners.
PRPL is currently trading well below its own previous EV / Rev multiple range, despite accelerating revenue growth into Q2 with a healthy long-term outlook of holding an increase.
Additionally, PRPL is trading well below the pre-COVID norm for industry EV / Rev mutliples.
What about CSPR? CSPR is a total dumpster fire that is now drowning in IPO lawsuits. Its revenue growth has materially slowed, was awful in April forward looking (15% YoY growth vs 170% for PRPL), on declining margins. The cash burn rate for CSPR was high before COVID. They likely only have a few quarters left to live. I think they are overpriced as a result. CSPR is a bad comp even though there are similarities to the businesses at the 30,000 ft level.

Revenue Growth & Estimates (Q2 Estimates via Yahoo Finance)
Ticker My Estimate Q2 Low-Mid-High Estimates 2020 Q1 2019 Q4 2019 Q3 2019 Q2 2019 Q1
PRPL 201.7-233.3 170-180.1-186.9 Actuals 122.4 124.3 117.4 103.0 83.6
YoY % 46.3% 58.3% 65.8% 36.0% 37.7%
TPX 613-616.4-626.4 Actuals 822.4 871.3 821.0 722.8 690.9
YoY % 19.0% 32.9% 12.5% 7.9% 6.6%
SNBR 176.8-216.4-281.4 Actuals 472.6 441.2 474.8 356.0 426.4
YoY % 10.8% 7.1% 14.5% 12.6% 9.7%
CSPR 95.8-104.8-113.6 Actuals 113.0 126.9 89.4
YoY % 26.4% 24.3%* 24.3%* 24.3%*
A few items of note here:
  • CSPR disclosed the Last Twelve Months YoY growth as of 3/31 was 24.3% (which sucks for a revenue growth company that is burning cash)
  • PRPL accelerated its growth over the past year. It is massively accelerating again in Q2.
  • PRPL disclosed in an 8k that is has already booked about $145M in revenue for Q2, so the analysts' consensus estimates are WAY under. I gave my math and estimate for Q2 sales here. I still stand by the estimate that PRPL will beat $200M in revenue this quarter, especially since I just bought six mattresses.
  • Now compare the barely double digit growth numbers of TPX & SNBR over the past year to PRPL. Now compare the EV / R multiples. Something is off.
  • PRPL may very well beat SNBR in revenue for Q2 (due to SNBR's high reliance on wholesale sales).

Summary: PRPL's EV / R multiple is under where is should be, even in this market, whether you compare it to its own previous multiples or its competitors before they were affected by COVID. If you look at COVID EV / R multiples, it is in-line with companies who are materially struggling with cash flow and growth... this couldn't be further from the truth. PRPL is undervalued.

Analyst Price Targets

I don't usually give these guys much weight, but for those of you who do:

https://preview.redd.it/h13nnc7zxy751.png?width=531&format=png&auto=webp&s=f36406c5e43cd7e07757ba6459dbff5665b7e525
Marketbeat (and a few others) are inaccurately showing a lower consensus price target because they are using some very old price targets.

https://preview.redd.it/qxgstjh4yy751.png?width=1359&format=png&auto=webp&s=af9d185d18ad3db9c3bc8f44c6acecc729cc6d1a
As you look at the 7 price targets MarketBeat is using to build a consensus price target, two of them are from last year, which is ridiculously old (it's about time you update this Bank of America--you got your underwriting--now do your job). Wedbush was after earnings, but before the recent 8-K on Q2 revenue.
I put forward that the only targets that matter are those that adjusted to the 8-K revenue announcement. The consensus there is $19.75. This only matters if you follow these types of things.

Today's Price Action

I admit that this post would have been more relevant early this morning when I started writing it (the numbers part).
The price spiked late afternoon because of the attention drawn to it by a CNBC interview by CEO Joe Megibow.
https://www.cnbc.com/video/2020/06/29/purple-ceo-on-the-popularity-of-mattresses-as-americans-stay-at-home.html
In the interview, he doesn't share anything really new (for those of us who closely follow), but he does emphasize that PRPL doesn't have a return rate problem, unlike others (*cough* CSPR *cough*).

Q2 EPS / EBITDA Estimates

PRPL has generated $70M in cash during April and May, which is insane for a stock that has generated Adjusted EBITDA in the 6.2-15.3M range over the last four quarters. The quarter isn't even done yet.
I'm not putting an EPS estimate on this because the amazing cash generation is going to be partially offset by a fairly large warrant liability expense adjustment. It will likely be one of the final expense adjustments we see as the secondary offering triggered a strike price drop to zero, which is one of key things the liability expense was modelling. Regardless, warrant liability expense doesn't deserve to be an expense as the warrants themselves are already built into fully diluted EPS, which is what everyone reports. The FASB done messed up on this one.

Technical Astrology & PRPL Patterns

IMO, most technical analysis is confirmation bias at best. Here's some confirmation bias.
https://preview.redd.it/5kviazrs0z751.png?width=1166&format=png&auto=webp&s=56c8daaa52c4af31c66c9821e57e40b9362b1bcd
If you are into this type of thing, PRPL has been a series of Bull Flags since the bottom of COVID. We are now ending our fourth bull flag (which likely ended today). At least this is what stocktwits and a few other areas are raving about.
Intraday Patterns
The intraday patterns are more interesting to me. I've been watching this security fairly closely over the last 3 months since the COVID bottom, and on most days, you'll see a spike in the morning that fades away into the afternoon. It is almost like clockwork and seems to be irrespective of volume.
While I don't trade this pattern because I don't want to exit my long-term capital gains positions yet, some of PRPL gang makes money by buying in the morning (or afternoon before), selling/shorting at the peak, and then closing/buying late afternoon. Good on them!
Also, PRPLW warrants tend to lag the stock on the way up if you want to play that too.

What is your next play after PRPL?

I've already mentioned several times that I will fully exit my warrants (and rotate into some PRPL stock / long dated options) when the stock price reaches about $24. My inbox has been bombarded with questions about what my next play is.

https://preview.redd.it/t56ziwe42z751.png?width=1161&format=png&auto=webp&s=4ccef0051c2f1740d1c8059f1cb2a16188f7435c
The above chart is a comparison between CSPR and PRPL. CSPR, even though it is a total dog, has been riding up with PRPL on sympathy plays. CSPR spikes on PRPL news, conference presentations, and any other movement.
PRPL has reasons to be up. CSPR shouldn't be any higher than where it was after its last earnings release. The only new things that have occurred are dozens of IPO lawsuits.
I'll be shorting CSPR for somewhere between $100k-$500k if I end up exiting my PRPL positions before CSPR earnings and if this stupid pattern holds. It's free money.

Positions

I've got tons of warrants (closing in on $2M worth) and now 10x PRPL 22.5c 8/21.

Do your own due diligence. This is not investment advice of any kind.
submitted by lurkingsince2006 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Binance SHORT TRADE Tutorial  Binance Margin Trading FULL ... Margin requirement in Selling Options, TRICKS to reduce margin  The Option School Cut Your Margin by 60% And Double Your ROI Margins in Futures CFD Trading: Trading on Margin and the Dangers of Margin Calls

Margin Trading: In the stock market, margin trading refers to the process whereby individual investors buy more stocks than they can afford to. Margin trading also refers to intraday trading in India and various stock brokers provide this service. Margin trading involves buying and selling of securities in one single session. Over time, ... Trading on margin is a common strategy employed in the financial world; however, it is a risky one. Margin is the money borrowed from a broker to buy or short an asset and allows the trader to pay ... Margin ratio and Forced liquidation. Margin ratio: The indicator for evaluating margin account's possibility of triggering forced liquidation. When the margin ratio ≥50% under 3x leverage or ≥25% under 5x leverage, the surplus balance can be transferred out to Spot Account. When margin ratio is ≤20%, it indicates a high-risk status. The ... Margin trading gives you full exposure to a market using only a fraction of the capital you’d normally need. Margin is the amount of money you need to open a position, defined by the margin rate. CFD are leveraged product, you don’t need to pay the full value of your exposure in order to trade. The Advantages of Margin Trading: Leverage is of the greatest advantage in margin trading. Margin can increase your profits dramatically. For example: with 10% of margin you can buy 10 times of the cash stocks in future market. Let us take an example to better understand the advantage of leverage.

[index] [473] [917] [38] [274] [86] [365] [546] [1033] [277] [627]

Binance SHORT TRADE Tutorial Binance Margin Trading FULL ...

Get more information about IG US by visiting their website: https://www.ig.com/us/future-of-forex Get my trading strategies here: https://www.robbooker.com C... - to make proper account adjustments and revalue your trades and portfolio a market to market is conducted each evening - this results in the variation margin adjustment or cash holding adjustment. Margin requirement in Selling Options, TRICKS to reduce margin The Option School ... 5 Ways to Adjust your loosing put option trade by ... The 10 Step Trading System From CA Rudramurthy ... 📌TIMESTAMPS! 1:33 Margin Level Recap 4:00 Short Sell Trade 9:04 Close/Settle Short Position 15:45 Execute your margin trade the "automatic" way 17:35 Positio... Keywords: Initial Margin, Maintenance Margin, Variation Margin, Market to Market. This video lecture explains what are margins and their types, their role in futures contracts, and how daily ...

#