Beginner’s Guide to Cryptocurrency Margin Trading

About Margin Lending on Poloniex...

Hi guys/gals!
I was looking at Poloniex's site and reading their Margin trading policy. When I discovered that you can set a position to Lend to margin traders at a certain interest rate. I am man enough to admit Im not brave enough to actually margin trade, but is it profitable to Lend?
Also is Poloniex reputable? Ive seen quite a bit of murmuring and complaints across the crypto Subs..... so Im not sure what to think :-/
Thanks for any input!
TO THE MOON!
submitted by TheBlackFyre to BitcoinMarkets [link] [comments]

Alternatives to Kraken for margin trading?

Perhaps some of you have run into this issue, but currently Kraken only allows a maximum of $100,000 borrowed on margin. I'm looking for alternatives like Poloniex, and GDAX but I have zero familiarity with their margin trading policies. It appears to that GDAX offers margin on ETH only at 3:1 leverage with a maximum borrow of $5000? Poloniex offers margin I'm just not sure to what extent (for enhanced verified accounts). What kind of leverage and how and what maximum USD amount? Thank you
submitted by Nickjasper1226 to ethtrader [link] [comments]

@ABC: The #DemDebate is now focusing on Pres. Trump's tariffs. By nearly a 3-1 margin, Americans say Pres. Trump’s trade and economic policies have increased the chance of a possible recession, this week's @ABC News/WaPo poll found: https://t.co/Z7hwsd9mGS

submitted by -en- to newsbotbot [link] [comments]

@ABC: Six in 10 say a recession is likely in the next year, new @ABC News/WaPo poll finds—and by nearly a 3-1 margin, Americans say Pres. Trump’s trade and economic policies have increased the chance of a possible recession. https://t.co/hTyynpHE8p

submitted by -en- to newsbotbot [link] [comments]

@ABC: MORE: By nearly a 3-1 margin, Americans say Pres. Trump’s trade and economic policies have increased the chance of a recession in the next year. https://t.co/l5GtTRHPh0 https://t.co/YOPmKADfj6

submitted by -en- to newsbotbot [link] [comments]

Nightmare scenario: universal healthcare, rent control, $15 minumum wage, 90% marginal tax rate for top income earners, protectionist trade policies, worker ownership of major industry, auditing the fed.

submitted by vistandsforwaifu to shitneoliberalismsays [link] [comments]

Trading on Bitfinex -- Margin Call Policy

You will receive a margin call (website and email notification) when the net value of your account equity reaches 22.5%. When the net value of your account falls below 15% of your borrowed funding value, the position will be force-liquidated.
With an open margin position, you will see an estimated liquidation price (the price at which your position would be liquidated) and required equity (the minimum equity required to keep the position open).
In the Summary box, select Show Full Calculations for a detailed reference. https://imgur.com/a/6bDCxiK
Example of Required Equity: With a margin position worth $500 USD and a maintenance margin value of 15%, $125 USD worth of available collateral is required in the Margin Wallet to prevent a forced liquidation.
When a position is force-liquidated, the system places a limit order at the zero-equity price (rather than simply executing a market order). We do this to prevent a liquidated position from creating a negative account balance for the user due to slippage during highly volatile market periods.
Article from the Bitfinex Knowledge Base.
submitted by garbisdarie to bitfinex [link] [comments]

@axios: A narrow majority of Americans think President Trump's tariffs against China have been bad for jobs, and his overall trade policies are unpopular by a nearly identical margin. https://t.co/GT1nlysjHm

@axios: A narrow majority of Americans think President Trump's tariffs against China have been bad for jobs, and his overall trade policies are unpopular by a nearly identical margin. https://t.co/GT1nlysjHm submitted by -en- to newsbotbot [link] [comments]

Bank of Canada: The Extensive Margin of Trade and Monetary Policy(PDF)

submitted by Central_Bank_Bot to Economics [link] [comments]

[Business] - Sensex Trades Marginally Higher Ahead Of RBI Policy Outcome

[Business] - Sensex Trades Marginally Higher Ahead Of RBI Policy Outcome submitted by AutoNewsAdmin to NDTVauto [link] [comments]

[Business] - Banking Stocks Trade Marginally Higher Ahead of RBI Policy Review

[Business] - Banking Stocks Trade Marginally Higher Ahead of RBI Policy Review submitted by AutoNewsAdmin to NDTVauto [link] [comments]

[Business] - Banking Stocks Trade Marginally Higher Ahead of RBI Policy Review | NDTV

[Business] - Banking Stocks Trade Marginally Higher Ahead of RBI Policy Review | NDTV submitted by AutoNewspaperAdmin to AutoNewspaper [link] [comments]

[Business] - Sensex Trades Marginally Higher Ahead Of RBI Policy Outcome | NDTV

[Business] - Sensex Trades Marginally Higher Ahead Of RBI Policy Outcome | NDTV submitted by AutoNewspaperAdmin to AutoNewspaper [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]

My misery can now be your gain - Quick tips from my options trading

Hi Fellow Autists,
I've been trading options (badly) for a few months now and figured I'd put down some of the things I've learned. I've lost a lot of damn money because I didn't know enough but now I've managed to find some stuff that have helped me stop losing money.
MACD - This is your best damn friend on determining Up / Down swings in a stock. Use this across different charts (1 min, 5 min, 10 min etc) to see which direction a stock is moving. See more here: https://school.stockcharts.com/doku.php?id=technical_indicators:moving_average_convergence_divergence_macd
tl;dr - If the 2 lines cross that means the stock is shifting direction in the time interval you have selected. (Do NOT just depend on the 1 min chart unless you're day trading)
Bollinger Bands - This will overlay a "blob" over your chart that shows a moving "Resistance / Support" window for the stock. If a candle on the chart pops out of the bubble in a direction that may indicate the stock will move in that direction. There are a number of different known "patterns" for the BB that you can watch for that can signal a specific shift in the stock. See more here:
https://school.stockcharts.com/doku.php?id=technical_indicators:bollinger_bands
Quick BB Patterns chart - https://i.redd.it/u7pxhg28lszy.png
RSI - Here if a stock is ~70 and the end of the chart is pointing down the stock should start heading down. If it is at ~30 and the end of the chart starts pointing up the stock should start heading up.
Use all of these together to help determine up / down trends




tl;dr - DO NOT FUCKING BREAK THE SPREAD!



tl;dr - Price only moves so much in a day, get gains GTFO.

https://www.newyorkfed.org/markets/domestic-market-operations/monetary-policy-implementation/repo-reverse-repo-agreements/repurchase-agreement-operational-details

I doubt most of you will read this but if you did I hope some of this information helps save / make you some money. Good luck you autists!
submitted by enfiniti27 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

The current turmoil in Belarus and its impact to Belarusian-Russian bilateral relations: A few points of consideration

Aleksandr Lukashenko was purportedly re-elected in Belarus's most recent elections. The current turmoil resulted. As is fairly common in certain Eastern European elections, the 80% margin by which he claimed victory gives rise to obvious doubts as to legitimacy. Mass protests and demonstrations resulted. Lukashenko has 'won' past elections by similar margins, at least 85-90%+. Lukashenko has arrested most of his political opponents, and jailed or exiled others. Journalists which report on the extent of his corruption (of which there is no shortage) tend to find themselves in prison. His title as Europe's so called 'last dictator' is well deserved.
The Global Response to Lukashenko's Purported Re-Election
The global response to Lukashenko's purported re-election has been largely as would be anticipated. Western countries -- and specifically the United States, through Mike Pompeo -- have expressed their reservations. The results are self evidently suspect. Despite this, Russia and China both endorsed the results and both countries have officially signaled their endorsement of the results. Notably, Russia historically has been Belarus's strongest and closest ally, the animosity between Putin and Lukashenko in the recent years notwithstanding.
Uncertainty from Russia
Despite the official endorsement from Putin, uncertainty remains as to the future of Russian and Belarusian bilateral relations. Several prominent Russians, including those inside Putin's inner circle, have signaled that the Lukashenko's backing from Moscow is not guaranteed.
Several developments this year contextualize the current status quo. First, negotiations for discounted oil broke down in totality earlier in February 2020. Russia not only suspended deliveries to Belarus, but offered future sales at "market rates" on a purely commercial basis. Second, the oil negotiations broke down after Putin's proposal to merge the two countries was flatly rejected. Natural gas sales were still discounted somewhat, but the lack of a market rate discount for oil sales to Belarus was a significant blow to the integrity of their relationship.
The basic idea here is that when global oil prices were high, Russia could with very little significant loss discount its sales to Belarus to gain favor and geopolitical influence. When oil prices bottomed out -- as they have in recent years -- the costs of that deal to Russia rose, so Russia sought to re-negotiate. In the past, Lukashenko made few concessions (and in fact used the potential of closer ties with the West to extract that concession from Russia, consistent with his historical maneuvering of the animosity between Russia and NATO to his distinct advantage). At the very least, Russia wanted closer economic (and by implication, political) integration; potentially, integration to the level of merging the two countries once Lukashenko left office. Lukashenko predictably rebuked any such proposal.
Shrinking Russian Sphere of Influence
From the outside looking in, it may not make sense why Russia would even want to integrate with Belarus. All doubt however is resolved in consideration of how the other near and distant dominoes seem to be lining up -- each of them to fall outside the Russian sphere of influence. Consider Kazakhstan, for example. Nazarbayev (Kazakh president) has made deliberate efforts to broaden its economic and cultural reach outside the sphere of Russian influence, even to the point that he changed the Kazakh alphabet from Cyrillic to Latin in 2017. The idea was to draw a line in the sand relative to the scope and extent of Russian influence in Central Asia in general and Kazakhstan in particular.
The fact that Russia hemorrhaged allied states following the USSR's collapse is a matter of historical record. Thirteen Warsaw Pact countries have joined NATO. So, when Georgia endeavored to join the EU in 2007, Putin invaded Abkhazia and South Ossetia -- both of which remain allegedly "disputed" territories to this day. A highly deceptive analysis concluded Georgia was to blame; but the whole reason Russia invaded in the first place was because Georgia was actively seeking NATO membership -- of course, to prevent exactly such an invasion. In reality, Russia invaded a sovereign country for the purpose of preventing it from joining NATO. Putin's response shows that in Russia's analysis, Georgia is better as a fragmented state than a NATO ally or EU member.
A similar pattern played out in Ukraine. As I have discussed before, when Ukraine sought closer economic and political integration with Western Europe and the United States, that was met with Russian meddling in Ukraine's domestic politics, even to the point of installing Yanukovych as Russia's puppet Ukrainian president. Thereafter, in the face of maidan, Putin invaded eastern Ukraine and seized Crimea. In the example of Ukraine as in Georgia, the outcome shows that Russia would prefer that Ukraine be a failed or fragmented state than a NATO ally or EU member.
Recall that the goal here was for Putin to create an economic alliance in at least Eastern Europe and Central Asia to rival the EU, and ideally as an insurance policy against further sanctions. The first step in that process would be developing individualized economic integration projects among each of the former Soviet bloc states. Instead, Putin lost Kazakhstan, Georgia, and Ukraine in the span of less than a decade. Ukraine was the first such integration project -- and that resulted in then-president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych's absconding Ukraine for Russia in disgrace.
So is Belarus next?
Perhaps. It's a question worth asking; especially considering what "being next" could mean.
In a first set of possible worlds, Lukashenko is out because of his own decisions, or because he is forced out (potentially by the protesters, Russia or both). In 2018-2019, when Russian-Belarusian bilateral relations were at their worst, it's conceivable that Putin might have tried something like he achieved in Ukraine -- but highly unlikely.
It isn't obvious that Putin would be unwilling invade, given in particular the fact that he invaded Georgia and Ukraine under somewhat similar circumstances and that at this moment Lukashenko is very weak. Lukashenko has never faced mass protests/demonstrations of this caliber before. Putin has, and he survived them, but the public's dissatisfaction with Lukashenko's "leadership" is amplified by the uncertainty surrounding the coronavirus, the consequential economic fallout attributable to the world's response to the coronavirus, and an increasingly ravenous lion to the east in its once-closer ally Russia.
This combination of factors certainly suggests that if Moscow sees the opportunity to try to replace Lukashenko with someone more reliable to the Kremlin, that is exactly what the Kremlin would try to accomplish. In that situation, Moscow would be re-running the same play-book it ran to get Yanukovych elected as president of Ukraine. Even if such a far-fetched plan were to work -- and it almost certainly would not, in the short term or the long term -- who would take Lukashenko's place? There is no one that would not leave Moscow worse off than they would be with Lukashenko. While it's obvious why he's not ideal, given the recent history of strife between the two countries, there is no world where Russia's interests are -- at this time -- served by trying to replace Lukashenko with a Kremlin puppet.
In the second set of possible worlds, Lukashenko remains and has to quell or pacify the Belarusian political unrest while maintaining ground against increasing Russian pressure. To accomplish this, Lukashenko could do something like seek a trade deal with the EU, as both Georgia and Ukraine did. But that would almost certainly would involve some kind of military response from Russia, just like Georgia and then Ukraine. While there's an argument to be made that Lukashenko's historically closer relationship with Russia (however complicated) insulates him from the kind of retaliation Putin visited upon Georgia and Ukraine, he would still be playing with fire. The Russian response to that kind of a bargaining chip from Russia would likely not come in the form of unwillingness to discount oil; it would come in the same form as was witnessed in Eastern Ukraine. To be clear, neither Putin nor Lukashenko benefit in that case.
The remaining option is most likely: Lukashenko "cracks down" on the protests, and then everything goes back to normal.
Why Belarus is Different from Ukraine & Georgia
As I wrote before, Belarus is not Ukraine. Maidan in Ukraine was in direct response to Ukrainian government's preventing Ukraine from joining the EU. The Ukrainian government opted for a counter-agreement with Russia instead. In response, Ukrainians took to the streets and sought Yanukovych's resignation. He subsequently fled to Russia. There were other abuses that precipitated the demonstrations, like Yanukovych arresting his pro-democracy political opponents and arresting journalists who were reporting on the extent of his corruption, but the threshold moment was when Yanukovych tried to rebuke the democratic will of the Ukrainian people (shirk the EU in favor of the Kremlin). So, for Ukraine, the goal was a clear and decisive move towards the EU and the United States (and NATO, by implication). This was in response to decades of Kremlin meddling in Ukrainian domestic political affairs. Maidan there was Ukraine setting forth a future for itself that did not include Putin.
Belarus also isn't Georgia. The purported underlying ethnic conflict behind the Russian invasion of Georgia was little more than an illusory pretext; Saakashvili's primary aim for Georgia was to become a NATO member and there was clear support for that in the Bush Administration because of the implications that would have to world oil markets. Specifically, despite the fact that Georgia has no reserves of its own, a pipeline across Georgia would substantially decrease Western dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Bush even outlined a pathway for both Ukraine and Georgia to join NATO. This was intolerable to Putin, and so he invaded as a result.
Belarus and its present situation is almost wholly incongruous. Belarus is now and has always been a far more authoritarian regime than Ukraine ever was, even at its worst. Unlike Ukraine and Georgia, Belarus never made the initial step towards actual democracy that ultimately laid the foundation the Ukrainian maidan or the Georgian efforts to draw closer to the West. Belarus also does not have ambitions of closer ties with the West, and the EU and Untied States in particular -- which Ukraine has sought for some time. Lukashenko only ever used that as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Moscow -- a fact of which Putin is invariably aware. The riots taking place now in Belarus are not oriented towards any goal in particular, either. It's arbitrary rage. Even if they were oriented towards democratic reform, and it is not clear that they are, Belarus has no intention of divesting itself from the Russian sphere of influence -- however high the costs of maintaining that relationship may be.
Compromise / Cooperation best serve both Belarus's & Russia's Interests
If both Belarus and Russia act rationally, they will cooperate and compromise. Russia will have little choice but to accept the fact that Belarus is not merging with Russia any time soon. The costs of Russia's invading would be inexorably high. There is no one in Belarusian politics that can replace Lukashenko that would be both able to preserve Belarus as a state and that would in the same instance be able to more effectively advance Moscow's interests. Likewise, it is in Russia's interest that these riots and protests throughout Belarus come to and end -- as quickly and expeditiously as possible. Political unrest in one totalitarian country has a tendency to spread to another; as Putin has experienced time and again, dating back to his time in Dresden through the present. Further, this all comes at a time when Russian public confidence in Putin is at an all time low -- and the potential for another Moscow maidan (and perhaps one that might actually be successful) is at an all time high. Given that, the more pertinent question in the final analysis might even be, if Lukashenko falls, is Putin next? Their fates are tied together, whether they like it or not.
submitted by theoryofdoom to geopolitics [link] [comments]

Singapore is a Meritocracy* [EXTRA LONG POST]

Singapore is a Meritocracy* [EXTRA LONG POST]
Edit: Thank you for all the comments and chat messages! I'm trying to go through each one. Writing thoughtful comments in the midst of having a full-time job is HARD WORK. I think I've missed a few questions, drop me a message if you're interested in continuing a discussion, I'm open to listening! There has been a lot of good comments, a few with great perspectives, and now I have a whole lot of things to read up on.
---
Now that the 2020 General Election is firmly in our rear-view mirror, there is something that I have been meaning to write about: institutionalized racism affecting the minorities, especially the Malays, in Singapore. If you are groaning at this thinking you have been misled by this post’s title, I assure you that by the end of this post you will understand the caveat behind the above-mentioned title. I plead for a little of your time and patience.
We have seen many discussions online about majority privilege and systemic racism impacting the minorities. Many of you may have even participated in some of these discussions. I will not try to explain those terms for they have already been repeatedly debated to death. What this post aims to achieve is to bring to light Singapore’s history and government policies that have either benefited the majority race or kneecapped the minority race. Or both.
Why am I doing this?
It is frustrating to see some Singaporeans fully buying into the narrative that Singapore is a truly meritocratic society; that the government’s policies do not discriminate against minorities, or if a Singaporean worked hard enough he or she will succeed (whatever the definition of success is), or that we have anti-discriminatory laws that protect the minorities. Some even claim that the Malays enjoy special privileges due to Section 152 of the Constitution describing the special position of Malays, and that the Malays are blessed with free education in Singapore.
Section 152, “Special Position”, free education for all Malays?
Minorities and special position of Malays
152.—(1) It shall be the responsibility of the Government constantly to care for the interests of the racial and religious minorities in Singapore.
(2) The Government shall exercise its functions in such manner as to recognise the special position of the Malays, who are the indigenous people of Singapore, and accordingly it shall be the responsibility of the Government to protect, safeguard, support, foster and promote their political, educational, religious, economic, social and cultural interests and the Malay language.
The oft-mentioned Section 152 of the Constitution was an administrative continuation of previously existing colonial policy towards the Malays [Col: 126]. Regardless of the “special position” of the Malays, the only form of assistance rendered to the Malays was the policy of free education for all Malay students. This minimal approach of the government did little to improve the educational and socio-economic standing of the Malays as revealed by the 1980 national census. The free tertiary education policy was ultimately removed in 1990, despite opposition from Malays who questioned the constitutionality of its removal [col: 126].
With free education for all Malays, why haven’t their socio-economic and educational standings improved?
There are many factors to look at, and the issue goes way back to the colonial era so that’s where we shall start. The colonial administrators of Singapore, in their pursuit of capitalistic gains, had little use for the native inhabitants. The natives who were already living off their own land had no desire to work for the British as labourers. The British saw this unwillingness to work for them as indolence, and ascribed many other negative cultural stereotypes to the locals [pdf]. Nailing home the capitalistic intent of colonial presence in Singapore, the British Director of Education R. O. Winstedt explained their policy for education for the natives in 1920 [pg. 2]:
"The aim of the government is not to turn out a few well-educated youths, nor a number of less well-educated boys; rather it is to improve the bulk of the people, and to make the son of a fisherman or a peasant a more intelligent fisherman or peasant than his father had been, and a man whose education will enable him to understand how his lot in life fits in with the scheme of life around him".
And in 1915, a British resident revealed the colonial attitude towards education [pg. 3]:
"The great object of education is to train a man to make a living.... you can teach Malays so that they do not lose their skill and craft in fishing and jungle work. Teach them the dignity of manual labour, so that they do not all become krannies (clerks) and I am sure you will not have the trouble which has arisen in India through over education"
The type and quality of education that the British set up for the native inhabitants show that they had no intentions to empower the locals with skills for a new economy. The education provided, while free, was to make sure the locals were kept out of trouble for the British, and remain subservient to the colonial causes. Further impeding the socio-economic status of Malays, the British actively discouraged Malays in switching from agricultural production to more lucrative cash crops, preventing the building of wealth among the Malay communities (Shahruddin Ma’arof, 1988: 51). In contrast to the British suppression of the buildup of Malay wealth and provision of vernacular education, Chinese businessmen, clan associations and Christian missionaries established Chinese schools where students were taught skills like letter-writing and the use of the abacus. By the turn of the 20th century, the curriculum in these Chinese-language schools expanded to include arithmetic, science, history and geography while Malay-language schools under Winstedt’s educational policies focused on vernacular subjects such as basket-weaving.
So, when Singapore attained self-governance, did things get better?
Discontent with the education system and social inequalities was already a big issue in the mid 1950s that the parties that contested for the Legislative Assembly championed for reforms to social issues like better education systems, housing subsidies and workers rights.
The People’s Action Party (PAP) won the 1959 Legislative Assembly general elections by running on a rather progressive platform of low-cost housing, improvement of employment opportunities for locals and a stronger education. They also campaigned for abolishing the inequality of wealth in their election manifesto (Petir, 1958: 2), with PAP chairman Dr Toh Chin Chye expressing his disgust at seeing “so many of our people reduced to living like animals because under the present social and economic system, the good things of life are for the ruthless few, those who believe that the poor and the humble are despicable failures.”
With the PAP in power, assurances were made to Singaporeans that no community would be left behind. In 1965, Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew promised aid specifically to help raise the economic and education levels of the Malays. In 1967 during a mass rally at Geylang Serai, PM Lee again promised that “the Government with the support of the non-Malays are prepared to concentrate more than the average share of our resources on our Malay citizens [pdf].” He emphasized the importance of lifting all sections of the community to an even footing, reasoning that “if one section of the community were to lag behind it would harm the unity and integrity of the nation” (Bedlington, 1974: 289).
Despite these promises to help the minorities narrow the inequality gap, very little was done to realize it. Instead, the government took a ruthless approach towards economic growth, sparing no expense. Deputy Prime Minister Goh Keng Swee explained the government’s main concern was “to generate fast economic growth by any and every possible means. . . . If unequal distribution of income induced greater savings and investment . . . then this must be accepted as the price of fighting unemployment.” (Goh, 1972: 275)
By the late 1970s, a strong shift in parents’ preference towards an English-medium education for their children had resulted in a rapid decline in the number of vernacular schools.
Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, there was a shift of parents’ preference towards educating their child in the English stream. This shift, together with a period of minimal intervention in terms of educational policy and assistance to the minorities by the government, caused the number of enrolments in vernacular schools to rapidly decline. The socio-economic gap also widened between the Malays and Chinese, as the Chinese community enjoyed greater occupational mobility relative to the minorities. This can be seen in the shift in the lower manual occupation category, from a relatively equal proportion in 1957 to a 10 percent difference in 1980 [Table A]. In 1980, the average Malay household income was only 73.8 percent of the average Chinese household income. The income gap widened considerably by 1990, where the average Malay household income dropped to 69.8 percent of the average Chinese household income [Table B] (Rahim, 1998: 19-22). Decades after the lofty promises were made by the government, the Malay community’s slide into marginality continued.
Table A

Table B
Wait, the gap got bigger? Did the government do anything?
In 1979, Education Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee with the Education Study Team released a report on the Ministry of Education, more widely known as the Goh Report. The team was made up of 13 members, most of them systems analysts and economists, and none of whom ‘possess much knowledge or expertise on education’ (Goh Report, 1979: 1). The all-Chinese team excluded social scientists and educationalists, as the Education Minister had little regard for their expertise (Rahim, 1998: 121). The Goh Report made recommendations for radical changes to the educational system, recommendations which then became the basis of the New Education System (NES).
During a time when Tamil, Malay and Chinese schools were getting closed down due to declining enrolment numbers due to the popularity of English medium ones, the Special Assistance Plan (SAP) was introduced in 1978 to preserve and develop nine Chinese schools into bilingual (Mandarin and English) schools while retaining the values and traditions of a Chinese school. As part of the NES, these schools were to be the only ones to offer the Special course which the top 10 percent scorers of the PSLE are eligible to opt for. With these schools getting more resources, better facilities and the best teachers, the SAP contradicts the multi-racial principle of giving equal treatment to the non-English language streams. This exclusivity and the elite status of SAP schools affords its students better opportunities and advantages that are virtually out of reach for many minorities in Singapore. Effectively, the SAP is an institutionalized form of ethnic/cultural favouritism (Rahim, 1998: 130)
The NES also introduced early streaming for students which further exacerbated existing inequalities. Despite primary school education being free for all Singaporeans, families with better financial means have a huge advantage in preparing their child for streaming through additional tuition and better preschool choices#. (Barr & Low, 2005: 177) As we have seen from the disparity in household incomes between the Chinese and Malays, early streaming served to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots. The have-nots, more often than not, find themselves in the lower streams, trapped with very limited options providing upward social mobility. They will have to face an insurmountable task to lift themselves and their future generations out of their current predicament.
In 1982, the PAP slogan “a more just and equal society” was quietly dropped from the party’s constitution. This signaled an end to the socialist ideals that the party built its identity upon.
Why? It can’t be that the government favours one race over another...can it?
Examining the PAP leadership’s attitude towards the different cultures and ethnicities is key to understanding what the government values and how these values shaped its policies. Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, as quoted in the Goh Report, extolled the values of East Asian philosophies: "The greatest value in the teaching and learning of Chinese is in the transmission of the norms of social or moral behaviour. This means principally Confucianist beliefs and ideas, of man [sic], society and the state" (Goh, 1979: v). The government’s championing of SAP schools and ‘Chinese values’ is also complemented by the launch of ‘Speak Mandarin Campaign’ in 1979.
In 1991, Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong espoused similar values as his predecessor, praising the virtues of ‘Confucian dynamism’ and claiming that Singapore would not be able to thrive and prosper without the Confucian core values of thrift, hard work and group cohesion. The fear of erosion of the Chinese cultural identity was never matched with a similar concern for the erosion of minority cultural identities, where the minorities were “expected to submit to a form of partial or incomplete assimilation into a Chinese-generated, Chinese-dominated society.#” (Barr & Low, 2005: 167)
On top of favouring Chinese cultural values and identities, the PAP leadership associated the cultures of the minorities with negative connotations. Speaking about a Malay who did well in business, Senior Minister Lee Kuan Yew described the man as “acting just like a Chinese. You know, he’s bouncing around, running around, to-ing and fro-ing. In the old culture, he would not be doing that” (Han, et al., 1998: 184). In a Straits Times article on 26 June 1992, SM Lee also implied that the Chinese are inherently better at Maths, and that "If you pretend that the problem does not exist, and that in fact (the Malays) can score as well as the Chinese in Maths, then you have created yourself an enormous myth which you will be stuck with.+"
These attitudes from the ruling elite translated into more policies that preserved the advantage of the majority. When faced with the “pressing national problem”* of a declining birth-rate of the Chinese, the government took steps to ensure Chinese numerical dominance in Singapore. The Singapore government encouraged the immigration of skilled workers from countries like Hong Kong, Korea, and Macau, countries which were accorded the status of ‘traditional sources’ of foreign labour (Rahim, 1998: 72). Meanwhile, showing the government’s preference and/or dislike for specific groups of people, Malaysian Malays faced great difficulty in getting work permits. (“‘Harder’ for bumiputras to get S’pore work permits.+”, The Straits Times, 7 Mar 1991)
Another policy which worked to preserve the advantage of the majority was the urban resettlement programmes of the 1960s and 1970s. This resulted in the dissolution of the Malay electoral strongholds in the east, undermining the organic growth of Malay political grassroots. When it became apparent in the 1980s that the Malays were moving back to the traditional Malay residential areas, an ethnic residential quota, labelled the Ethnic Integration Policy, was implemented. The rationale behind the quota was to ensure a balanced racial mix, purportedly for racial harmony. However, this rationale does not stand up to scrutiny in the face of numerous academic studies on interethnic urban attitudes and relations**. Another consequence of the policy is the reinforcement of racial segregation when taking into account the income disparity between the races. Underlining the weakness of the government’s reasoning, constituencies like Hougang were allowed to remain Chinese residential enclaves despite its population being approximately 80 percent Chinese. (Rahim, 1998: 73-77)
Perhaps the most controversial policy introduced was the Graduate Mothers Scheme. It was introduced in 1983 to reverse the trend of falling fertility rates of graduate women versus the rising birth-rate of non-graduate women***. In a push to encourage graduate mothers to get married and have children, Deputy Prime Minister Dr Goh Keng Swee unveiled a suite of incentives; all-expenses paid love-boat cruises for eligible graduate singles in the civil service, a computer dating service, fiscal incentives, and special admissions to National University of Singapore (NUS) to even out the male-female student ratio#. At the other end of the spectrum, lesser-educated women were encouraged to have smaller families in a scheme called the Small Family Incentive Scheme. This was achieved by paying out a housing grant worth S$10,000 to women who were able to meet the following set of conditions: be below 30 years of age, have two or less children, educational level not beyond secondary school, have a household income totalling not more than S$1,500 and willing to be sterilized#.
Based on the average household income statistics, a simple deduction could be made that those eligible for the sterilization programme were disproportionately from the minority communities.
Isn’t that eugenics?
Yes. Singapore had a government-established Eugenics Board.
The graduate mothers and sterilization programmes were greatly unpopular and were ultimately abandoned or modified after the PAP’s mandate took a 12.9 percent hit in the 1984 general election. However that did not mean that eugenics stopped being an influence in policy-making.
In his 1983 National Day address, PM Lee stated that when it comes to intelligence, “80 per cent is nature, or inherited, and 20 per cent the differences from different environments and upbringing.” This is telling of the role that eugenics, biological determinist and cultural deficit theories played in the formation of PAP policies.
To further safeguard Singapore from “genetic pollution” (Rahim, 1998: 55, Tremewan, 1994: 113), the Ministry of Labour in 1984 issued a marriage restriction between work permit holders and Singaporeans. The work permit holder would have his work permit cancelled, be deported and be permanently barred from re-entering Singapore if he were to marry a Singaporean or permanent resident without obtaining prior approval. Approval from the Commissioner for Employment would only be given if the work permit holder possesses skills and qualifications of value to Singapore.
Doesn’t sound to me like the government targets any particular race with its policies.
Deputy Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 1987 rationalized that certain posts in the Singapore Armed Forces had been closed to Malays for "national security" reasons. He claimed that this policy was implemented to avoid placing Malays in an awkward position when loyalty to nation and religion came into conflict. PM Lee also added that the Malays behaved more as Malay Muslims than as loyal Singaporeans. PM Lee and DPM Lee’s statements finally made explicit what many suspected to have been an implicit rule. It could be observed that, despite being overrepresented in the civil service, Malays tend to stay in the lower-to-middle rungs of organizations like the SAF. It is also noteworthy that, to date, no Malay has held important Cabinet portfolios such as Minister of Defence, Minister of Home Affairs, Minister of Foreign Affairs, and Minister of Trade and Industry.
The conflation of loyalty to the country with approval of the ruling party proved to be patently flawed, as studies by the Institute of Policy Studies (ST, 30 Sept 1990: 22; IPS, 2010) indicate that Singaporean Malays showed a stronger sense of national pride and identification compared to the other major ethnic groups. The study also found that Citizen-Nation Psychological Ties (CNP) scores, that is, national loyalty, weakens with: higher socio-economic status, Chinese, youth, and political alienation. Even when the Malays have been historically disenfranchised, they were found to be proud to be Singaporeans, loyal to Singapore and more willing to sacrifice for the nation than the other ethnic groups.
Additionally, Minister of Defence and Deputy Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong threatened to withhold aid to the Malay self-help organization Mendaki in 1988. The threat was issued over an incident during election night where several Malays in a crowd of Workers Party supporters had jeered at PM Goh at a vote counting centre. It became apparent from this incident that any aid offered by the government was tied to loyalty to the PAP instead of it being the duty of the government to serve Singaporeans regardless of party affiliation^^.
There have always been Malay PAP Members of Parliament (MP), did they not help fight for these issues?
The Malay PAP MPs are in the unique position of having to represent not only people of their constituents but also the rest of the Malay Singaporeans while toeing the party line. With many of the government policies being unhelpful towards the Malays, it is near impossible to fulfill this role satisfactorily. PAP MPs Ahmad Haleem (Telok Blangah) and Sha’ari Tadin (Kampong Chai Chee, Bedok) were both made to enjoy early retirements from their political careers for bringing up “sensitive” issues of the Malay community^^^. This set the tone for future PAP Malay MPs to remain unquestioningly in step with the leadership, regardless of their personal agreement, in order to have a long career within the party. Today, Malay PAP MPs have continued with the trend of parroting PAP policies that ran against the interests of the Malay/Muslim community (e.g. Environment and Water Resources Minister Masagos Zulkifli and Minister-in-charge of Muslim Affairs Yaacob Ibrahim with regards to the tudung issue).
What about the Mendaki and the Tertiary Tuition Fee Subsidy (TTFS)?
The policy providing free education for all Malays was ended in 1990 despite opposition from the Malays and the opposition party[Col: 126]. In its place, Mendaki introduced TTFS in 1991 to subsidise the cost of tertiary education in local institutions for those living in low household income. Due to the long history of marginalization and the widening of the inequality gap, the number of Malays who were able to make it to tertiary education institutions, especially in local universities, have been disproportionately low compared to the other ethnic groups. As such, the number of students able to benefit from this subsidy is even lower.
It was only recently, 20 years after the introduction of the subsidy, that the criteria for eligibility underwent revision. The revision takes into account the size of the family of the applicant, allowing for more Malay students to benefit from it. However, this subsidy is only one measure in an attempt to ensure that Malays students who were able to qualify for tertiary education are able to do so. Short of totally ditching streaming, more care, thought and resources are needed to lift the quality and accessibility of education for the Malays, especially in the early years of a child’s education.
So what needs to happen now?
Singaporeans, especially politicians, need to move on from making assertions similar to what PM Lee had made in 1987, that the "problem is psychological . . . if they try hard enough and long enough, then the education gap between them and the Chinese, or them and the Indians, would close. . . . Progress or achievement depends on ability and effort." It is important for Singaporeans to recognize the nearly Sisyphean task faced by marginalized communities in improving their socio-economic standing. Handicapped right from the start, their perceived failures in our “meritocratic” society should not be judged as an indictment of their efforts, but influenced in no small measure by the failings of the state in dragging their feet to take action. As a community, Singaporeans need to actively combat negative stereotyping, and move away from policies that were rooted in eugenics. Government intervention into ensuring unbiased, fair hiring practices would also help in raising the standing of the marginalized minorities. It would be impossible for Singapore to live up to its multiracial, meritocratic ideals without making fundamental changes to the above mentioned policies.
---
# Academic journal behind a paywall. Most tertiary institutions should have partnerships with these journals, so you are likely able view them if you have a student email address.
+ Online scan of the article is unavailable
\* The declining birth-rate of the Chinese was one of three pressing national problems, according to PM Lee in a National Day rally speech in 1988; the others being education and the growing number of unmarried graduates [at approx 29 mins].
\* From Lily Zubaidah Rahim’s* The Singapore Dilemma (1998: 76-77): Rabushka’s (Rabushka, Alvin (1971), ‘Integration in Urban Malaya: Ethnic Attitudes Among Malays and Chinese’, 91-107) study found that it was common for people living in ethnically homogeneous areas to adopt favourable attitudes towards other ethnic groups. People who resided in ethnically mixed areas but did not mix with other ethnic groups were also found to hold negative attitudes towards others. He postulated that physical proximity coupled with superficial interaction across ethnic lines may in fact lead to heightened contempt for other ethnic groups. Urban studies (Fischer, Claude (1976), The Urban Experiment*) have similarly found that close physical distance of different ethnic groups does not necessarily result in narrowing the social distance between the communities. Indeed, physical ethnic proximity in large cities may well engender mutual revulsion and a heightening of ethnocentrism. These research findings have been corroborated by several Singaporean studies (Hassan, Riaz (1977),* ‘Families in Flats: A Study of Low Income Families in Public Housing’; Lai, Ah Eng (1995), ‘Meanings of Multiethnicity: A Case Study of Ethnicity and Ethnic Relations in Singapore’) which have found interethnic relations in the ethnically integrated public housing flats to be relatively superficial.
\** In the same article, PM Lee drew a straight line connecting the Malays with lower educational levels in this line of rhetoric questioning: “Why is the birth rate between the Malays, and the Chinese and Indians so different? Because the educational levels achieved are also different.”*
^ The stronger representation of Malays in civil service and Western multinational corporations was likely due to the difficulty in seeking employment in local firms. Prevalence of negative stereotyping of Malays meant that a Malay job applicant has to be much better qualified to be considered for a job in a local firm (Rahim, 1998: 25). A recent study into this phenomenon can be found here#.
^^ The PAP’s quid pro quo policy was put under the spotlight again in 2011, when PM Lee made it clear that the government’s neighbourhood upgrading programmes prioritised PAP wards over opposition wards.
^^^ PAP MP Ahmad Haleem raised the “sensitive” issue of the government’s exclusionary policy towards Malays in National Service, which adversely affected socio-economic standing of the Malay community [Col: 144]. PAP MP Sha’ari Tadin was actively involved in Malay community organizations and helped to organize a 1971 seminar on Malay participation in national development (Rahim, 1998: 90).
---
Recommended Reading:
The Myth of the Lazy Native: A study of the image of the Malays, Filipinos and Javanese from the 16th to the 20th century and its function in the ideology of colonial capitalism [pdf].
The Singapore Dilemma: The Political and Educational Marginality of the Malay Community.
Eugenics on the rise: A report from Singapore#.
Assimilation as multiracialism: The case of Singapore’s Malay#.
Racism and the Pinkerton syndrome in Singapore: effects of race on hiring decisions#.
---
References:
Bedlington, Stanley (1974), The Singapore Malay Community: The Politics of State Integration, Ph.D. thesis, Cornell University.
Chew, Peter K.H. (2008), Racism in Singapore: A Review and Recommendations for Future Research, James Cook University, Singapore.
Fook Kwang Han, Warren Fernandez, Sumiko Tan (1998) Lee Kuan Yew, the Man and His Ideas, Singapore Press Holding.
Goh, Keng Swee (1972), The Economics of Modernization and Other Essays, Singapore: Asia Pacific Press.
Michael D. Barr & Jevon Low (2005) Assimilation as multiracialism: The case of Singapore's Malays, Asian Ethnicity, 6:3, 161-182, DOI: 10.1080/14631360500226606
Rahim, Lily Z. (1998), The Singapore Dilemma: The political and educational marginality of the Malay community, Kuala Lumpur, Oxford University Press.
Shaharuddin Ma’aruf (1988), Malay Ideas on Development: From Feudal Lord to Capitalist, Times Book International, Singapore.
Tremewan, Christopher (1994), The Political Economy of Social Control in Singapore, London, Macmillan.
submitted by cherenkov_blue to singapore [link] [comments]

[DD] All aboard AXDX!

[DD] All aboard AXDX!
This is my first DD. I feel really good about it. I’m just your average investotradegambler, but do like to dig deep, and think I found something here. Let's go.
TL;DR
Buy AXDX calls. July/Aug/Nov exp. 15-20 strikes. Shoot for 25 for max tendies.
Go long AXDX shares on margin, too.
Why?
  • Experienced investor with an awesome track record of winning as a shareholder (and fighting for shareholder value) recently showed showing extreme confidence in the company ($25MM buy)
  • They are gonna get $ from COVID testing revenues incoming which were not expected in their business plans at all (and this is a relatively low rev company, so the boost will look great)
  • EUA for the tests < 2 weeks away from being announced - we have evidence from other applications that it should be any time now
  • Besides all that, everything on track with their normal core business and it shouldn't be much affected by COVD
Now, for the real story...
It started with a LARGE buy that caught my eye
Actually, a series of buys from Jack Schuler. Schuler has spent over 30 years in the pharmaceutical industry, including having served as President and Chief Operating Officer of Abbott Laboratories. Today, Mr. Schuler serves on the board of directors for several companies, including Accelerate Diagnostics, Quidel Corporation and Biodesix, Inc.
I'll do the math for you: that's $26.7MM of stock purchased during this dip.
OK, so insider sales don't mean everything? We don't panic when we see selling because sometimes people just need to cash out. So we cannot just assume this means anything. Can we?
Looking back at Jack's buying history - this was a v big buy for Jack
Looking back, Schuler is quite active in investing in his companies. But it's not always buys, he does sell. And if you look further back, you actually see some interesting things.
Starting with AXDX: Before the buys shown above, the last time Jack made a slew of purchases was between Aug 11 2017 and May 15 2018 when he purchased $29MM total. Note that this was over the course of a year for an average price of about $20 a share. Prior to those buys, you have to go back to Jan 2017 before he made any other bets.
In other words, Jack just bought as much stock in the last few months than he'd bought in the previous few years.
So it seems like Jack feels really good about buying this dip. Is that enough? Probably... but let's keep going.
Jack has been around the block - and Jack likes winning (Jack gets top $ for Ventana)
He's been quite successful in being an activist that fights for his shareholders. That is a great thing if you are in investor. I managed to stumble across this gem: Jack Schuler historical record of 'dirty tricks' in business. It's truly amazing. It's some dude's salty manifesto about how Jack S is a actually just a bad ass investor.
Back in 2007, Roche wanted to buy Ventana who Jack was an investor in. He has big problems with the initial price that was offered and slowed down the deal. Here's what he said:
"This is about stockholder value," said Ventana chairman Jack Schuler. "Simply put, we believe that Roche is trying to capture value for its stockholders that rightly belongs to Ventana's stockholders." Ironically, as Roche was hailing its offer as a 44% premium on Ventana's stock value of $51.95 on June 22, 2007 (the last trading day before Roche submitted its bid to Ventana), the stock has steadily risen to a recent close of more than $83.
Preach! He's not playing dirty tricks. He wants shareholder value. What's wrong with that? Long story short, the deal was hung up because Jack needed all of his tendies. It eventually went through at a 19.3% premium to Roche's initial offer on June 27, 2007. Well done, Jack! I'd certainly want him to negotiate 20% more for my shares.
Turns out Jack has a history of winning - Jack wins with Stericycle, Medtronic, and more
Digging deeper, Jack (and John Patience, the same one from the screenshot below) did the same trick with Stericycle. The buys referenced in this article were unloaded 4-5 years later for 80-100% profits.
He also did it with Medtronic in 2010. He picked up 30,000 shares at an average price of $36.93 each on June 25. Medtronic is at $93 today ($115 pre-covid) and pays a dividend. That ones seems to have worked out too.
He has other winners too. Jack. Is. A. Winner.
Is that enough?
Honestly, for you degens, yeah it should be. Jack has a strong track record. He thinks $10 is way too cheap, so he just bought an assload. Also, we know he doesn't hate money. A man like that never starts to hate money.
Did I say a COVID tailwind? Yup.
Did I mention that they have a COVID tailwind? I shit you not. It keeps getting better. You know the serology tests that determine if you've had CV? That test for antibodies? Well, turns out AXDX was perfectly set up to capitalize because they can make these. And they are planning to do so!
On top of a slow and steady growth of sales of medical devices, which is AXDX's core business, AXDX can monetize on these tests which will be really important in the coming year as the world learns how to live with COVID (knowing who has had the disease is very important). From the CEO on the earnings call in May:
Lastly, through a recently signed collaboration agreement with BioCheck Ltd, we have begun commercializing the MS-FAST fully automated chemiluminescence immunoassay analyzer and SARS-COV-2 test for the detection of IgG and IgM. This partnership has the potential to provide both an avenue to reengage prospective customers on Pheno as well as a near-term revenue uplift. The performance data for these assays are best-in-class with sensitivity and specificity estimated as exceeding 95% for both assays based on over 100 samples collected at the source of the pandemic, Wuhan, China. Since announcing the partnership on April 15, we have received several indications of interest across the global business.
We are continuing to work with the FDA on our emergency use authorization for commercialization in the U.S., and we have taken initial orders in EMEA. While we are tremendously excited about this collaboration agreement and are eager to play a role in fighting this pandemic, it remains too early to estimate the revenue potential of this opportunity. In my 30 years in diagnostics, I have never experienced a period of such profound disruption. However, with this disruption comes the creation of new opportunities, the near-term impact from this pandemic to accelerate and most other healthcare companies is significant while at the same time shining a brighter light on the value of rapid diagnostics for infectious disease.
Awesome! So, we are stumbling into quite a bit revenue we were not expecting. That's dope. More good news? Yup. The CEO references that their core product (Pheno) now has advantages due to COVID that will help future sales:
And a big part of this will be, in my opinion, will be around how do you better manage infectious disease crises, how do you better manage secondary infections, how do you better manage bed utilization and staff utilization? And those are all things that Pheno directly addresses. I mean Pheno gets patients on optimal therapy much, much quicker, two, three days quicker, and get patients out of the hospital two to five days quicker in some cases. And so with that, I mean, as healthcare providers look at these things, I mean, we fully expect them to be really having a heightened sense of interest in what we're doing in this space.
Is now the time?
I think so. First, let's check AXDX over the past 5 years:
https://preview.redd.it/0o2vw40m3j851.png?width=2734&format=png&auto=webp&s=6bd6870849fbd180cae421c934b8c6f509301dfb
In summary:
  • Lots of ups and down, but pretty consistently shoots above $20 (which will make us tendies)
  • In 2019 (pre-covid), it easily sat in the $18-$22 range.
  • We closed at $15.86 today after touching $17s yesterday and this morning. Profit raking before the weekend in the Hamptons. I'm not worried.
  • Looking back in the news on AXDX, I see no cause for concern. This is just a medical device company that's finally starting to see revenue.
You may notice the spike at the end of the chart...
Let's zoom in to the last three months - a recent run up and dip offer a chance to buy
https://preview.redd.it/fiy5eew34j851.png?width=3356&format=png&auto=webp&s=a868130d3e1a2449542e6822029ece6603088f4e
In the past month:
  • I suspect that others noticed what I have noticed, so it's been up up an away.
  • This week was especially bonkers. Up 5-10% most days. Never seen action like it.
  • But notice that today was a BIG DOWN day after 6 in a row up. It had to cool off. Maybe it cools off more Monday...? It will have reasons to go up soon that have not yet materialized (more below)
  • I see no reason why we wouldn't be headed back to ranges that it was safely in last year... especially with the tailwinds due to testing revenue, Jack S's confidence, and the recovery of markets (though AXDX is hardly affected by the shutdown).
Buy the dip, before the EUA approval!
Remember those serology tests? AXDX is within weeks, by my estimate, of getting those approved for use. What pharma company doesn't love a nice FDA approval pop?
So when will it happen? Some digging: if you check here, you can see that the FDA is pumping out these approvals.
Beckman Coulter was a recent company to get the approval, this Monday on June 29, to deliver 30MM tests a month. If you check back on their press releases, they were chirping about this in late April. So this process for them took ~2 months.
Going back to AXDX's last conference call (May 8), we can read between the lines:
We recently filed for FDA emergency use authorization for our Pheno respiratory test kit, positioning its benefits for ventilated COVID-19 patients. If approved, this authorization will provide accelerate an avenue to reengage prospective and current customers, obtain useful analytical and clinical data on this new test and help some affected patients.
And in the Q+A:
We have an EUA submitted, as I mentioned, for IgG and IgM combo test. We're also going to be submitting an EUA for individual tests for both IgG and IgM over the next couple of days. The FDA has already come back to us with a few pieces of data that we need to follow up on which is pretty standard.
And we're working on that now. And in addition to that, I would say that we are submitting for a 510(k) for the MS-FAST instrument, and we're working on that currently as well with the consultant. Accelerate is the authorized legal agent for BioCheck. And so we're basically spearheading all of the dialogue between the FDA and this opportunity which is a good thing because of the vast experience we have with the FDA already.
And so our expectation is, again I guess to be clear, there's been no setback at all relative to our submission. And the new guidance that has come out. And then the last thing I would say is the performance data that we have already submitted with the FDA is excellent data. And it already meets the requirements that they have called out.
Our sensitivity and specificity for both the IgG and IgM test or are both very solid. And again, we're continuing to work with the FDA and hope to hear some positive outcomes here over the next couple of weeks.
By the looks of it, from the statements and how press released line up, AXDX was also writing press releases in April about this, they applied to the FDA in late April or early May. Given that Beckman Coulter's process took about 2 months... I think we could be very very close to an announcement, and I'd certainly expect it before 7/17 (cough - calls - cough). [I checked a few other EUA timelines, and ~2 months is about right]
That's it. What else do you need? Go buy some AXDX because:
  • Experienced investor with an awesome track record of winning as a shareholder (and fighting for shareholder value) recently showed showing extreme confidence in the company ($25MM buy)
  • They are gonna get $ from COVID testing revenues incoming which were not expected in their business plans at all (and this is a relatively low rev company, so the boost will look great)
  • EUA for the tests < 2 weeks away from being announced - we have evidence from other applications that it should be any time now
  • Besides all that, everything on track with their normal core business and it shouldn't be much affected by COVD
What's not to like?
My positions
Jacked to the tits on 10, 12.5, 15, 17.5, and 20 calls expiring in July, Aug, and Nov. Probably $25k across those. Then another $25k or so of shares. I think I'm just over $50k invested.
submitted by hammerfrog to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Can anyone explain Zerodha's physical delivery settlement bs?

I have recently decided to start options trading. I know that SEBI changed the rules from cash-settled to physically-settled last year. But what I don't know is how this is done. And Zerodha's explanation just complicates it further
Please clarify and help out a noob
submitted by rarelygiveshits to IndianStreetBets [link] [comments]

PSA for IB investors: TSLA margin rate currently at ~77% due to their Collateral Value Pricing (CVP) policy

TLDR (for real): The CVP margin rate (currently 77.9%) is actually just based on a cap on the $/share you can borrow. Which means the borrowable $ amount will not go down with the price. The cap on $/share is based on how low the stock has been in the last year.
CVP = the lowest adjusted average price over 20 consecutive trading days in the past year
CVP Margin Rate = Close Price – CVP / Close Price
What's important to note here is the nature of this equation. It's very much different from the static margin percentage that is normally applied. With the static (currently 40%) margin rate, when the stock value drops, the amount you can borrow also drops, which obviously is what causes margin calls (or with IB, immediate liquidation :) ).
But with CVP, the percent is dependent on the current price. So the rate goes down when the stock goes down. It essentially acts as a CAP on the dollar amount you can borrow. That cap is the CVP which is about $490 per share right now. So you can only borrow $490 per share.
If the share price were to drop again, then eventually the CVP rate would drop below the standard rate, and then the actual dollar amount you can borrow against your shares would begin dropping with the share price (like usual).
So moral of the story is that the CVP margin rate won't actually cause any unexpected liquidation. It just caps the $/share you can borrow.
Got this response direct from IB:
IBKR continually reviews its margin requirements with the objective of striking a balance between reasonable leverage and prudent risk management.The leverage offered on TSLA shares has been reduced due to our Collateral Value Pricing (CVP) policy.
The collateral value pricing policy was put in place by IBKR's upper management team and has been completely vetted and reviewed on numerous occasions. As you note, the implementation of the collateral value price (CVP) calculation constrains the amount of margin loan value (MLV) that IBKR is willing to lend to an account based on a new collateral value price (CVP). The purpose of CVP is to protect IBKR from a scenario in which a stock has a run up in price, for which we then allow a client to purchase the stock at the top using the nominal margin rate and the stock subsequently returns to its prior lower price level in a rapid decline. If the descent is greater than the nominal margin interval the potential for loss to IBKR will increase. We seek to set CVP at a level which the stock can reasonably sustain.
The current CVP Margin rate for TSLA is approximately 77%.
Regards, Frank IBKR Risk Group
Update: They gave me some more information including TSLA's current CVP and how it's used to calculate the CVP margin rate.
IBKR's CVP Margin Policy has been in effect for a number of years. The CVP Margin Rate acts as a delta-based house charge. A net delta is calculated for your entire TSLA position which is multiplied by the CVP margin rate and stock value. This policy is not exclusive to TSLA. It applies to all equities.
Current CVP = 493.126 TSLA = 2,235.890 CVP Margin Rate = 77.9%
CVP Margin Rate = Close Price – CVP / Close Price.
(2,235.890 - 493.126) / 2,235.890 = 77.9%
Update 2: Finally!! They finally explained it!! Why couldn't they just say this to begin with!
The collateral value price is the lowest adjusted average price over 20 consecutive trading days in the past year.
submitted by benbenwilde to teslainvestorsclub [link] [comments]

eBay DD Due Diligence, Coronavirus is about to reboot this stock to what it should have been worth years ago

*Authors note* Attempted to post this in WSB but it kept being rejected by the AUTOMOD because it said the title was too long. IDK what the issue is but I am posting it here if that is okay as I spent a lot of time on it. Apologies it was written in the voice of WSB. This is a great stock to buy as well so I think the people on this sub would appreciate the DD. I don't post here much, for those that don't know me I'm the one who posted a very in depth HUYA DD (Now taken down by the WSB mods I suspect because I made a post earnings update talking about some shenanigans) I sold my Huya 10/16 strikes for 800% profit last week. I will leave my options recommendations in the DD. I know Options are not a big thing here but TBH 1/15/21 $85 strikes are a very conservative investment. I have dysgraphia and dyslexia so my writing style can be brutal but the message should come across. *End Note*
eBay could SOON become pound for pound one of the most profitable enterprises outside of gambling and drugs.
TLDR
Bad Leadership at eBay for YEARS
Corona flips the script. Bull Case $180 Bear Case $220 Future Price Target maybe more. We will see how peoples mind changes when we see earnings.
BUY 11 – 101 – 1001 Shares Depending on Bankroll (I like shares on this one as I expect the company to pay dividends) X Multiples of 100 for future CC.
7/31 $80C (These look the juiciest RN)
(8/21 $90C if made available)
1/15/21 $85C
Ebay is an online auction house. Look up your local auction house and spend an evening or day at the Auction. It is fun and will help you understand why previous CEO’s tanked this awesome company with their stupidity. Hammering a Diamond into a square hole.
Worked for an auction house 4 years. If you go to a well run local auction you will see diverse people, successful auction houses have a customer makeup like this:
30% Hustlers and People involved with the auctions (Consignees etc)
20% Rich people (Rich people love auctions and I’m not talking about Sotherbys I’m talking about a normal sized city weekly auction there will be lots of rich people there)
40% Normal people that either like the thrill or value seekers.
10% Poor People.
This is important when we talk about bad CEO decisions. You have to know your audience.
Ebay started out with this dude selling a broken laser printer, Pierre Omidayer. It grew quickly and he brought in professional help. This can be a good thing as founders can get in the way of growth. In 1998 Meg Whitman was hired to be CEO. Her tenure was unimpressive and she was responsible for the first of two massive blunders that decapitated eBay growth.
Ebay was growing and the internet was starting to get widespread use. By the early 2000s people started to talk about WEB 2.0 and for some reason certain people thought that WEB 2.0 meant being fancy. Ebay did a massive redesign that was hated by most people. Broadband internet was in it’s infancy and the focus on form over function was frustrating for low bandwidth users as the fanciness was more complicated and took longer to load. Additionally it stunted the pathway that would eventually appear for mobile growth. The remnants of this design linger today.
Screen Cap of the AOLfication of eBay late 2003 I believe one of the big problems was rendering the menus in AJAX or something similar, very slow to load in that era
Here we can see the failure in line graph form, (These things lag) eBay share price got hammered. One the reasons for the hammering was lackluster earnings, many ebay users attribute this to the redesign failure as it turned off existing and new customers.
Link to image as it loos like this sub doesn't allow embeded images
Project Ugly-ify and Slow-ify eBay looks to have lopped off growth and momentum for the share price. Meg Whitmans tenure at ebay neutered growth.
One could blame Whitman for doing a lot of damage to eBay growth but she will largely be forgotten after you learn about the FLAMING DUMPSTER FIRE OF A CEO that is John Donahoe. In 2008 eBay hired Donahoe to be CEO. This could possibly be the worst hire in the history of all hires.
Don’t take my word for it. In 2014 Carl Icahn said eBay was the worst run company he had ever seen.
Carl Icahn says eBay is the worst run company he has ever seen
Donahoe had series after series of bad decision. He basically went to war with small and medium sellers (eBay’s actual bread and butter customers) and went to great lengths to attract large corporate clients. (The worst type of business for eBay) and run away his most profitable customers.
eBay is a market place.
Donahoe gave steep discounts in fees in order to attract corporate customers.
Companies like Target started to sell on eBays platform. (Most are now gone because within a few short years the internet was mature enough that they could start their own platforms)
Link to no longer existing eBay Target Store
Fee discounts to corporate customers angered existing sellers.
In early 2013 he implemented eBay’s search algorithm (Cassini I believe it was called) Previous to this Algo eBay was just a dumb search engine. With the Algo, eBay could control visibility of items on the site via built in preferences like Best Match. With this Donahoe is about to fire maybe 20% of his most profitable customers and give the Amazon marketplace a flood of new users. This idiot was trying to turn an auction house into the next Amazon. Instead he just put Amazon growth on steroids and shoots himself in the foot.
Cassini was used to ban eBay's customers. DROVES OF THEM
Donahoe decided that any problems on eBay were caused by sellers and he declared war on the people that were his customers.
Enter DSR. Detailed seller ratings was eBay implementation of strict guidelines for their sellers. DSR = 4 categories, each category was rated 1-5 with 5 being good. The system treated 1&2s as a failure.
For Example Customer was unhappy with an item they received for whatever reason. If someone rated a part of the transaction a 2 they would get a ding against their DSR. Problem is they treated all categories the same and the thresholds were very stringent.
For every 1000 transactions a seller had to have LESS than 10 dings in order to participate with Cassini without a search penalty. If the 10 threshold was crossed (Which is 98.9% or less good rating) they would be penalized in the search standing and go under probation. If they crossed 20/1000 or 97.9% or less positive approval rating they would BAN YOU FROM THE PLATFORM.
YOU READ THAT CORRECTLY John DONAHOE in is infinite wisdom decided that sellers with as high as a 97.9% positive transaction rating were disposable. I've NEVER SEEN SOMETHING SO STUPID IN MY LIFE.
I kid you not. Donahoe implemented a system where a 98.9% POSITIVE rating has a penalty and 97.9% positive is a ban. (Check the feedback on tons of Amazon marketplace sellers and you will see how ridiculous a threshold this was) What was even more ridiculous was in the beginning all categories were treated the same. For example Books were treated the same way as used women's clothing. Certain categories like womens clothing were DECIMATED by sellers being banned. People who had been on the platform for a decade and had say a 97% positive feedback selling USED WOMENS CLOTHING were banned left and right. It gets worse, remember how at 98.9% they would put you on probation? Some people called this the DEATH SPIRAL as if you were on probation the new “Best Match” system would lower your search standing. So if you were some poor schmuck who had sold 397 used pieces of womens clothing that year and just 4 of them were unhappy with the experience. You’d go on probation with little to no hope of anything other than the ban hammer. I’ve read many period era messageboard posts of long time sellers in probation trying to do EVERYTHING they could to raise their DSR to get out of probation but had zero visibility with the new algo, they were just left to wither on the vine hoping fruitlessly to turn things around. Most of them didn’t know it YET but eventually as people started putting the pieces together there was no chance of them escaping the Death Spiral. Gaggles of people spent MONTHS trying to save their accounts and eventually most of them realized they were screwed, there was nothing they could do about it because of the Algos. These sellers turned on ebay and took others with them.
If you notice during this time period AMAZON marketplace took off. Daddy Bezo’s had a flood of experienced online traders who simply shifted their operations to the less popular (at the time) and more expensive platform (at the time). It was either that or close shop. MANY CHOSE TO CLOSE SHOP.
The stupidity of all this was the Small and Medium sellers were the real money makers. eBay charges around a 9% fee with a cap of $250 per transaction.
Which is more profitable?
Target selling 50,000 items or 5,000 small to medium size sellers selling 100 items?
The answer is in the nature of marketplaces. Target sells to 5,000 customers and that is the end of the story. Small to medium sized sellers tend to keep the money in the marketplace. User A sells to user B for $100 User B can turn around and take that $100 and buy something he needs for himself or his business from user C, user C can then do the same. Wash, Rinse, Repeat. Target selling $100 is a one way street while Small to Medium users can be a continuous money carousel.
Donahoe in his infinite ignorance ran off many of his prime sellers. Ultimately sellers are your customers as they are the one’s who pay the fees. He jump started his competition whom he was stupidly trying to emulate. The important thing to understand about eBay is their product (An Auction) is easily scaleable and cheap to run
For example this Rolex
costs about the same to service this listing for a rug
The Target deal, illustrated with a bathroom rug
Chasing these corporate dollars was infinitely stupid.
  1. They gave these corporations steep discounts to use the platform
  2. The internet was maturing and we were just a few years from all these corporations having their own web presence
  3. Robbed dollars and eyeballs from your bread and butter. Auction and Store listings of small to medium sellers.
  4. Robs future revenue from carousel customers who return money to the marketplace and gives it to corporate customers who do not return dollars and are using the dollars they make off you to build the infrastructure to replace you. DING DING DING
This dude declared war on some of his best customers and tried to make eBay an ugly corporate shill and would eventually lead to the invasion of cheap Chinese stuff (eBay is now combating that)
We can see the results of his war on customers with this graph. eBay’s growth and revenue was decimated by this idiot and you can see the results once the earnings were reported (Which lagged the implementation of his stupidity)
War on customers displayed via line graph
Donohoe decapitated ebay right during what would have been it’s prime growth years and funneled those customers to his biggest competitor.
eBay can make far more with less because of the nature of it’s bread and butter customers. Many auction enthusiasts are high income types. eBay has better demographics financially than it’s competitors. There is even a fairly large industry of arbitrage where people sell items they source elsewhere (Like amazon) and basically drop ship them off as eBay sells because some stuff sells at a premium on eBay.
eBay CAN make more money per transaction compared to similar industries and can capture a significant amount of money to return within the marketplace. Similar to sales tax, that dollar can bounce around within the marketplace and eBay can take it’s 9% cut every time it switches hands.
Interesting side rabbit hole that arises during the Donahoe years. Donahoe was obsessed with attacking his own customers. This was commonly followed in an industry blog called AuctionWeb and then eventually named ecommercebytes. Run by the Steiner Couple
Here is an article their website published about them getting rid of sellers
They reported on all of eBay’s policy changes and basically called them out for being the giant window lickers they were. It ruffled a few feathers within the organization and now 6+ employees of eBay are being charged with crimes like harassment and stalking. Really a crazy story. DONAHOE is to blame for the policies and culture that allowed this to happen. He should go to jail over just what he did to the share price.
Crazy eBay Criminal Stalking
More Crazy eBay Harassment
During all of this foot shooting was when Carl Icahn said that eBay was THE WORST RUN COMPANY HE HAD EVER SEEN
One of the problems was the incestuous nature of eBay’s relationship with Paypal and the board members who presided over both. They basically spent a decade doing what was best for the board and not what was best for the Shareholders, employees and customers of eBay.
This is now not so much a problem because many of those relationships no longer exist. In the aftermath the other pieces have found increased market value and eBay has been suppressed due to it being stuck with all the burdens of the Donahoe administration and bad perception.
eBay should have been worth more as an individual piece and it’s was the one who took the financial hits.
PayPal Split in 2015
PayPal has a 113 P/E (I’m not saying this is the best metric to judge a company I’m just using it for illustration)
If eBay traded at Paypal P/E it would be worth $660
So what’s the catalyst to the eBay Rocket Ship that is about to take off?
CORONA. Corona is shaking up the whole economy and this shake up will jolt eBay to it’s full potential.
Alexa 90 days, even better at 140 and this growth is against the normal ebb of seasonal business
Over the past 4 months as far as I can tell eBay has increased traffic by as much as 18%+ which is pretty AMAZING for a very mature internet company. Even more amazing when you take into account that this is normally eBays slow period. Traffic is normally on the downturn. YOY I am curious how much busier they have been I'm guessing 45% YOY increase in traffic for the Month of May & June
April May June July are eBay’s 4 slowest months and the July 28th earnings will encompass 3 of those 4 months. During the slowest time of year eBay went from the mid 50’s to the lower 40’s for it’s spot in total Internet Traffic. A HUGE shift against the normal tide of business cycles.
Traffic for last 90 days. Up much more over entire Corona Period the increase looks more bigly when you view 150 days out
I've spent a few hours trawling eBay seller message boards. Within this quarter I have heard of increases in per transactions and a decrease in "Best Offers" which means better margins for sellers and more fees for eBay. I attribute this to Corona disrupting normal supply chains. eBay has been established for many years so boomers when they can’t find something are like "Oh Yeah EBAY." Many sellers report increased sells in business related categories and more aged inventory being sold as parts of the market shift towards online from some of the traditionally Bricks and Mortar industries. eBay has a very successful and well made app. Sellers are seeing increased usage amongst younger buyers/sellers whom are either bored with the lockdowns or looking for side income after losing their jobs. Remember when we mentioned 500 small sellers being worth more than one big corporate client? This will be obtained with an army of people using the app on their cell phones. Corona is going to get the attention of customers they lost over the years as they come back to the platform they remember, millennials and new users when they discover the well made app will come online. I've added the eBay App to my phone it is very good and has very customizable search features.
The Bear case for eBay is even more, if Corona turns out to be worse (It’s not) everything online just becomes more valuable.
So what is eBay worth?
Well it’s a better investment IMO than Paypal
eBay valued like Paypal is worth $660
Mercardo Libre is worth more than eBay (This is a Crime) as it is not even a top 1000 worldwide website while eBay is top 50. Plus it doesn’t even turn a profit. If you have any MELI stock sell half of it and buy eBay in addition to whatever you would buy if you didn't own MELI do the same for PayPal as well IMO.
If eBay was valued like MELI it would be worth Tesla numbers
Mercardo Libre has a 25% bigger market cap than eBay and doesn’t turn a profit. Ebay would be $76 a share just to be on par with MELI and it shouldn’t even be in the same ballpark.
Etsy is just outside of the Top 100 for web traffic and has a 181 P/E if eBay was trading like ETSY it would be trading at $1090 a share
If eBay was valued like ETSY it would trade for $1090
Channel Advisor is a company that grew out of offering services for eBay and while it works on multiple platforms it’s use was born from eBay and it has a 60 P/E
If trading like Channel Advisor it would be worth $363
Corona shifted a lot of users to the eBay marketplace because of busted supply chains. They now have an Okay website and an EXCELLENT APP. This increased use comes during the traditional low tide of eBay traffic and if eBay leans into the coming quarters their revenue is going to skyrocket. Corona was the catalysts to wake everybody up to what eBay could do and what it should be worth. EBAY should be one of the most profitable companies in the US economy with lots of room to improve the bottom line. It has all the pieces.
Like
Selling off some of the MANY side projects under the eBay umbrella
Streamlining Employment
Just this month they are integrating their own payment platform which should add 1-2% more to every sell which is a big deal considering that the average fee is around 9%. We are talking about maybe 20% added to revenue with not much changing. BIG MONEY
Winning back Small to Medium sellers and improving the per item transaction is eBay's ticket to tendie town. All the new growth they are experiencing is exactly what they need and want. They have a good App that can capitalize on the reboot.
eBay has ample room for growth and I suspect the income levels of buyers in the marketplace is higher than competitors like Amazon, Etsy, Overstock, Stitch Fix. eBaY has more people with money paying attention.
New CEO seems to be a bright guy. All he has to do is not SHOOT HIMSELF IN THE FOOT like the Donahoe CEO. If successful eBay will be on the moon mission of all moon missions
MOST UNDERVALUED TECH COMPANY IN AMERICA. As always my DMs are open and I do mercenary stuff. I have my position and I am currently buying shares with a goal of 303 shares before earnings.
I suspect this thing will have VERY little resistance upon takeoff
Little Resistance
BUY 11 – 101 – 1001 Shares Depending on Bankroll (I like shares on this one, I like the company and I'm expecting dividends) Once this rocket settles it is covered call selling time. (This is why you want multiples of 100
You should be at least a 80/20 Options/ Share split. Got to water the seed
Options
7/31 $80C
(8/21 $90C if ever made available)
1/15/21 $85C (Also I'd buy higher but they are not currently available, if BEFORE earnings Higher Strikes appear I would go up in strike A LOT. If earnings are up big this is ONLY THE BEGINNING as this is eBays SLOW PERIOD. Earnings for the fall will be CRAZY if Traffic continues to hold and if it has the normal Santa Claus Tax increase 🚀🚀🚀🚀🚀
submitted by NewFlipPhoneWhoDis to investing [link] [comments]

SWK - Insanely Cheap Mining Adjacency

SWK - Insanely Cheap Mining Adjacency
*** Updated Research

SWK provides an amazing opportunity to take advantage of the bull market in precious metals at an undemanding valuation with excellent operational momentum.
Environment:
Precious metals have had a phenomenal ride lately; both due to fear arising from COVID-19, and coordinated monetary policy stimulating economies at an unprecedented level. The graphic below shows the recent parabolic move in GLD (overshadowed by SLV) and reflecting upon the 08 crisis and the numerous QE policies that followed, this upward trajectory may continue further.

GLD vs DJIA (2006-Present)

With rises in commodity prices, the logical next step is to get some operating leverage and purchase the gold miners. No doubt, this second level thinking has been handsomely rewarded albeit encountering the sovereign and FX risks with many of the global miners domiciled in South Africa and Russia:

DRDGold, Polyus and Polymetal (April 20 - Present)
Since many of these miners are in the process of expanding production, cash flow won't be realised for several years and operating margins may not improve as much as managements' forecast (i.e. ASX: DAC). Further, since the market has drawn the logical connection between commodity prices and miners, these companies have run a very long way in the last few months.

Company Overview:
This is where SWK provides us with a cheaper and lower risk opportunity to gain access to this thematic. SWK provides drilling services to large miners of metals (i.e. nickel, silver, gold etc.) in US, Canada, Europe and Australia. Specifically, they use specialised drills to extract samples, which they analyse to then assess to the viability of a site. Increasing demand for mining exploration will, intuitively, increase drilling utilisation and drilling rates. SWK also entirely owns Orexplore, which provides mobile sample analysis to determine the characteristics of extracted cores. This improves the efficiency of examining the quality of a site by removing cost (transportation and storage), timing (it can be conducted on-site), and operational risk (damage in transit) all of which further benefit the mining co. and embed SWK into the exploration process.

Competitive Advantage:
SWK’s competitive advantage is being able to a world class cost effective and efficient underground drilling. For example, their development of DeepEX allows for longer hole from underground that are cheaper than many shorter surface holes. Their recent contract extension from BHP at Olympic Dam despite competitors (i.e. MSV and BLY) rigs being used onsite is testament to their value proposition.
SWK has also invested heavily (~$25mn) into their Orexplore technology in an attempt to move up the value chain away from high-capital intensive drilling into a higher margin business. This technology removes significant operating expenses (employees and equipment), reduces lead time (can be built and shipped globally within 2 weeks), is very simple to use (technical training is not required), and most importantly, is currently being purchased for free and is the main catalyst in this investment (more on this later).
Furthermore, SWK has made a concerted effort to increasingly diversify their product offering to different miners (with exposure to various commodities), and geographically. Their global and diversified footprint has provided them with a world-wide footprint, with costs to build their global business already incurred (most recently in Pogo – Alaska), further encouraging a buyout (more on this later).
FY19 Financial Report
H1 2020 Financial Report


Catalyst and Valuation:
Exit Options:
The primary catalyst for a revaluation in SWK is a huge macroeconomic tailwind providing momentum that might facilitate a sale of the drilling business to a strategic buyer. Without doing too much crystal ball gazing, I view the exit opportunities as follows:
5% - Amazing sale of drilling business = >100%+ returns;
65% - Solid sale of drilling business = 50-100% returns;
20% - No sale and general re-rate = 25-50% returns;
10% - Languishing business and capital destruction = -25%-0% returns.
Given management’s firm guidance towards the sale (https://www.openbriefing.com/OB/Swick-Mining-Services-Ltd/2020/2/25/Swick-HY20-Results-Conference-Call/3716.aspx at ~08:00) I will focus on our base case that entails: (i) selling or closing surface drilling business as it’s the lowest margin / weakest vertical; (ii) selling underground drilling business; and (iii) refocus towards Orexplore either through taking the business private, IPOing a new entity or rebranding SWK.
Given shareholders have been frustrated with SWKs delay in progressing the business towards a sale and having difficulty commercialising Orexplore it has been important to wait for a noticeable inflexion point in the business to attempt to “time” entry as much as possible. Let’s see how the inflexion point is here beyond the macroeconomic environment above.
Miners around the world are aggressively looking to expand their operations due to increasing commodity prices and SWK's services become front of mind. Recent news is ticking all the boxes and adding huge momentum in the stock to catalyse a re-rating.
  1. Reinstatement of dividend payment and share buyback program showing prudential capital management and a positive outlook relating to future financial position. This is a double-edged sword as management raised capital at 23c and bought back shares from 12.5c through to 17.5. By buying now, we have avoided this dilution although acknowledge this was not the best form of capital management. On the other hand, it does suggest management are flush with cash and happy to redistribute to existing shareholders before a possible sale; that is, we get paid to wait:

ASX Announcement 1
ASX Announcement 1

ASX Announcement 2

  1. Contracts are being extended, new contracts being won, and guidance on FY21 figures. Management are highlighting clear intention to demerge and growth is providing EBITDA growth for a better sale price:

https://preview.redd.it/06fxmos33dh51.png?width=563&format=png&auto=webp&s=70367dc6c623a4bb16c434f7f0f9892cd2a2f20b

  1. Large contracts with key miners and commercialisation of Orexplore. This is increasing utilisation rates and improving margins by expanding work at existing sites:
ASX Announcement 3a

ASX Announcement 3b

  1. Upcoming earnings call to catalyse re-rating:
ASX Announcement 4


  1. The Orexplore website (https://orexplore.com/the-orexplore-review/) has received increased attention with far more activity within their “Review Blog” section leading towards commercialisation. Posts are being made almost weekly increasing its awareness:
https://preview.redd.it/snsbk0vz2dh51.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=bb5a68c362a20c900c127dd53357ac5bf46dbbd5
https://preview.redd.it/1a80klgz2dh51.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=ab1f81609e06fc30683de45a4de778bb2838bb80

  1. MSV as the strategic buyer for the drilling business has shown intent to inorganically expand their operations. Deepcore had an EV of ~$44m (excl. additional earnout payments), revenues of ~$50m p.a., and an EBITDA of ~$12m with approximately half the rig number of SWK. This purchase confirms the “fair value” multiple for a drilling business is ~4x EV/EBITDA, even for a significantly weaker private business due to utilisation, profitability, scale and contractual certainty.
https://preview.redd.it/jumpn58y2dh51.png?width=602&format=png&auto=webp&s=ad650e7b63b341e06ddd0a8bff88121249a03925
Valuation:
Ok, so let’s turn our attention to the forward guidance and conservative estimates for SWK. SWK against mostly all metrics is very cheap. Management have forecast EBITDA to be ~$25mn in FY20. Although I think we can conservatively estimate this to grow significantly throughout FY21.
The improvements to EBITDA will come from the following: (i) commercialisation of Orexplore = $0.5-1mn, (ii) ~$3-4mn in reaching steady state (20%) margin from the Pogo contract as costs normalise and backdated earnings flow through; (iii) ~$2mn in operating expense reduction during COVID-19; (iv) the $120m increase in the order book between 30 July and 14 August implies $120/5 = $24m p.a. at a slight discount to target margin of ~15% gives another $3.5mn EBITDA. Putting this all together FY21 EBITDA might be ~$35mn.
In addition to the purchase of Deepcore, we can use the current valuation ratios of MSV and CAPD as a guide. Currently competitors trade between 3.5x (CAPD) and 4.5x (MSV) EV/EBITDA multiples. If we use 4x as a reasonable multiple on current EBITDA, this would imply an enterprise value of ~$100mn (or a 30% upside) whilst paying nothing for Orexplore. Upon conservative forward FY21 EBITDA figures, the enterprise value could easily reach ~$150 (or a 100% upside) again paying almost nothing (only $1mn / $35mn in EBITDA) for Orexplore.
By way of reference, SWK with similar metrics in 2011/12 was trading at a ~100% premium (i.e. ~40c (market cap $90-110mn) whereas now it is ~$20 (market cap $50mn). A decade ago, it also did not have the same existing clientele and large-scale contract wins (see 3a above with a forward order book of $363mn (relative to current revenues of ~$150mn).
The cherry on top of this investment is Orexplore, which we buy for free. None of the revenue and earnings multiples above include any real impact from Orexplore. On 14th August the commercial viability of Orexplore was been partially validated with their first contract win. Although its value is only $700,000 over 6 months this call option like payoff comes entirely for free. Further, the true profit margins of SWK has been hidden due to the losses incurred from Orexplore, which has to date cost $25mn in R&D (or equal to almost 10yrs of earnings), the amortisation of associated software development, and continued global expansion (Portugal and Europe before North America) each requiring initial costs prior to achieving target margins. Even better we get a first glimpse at how attractive Orexplore might be. Combining discussion in the latest conference call (https://www.openbriefing.com/OB/Swick-Mining-Services-Ltd/2020/2/25/Swick-HY20-Results-Conference-Call/3716.aspx 04:30 - 06:30) with the recent contract we can conclude the following: (i) 3 machines at Sandfire will generate ~$3.6mn in revenue covering approx. 50% of cash flow with nearly no operating expenses; (ii) $700,000 for 6months scanning 1500m of core per month implies ~$75/m (against an estimated $100m from guidance). As per guidance, if we assume Orexplore machines can scan ~$4m/hr ($300hr) and total costs may include one unskilled technician and minimal overheads ~$50mn this provides a gross margin of ~75% (or almost 4x undergrounding drilling). Due to the profitability of Orexplore, 15-20 operational machines on yearly contracts would provide greater earnings than SWK’s entire business. Hopefully the publicity of Orexplore at Sandfire can attract some attention, and in turn some additional contracts.

Risks:
No investment is without its risks, and for SWK they fall into: (i) capital mismanagement; and (ii) poor communication / delays. Firstly, the recent capital raise at ~23c followed by aggressive buybacks at ~12.5-14c-17c seems unwise. Although buying now avoids this dilution, it is unclear why excess capital was required if dividends and buybacks were announced shortly thereafter. Secondly, the share price has historically languished due to a lack of publicity and detail on the transformational Orexplore. It is likely that management were unwilling to oversell the Orexplore narrative before genuine contracts were won and the technology was established. Now that these are in place, hopefully the corporate restructure can take place and the upcoming strategic review can provide a clearer picture for the near term.
submitted by Bruticus91 to ASX_Bets [link] [comments]

New SEBI Rules For Intraday & Margin Trading Margin Trading  Trading Terms - YouTube The basics of margin trading What is Margin Trading?  Fidelity - YouTube Margin trading, conceptos basicos

4.3 “Margin Rate” is the ratio of amount of money needed to open a position, to the actual market exposure of that position. 4.4. “Leveraged Trading” or “Margin Trading” means that the client can trade amounts significantly higher than his deposit. 4.5. “Cash Required” is the amount of money needed to open and 4.3 “Margin Rate” is the ratio of amount of money needed to open a position, to the actual market exposure of that position. 4.4. “Leveraged Trading” or “Margin Trading” means that the client can trade amounts significantly higher than his deposit. 4.5. “Cash Required” is the amount of money needed to open and maintain a position. Frequently Used Terminologies in Margin trading. Some of the most used terms in margin trading are: Margin call – Is a demand by the lender that a trader deposits additional funds or securities (as maintenance margin) to their account as an assurance that they are in a position to pay back the loan. Margin Policy and Fees - For Active Traders Leverage Schedule By trading on margin, you are essentially taking a loan against your holdings or equity. This means that as your account equity changes, the amount that you can borrow will also change. Our Leverage Schedule is based on the equity… Margin trading is just another tool. You can use it to make impressive gains and simultaneously risk excessive loss. Trading on margin effectively is best done with a reasonable amount of experience and a strict risk management policy.

[index] [109] [189] [197] [584] [189] [211] [236] [529] [593] [112]

New SEBI Rules For Intraday & Margin Trading

If you trade in stocks, understanding margin trading is very important. Here's a small video with 5 IMPORTANT POINTS TO UNDERSTAND MARGIN TRADING. Have you always wondered what it means to trade on margin? In this video, you’ll learn what margin trading is and if it is a strategy that could help you ach... Your A to Z on margin trading with Binance. Learn everything from opening your account, how to long and short and how to repay margin loans. Subscribe to kee... Why are we going through all the trouble of setting up a btc-e.com account and using MetaTrader 4 when we could just buy Bitcoin and have it increase in value in a wallet? Brian explains the ... Updated Tutorial here: https://youtu.be/88C3kBKohpM Binance save 10% on fees: https://www.binance.com/en/futures/ref/blockbuilders In this video I am going t...

#