OT: Stock and Investment Thread
- Thread starter RU05
- Start date
Time to reinstate the stress test regulations that were eased in 2018.
What did you buy on March 7 and what are you buying tomorrow? Prices and symbols.
I share my thesis and my transactions behind them.
Trade ideas talk- ******** walks.
I added to wfc and C today in addition to my frc put sales(interested to see what the weekly premium looks like next week).
I was put into pltr at 7.50 on friday. Sold the 8 and 9’ strike calls after it was up 8% early. So that trade looks good early.
Last edited:
After this, I think it’s a given that these regionals will have stricter regulations.
Anyone here play in the preferred arena? Preferred ETFs were getting hit hard early market given most have lots of Financials.
That mid morning dip cost you an excellent trade. Ended up over $36 in extended.
Shot up from 22 to 24 this morning and had plateaued since.
Stuck in a 20 to 24 range?
Don’t count on actual trades. He will just claim to buy everything at the bottom and sell everything at the top. Of course everything is revealed after the fact.
Bought a good amount on Friday - LABU at $4.83, CURE at $85.5, and QLD at $40.0. QLD is a long hold position in our biggest retirement account. The biotech/HC positions are shorter term plays. Both have been laggards YTD and in my opinion, ready to rip soon. I will add to both at similar levels. High conviction on these.
Today I added to what got hit hard.....small cap plays UWM and VB. Also added to DODGX to keep it within my allocation range.
Not a big stock guy, but I did create a custom ETF via Fidelity for EV and Lithium (17 holdings).
I bought ETH (added to my position) at 1389 yesterday. Not selling
Probably. I still think we are in crypto purgatory (not winter), so it will likely bounce around a bit.
Meh. Everything is to some extent.
Fidelity started a crypto platform a few months ago for BTC and ETH. I trust them, so I'm building small positions for both. Just some extra diversification!
Barnie Frank was on their board. nuff saidYou know, the person that came up with these ideas was likely a diversity hire.
stress would not have mattered here and regional banks shouldn't be forced to do these or LCRs to the extent that we see in tier 1 banks. Regional and community banking is supposed to be abc banking. Again, this was a interest rate management problem that most grad students could have managed
Dodd Frank liquidity requirements were not required as per the 2018 Trump rollbacks from 20B threshold to 200B threshold. Sorry but SIVB was not a community or a simple small bank. Greg Becker, SIVB CEO directly lobbied to weaken the law.
Powell also is complicit in custom fitting the weakened regulations to the regionals.
But to be clear, SIVB was retarded for their stupid bond portfolios.
Last edited:
Different reasons:
HC - Just because it got overly hit during the defensive rotation in Jan/Feb. Healthcare is never down for long. The business is just too good and it reflects in earnings. Everyone needs HC regardless of the economy.
Biotech - Positioning myself for the end of the inflation/rate hike cycle. Small caps get hit first in a bear and rebounds first in a rally. Biotech is the most risky portion of small caps, so it normally leads such movements. Look at the fall of 2021. Biotech got hit first, then small caps, then the Nasdaq, and then the entire market. The reverse will happen soon. My career is pharma/biotech and this cycle has been worse for biotech as compared to other bears. When biotech rips, it's going to rip hard. BIB is also a good play (safer since it is a 2x).
Do VCs play a lot in the biotech space after a startup has a drug in pre-trail stage?
I’m trying to figure out if SIVB will affect biotech startups
Oh yes. That's why biotech dumped hard on Friday. It rallied back today, but the two main biotech plays may be volatile for a bit:
IBB (BIB 2x version) = larger biotechs
XBI (LABU 3x version) = smaller biotechs
I traded LABU a few times over the past several months with modest success. However, getting it for under $5 can set you up for a 5x rally if you are patient.
Just like day#1 of the Biden Administration when Pelosi and crew had Joe Joe sign multiple bills canceling everything Trump on TV, they continue to blame him for policies that failed. Haven't they had 2 + years to change said policies? They love having that crutch to lean on. The railroad,the banks,the- - - -. Wasn't very long ago Joe Joe said this from his basement campaign, " The President needs to stop blaming others and do his job. Banks are safe coming from the guy who said the border is secure.
Last edited:
careful, a few 'head in the sand types' don't feel politics belongs in a market discussion. That's like saying you can't discuss physics when talking about gravity.
The California and Federal regulators had all the information they needed to deal with this situation and they did nothing. SVB was on the SF Fed board. Where was Mary Daly? What were the California banking regulators looking at?
I agree, for people that don't want politics in the thread they are quick to try and blame Trump. Trump did nada here.
this is really bad interest rate risk management and it's clear who has a clue by how people view, interpret, and opine on this.
once again
you can ignore reality but you cannot ignore the consequences of reality
25 is the winner. Next up…do we see a dip back to 20 or a continued path to 30 next? I’ll say 30
Was just thinking through something on CE board, but posting here where there’s more robust conversation on the topic:
Bill Ackman: bail out deposits
Ken Griffin: let the banks fail, deposits vanish
What if both are right? Griffin in theory (we have to preserve risk); Ackman in practical reality because of ‘too big to fail.’ If some houses are safe for depositors and others aren’t, the shops that are not too big to fail simply have no reason for existence (they don’t compensate depositors for risk) and they will completely vanish in a panic.
Two potential solutions: (1) fully regulate the entire industry (to protect taxpayers) and treat all banks as too big to fail; or (2) unwind the big banks to eliminate the concentration of systemic risk, and then return to a market where any institution can fail.
Option (2) might be the rare policy solution that finds traction with both the far left and libertarian right
Bill Ackman: bail out deposits
Ken Griffin: let the banks fail, deposits vanish
What if both are right? Griffin in theory (we have to preserve risk); Ackman in practical reality because of ‘too big to fail.’ If some houses are safe for depositors and others aren’t, the shops that are not too big to fail simply have no reason for existence (they don’t compensate depositors for risk) and they will completely vanish in a panic.
Two potential solutions: (1) fully regulate the entire industry (to protect taxpayers) and treat all banks as too big to fail; or (2) unwind the big banks to eliminate the concentration of systemic risk, and then return to a market where any institution can fail.
Option (2) might be the rare policy solution that finds traction with both the far left and libertarian right
definitely not the way I'd go. To do so would require an overhaul of state and federal agencies. I mean I like the streamline and reducing gov't but there must be risk in the mkts as evidenced by svb and signature bank. they are not systemic and bailing out depositors here is beyond the wrong move
I agree, but I’d also add the SVB Board and SVB senior management to the blame list. If I were on the SVB Board I would have demanded to see regular and detailed reporting in their Board Books with respect to interest rate risk, credit risk, concentration risk, insured deposits/uninsured deposits, portfolio analysis, and sensitivity analysis regarding all these issues and combinations.
Agree, definitely not letting them off the hook. They are the most responsible for this mess. It's their job to manage the bank properly.