info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Looked at my 'TQQQ' today and nearly fainted! /s
497 views
Skip to first unread message
-hh
Jan 10, 2022, 12:11:07 PM1/10/22
to
Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
recommended instead of ARNA...
YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
-hh
recommended instead of ARNA...
YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
-hh
TomS
Jan 10, 2022, 10:52:59 PM1/10/22
to
-hh
Jan 10, 2022, 11:42:02 PM1/10/22
to
On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 10:52:59 PM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > recommended instead of ARNA...
> >
> > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> >
> > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
>
>
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > recommended instead of ARNA...
> >
> > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> >
> > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
>
>
> Hey Lyin' Asshole, you better check the last 1 year performance.
Oh, you mean where a full third of that paper gain has been wiped out
in just two weeks?
In any event, the past is the past and you've not been making any "buy today!"
or "sell today!" posts to show your prowess. That's why I've noted that you
might try to gamble to catch the current falling knife again.
Of course, NASDAQ's tech sector generally is disfavored in a rising interest
rate environment, so one shouldn't be too surprised if 2022 has less potential
upside (or more losses) than during the 2020/21 era of QE expansions. As
such, is TQQQ currently a "buy"? Likewise, what are your predictions for
someone who's has TQQQ from 2021 from at/hear its high for how long they're
likely have to wait until they're no longer underwater? Days? Weeks? Months?
Longer?
Or are you 'bravely' going to be silent on tangible stuff, so as to not have your
pretend stock trader claims get completely blown up in your face again?
-hh
TomS
Jan 11, 2022, 12:07:43 AM1/11/22
to
TomS
Jan 11, 2022, 12:10:32 AM1/11/22
to
-hh
Jan 11, 2022, 8:28:35 AM1/11/22
to
> > This is an exercise to see WHO's buy recommendation was better - yours
> or mine.
No, that's not what it has been.
> or mine.
You'd tried to brag for years about how you're so savvy and profitable/etc, but
you just never showed that by publicly committing to a trade where you
explicitly telegraphed in advance, to prove that you weren't BS'ing after-the-fact.
> Clearly, mine was better, and has been better on any reasonable time frame.
but let's actually go check the archives to see if there ever was an dick-waiving
contest:
Back to Sep 12, 2019 [8:04:42 PM]
hh>> For example, let’s hear your investment prognosis on another pharma, ARNA.
>
TS> Would not touch ARNA - no products for sale, missed last two
TS> earnings estimates, stock chart looks horrible, and analysts
TS> mostly have SELL ratings on it.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/yhHlqMZnqVs/m/o_1lm_vmAAAJ>
So what was my comment? Here it is, later in the same thread:
"Oh, you’ve already made it obvious that you don’t hold. I find it interesting
that the stock has such consistent buy recommendations despite what looks
like nothing much, and has a lot of institutionals holding it. The question
seems to be if they go on a tear of product approvals to sell and it pops to
$500. Even so, a +300% (paper) gain over the past three years isn’t too shabby..."
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/yhHlqMZnqVs/m/ZEQ6mj_ZAQAJ>
So revisiting Tom's current claim:
"Clearly, mine was better, and has been better on any reasonable time frame"
Well, at that date it was at $51 and now its at $94, so that's a +84% gain
over ~3.3 years without any fees. But more significantly, the observation
that institutionals were following its potential was spot-on, as illustrated
by PFE's buyout offer.
Now YMMV on what constitutes a "reasonable" time frame, but for investing
and not gambling, that's longer term, so considering the cited buy 3 years
prior, that would have been at ~$16 which goes to ~$100 via PFE and
assuming a stock swap (this AM: $56.50 w/ 2.84% dividend), that means
that on per $10K basis, $01K/$16 = 62.5 shares *$100 = $62,500; divided
$56.5 buys 1106 shares of PFE, whose dividends are $1.60/share-year
for $1,769.60/yr.
So based on an original investment of just $10K, that's an effective +17.696%
dividend rate of return ... and dividends from a blue chip are safe & passive,
as well as have zero monthly expense fees.
> Also, I am in a holding pattern right now. With the Fed announcing rate hikes
> I see more volatility ahead, although I did buy INTC recently.
that sector as interest rates rise; looking at debt ratios can provide
insight too; looks like INTC is a bit better than QCOM (~2.1 vs 1.6)
for example.
My own moves have been to change out some of bond funds to
reduce exposure to higher rates depressing them, as well as shop
for dividend stocks for in a Roth, plus some other things. A higher
risk move was to buy $5K of AT&T (T) short term @ $24.906 for its
presently very high dividend (8%), as the Market's expecting them to
cut their dividend as they've been selling off assets/etc. Others on
the table with a goal of diversification, stability and income generation
currently include: BCE, BBY, CVX, ED, ENB, JNJ, LMT, NVS, VTRS.
-hh
-hh
Jan 13, 2022, 9:57:51 AM1/13/22
to
M1 Pro / M1 Max CPUs were announced last October...it has basically
just finally crawled its way back up from that. Since rumors are that
Apple has some new Macs coming out in probably March, if there's
another CPU along with them, that may repeat this sort of reaction
with Intel; could be a buying opportunity that results in a better
dividend yield along with potential capital appreciation (aka 'recovery').
TomS
Jan 13, 2022, 5:46:07 PM1/13/22
to
Furthermore, APPL isn't making inroads into the Wintel market share.
https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-lags-behind-the-us-laptop-market-shares-top-dogs-hp-and-dell
Alan
Jan 13, 2022, 6:11:13 PM1/13/22
to
Alan
Jan 13, 2022, 6:19:48 PM1/13/22
to
On 2022-01-13 2:46 p.m., TomS wrote:
'Apple netting third place is actually quite impressive, representing
its steady growth in the laptop market.'
So, please:
Explain how steady growth can possibly be achieved without "making inroads"?
:-)
-hh
Jan 13, 2022, 6:21:46 PM1/13/22
to
> AAPL isn't INTC's main competitor: AMD is, and AMD stock is 5x overpriced compared to INTC.
Apple doesn’t need to be their _main_ competitor… but that Intel took a hit
when Apple released a new CPU shows that they’re not totally disassociated.
>
> Furthermore, APPL isn't making inroads into the Wintel market share.
> >https://www.techradar.com/news/apple-lags-behind-the-us-laptop-market-shares-top-dogs-hp-and-dell>
“Apple netting third place is actually quite impressive, representing
its steady growth in the laptop market.”
Plus Apple’s sales last quarter set an all time Quarterly Revenue Record
for Macs … and the MBP’s with the new CPUs hadn’t been released yet in
that Q. As such, don’t be surprised if in two weeks they announce a new
Q record..which probably also means more marketshare gains.
-hh
TomS
Jan 14, 2022, 12:33:44 AM1/14/22
to
-hh
Jan 14, 2022, 3:15:56 PM1/14/22
to
> Go find any investor news at the time that cited AAPL as being the
> cause of the drop - I sure never heard anything of the sort.
You missed the industry observations that it would adversely affect
> cause of the drop - I sure never heard anything of the sort.
Intel's business prospects; case in point:
"...Apple Beating 'Intel At Its Own Game,' Say Analysts After 'Unleashed' Event"
"Analysts tracking Apple Inc’s (NASDAQ:AAPL) “Unleashed” event are
terming the arrival of M1 Pro and M1 Max chips as a “game changer”
and a signal that the tech giant is giving Intel Corporation (NASDAQ:INTC)
a run for its money."
<https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/m1-pro-max-processor-to-be-a-game-changer-apple-beating-intel-at-its-own-game-say-analysts-after-unleashed-event-1030876554>
"Apple's M1 Pro and M1 Max chips mean new trouble for Intel"
"And they're bad news for Intel, whose chips Apple is ejecting from its
Macs after a 15-year partnership. It's a loss of revenue, prestige and
orders to keep its factories running at full capacity."
<https://www.cnet.com/tech/computing/apples-m1-pro-and-m1-max-chips-mean-new-trouble-for-intel/>
Of course Tommy will demand nothing less than explicit "if Apple, then
Intel stock will drop by 5% the next day" prediction. The problem with
that set of Goalposts is that Tommy's not made such predictions.
-hh
-hh
Jan 14, 2022, 6:21:50 PM1/14/22
to
marketshare of the laptop segment, which is IIRC ~80% of all PC sales, so for
Intel to lose that as a customer represents roughly a (.80)(24%) = 19% decline
in the market for their PC CPU sales…so far.
-hh
-hh
Jan 27, 2022, 2:59:11 PM1/27/22
to
"Intel's Client Computing Group (CCG), the main cash cow, earned $10.1 billion
in Q4 2021, down 7% year-over-year when platform adjacencies are considered,
which is unusual for a world that suffers from an undersupply of chips amid
growing demand for PCs.
Intel's notebook components volumes dropped by 16% YoY (which is more
than what one would expect from Apple's transition to its own SoC and
subsequent drop of Intel's sales because of that), ..."
<https://www.tomshardware.com/news/intel-q4-2021-financial-results>
TL;DR: my quick swag suggested roughly a 19% decline potential; the
actual reported by Intel for 4Qcy21 was a 16% YoY drop (so far).
-hh
-hh
Mar 16, 2022, 9:00:43 AM3/16/22
to
On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:35 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
Owners should be seeing the Pfizer cash out arrive his week, at "just"
$100/share...roughly a +30% YoY gain.
In the meantime, Tommy's daytrader pick of TQQQ is down YTD and YoY,
to the point where it has wiped out all of its 2021 gains (plus some).
Recalling back to when Tommy claimed that I supposedly was "tricking" him
into buying ARNA, if he had done so & held, he'd now have had a +100% gain.
Oh well.
With TQQQ at $44 (down -40% YTD), wonder if Tommy considers it to be a
"buy" yet, or if there's still more downside pain expected for the NASDAQ?
-hh
TomS
Mar 17, 2022, 11:29:15 AM3/17/22
to
-hh
Mar 17, 2022, 4:41:10 PM3/17/22
to
> Smart investors made A LOT of money in TQQQ last year, nearly doubling there money.
Only if they cashed out. If they didn't, they're back to square one (flat).
> It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."
> There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth
Depends on the timeline, which you've conveniently left very vague.
> Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD!
was paid out at $100/share.
> The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time...
That claim requires knowing my cost basis. So how about you
show us how you know what my cost basis was? Afterall, you've
heard me mention 300% returns back when it was under $50.
Simply put, anyone who bought & held within the past decade
has ended up making money: the only room for you to complain
is rate of return .. but that isn't done outside of risk contexts.
> ...and would have
> been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.
Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.
In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%
FYI, for most of these, they're even better than the initial impression,
as the Dividend rate shown is at the current price, not its purchase
price. The DIV vs PURCH is more like (CVX): (3.5%)/(1-.37) = 5.55%
-hh
TomS
Mar 18, 2022, 12:30:25 AM3/18/22
to
> > It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
> Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
> As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."
> > There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s
> > Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth
> > ...and Lyin' Biden WANTS prices to go up....
>
> Depends on the timeline, which you've conveniently left very vague.
> > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD!
> Too late for you, Tommy: its been removed from trading, and
> was paid out at $100/share.
>
>
> > The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time...
>
> That claim requires knowing my cost basis. So how about you
> show us how you know what my cost basis was? Afterall, you've
> heard me mention 300% returns back when it was under $50.
> Simply put, anyone who bought & held within the past decade
> has ended up making money: the only room for you to complain
> is rate of return .. but that isn't done outside of risk contexts.
>
> > ...and would have
> > been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
> Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.
>
> Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
> know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
> have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.
>
> In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
> not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
> prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
>
> BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
> BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
> CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
> ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
> ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
> JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
> LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
> NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
> VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%
>
> FYI, for most of these, they're even better than the initial impression,
> as the Dividend rate shown is at the current price, not its purchase
> price. The DIV vs PURCH is more like (CVX): (3.5%)/(1-.37) = 5.55%
>
>
> -hh
-hh
Mar 18, 2022, 7:04:05 AM3/18/22
to
criteria is ... don't you remember how mad you got when you finally said +10%
but then missed it by a few dollars?
> If you had I would have told you to take profits - nothing runs up forever, asshole.
Just like how its evil twin SQQQ is the "short forever"?
> > > It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
> >
> > Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
> > As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."
>
> LOL! You ASKED and I ANSWERED, Lyin' Asshole (this is why I call you that!!!).
$A and my strategy is to hold it for B days or $C, whichever comes first.
The closest you've come to that is the above "10% gain" that you mentioned in
midstream, but then slightly missed.
> > > There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> >
> > Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s
> >
> > > Oil prices could go way up from here, which will hammer GDP growth
> > > ...and Lyin' Biden WANTS prices to go up....
> >
> > Depends on the timeline, which you've conveniently left very vague.
>
> The "timeline" is VERY definite: 1/20/2021 to NOW, Asshole!
> > > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD!
> >
> > Too late for you, Tommy: its been removed from trading, and
> > was paid out at $100/share.
>
> I NEVER invested, and would NEVER invest, so it is immaterial to me.
That's why you were pounding away at your keyboard for this post.
> > > The Lyin' Asshole was losing on it for a long time...
> >
> > That claim requires knowing my cost basis. So how about you
> > show us how you know what my cost basis was? Afterall, you've
> > heard me mention 300% returns back when it was under $50.
> > Simply put, anyone who bought & held within the past decade
> > has ended up making money: the only room for you to complain
> > is rate of return .. but that isn't done outside of risk contexts.
>
> I detailed how you were LOSING money on ARNA vs TQQQ several times: go look it up.
with it is that in applying the same retrospect for 2021 to date, the opposite
is true.
By the same token I could say "but Tommy, you should have bought AAPL at $7".
> >
> > > ...and would have
> > > been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
> > Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.
> >
> > Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
> > know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
> > have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.
>
> Irrelevant.
> > In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
> > not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
> > prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
> >
> > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
> > BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
> > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
> > ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
> > ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
> > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
> > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
> > NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
> > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%
>
> Off topic, asshole.
which was to not be afraid to publicly show picks. These aren't on the
block to be traded but are a medium period hold; above is their first
~90 days performance. You're free to check on them quarterly too.
> > FYI, for most of these, they're even better than the initial impression,
> > as the Dividend rate shown is at the current price, not its purchase
> > price. The DIV vs PURCH is more like (CVX): (3.5%)/(1-.37) = 5.55%
>
> Ditto.
picked based upon dividend yields (in lieu of CDs/Bonds) while also
seeking relative price stability similar to same.
FYI, others in this camp could be AT&T (T), but it has higher instability
risks for a variety of reasons, including debts and because of their
now-announced dividend cut (from 8% to 4%); holding T depends on
how much exposure one wants to the telecom sector and deciding
on who, such as if BCE (above) is a better/worse fit for one's criteria;
ditto VZ (Verizon), etc, etc.
-hh
Bigbird
Mar 18, 2022, 12:38:59 PM3/18/22
to
TomS wrote:
> Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole
> was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF
> in TQQQ - as I documented.
"...was losing on it for a long time..."
> Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole
> was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF
> in TQQQ - as I documented.
One of those dumb statements which expose lack of knowledge, experience
and comprehension.
Dementia is a mental disability.
--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!
-hh
Mar 18, 2022, 1:34:13 PM3/18/22
to
On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:38:59 PM UTC-4, Bigbird wrote:
> TomS wrote:
>
> > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole
> > was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF
> > in TQQQ - as I documented.
>
> "...was losing on it for a long time..."
What Tommy was probably trying to say that he personally lacks the
> TomS wrote:
>
> > Buying a bad stock like ARNA is a BAD IDEA, PERIOD! The Lyin' Asshole
> > was losing on it for a long time and would have been FAR BETTER OFF
> > in TQQQ - as I documented.
>
> "...was losing on it for a long time..."
patience & discipline to wait through a long flat period. Overall, that's
why his behavior is much more of a gambler than of an investor.
>
> One of those dumb statements which expose lack of knowledge,
> experience and comprehension.
and its just kinda important to know that in order to determine if an investment
ends up being gain, or a loss.
-hh
Tom Elam
Mar 19, 2022, 10:56:39 AM3/19/22
to
July 2, 2000
ATT 30.08
Chevron 88.31
March 18, 2002
ATT 23.22
Chevron 161.73
I'm bought Chevron for the 6% dividend yield that has dropped as the stock price increased. ATT was also yielding about 6% at the time but going nowhere on price or dividends. In a few months the ATT dividend is going to get chopped while Chevron just increased dividends by 6%.
I am certain that the Chevron stock price will drop if oil prices recede, but my dividends are safe and likely to increase. I sold my last few ATT shares on June 2, 2021 and bought Chevron at 106.77. Still feeling good about that but from my 2022 RMD funds recently bought JEPI for added dividend income.
The point? Don't listen to stock advice from people who live in small New Jersey houses. If they were any good at it they would not be in a small house or New Jersey.
I listen to my broker. He lives in a $1~ million 5,000+ square foot home in the Crooked Stick Golf Club addition. That's the Carmel course that has hosted PGA and LPGA events + the Solheim Cup. He manages over a billion in other people's money. How much money do you manage Hugh?
Did I tell you that just I traded the 2019 Insight for a new Accord Hybrid Touring? Paid cash. :)
-hh
Mar 19, 2022, 11:30:53 AM3/19/22
to
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:56:39 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > recommended instead of ARNA...
> >
> > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> >
> > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
>
> On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > recommended instead of ARNA...
> >
> > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> >
> > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
>
> Time to check my move from ATT to Chevron that you poo-pooed as "oil stocks are too volatile".
At times it has been, because ya know ... market conditions do change.
Especially over a 20 year period.
So just when was that comment made? Got cite?
Meantime, the recommendation for portfolio adjustments for a higher inflation
period have been trending towards energy, commodities, etc: here's just one
such SME calling this out from an interview last week, which literally was just
first aired yesterday (i.e., later than this thread):
<https://wealthtrack.com/how-to-reposition-your-portfolio-for-a-new-higher-inflation-era-with-top-strategist-rich-bernstein/>
FYI, the person calling for this is Richard Bernstein ... perhaps you've heard of him?
> July 2, 2000
> ATT 30.08
> Chevron 88.31
>
> March 18, 2002
> ATT 23.22
> Chevron 161.73
>
> I'm bought Chevron for the 6% dividend yield that has dropped as the stock price increased.
you claimed you were buying it at $124 because the attack on Saudi. It failed to pan out
as you had hoped .. which you were reminded of. No mentions of "CVX" in 2020 by anyone.
> The point? Don't listen to stock advice from people who live in small New Jersey houses.
> If they were any good at it they would not be in a small house or New Jersey.
> I listen to my broker. He lives in a $1~ million 5,000+ square foot home...
Paid for by the fees he charges you ... too bad you don't live in a $1M 5K house yourself.
> Did I tell you that just I traded the 2019 Insight for a new Accord Hybrid Touring? Paid cash. :)
were done as cash, and also also without any trade-in to reduce the outlay? /s
-hh
-hh
Mar 20, 2022, 4:20:27 PM3/20/22
to
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 11:30:53 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:56:39 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > > recommended instead of ARNA...
> > >
> > > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> > >
> > > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
> >
> > Time to check my move from ATT to Chevron that you poo-pooed as "oil stocks are too volatile".
>
> At times it has been, because ya know ... market conditions do change.
> Especially over a 20 year period.
>
> So just when was that comment made? Got cite?
Gosh, golly ... no response from old Tom.
> On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 10:56:39 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 12:11:07 PM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > > recommended instead of ARNA...
> > >
> > > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> > >
> > > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
> >
> > Time to check my move from ATT to Chevron that you poo-pooed as "oil stocks are too volatile".
>
> At times it has been, because ya know ... market conditions do change.
> Especially over a 20 year period.
>
> So just when was that comment made? Got cite?
BTW, even checking on 'hh' and 'oil', there were only three hits, one of which
was barely relevant at all, which noted that with the onset of CoVid and lockdowns
that oil dropped.
> Meantime, the recommendation for portfolio adjustments for a higher inflation
> period have been trending towards energy, commodities, etc: here's just one
> such SME calling this out from an interview last week, which literally was just
> first aired yesterday (i.e., later than this thread):
>
> <https://wealthtrack.com/how-to-reposition-your-portfolio-for-a-new-higher-inflation-era-with-top-strategist-rich-bernstein/>
>
> FYI, the person calling for this is Richard Bernstein ... perhaps you've heard of him?
net worth in 2018 was $283,604 and then $291,449 at the end of 2019, and then $348,832
at the end of 2020 ... but has suddenly zoomed to be reportedly worth $52M today, just 15
months later: his official 2021 EoY filing should be quite interesting...stay tuned.
<https://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/politics/fl-ne-nsf-desantis-net-worth-20210621-xxqfzxbt5zeufkluweusvgwuny-story.html>
> > July 2, 2000
> > ATT 30.08
> > Chevron 88.31
> >
> > March 18, 2002
> > ATT 23.22
> > Chevron 161.73
>
> Think you probably mean 2020 & 2022, not 2000 & 2002.
>
> > I'm bought Chevron for the 6% dividend yield that has dropped as the stock price increased.
>
> Got cite? Because the relevant prior mention of CVX was from Sep 15, 2019, when
> you claimed you were buying it at $124 because the attack on Saudi. It failed to pan out
> as you had hoped .. which you were reminded of. No mentions of "CVX" in 2020 by anyone.
one since in 2021 or 2020. Next most recent one was from August 2015, and was about a
shooting of a police officer at a Chevron gas station:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/search?q=Chevron>
Tom Elam
Mar 23, 2022, 10:30:44 AM3/23/22
to
https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Skn3VVQ2Hoc/m/BTj676jcDQAJ
Me:
That's pretty much my plan. We have about 12 months of cash in the bank.
> I have a dividend account with AT&T and Chevron, yield about 6.5% of cost.
> Chevron not especially for current yield but a solid record of dividend increases.
You:
Energy stocks are vulnerable to a lot of the Market uncertainty risk, although
much of that should be passed. I've been debating utilities as a "sufficiently boring"
flight to safety. Overall, I'm looking more towards those who have low corporate
debt, as the Fed's Unlimited Quanitative Easing is good to be holding prices up
today, but they don't have a viable exit plan on how to "unwind" it, and the last
two times they tried, the market tanked. This weekend's "Wealthtrack" was
interesting in that they had a Bond Fund guy who basically recommended against
his product; said a 30yr mortgage seems about the best investment to make
right now - - but I'm afraid that this assumes no collapse in housing market
prices because of evictions, over-leveraged landlords, etc. I suspect that
commercial real estate (e.g., office buildings, malls) are an even higher risk.
Tom Elam
Mar 23, 2022, 10:48:36 AM3/23/22
to
On Saturday, March 19, 2022 at 11:30:53 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
I could easily afford a larger house, but there is just two of us. 3000+ square feet is plenty.
Tom Elam
Mar 23, 2022, 11:05:21 AM3/23/22
to
-hh
Mar 23, 2022, 3:15:11 PM3/23/22
to
> Your search failed. From July 26, 2020:
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Skn3VVQ2Hoc/m/BTj676jcDQAJ
Not really: I thought I was still replying to Tom Seim, not you, and as such,
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/c/Skn3VVQ2Hoc/m/BTj676jcDQAJ
was searching rec.sport.golf thusly:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/search?q=hh%20CVX>
>
> Me:
>
> That's pretty much my plan. We have about 12 months of cash in the bank.
> > I have a dividend account with AT&T and Chevron, yield about 6.5% of cost.
> > Chevron not especially for current yield but a solid record of dividend increases.
>
> You:
>
> Energy stocks are vulnerable to a lot of the Market uncertainty risk, although
> much of that should be passed. I've been debating utilities as a "sufficiently boring"
Sure, and that was from July 2020, when oil was at ~$40/barrel. Likewise, my
previous post noted:
"IMO, the current concerns are:
a. "Double Dip" recession
b. High Inflation
c. Stagflation"
So then, how do you want to call it? Nailed (b) a good six months before
it became news, and likewise (c) with similar leadtime as well? Likewise,
the "R" word has been bandied about too as an ongoing risk, so a case
can be made that this went "3 for 3" in contemporary risks identification,
although I'd not really put the 2022 recession risk as still due to the same
factors and delayed enough it shouldn't be considered to be a double-dip,
so I'll settle for just a 2/3 = .667 batting average.
-hh
-hh
Mar 23, 2022, 3:17:05 PM3/23/22
to
> Got a cite for that supposed 2019 post? I have purchased 3 lots of CVX: 7/21/20,
> 6/2/21 and 8/27/21. None in 2019 and all 3 well below $124. One was $92 and
>another $99, the third $107.
Sure:
> 6/2/21 and 8/27/21. None in 2019 and all 3 well below $124. One was $92 and
>another $99, the third $107.
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/XQeZj9VNUoU/m/iPQ93xXWAwAJ>
and as mentioned in my immediately prior post, it was talking to Tom Seim here in
rsg, not you in csma.
-hh
TomS
Mar 24, 2022, 10:41:22 PM3/24/22
to
-hh
Mar 25, 2022, 6:16:33 AM3/25/22
to
On Thursday, March 24, 2022 at 10:41:22 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 4:04:05 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
Hmm; almost a week. Guess Tommy thinks that readers have
> On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 4:04:05 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
already forgotten how much he's screwed up on this ...
> > On Friday, March 18, 2022 at 12:30:25 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 1:41:10 PM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > On Thursday, March 17, 2022 at 11:29:15 AM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > > > > On Wednesday, March 16, 2022 at 6:00:43 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 8:28:35 AM UTC-5, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > On Tuesday, January 11, 2022 at 12:10:32 AM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:07:43 PM UTC-8, TomS wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 8:42:02 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 10:52:59 PM UTC-5, TomS wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:11:07 AM UTC-8, -hh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Time to check the performance of ARNA relative to TQQQ, which Tommy
> > > > > > > > > > > > recommended instead of ARNA...
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > YTD / ARNA: unch. ($93.2 to $93.2 interday)
> > > > > > > > > > > > YTD / TQQQ: -20% ($170 to $135 interday)
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Next up: "catch a falling knife" recommendations!
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Hey Lyin' Asshole, you better check the last 1 year performance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Oh, you mean where a full third of that paper gain has been wiped out
> > > > > > > > > > in just two weeks?
10 Jan 2022: $72.30
24 March 2022: $57.02
Hmmm...even worse now, vs when Tommy was arguing this 'YoY' back in January, for
TQQQ's price at that point (to 8 Jan 21, as 10 was a Sunday) was $47.57: with TQQQ
having cratered this past month to $40 on 14 March 22 (underwater vs 8 Jan 21), it is
little wonder why Tommy disappeared. Similarly for 20 Jan 21 when it was $49.49
Of course, now that TQQQ's leveraging has it bouncing back up in a recovery, Tommy
has crawled out from under his gambler's rock, even as he forgets that its YTD is still
quite a bit down (more than 30%) from 1/3/22's $85.57/share.
> > > > > Smart investors made A LOT of money in TQQQ last year, nearly doubling there money.
> > > >
> > > > Only if they cashed out. If they didn't, they're back to square one (flat).
> > >
> > > "Only?" EVERYONE sells sooner or later - you DIDN'T bother to ask me back then.
> >
> > Nonsense: I've often mocked you for not having prepublished what your exist
> > criteria is ... don't you remember how mad you got when you finally said +10%
> > but then missed it by a few dollars?
real time for others to watch for themselves? Case in point:
> > > > > It is ALL ABOUT having an exit strategy (who here talked about that?).
> > > >
> > > > Oh, you've talked, but you did not actually commit.
> > > > As the saying goes, "Talk is cheap."
> > >
> > > LOL! You ASKED and I ANSWERED, Lyin' Asshole (this is why I call you that!!!).
> >
> > Sorry, nope: you've never committed to saying "I"m buying TQQQ tomorrow at
> > $A and my strategy is to hold it for B days or $C, whichever comes first.
> >
> > The closest you've come to that is the above "10% gain" that you mentioned in
> > midstream, but then slightly missed.
> > > > > There WILL be a time to enter the market, but I don't think now is it.
> > > >
> > > > Gosh, Tommy continues his unwillingness to commitment! /s
> >
> > Silence from Tommy!
to imply that Tommy should have bought TQQQ then ... because the Monday
Morning Quarterback would now be claiming a $47 --> $57 = +20% gain!
> > Nope, that's in the past: we cannot make investments retroactively.
> > > > > ...and would have
> > > > > been FAR BETTER OFF in TQQQ - as I documented.
> > > >
> > > > Not for 2022 it wouldn't: -40% YTD.
> > > >
> > > > Plus a quality portfolio has investment diversity; since you don't
> > > > know my portfolio contents, you have no insight on if TQQQ would
> > > > have been a good fit, or if it would have been an unbalancing risk.
> > >
> > > Irrelevant.
> >
> > Diversification may be unimportant to gamblers, but I'm talking of investing.
> >
> > > > In the meantime, the performance of others I previously mentioned;
> > > > not quite YTD, but a ~week prior. Note that these weren't growth
> > > > prospects, but for a dividend revenue stream (as noted):
> > > >
> > > > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +5%
> > > > BBY (DIV 3.5%) +2%
> > > > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +37%
> > > > ED (DIV 3.5%) +7%
> > > > ENB (DIV 6%) +18%
> > > > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
> > > > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +24%
> > > > NVS (DIV 2.5%) -0%
> > > > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -21%
> > >
> > > Off topic, asshole.
> >
> > Incorrect, for this list was included way back in January for a reason,
> > which was to not be afraid to publicly show picks. These aren't on the
> > block to be traded but are a medium period hold; above is their first
> > ~90 days performance. You're free to check on them quarterly too.
> > ...[plus consider] the effective yields because this package was
> > picked based upon dividend yields (in lieu of CDs/Bonds) while also
> > seeking relative price stability similar to same.
> >
> > FYI, others in this camp could be AT&T (T), but it has higher instability
> > risks for a variety of reasons, including debts and because of their
> > now-announced dividend cut (from 8% to 4%); holding T depends on
> > how much exposure one wants to the telecom sector and deciding
> > on who, such as if BCE (above) is a better/worse fit for one's criteria;
> > ditto VZ (Verizon), etc, etc.
>
> > seeking relative price stability similar to same.
> >
> > FYI, others in this camp could be AT&T (T), but it has higher instability
> > risks for a variety of reasons, including debts and because of their
> > now-announced dividend cut (from 8% to 4%); holding T depends on
> > how much exposure one wants to the telecom sector and deciding
> > on who, such as if BCE (above) is a better/worse fit for one's criteria;
> > ditto VZ (Verizon), etc, etc.
>
> It's pretty funny how you libtards excuse not taking my advice - at YOUR LOSS!
Quite humorous indeed to be able to sleep easy from a portfolio slice that
despite being 100% Stocks is steady & doing fine during a high volatility period.
Kinda says something nice about investment diversification vs gambling! /s
-hh
Tom Elam
Mar 26, 2022, 10:39:04 AM3/26/22
to
-hh
Mar 26, 2022, 11:19:26 AM3/26/22
to
On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:39:04 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > …
> On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
>
> And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends.
Not here in RSG you didn’t.
> And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends.
Even before noting that this conversation had been with the other Tom.
-hh
TomS
Mar 27, 2022, 10:04:43 PM3/27/22
to
-hh
Mar 27, 2022, 11:08:09 PM3/27/22
to
On Sunday, March 27, 2022 at 10:04:43 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:19:26 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:39:04 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > > > …
> > >
> > > And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends.
> > Not here in RSG you didn’t.
> >
> > Even before noting that this conversation had been with the other Tom.
> >
> > -hh
>
> Forget what these assholes have to say; if you tell them to buy XYZ they
> reply with "you didn't say the day, hour and minute you bought it and what
> you paid for it."
That statement makes no sense because of how you’ve gotten it so scrambled:
> On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 8:19:26 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > On Saturday, March 26, 2022 at 10:39:04 AM UTC-4, thomas...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Wednesday, March 23, 2022 at 3:15:11 PM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> > > > …
> > >
> > > And as I pointed out I bought Chevron for the dividends.
> > Not here in RSG you didn’t.
> >
> > Even before noting that this conversation had been with the other Tom.
> >
> > -hh
>
> Forget what these assholes have to say; if you tell them to buy XYZ they
> reply with "you didn't say the day, hour and minute you bought it and what
> you paid for it."
the history was that you typically only claimed a successful trade “win” only after
it was complete….and likewise, you didn’t even know that your own brokerage
does provide buy/sell records which have date w/time recorded within.
> These assholes could have made HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS
> off of my recommendations, but they are TOO STUPID to act on them!
> They know it, which is why they claim it is MY FAULT that my recommendation
> wasn't specific enough. Go figure...
prior … they’re downright useless.
Likewise, much of your stuff has been merely trying to brag about your own
market gambles… and were cherry-picked almost all the time, which enables
you to hide your failures. Gosh that’s convenient! /s
-hh
Tom Elam
Mar 31, 2022, 9:29:15 AM3/31/22
to
-hh
Mar 31, 2022, 4:09:09 PM3/31/22
to
> I pointed it out TO YOU in CSMA.
This isn't CSMA, but is RSG & why I was replying to Tom S, not Tom E.
-hh
-hh
May 19, 2022, 11:17:20 AM5/19/22
to
Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's chain
again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
Meantime...
BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +12%
ENB (DIV 6%) +16%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14%
--------------------------------------
Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
-hh
again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
Meantime...
BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +12%
ENB (DIV 6%) +16%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14%
--------------------------------------
Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
-hh
TomS
May 20, 2022, 10:37:56 PM5/20/22
to
-hh
May 21, 2022, 8:27:03 AM5/21/22
to
On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:37:56 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:17:20 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's chain
> > again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
> >
> > Meantime...
> >
> > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3%
> > BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23%
> > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40%
> > ED (DIV 3.5%) +12%
> > ENB (DIV 6%) +16%
> > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3%
> > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22%
> > NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8%
> > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14%
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
> > so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
>
> On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:17:20 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's chain
> > again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
> >
> > Meantime...
> >
> > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3%
> > BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23%
> > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40%
> > ED (DIV 3.5%) +12%
> > ENB (DIV 6%) +16%
> > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3%
> > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22%
> > NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8%
> > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14%
> > --------------------------------------
> >
> > Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
> > so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
>
> The Lyin' Asshole doesn't even follow his own advice and have an exit strategy - so sad!
You never asked.
In actuality, this slice isn’t my money: POA fiduciary for a senior family member who’s
in assisted living. Sold their house last year, probably top of the market in retrospect.
Goals are mid-term income with capital preservation, to be liquidated after their LTC
insurance runs out, which means LTCG tax rates if any (could go into Estate).
So far, It’s say that the capital preservation is doing quite well compared to the Market,
would you not agree? Likewise, the returns are much better than CDs or similar. I did
contemplate I-Bonds, but they’re limited to just $10K/yr and this slice is more than a
full order of magnitude larger.
So…how’s your TQQQ doing again? /s
-hh
-hh
Aug 22, 2022, 3:10:19 PM8/22/22
to
On Saturday, May 21, 2022 at 8:27:03 AM UTC-4, -hh wrote:
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:37:56 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:17:20 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's
> > > chain again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
> > >
> > > Meantime...
Probably time to check these again; midday 22 Aug 22
> On Friday, May 20, 2022 at 10:37:56 PM UTC-4, TomS wrote:
> > On Thursday, May 19, 2022 at 8:17:20 AM UTC-7, -hh wrote:
> > > Well, after yesterday's correction, seems about right to pull on Tommy's
> > > chain again on how well his 'TQQQ' is doing.
> > >
> > > Meantime...
> > > [YTD's were as of 19 May 2022]
> > > BCE (DIV 5.3%) +2.3% Aug --> -2.81%
> > > BBY (DIV 3.5%) -23% Aug --> -20.43%
> > > CVX (DIV 3.5%) +40% Aug --> +33.69%
> > > ED (DIV 3.5%) +12% Aug --> +18.11%
> > > ENB (DIV 6%) +16% Aug --> +13.26%
> > > JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +3.3% Aug --> -0.32%
> > > LMT (DIV 2.6%) +22% Aug --> +25.64%
> > > NVS (DIV 2.5%) +1.8% Aug --> -2.74%
> > > VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -14% Aug --> -22.55%
> > > --------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
> > > so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
8/22/22 Update:
> > >
> > > Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +6.1%, which contrasts ever
> > > so slightly to the likes of Tommy's TQQQ being down by a mere -66%.
YTD is still positive, at +4.65% whereas TQQQ at $32.4 is in the red at -62% ... although
to be fair, that is a four point recovery since May. Of course, this +4.65% is before
dividends (roughly +2.5%), so one could say that it is effectively at +7% YTD.
-hh
-hh
Dec 18, 2022, 8:51:50 PM12/18/22
to
BCE (DIV 5.3%) -14%
BBY (DIV 3.5%) -18%
CVX (DIV 3.5%) +44%
ED (DIV 3.5%) +13%
ENB (DIV 6%) +1%
JNJ (DIV 2.4%) +5%
LMT (DIV 2.6%) +39%
NVS (DIV 2.5%) +4%
VTRS (DIV 4.5%) -18%
Total portfolio slice is still net positive 'YTD', by +5.54% on Equities values...plus, of
course, the dividends spun off...roughly another +3.77%, so approx. +9% paper return.
-hh
-hh
Dec 20, 2022, 8:47:04 AM12/20/22
to
TQQQ (close yesterday) at $18.27 ... down -17% since Tommy's claimed purchase of it
at $22.00, executed back on 5 Dec 2022:
<https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/ooGucHaSsFI/m/DpkT6VenAwAJ>
...but who (besides Tommy) is counting? /s
-hh
-hh
Jan 30, 2023, 5:26:16 PM1/30/23
to
+7.34% appreciation, plus the dividends, so roughly a 10%-11% YoY return.
> Apologies, forgot to include the comparison back to TQQQ for Tommy.
>
> TQQQ (close yesterday) at $18.27 ... down -17% since Tommy's claimed purchase of it
> at $22.00, executed back on 5 Dec 2022:
>
> <https://groups.google.com/g/rec.sport.golf/c/ooGucHaSsFI/m/DpkT6VenAwAJ>
>
-hh
Tommy
Feb 1, 2023, 9:52:37 PM2/1/23
to
-hh
Feb 1, 2023, 11:50:32 PM2/1/23
to
> The Fed announced today a 0.25% rate hike and indicated they were close to the end of rate hikes.
"The Fed Raises Rates a Quarter Point and Signals More Ahead
America’s central bank has shifted into a new phase, raising rates
more slowly as inflation shows signs of moderating."
<https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/01/business/federal-reserve-interest-rates.html>
It includes a statement of "...“a couple more” rate increases..." too.
> This is what I was anticipating, and the market responded accordingly.
> TQQQ is now at 24.39, giving me about an 11% gain in less than 90 days - not bad.
> More importantly, the trajectory going forward is much more likely to be up than down.
Or did you mean to suggest something else?
> Meanwhile, the Lyin' Asshole has his thumb up his ass, not knowing what to do, but what else is new?
at lower than a $22/share price, which mathematically means better than +11%:
[quote]
12/27/22 update: TQQQ low & close: $16.72 & $16.84
Looks like I can expect some paperwork in the mail from a certain limit order...
[/quote]
Hmmm...that suggests something north of +40%, doesn't it?
-hh
-hh
Feb 2, 2023, 8:59:48 AM2/2/23
to
<https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-02-02/ecb-interest-rate-hike-half-point-with-pledge-of-more-to-come>
> > This is what I was anticipating, and the market responded accordingly.
> > TQQQ is now at 24.39, giving me about an 11% gain in less than 90 days - not bad.
>
> So? Does that mean that you sold today?
> > More importantly, the trajectory going forward is much more likely to be up than down.
>
> Yes, that's what the Fed said: "...“a couple more” rate increases...".
> Or did you mean to suggest something else?
>
> > Meanwhile, the Lyin' Asshole has his thumb up his ass, not knowing what to do, but what else is new?
>
> Golly, looks like Mr. Senile forgot that someone mentioned buying TQQQ in December
> at lower than a $22/share price, which mathematically means better than +11%:
>
> [quote]
> 12/27/22 update: TQQQ low & close: $16.72 & $16.84
> Looks like I can expect some paperwork in the mail from a certain limit order...
> [/quote]
>
> Hmmm...that suggests something north of +40%, doesn't it?
slotted in. Maybe its time to spend more to travel in style? Debating also between
trips to Ireland vs Japan too...plus got notice that the lottery opened yesterday for
New Year's concert by the Vienna Philharmonic, so threw a hat into the ring to try
to score those tickets, which would necessitate another trip. Unlikely though, as
the last time we looked at doing that (pre-CoVid) the odds on a Category 1 was
in the 5%-10% range.
-hh
-hh
Feb 2, 2023, 2:14:23 PM2/2/23
to
<https://www.wienerphilharmoniker.at/en/newyearsconcert#drawing>
<https://verlosung.wienerphilharmoniker.at/en/>
-hh
Tommy
Feb 3, 2023, 12:26:01 AM2/3/23
to
> > More importantly, the trajectory going forward is much more likely to be up than down.
> Yes, that's what the Fed said: "...“a couple more” rate increases...".
> Or did you mean to suggest something else?
> > Meanwhile, the Lyin' Asshole has his thumb up his ass, not knowing what to do, but what else is new?
> Golly, looks like Mr. Senile forgot that someone mentioned buying TQQQ in December
> at lower than a $22/share price, which mathematically means better than +11%:
>
> [quote]
> 12/27/22 update: TQQQ low & close: $16.72 & $16.84
> Looks like I can expect some paperwork in the mail from a certain limit order...
> [/quote]
>
> Hmmm...that suggests something north of +40%, doesn't it?
>
> -hh
-hh
Feb 3, 2023, 10:03:32 AM2/3/23
to
"Tommy's silent, of course, as TQQQ's back under $22/share. "
> WHY don't you maintain the same standards????
Sorry, but I *exceed* the standards that you use, by actually substantiating statements.
> > > More importantly, the trajectory going forward is much more likely to be up than down.
> >
> > Yes, that's what the Fed said: "...“a couple more” rate increases...".
> > Or did you mean to suggest something else?
>
> Hey Lyin' Asshole, I'm going to give you the MOST IMPORTANT piece of advice yet: the Fed is near
> the end of their rate increases and the market KNOWS that. Prices have ALREADY factored those
> increases in and company profits have ABSORBED those increases, so the market is GREEN-LIGHTED
> for an upside move. In other words, we have already seen the market BOTTOM. Is that clear enough
> for your peanut-sized brain??????
no recession in 2023 either?
> > > Meanwhile, the Lyin' Asshole has his thumb up his ass, not knowing what to do, but what else is new?
> >
> > Golly, looks like Mr. Senile forgot that someone mentioned buying TQQQ in December
> > at lower than a $22/share price, which mathematically means better than +11%:
>
> Hey LA, did you BUY TQQQ at that price? I DOUBT IT!!!!
<http://huntzinger.com/usenet/2022-TQQQ_redacted.gif>
Granted, it is redacted, but it is nevertheless sufficient to show a TQQQ purchase in December, at
a price whose first digit is a "1" instead of a "2". Go ahead and complain that this isn't good enough,
but do so by leading by example, by posting your own purchase order record of CVX to show what
the minimum disclosure resolution is that you want to see.
> > [quote]
> > 12/27/22 update: TQQQ low & close: $16.72 & $16.84
> > Looks like I can expect some paperwork in the mail from a certain limit order...
> > [/quote]
> >
> > Hmmm...that suggests something north of +40%, doesn't it?
>
> Not for you because you DIDN'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
would be at least a +22% gain.
Likewise, for even lower prices:
If PP = $19.50 --> +25%
If PP = $19.00 --> +28%
If PP = $18.50 --> +32%
If PP = $18.00 --> +36%
If PP = $17.50 --> +39%
If PP = $17.00 --> +43%
If PP = $16.50 --> +48%
etc
Meantime, today's jobs report was too strong, so Markets are dropping because they know
that that's meat for the Federal Reserve to keep on increasing rates for longer = a Tommy oops!
-hh
Tommy
Feb 5, 2023, 12:59:18 AM2/5/23
to
-hh
Feb 5, 2023, 3:22:11 AM2/5/23
to
> > > WHY don't you maintain the same standards????
> >
> > Sorry, but I *exceed* the standards that you use, by actually substantiating statements.
> >
> > > > > More importantly, the trajectory going forward is much more likely to be up than down.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, that's what the Fed said: "...“a couple more” rate increases...".
> > > > Or did you mean to suggest something else?
> > >
> > > Hey Lyin' Asshole, I'm going to give you the MOST IMPORTANT piece of advice yet: the Fed is near
> > > the end of their rate increases and the market KNOWS that. Prices have ALREADY factored those
> > > increases in and company profits have ABSORBED those increases, so the market is GREEN-LIGHTED
> > > for an upside move. In other words, we have already seen the market BOTTOM. Is that clear enough
> > > for your peanut-sized brain??????
> >
> > So you've definitively called the bottom. Does this also mean that you're also saying that there will be
> > no recession in 2023 either?
> > > > > Meanwhile, the Lyin' Asshole has his thumb up his ass, not knowing what to do, but what else is new?
> > > >
> > > > Golly, looks like Mr. Senile forgot that someone mentioned buying TQQQ in December
> > > > at lower than a $22/share price, which mathematically means better than +11%:
> > >
> > > Hey LA, did you BUY TQQQ at that price? I DOUBT IT!!!!
> >
> > Already posted that I did, but didn't provide a receipt, so here ya go:
> >
> > <http://huntzinger.com/usenet/2022-TQQQ_redacted.gif>
> >
> > Granted, it is redacted, but it is nevertheless sufficient to show a TQQQ purchase in December, at
> > a price whose first digit is a "1" instead of a "2". Go ahead and complain that this isn't good enough,
> > but do so by leading by example, by posting your own purchase order record of CVX to show what
> > the minimum disclosure resolution is that you want to see.
> > > > [quote]
> > > > 12/27/22 update: TQQQ low & close: $16.72 & $16.84
> > > > Looks like I can expect some paperwork in the mail from a certain limit order...
> > > > [/quote]
> > > >
> > > > Hmmm...that suggests something north of +40%, doesn't it?
> > >
> > > Not for you because you DIDN'T BUY IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > Except for how any TQQQ purchase below $20.00 versus your $24.39 price point
> > would be at least a +22% gain.
> >
> > Likewise, for even lower prices:
> >
> > If PP = $19.50 --> +25%
> > If PP = $19.00 --> +28%
> > If PP = $18.50 --> +32%
> > If PP = $18.00 --> +36%
> > If PP = $17.50 --> +39%
> > If PP = $17.00 --> +43%
> > If PP = $16.50 --> +48%
> > etc
> >
> > Meantime, today's jobs report was too strong, so Markets are dropping because they know
> > that that's meat for the Federal Reserve to keep on increasing rates for longer = a Tommy oops!
>
>
This would be the part where Tommy tries to ignore that his call that the Feds have ended making
rate hikes is looking quite incorrect at the end of last week. Plus Tommy's silent on if he's bailed
out of TQQQ with just a 11% gain (before STCG taxes).
> ... its good to see that you followed my advice FOR ONCE!
Nah, the TQQQ holdings are insignificant: they're worth the entertainment value of seeing you
squirm, because no matter what brag you try to make, you know someone else is doing better than you.
-hh
Tommy
Feb 8, 2023, 12:32:41 AM2/8/23
to
-hh
Feb 8, 2023, 6:20:39 AM2/8/23
to
> The Lyin' Asshole's string of lies is unbroken: WHEN did I say that the Fed had ENDED their rate hikes?
Nah, I'm just already accepting a hike at the Fed's March meeting, based on what you said, which was:
"....indicated they were close to the end of rate hikes."
That's in conjunction and context with how you've not denied having also called the bottom already, as well as
the elaborations on how a bottom occurs only a few months before the last rate hikes. Together, it points to
the Fed's March meeting as being the last rate hike as being what you meant - - at the time you said it.
Naturally, now that the Fed has clearly said otherwise, you're trying to change what you meant, particularly
particularly since the June and even May Fed meeting dates are already too far into 2023 for a reasonable
expectation of a Fed rate cut occurring 2023, because any sort of Fed rates hold duration would be negated.
Meantime, you're silent on if you already bailed out of TQQQ at its 11% gain point (before STCG taxes).
Ditto on you providing clarity on if you're also saying that there will be no recession in 2023 either.
As well as your mystery purchase record on CVX....oh, gosh on INTC too (purchased claimed prior to 11 Jan 22)
-hh
Tommy
Feb 8, 2023, 8:48:44 PM2/8/23
to
We have ALREADY had our recession which you profoundly waffled about.
I have ALREADY put you on notice that I AM NOT informing you of all my trades, just as YOU are not doing the same (and, now, declaring that you bought TQQQ with a very suspicious trade confirmation).
Let's face it: you're jealous of my success and want to belittle it at every opportunity. So be it - you are welcome to wallow in your proven mediocrity.
-hh
Feb 8, 2023, 9:31:30 PM2/8/23
to
> Hey Asshole, at least you ADMIT that I didn't say the Fed was DONE with rate hikes.
> There are, at least, two more rate hikes in the works, PROBABLY (note I am not declaring this) 0.25% each.
Oh, so it’s “at least two”? That’s what’s now supposed to be “close”? This pushes out the first
> There are, at least, two more rate hikes in the works, PROBABLY (note I am not declaring this) 0.25% each.
meeting with no expected rate hike to mid-June, so where does that now place your bottom,
for which you’ve previously said “I am saying that the market is going thru a bottoming process
this quarter.”, which ends in just 51 days? Trying to copy my 1H comment?
> We have ALREADY had our recession which you profoundly waffled about.
> I have ALREADY put you on notice that I AM NOT informing you of all my trades, …
Non sequitur, as you’ve been on notice yourself that you can’t make any claims on any
trades that you’ve not posted prior adequate notice. Thus, you’ll no longer be able to
cherry-pick from your entire portfolio to find a winner to claim…unless you choose to
disclose your entire portfolio, of course.
> … just as YOU are not doing the same (and, now, declaring that you bought TQQQ
> with a very suspicious trade confirmation).
Nah, you’ve already been told to provide an example of your own trades with the level
of detail you’re trying to complain about not getting from others…and have not done so.
> Let's face it: you're jealous of my success and want to belittle it at every opportunity.
> So be it - you are welcome to wallow in your proven mediocrity.
to be in the least jealous of your little goldfish bowl’s echo chamber.
-hh
Tommy
Feb 9, 2023, 1:28:06 AM2/9/23
to
> > We have ALREADY had our recession which you profoundly waffled about.
> No, NBER is the authority on that, and they’ve not made that call. Sorry.
>
> > I have ALREADY put you on notice that I AM NOT informing you of all my trades, …
>
> Non sequitur, as you’ve been on notice yourself that you can’t make any claims on any
> trades that you’ve not posted prior adequate notice. Thus, you’ll no longer be able to
> cherry-pick from your entire portfolio to find a winner to claim…unless you choose to
> disclose your entire portfolio, of course.
>
> > … just as YOU are not doing the same (and, now, declaring that you bought TQQQ
> > with a very suspicious trade confirmation).
> Nah, you’ve already been told to provide an example of your own trades with the level
> of detail you’re trying to complain about not getting from others…and have not done so.
> > Let's face it: you're jealous of my success and want to belittle it at every opportunity.
> > So be it - you are welcome to wallow in your proven mediocrity.
> Sorry, but you do that all on your own and to yourself. No one here has any reason
> to be in the least jealous of your little goldfish bowl’s echo chamber.
>
> -hh
-hh
Feb 9, 2023, 8:14:37 AM2/9/23
to
> > > We have ALREADY had our recession which you profoundly waffled about.
> > No, NBER is the authority on that, and they’ve not made that call. Sorry.
>
> Sorry, but we WERE.
> > > I have ALREADY put you on notice that I AM NOT informing you of all my trades, …
> >
> > Non sequitur, as you’ve been on notice yourself that you can’t make any claims on any
> > trades that you’ve not posted prior adequate notice. Thus, you’ll no longer be able to
> > cherry-pick from your entire portfolio to find a winner to claim…unless you choose to
> > disclose your entire portfolio, of course.
>
> You are a PIECE OF WORK, Asshole! I owe you exactly NOTHING, which is exactly
> what you DESERVE. You are a loser living a life of quiet desperation that looks at
> diminishing those that have done better than you.
> > > … just as YOU are not doing the same (and, now, declaring that you bought TQQQ
> > > with a very suspicious trade confirmation).
> >
> > Nah, you’ve already been told to provide an example of your own trades with the level
> > of detail you’re trying to complain about not getting from others…and have not done so.
> > > Let's face it: you're jealous of my success and want to belittle it at every opportunity.
> > > So be it - you are welcome to wallow in your proven mediocrity.
> >
> > Sorry, but you do that all on your own and to yourself. No one here has any reason
> > to be in the least jealous of your little goldfish bowl’s echo chamber.
>
> Yeah, right - coming from a loser.
you’re stuck in the “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” logical trap.
Plus even when I’ve dropped clues, you’ve been unable and/or unwilling to
comprehend and/or acknowledge their significance. Your loss, not mine.
BTW, a retired friend sent me these two links recently; first is an illustration
whereas the second is a quasi-analysis…a bit overly broad, but nevertheless
revealing on some of your behavior:
< https://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=396981&sid=7b59bcd7747813e9852733284ece221f>
< https://bowtiedbull.substack.com/p/going-through-levels-of-wealth>
Quick reads both.
-hh
-hh
Feb 11, 2023, 7:33:01 AM2/11/23
to
31 Dec 21: $48.94**
11 Jan 22: $52.46
11 Feb 23: $27.80
** - adjusted close; lowest daily non-adjusted low for 10/31/21 through 1/11/22 was $49.18
> > > > Hey Asshole, at least you ADMIT that I didn't say the Fed was DONE with rate hikes.
> > >
> > > > There are, at least, two more rate hikes in the works, PROBABLY (note I am not declaring this) 0.25% each.
> > >
> > > Oh, so it’s “at least two”? That’s what’s now supposed to be “close”? This pushes out the first
> > > meeting with no expected rate hike to mid-June, so where does that now place your bottom,
> > > for which you’ve previously said “I am saying that the market is going thru a bottoming process
> > > this quarter.”, which ends in just 51 days? Trying to copy my 1H comment?
> >
> > So, now you are arguing about what "close" means. Sorry, but your sorry ass
> > doesn't deserve an education in that.
>
[quote]
Common tells of the Upper Middle Class belief system
* Absolute obsession with being seen as important...
* Insecurity...
* Passive aggressive behavior...Constant emphasis on how “high they are up the chain”.
* Obsession with “comp”....common for them to prod and try to figure out how much you make...
[/quote]
-hh
Tommy
Feb 12, 2023, 1:03:00 AM2/12/23
to
Your attempt at psychoanalysis is PATHETIC, Lyin' Asshole. The bottom line is the same: you just live a miserable life jealous of others who have succeeded where you have failed.
-hh
Feb 12, 2023, 9:11:29 AM2/12/23
to
“Cry harder”, Tommy.
> Your attempt at psychoanalysis is PATHETIC, Lyin' Asshole.
[quote]
* Absolute obsession with being seen as important...
* Insecurity...
* Passive aggressive behavior...Constant emphasis on how “high they are up the chain”.
* Obsession with “comp”....common for them to prod and try to figure out how much you make...
[/quote]
Shoot the messenger much?
* Insecurity...
* Passive aggressive behavior...Constant emphasis on how “high they are up the chain”.
* Obsession with “comp”....common for them to prod and try to figure out how much you make...
[/quote]
> The bottom line is the same: you just live a miserable life jealous of others
> who have succeeded where you have failed.
Naturally, Tommy has provided zero quantified metrics for what anyone is
supposed to be jealous of him for. Perhaps it will be stomach acidity level?
-hh
Tommy
Feb 14, 2023, 9:10:12 PM2/14/23
to
> Shoot the messenger much?
> > The bottom line is the same: you just live a miserable life jealous of others
> > who have succeeded where you have failed.
> YA instance of a (self-alleged) RSG “multimillionaire” being vain & bitter.
>
> Naturally, Tommy has provided zero quantified metrics for what anyone is
> supposed to be jealous of him for. Perhaps it will be stomach acidity level?
-hh
Feb 15, 2023, 6:48:50 AM2/15/23
to
> > Shoot the messenger much?
> > > The bottom line is the same: you just live a miserable life jealous of others
> > > who have succeeded where you have failed.
> >
> > YA instance of a (self-alleged) RSG “multimillionaire” being vain & bitter.
>
> Hardly. I am neither vain nor bitter.
> On the contrary, I have tried to pass the secret of my success to you libtards and have
> been met with nothing but scorn and derision (which is why you dudes aren't successful).
in business. They were just a couple of already-known strategies for personal income taxes.
FYI, it is hard to honestly claim that the disinclination was scornful/derisive when it was explained
as due to individual circumstances (e.g. insufficient age for RMDs, employer benefits) which was
what made them de-optimal strategies to be employed at present.
Perhaps what you're thinking of as derision was in how it was noted that you had exaggerated
on your claimed magnitude of savings? Or how your misrepresenting a mere two tips as "many"?
Nope. Attention to Detail is a time-tested attribute for success in life & business: try it sometime.
> > Naturally, Tommy has provided zero quantified metrics for what anyone is
> > supposed to be jealous of him for. Perhaps it will be stomach acidity level?
>
> You continually obliviate on it - that is ample evidence of jealousness.
Because no one forced you to make your 'multimillionaire' claim, yet you did so & repeated that
many times. Your attempt to rub that in the face of others has backfired on you because you've
not ever substantiated your allegation, which is why it, like you, rings empty and hollow.
-hh
bruce bowser
Feb 16, 2023, 3:52:04 PM2/16/23
to
Tommy
Feb 17, 2023, 1:23:10 AM2/17/23
to
-hh
Feb 17, 2023, 6:24:44 AM2/17/23
to
> Hey Lyin' Asshole, you present a PHONY E-Trade transaction and you QUESTION my veracity???
> Go back to the drawing board, bozo.
Oh, look: Tommy is back to that old diversion attempt again, only this time he's tried to move from
> Go back to the drawing board, bozo.
claiming it was a "very suspicious trade confirmation" to now alleging it was a "PHONY" one.
No proof again, of course.
As Tommy's been told:
"Go ahead and complain that this isn't good enough, but do so by leading by example, by posting your own
purchase order record of CVX to show what the minimum disclosure resolution is that you want to see."
Instead of leading by example, Tommy vainly just posts bitter another "Grandpa Simpson" rant.
purchase order record of CVX to show what the minimum disclosure resolution is that you want to see."
-hh
Tommy
Feb 18, 2023, 1:56:09 AM2/18/23
to
-hh
Feb 18, 2023, 8:20:02 AM2/18/23
to
> LOL! Hey Lyin' Asshole, your phony Etrade confirmation shows a price of ONE DOLLAR and NOTHING
> for the quantity. Now, are you claiming that is a REAL confirmation????
And no account number either: you're just confused because the redaction of that information
> for the quantity. Now, are you claiming that is a REAL confirmation????
was done as white on transparent, which your image viewer represented as white on white: try
opening the file in a better GIF browser/editor to better reveal where the redactions were made.
Or ask nicely what contrasting color you want it changed to .. perhaps "cowardly Tommy yellow streak"?
-hh
-hh
Feb 18, 2023, 9:59:32 AM2/18/23
to
redactions done in Tommy Yellow so that he can't legitimately complain about not being able to
see exactly where each redaction was done:
<https://www.huntzinger.com/usenet/2022-TQQQ_redacted.gif>
-hh
-hh
Feb 21, 2023, 10:28:09 PM2/21/23
to
company profits have ABSORBED those increases, so the market is GREEN-LIGHTED for an upside
move. In other words, we have already seen the market BOTTOM.”
But it appears that the Markets have had a difficult opinion of “bottom” than Tommy …
DJIA is currently down -800, of which -500 was just today. Similarly, Tommy’s favorite of TQQQ
was at $25.52 on the 3rd, but closed today at $22.35.
-hh
-hh
Feb 24, 2023, 4:59:44 PM2/24/23
to
Naturally, Tommy's in hiding, having called "BOTTOM" three weeks ago.
-hh
Tommy
Jun 3, 2023, 11:12:05 PM6/3/23
to
And you libtards have been WAY BEHIND THE CURVE on everything else, calling for a market pullback, saying we should wait until even 2024 to reenter the market!
-hh
Jun 4, 2023, 6:58:57 AM6/4/23
to
> My, My! We haven't heard from the Lyin' Asshole on this topic for SOME TIME!
> I wonder why?
Been busy doing other stuff. Roof replacement this past week.
> I wonder why?
> Could it be because TQQQ closed yesterday at $36.82?
> My gain on TQQQ is now over FIFTY PERCENT!
> All that the Lyin' Asshole has to show is his obviously FAKE TRADE!
> And you libtards have been WAY BEHIND THE CURVE on everything else,
> calling for a market pullback, saying we should wait until even 2024 to
> reenter the market!
Especially since the historical trend is for the market bottom to be months after
the last Fed rate hike, and the Fed is coy on if they’re going to hike again later
this month or not, thanks to the stronger than expected jobs report last Friday.
-hh
Tommy
Jun 5, 2023, 1:25:25 AM6/5/23
to
> > My gain on TQQQ is now over FIFTY PERCENT!
> My paper gain is bigger.
> > All that the Lyin' Asshole has to show is his obviously FAKE TRADE!
> Still has more substantiation than your claim.
> > And you libtards have been WAY BEHIND THE CURVE on everything else,
> > calling for a market pullback, saying we should wait until even 2024 to
> > reenter the market!
> Not what was actually said now, wasn’t it?
>
> Especially since the historical trend is for the market bottom to be months after
> the last Fed rate hike, and the Fed is coy on if they’re going to hike again later
> this month or not, thanks to the stronger than expected jobs report last Friday.
>
> -hh
-hh
Jun 5, 2023, 6:29:23 AM6/5/23
to
> > > Could it be because TQQQ closed yesterday at $36.82?
> >
> > When it was over $80/share just eighteen months ago? Nah!
>
> Hey you IDIOT - that is not what you were saying a couple of months ago.
the exact quote, along with GG URL a link to the thread for context.
> > > My gain on TQQQ is now over FIFTY PERCENT!
> >
> > My paper gain is bigger.
>
> You can take your "paper gain" and wipe your ASS with it as that is ALL that it is good for!
> > > All that the Lyin' Asshole has to show is his obviously FAKE TRADE!
> >
> > Still has more substantiation than your claim.
>
> It is FAKE and you KNOW IT! I posted my trade when I made it.
> How MUCH do you want to bet that it is FAKE?
And how much cash are you willing to put into a third party escrow,
so as to deny either party the ability to Welch on any such wager?
> > > And you libtards have been WAY BEHIND THE CURVE on everything else,
> > > calling for a market pullback, saying we should wait until even 2024 to
> > > reenter the market!
> >
> > Not what was actually said now, wasn’t it?
>
> Pretty much was, asshole.
> > Especially since the historical trend is for the market bottom to be months after
> > the last Fed rate hike, and the Fed is coy on if they’re going to hike again later
> > this month or not, thanks to the stronger than expected jobs report last Friday.
>
> How much have you LOST with that bit of so-called "intelligence?"
Pop that forehead vein again Tommy!
-hh
Tommy
Jun 5, 2023, 9:20:33 PM6/5/23
to
Tommy
Jun 5, 2023, 9:22:56 PM6/5/23
to
-hh
Jun 6, 2023, 10:22:02 AM6/6/23
to
> > LOL! Hey Lyin' Asshole, you continue to make proclamations based on exactly ZERO evidence.
Nah, I’ve previously mentioned some of my sources, such as Ed Hyman.
I’m also not inclined to divulge information from advisers I’m paying for.
> > The market has bottomed based on the major indices. This was confirmed by
> > the latest strong jobs report.
another interest rate hike later this month, and as we all know, rate hikes are
headwinds against the Equities markets. “Don’t Fight the Fed”, fool.
> > I am sitting pretty while you are fretting over when to reenter the market.
Plus you shouldn’t spout opinions when you’re not fully informed: I merely had
mentioned that that I had pulled some profits out back during the “melt up”, in
anticipation of Market corrections to then reinvest. If that approach is so foolish,
then why is Berkshire Hathaway holding larger cash right now too? It’s not like
you’re richer than Warren Buffet:
< https://www.investopedia.com/berkshire-hathaway-annual-meeting-2023-7494837>
> > All of your predictions are BUST, which is why you AREN'T a multimillionaire.
Second, you’ve failed to substantiate your above claim.
Third, you’ve never substantiated your own wealth brag.
Tommy is having rampant personal insecurities rants…again.
> > At least you can wipe your ass with them...
> BTW, I am willing to bet you AS MUCH as I invested in TQQQ - nothing like doubling my investment!
this would then have to be less than one (1) share of TQQQ.
-hh
-hh
Jun 7, 2023, 7:33:11 AM6/7/23
to
Bottom line remains aways the same: Tommy will contrive some excuse to bail.
For example, he's been silent on the 3rd Party Escrow requirement.
-hh
-hh
Dec 26, 2023, 10:59:58 AM12/26/23
to
Was looking for something else...
An update at this morning's market prices, which is roughly the two year point since purchase:
It looks like this portfolio segment has successfully held onto its equity (up by roughly +1.5%), plus has been providing
income at 3%/year in Qualified Dividends (which means it is taxed at the lower LTCG rate, not as Ordinary Income),
which was its intended objective in the pre-2022 pre-FED interest rate hike environment.
Insofar as TQQQ, its currently at just ~$51/share, so its well below its 2021 peak of nearly $90/share,
and we have no particular assurances that Tommy didn't already bail out long ago on his alleged
$22-ish purchase, rather than to have waited to have gained more, for TQQQ has regained ~$20/share
since just before Halloween.
> Bottom line remains aways the same: Tommy will contrive some excuse to bail.
> For example, he's been silent on the 3rd Party Escrow requirement.
As always, for Tommy invariably is all talk, no substantiation.
-hh
It looks like this portfolio segment has successfully held onto its equity (up by roughly +1.5%), plus has been providing
income at 3%/year in Qualified Dividends (which means it is taxed at the lower LTCG rate, not as Ordinary Income),
which was its intended objective in the pre-2022 pre-FED interest rate hike environment.
and we have no particular assurances that Tommy didn't already bail out long ago on his alleged
$22-ish purchase, rather than to have waited to have gained more, for TQQQ has regained ~$20/share
since just before Halloween.
> Bottom line remains aways the same: Tommy will contrive some excuse to bail.
> For example, he's been silent on the 3rd Party Escrow requirement.
-hh
-hh
Jan 9, 2024, 5:44:23 PMJan 9
to
..since Tommy was notoriously loud on his alledged “momentum” speculation trades.
Was reminded of this today when reading a Morningstar retrospective, which contained
the following:
[quote]
…Warren Buffett’s advice on guru forecasts: “We have long felt that the only value
of stock forecasters is to make fortunetellers look good. Even now, Charlie [Munger]
and I continue to believe that short-term market forecasts are poison and should be
kept locked up in a safe place, away from children and also from grown-ups who
behave in the market like children.”
[/quote]
< https://stocks.apple.com/A2ZrsXSkNR7C_sZtE9mC0QQ>
Yup, that last line was the kicker.
-hh
-hh
Feb 15, 2024, 7:43:43 AMFeb 15
to
Sure, its up from its bottom (where I bought at a better price than Tommy)
but at $58/share, TQQQ is still 30 points below its November 2021 peak.
And FYI, yesterday's news was that Japan's "Nikkei 225" Market Index has
risen above 38,000 and despite a recession, there's apparently a chance of
it continuing and no longer be underwater from its October 1989 peak high
of ~38,900. If that were to happen, that Market would have been negative
for "only" 34 years (longer than most retirements).
Thus ends today's lesson in market risks for self-proclaimed 'multi-millionaires'
who like to claim that 'Markets Always Go Up'. Sure, they eventually do, but their
timeline may be longer than your remaining lifespan, because the corollary is
that Markets can remain irrational for longer than you can remain liquid.
-hh
0 new messages