Sold 1/3 of my stack at 37k now I’m reloading. Hilarious to watch you all pat each other on the back at bitcoin dropping to 30k. Congrats I guess? For how horrifically wrong you have all been on bitcoin I’d hope to see a little more humility. Looks like a great buy opportunity today to me. But I actually utilize TA instead of making fun of it so I guess I’m in the minority here.
3 Likes
This post is sure to age well.
1 Like
Yesssssssssssssssssssssss, more!
1 Like
Per my rebalancing rules, I won’t be grabbing more until/if it drops back down closer to the 20k area and below. That would be a 50% pullback from ATH (and match previous ATH). Seems like a pretty significant price point.
lololololololololol
“I may have been early but I’m not wrong”
“ITS THE SAME THING! IT’S THE SAME THING, MIKE.”
3 Likes
How it started:
Me (skiier04) 2p2 bitcoin thread, July 1 2020
The technical analysis is pretty obvious that we’re still in a long term downtrend since Jan '18. However depending how you draw that line we’re still hovering very close to a breakout point as we speak with bullish reversal confirmed at price >10.5k\
How it’s going:
1 Like
You turned $0 into $100k in 6 months? That is impressive.
Had ~5k to my name about two years ago after years of alcohol and opiate addiction. 825 days sober today at age 30.
Early parts of that graph were backfilled with my first bitcoin moves when I got this app this year which it why it looks a bit odd.
7 Likes
“With Tesla raising $12bn in ‘20 and not seeing a dent in the stock, it implies Tesla’s cost of capital is negative – the market is paying Tesla to take capital,” wrote Levy in a note to investors.
3 Likes
lol I remember arguing with that tooth sayer guy like a year and a half ago that a company with a market cap of 50 billion ought to be able to raise 800 million without too much of an issue when he was saying that their upcoming bond payments were going to bankrupt them.
1 Like
In a world where negative interest rates are standard, negative cost of capital doesn’t feel as ridiculous as it should.
I just want to understand the logic behind this argument. They issued stock and the price didn’t drop, therefore it’s priced with a negative cost of capital?
What does he think should happen when an appropriately-priced company (with a positive cost of capital) issues stock? That the price should immediately drop?
Did Franco Modigliani kill this guy’s dog or something?
[To be fair, I totally believe that Tesla’s implied cost of capital is negative. But that’s certainly not a reason to expect a higher stock price.]
1 Like
Yeah if a company needs capital investment but for some reason weirdly hasn’t been trying to raise capital, you could easily see the stock go up when it finally issues more, just because it’s finally making the needed investments.
You can obviously come up with another story when a company trying to raise a bunch of money through issuing stock could be seen as negative by the market. But generally it should be neutral, right?
Right. You could argue that there’s a signaling component:
- We have this amazing opportunity and we need a bunch of capital to take advantage of it! → good news
- Nobody is buying our inventory and we need to raise cash to pay our lenders! → bad news
But this notion that you can infer a negative cost of capital from the stock price not changing after an equity issuance is bizarre. I have absolutely no idea what that means. It has the veneer of financial sophistication, but it makes no sense.
I’d rather just see this:
https://twitter.com/ParikPatelCFA/status/1341030141468786698
6 Likes
This guy has somehow been spot on so far lol.
It took me a very long time to realize this is a parody twitter account.
1 Like
Great job. Keep doing what works for you in investing and life. Everyone takes a different path.
2 Likes
I’m 2/5 on those. Def got TP laying around and some Peloton stock.
It’s a very entertaining parody.