It's not an unpopular opinion.
It's a good thing unless you think hedging = DA JOOOOZ = bad, or you're a scam company's CEO that's being shorted.
The government can't be trusted to hold these companies accountable, short sellers do that.
People like to bitch about George Soros' unfathomably based act of shorting the Bank of England and various lying financial departments in Asia, they're just wrong. He exposed major flaws and corruption in the system, a hard crash would have been far worse than a temporary year of misery for the state to get their act together. I don't agree with his politics but the method he acquired wealth was legitimate and righteous.
>But people lose jobs
Whose fault is that? The short seller or the lying scam company? Would you rather lose your job unprepared when the company crashes, or get prepared to apply for other jobs as the media circus closes in?
>But short sellers lie
Yeah, they do. And when their lies are exposed, their business is doomed because no one would trust their research anymore. Ackerman who shorted Herbalife didn't even lie, yet his position lost him lots of clout.
>Some of the most successful companies are the most shorted
Yes. But they're also the most invested?
>REEEEE I DON'T LIKE JEWS
Cry more.
I've thought for a long time that most of the REEEEing about all this comes from people having an instictive-level reaction about the core concept: Something about 'betting that this company will lose/not do well' sets off people's sense of propriety or even decency, and doubly so if they're invested on the long side of the trade.
I've thought for a long time that most of the REEEEing about all this comes from people having an instictive-level reaction about the core concept: Something about 'betting that this company will lose/not do well' sets off people's sense of propriety or even decency, and doubly so if they're invested on the long side of the trade.
It's usually an educated bet, done through lots of research. Modelling their financial details, and sometimes even espionage involving contacts within these companies, and utilising hacks which allows the hedge fund groups to scan through emails. It's plain and old autism. Think about some of the autistic shit we do, but applied to shoddy scam companies instead.
For all the successful hedges, there's thousands if not millions of unsuccessful ones. It balances itself out.
It may be an unpopular opinion, but I believe shorting serves a valuable economic purpose, by cutting down to size stocks (or even entire currencies) that are enormously overvalued, thereby preventing even worse crashes related to irrational exuberance. I think Soros buggering the Bank of England senseless was actually a good thing.
Wall St. is the best gamba sesh ever. It makes me wonder if the people jumping through windows during the 1920's crash were really just old school Bossman Jacks that earthquake'd at their desk before punching through the quarter inch lead glass windows.
I wish Jackie and Pat would try their hand at market speculation, especially if it involves leverage. I can't think of too many things that could bankrupt them faster. Fuck blue chips and penny stocks. Dive right into the deep end.
I've thought for a long time that most of the REEEEing about all this comes from people having an instictive-level reaction about the core concept: Something about 'betting that this company will lose/not do well' sets off people's sense of propriety or even decency, and doubly so if they're invested on the long side of the trade.
I wish Jackie and Pat would try their hand at market speculation, especially if it involves leverage. I can't think of too many things that could bankrupt them faster. Fuck blue chips and penny stocks. Dive right into the deep end.
The reason why shorting is a big balled play is unlike a normal investment, where you can lose all your money in the worst case, the potential loss is limitless in shorting and can greatly exceed the initial investment. (This is even more the case in so-called "naked" shorting but for good reason, that's almost always illegal.)
Jackie has had a blue check for as long as she’s offered subscription tweets, so at least a year. (Subscriptions are a premium feature.) She likely bought and hid it as soon as it was offered. Reviewing the results of a search of her username and “blue check” is a step toward madness. She’s a broken-brained retard bitch.
Probably the pennies she gets from her substack which she doesn't report to the IRS, who is currently and aggressively pursuing a $100k judgement against her.
Snax wants you to know that some of her family was disappeared by a dictator in the Dominican Republic so you should listen to her when she says Trump should be arrested.
Super late but Jackie, as usual, can't get anything right no matter how minuscule, that's HB's wife. Both Dan and Flavia wish Flavia had a rack this nice.
Super late but Jackie, as usual, can't get anything right no matter how minuscule, that's HB's wife. Both Dan and Flavia wish Flavia had a rack this nice.
Jackie has speculated or stated (there’s a fine line between those two actions with her) that Dan trafficked Flavia and Mrs. Badger, or they trafficked each other, and they’re all trafficking more women via Flavia’s cleaning business. I hate when she gets going on Dan because it takes a lot of brain power to figure out what she’s getting at and it’s still all pretty boring because she’s so stupid. We’re max 2 weeks from her next scheduled poke at Mr. Mullen.
Snax wants you to know that some of her family was disappeared by a dictator in the Dominican Republic so you should listen to her when she says Trump should be arrested.
There are PR firms and/or foreign intelligence agencies who think that Snax is AI generated or something so Snackie keeps it real by using her pajeet powers to "shine a light on their inauthentic behavior" and "trigger them with my shiny, new, blue checkmark". They have a problem with her sharing her thoughts and expertise, donchano?
There are PR firms and/or foreign intelligence agencies who think that Snax is AI generated or something so Snackie keeps it real by using her pajeet powers to "shine a light on their inauthentic behavior" and "trigger them with my shiny, new, blue checkmark". They have a problem with her sharing her thoughts and expertise, donchano?
Snax wants you to know that some of her family was disappeared by a dictator in the Dominican Republic so you should listen to her when she says Trump should be arrested.
Trujillo wasn't a fascist, didn't come to power through democratic elections (he won 99% of the vote with more votes than voters in a rigged 1930 election after he seized power as the head of the military) and this anecdote is irrelevant anyway as the Trump case has nothing to do with official acts.
Also Trujillo's power was so secure that he could "step down" after two terms and still run the country until he was assassinated. Being prosecuted for petty crimes was probably never a thing on Trujillo's mind ever.