McInnis 03 said:

---

Gap.
Up.
City.

---

Let's kick the tires and light the fires big daddy.

McInnis 03 said:

---

81 blue stars.

Lower than i'd thought

---

I'm sure plenty of people saw through your blue star hoarding attempt

I forgot to click your star. Too busy watching the recruiting coverage

Those 995/1000/1005 TSLA flies should be looking decent at the open. I will look to go net free out of fears that it runs right by them.

ProgN said:

---

Lotto idea for you degenerates. SPY 472C expiring in 2 days. This rally likely to continue tomorrow, especially at the open.

---

These will pay nice at the open for anyone that followed.

This week so far …

This week so far in a gif ... pic.twitter.com/K1UHj9Sj9L

— 📈 𝗠𝗮𝗿𝗸𝗲𝘁𝘀 & 𝗠𝗮𝘆𝗵𝗲𝗺 📉 (@Mayhem4Markets) December 16, 2021

Y'all be careful with all these gap ups.

While it does feel like the small cap bottom might be in, there's some downside targets on individual stocks and on RUT that didn't quite fill. Watch for a healthy impulsive structure going back up. A straight spike is usually corrective and gets sold back.

All I'm saying is let the market or the stock prove that it's in a healthy incline and not a corrective spike before you get aggressively bullish.

We said this week that we expected the Fed to be Hawkish... And they were. Doubling tapering and Dot Plots showing three rate hikes next year... In fact, 8 of 18 think there should be 4 rate rises next year...Ethan Harris of BOA, was out last night saying the Fed should start raising rates in March and raise 25 basis over the next 8 quarters... Markets do not have this built in and the treasury market is struggling which way to go...as we write this moment the yield curve is steepening... With this aggressive view of the Fed, the curve should be flattening... But the short end of the US curve is being anchored by the reluctant moves of the ECB... This summer the difference between 2 year Bunds and 2 year treasuries was 80 basis , now it is 133... And what is not to like about 2 years at 66 basis when bills are single digits?... 2 years have challenged 70 basis December 8, 10, and yesterday... They could not sustain it... If markets really believed the Fed is going to raise rates three times next year, 2 years should be over 1%, not struggling with .70... We could make a similar argument for 5 years, which is probably plaguing the trader who sold billions of 5 year contracts recently.

WSJ editorial came out today and said the Fed was not Hawkish. There quote was "the Fomc's action suggests it is in no rush to do anything about high inflation.. This means real interest rates will be negative through 2022. Powell's strategy is to steer through the confirmation process by talking tougher on inflation while doing little about anytime soon"... And you thought we were Hawkish... The stock market seems to agree with the WSJ view and has been rallying since the press conference yesterday... S+P is up 31 points after trading in a 46 point range overnight... Has the Year end rally started? We think so, but the Omicron Scrooge, since to be accelerating badly in the US..is a problem…Our views... 1) the accelerating tapering puts the March meeting on the table for the first rate increase... Somewhat dependent on Covid... But we still expect three rate increases. 2) The core inflation outlook is going to last through 2022 and maybe longer...3) Powell's emphasis that labor markets remain hot means that full employment is now here... And a quote from Wrightson... "the Fed could not achieve maximum employment if the Fed loses the price stability flight. For the first time in a generation inflation poses a bigger risk than employment." . Even a broken clock gets it right from time to time... Our view now is that the bond markets, especially the treasury market, is confused and not properly priced for what is coming down the road... Equities are listening to a different number that they are underinvested with lots of cash on the sidelines... Expect good volatility today and tomorrow... And on another note, the new SEC restrictions on money market funds will cause a lot of movement out of that space... Who wants to get paid close to zero and then be restricted if there is a run on the fund...

mazag08 said:

---

Y'all be careful with all these gap ups.

While it does feel like the small cap bottom might be in, there's some downside targets on individual stocks and on RUT that didn't quite fill. Watch for a healthy impulsive structure going back up. A straight spike is usually corrective and gets sold back.

All I'm saying is let the market or the stock prove that it's in a healthy incline and not a corrective spike before you get aggressively bullish.

---

You make it sound like I'm looking to get married again. Nah bruh, I'm just getting in and getting out.

irish pete ag06 said:

---

Man I am so close. I disagree with what some people say about "letting winner's run" when it comes to small accounts like mine.

I think this is only feasible for accounts that are large enough to be able to scale in to multiple contracts on each trade. Then scale out and leave a runner or runners.

I am nearly 100% certain that the amount of time I keep a trade open is directly related to losing.

Nearly every trade I've entered lately has probably ran at least 10% to 30%… almost purely on timing a good entry on a dip from watching the premium move in the trend. A lot of these trades end up being microscopic wins or losses because of a knife after holding too long and wishing I'd sold into the strong move for the 20%

Starting Monday it's scalps only. 10% per trade will compound quickly on tiny account like mine.

---

100%, this is the way for small accounts. I think that's one critical thing that doesn't get mentioned enough between people with larger vs smaller accounts, or these trading services that run massive accounts vs a subscriber willing to just play with $5K. The strategies have to be different, there is no other way. I don't think you should be ashamed taking profits at 10-25% on most things and letting it compound. I play my small fun account and my IRA completely differently....for example I recently took the CVNA March 200 P in both accounts. In my small account I took profits at 35-40% gainer and closed the trade on Tuesday after opening it on Monday. In my IRA I let it ride. Wednesday it went from a 40% gainer to a 150% gainer. Its frustrating to think what could have been for the smaller account, but it was the right management for that account vs my larger IRA. In my small account that trade as a significant % of capital so it had to be managed differently. In the IRA, it was less than 1%, so I could be more brazen with it and if things turned, hey it was a small trade for that account so less risk and less hurt.

The other strategy for smaller accounts is just to play cheaper stock price names. It limits your pool of stocks to watch/trade, but then you can play out the same strategies larger accounts use. For example, yesterday I took SNAP 47C as a lotto into FOMC. I bought 10 contracts for .20, or $200 total on the trade. I was willing to lose 50% of that in my small account. After the pop, I sold 7 of those contracts for .40, and was able to let the last three run (and looks like they may open north of .6). I couldn't use that same strategy for a 2.00 contract or even a 1.00 contract in my small account - the % allocated on the trade would just be too much and risk too great. I have to find names / contracts less than .5 and really less than .3 to be able to do it in the smaller account. Again it limits what names you can play, but its possible. You also have to pass up trades in bigger names like TSLA or AMZN and basically make them off limits because the contracts are just too much to play with in a smaller account.

La Bamba said:

---

ProgN said:

---

irish pete ag06 said:

---

Man I am so close. I disagree with what some people say about "letting winner's run" when it comes to small accounts like mine.

I think this is only feasible for accounts that are large enough to be able to scale in to multiple contracts on each trade. Then scale out and leave a runner or runners.

I am nearly 100% certain that the amount of time I keep a trade open is directly related to losing.

Nearly every trade I've entered lately has probably ran at least 10% to 30%… almost purely on timing a good entry on a dip from watching the premium move in the trend. A lot of these trades end up being microscopic wins or losses because of a knife after holding too long and wishing I'd sold into the strong move for the 20%

Starting Monday it's scalps only. 10% per trade will compound quickly on tiny account like mine.

---

You're correct in the grand scheme of things.

Small accounts are perfect to learn valuable lessons. Odds are that you'll blowup your account more than once, FWIW I did 7 times, but those are the lessons that stick with you the most. Everyone that's aggressive has blown up their accounts at some point and if someone says they haven't, they're FOS.

With small accounts, find what works and makes sense to you. I'd also suggest "not letting winners run" because you could miss out on other opportunities when they present themselves. What if you bought 50 shrs of ROKU last week at 199, rode to 250 but didn't cash out, where would you be today? If you sold those 50 shares at 240 then your small account grew by $2,000, There's always something to buy, so stay fluid. Hit for singles, 15-40% in a quick move then cash out. Don't GAF if you sell at profit and it ends up a homerun but you're not in it. Your greed factor will kick in on the next trade and you'll probably lose. Hit singles and watch your account grow. This will increase you're buying power very rapidly. DON'T GET COCKY, and think you've found the secret, spoiler alert, you haven't. As your account grows then you can take multiple positions and spread out the risks while applying the same discipline. Don't chase a homerun with all your money in one trade after you've tripled your account or you will blow it up. Find a discipline and stick to it with multiple positions. JMO, glad you're here and good luck.

---

This might be the best piece of advice on this thread. Can't say how many times I should have walked away on the day after making something like $400-$700 cause I was trying to make a clean $1,000 or more…then I force trades and finish even or negative on the day. Stack up the singles, trade what you're good at and watch the the money stack up.

---

Yep, my goal for my smaller account is $100 a day. Seems simple, but $100 a week turns into $2000 (more or less) a month, and with 253 trading days a year, $25,300 in a year. Once you hit the target, just be done for the day and walk away. Over trading is a serious problem, and something I continue to struggle with after doing this for 5+ years. Like many have already said, you get into more trouble when you force trades. That's the biggest reason I've haven't hit my own goals yet -- taking bad trades to force it and they end up costing me. Having something to do in the day after hitting the goal (like actual work lol) really helps, and you have to turn off the twitter feeds and this thread unfortunately. Completely walk away from it. Reading tweets or this thread about people taking more trades is the biggest drug that gets me back in when I shouldn't be and causes problems.

I think one of the biggest eye openers for me when someone I follow on twitter (can't even remember who) posted their +/- from the last year. Their goal was $1000 a week and I thought it would be way more since I thought they ran a massive account, but nope it was a consistent $1000 a week and when they hit the mark, the didn't trade anymore for that week. That takes real discipline.

Basically it is saying that it could suspend the ability of companies and individuals to get their money out of money market funds in a panic... Read through this to about the middle


Dow Jones) -- WASHINGTON -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued a
raft of proposals Wednesday including measures aimed at shoring up
money-market funds and curbing executives' ability to trade their own
companies' stock.

The proposals, some of which surprised Wall Street executives with their
scope, indicate that Chairman Gary Gensler is moving quickly to enact a policy
agenda that observers have called the SEC's most ambitious in decades. That
stands in contrast to other financial regulators, for which President Biden
has yet to fill key positions, and saw a nominee withdraw amid Senate
skepticism during confirmation.

With a thin majority in Congress, Democrats are leaning on Mr. Gensler to
advance progressive priorities such as fighting climate change and curbing the
power of big business. The SEC's authority to write rules for asset managers,
publicly traded companies and the stock market provides powerful, if sometimes
roundabout, tools for achieving such goals.

The proposals "will go a long way toward increasing corporate transparency and
accountability," Sen. Sherrod Brown (D., Ohio), chairman of the Senate Banking
Committee, said, praising enhanced disclosures around stock buybacks. "The
first step to workers getting their fair share is learning just how much
corporate executives are spending on themselves."

Mr. Gensler's agenda reflects political divisions. Three of the four proposals
garnered party-line votes from the SEC's five commissioners. Republicans
Hester Peirce and Elad Roisman supported only a plan to tighten rules on how
and when corporate insiders can sell their companies' stocks. The agency is
independent of the Biden administration.

The other proposals "are a partisan overreach that will likely diminish
investment opportunities, economic growth and capital formation," Sen. Pat
Toomey (R., Penn.), the top Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said.

Two of the proposals put forward Wednesday seek to make the financial system
more stable by reducing panicked investors' tendency to flee money-market
funds and by regulating opaque derivatives known as "swaps." The other two
rules would seek to enhance fairness and transparency in the stock market.
They would introduce new restrictions on corporate executives' trading and
heighten disclosure requirements around share buybacks by publicly traded
companies.

The new rules for money-market mutual funds aim to prevent episodes that
occurred during the past two recessions, in 2008 and 2020, when the Federal
Reserve was forced to backstop the funds after they were hit with a wave of
redemption requests that caused credit markets to seize up.

Money markets are typically used by corporate treasurers, pension funds and
millions of individual investors as a safe place to park cash and earn a
higher return than they could obtain in a bank account. They provide companies
with liquidity for short-term loans, called "commercial paper," to cover
immediate expenses like payroll.

But money-market funds aren't regulated like banks, which must meet minimum
capital requirements and offer deposit insurance. Regulators say this makes
them more susceptible to runs when markets are under severe stress, creating
broader risks to the financial system.

"This is about resiliency," Mr. Gensler said in an interview, noting that
Americans have roughly $5 trillion invested in money markets. "Though there
have been reforms in 2010 and 2014, we found again in 2020 some
instability...with the dash for cash."

The SEC's proposed changes include a measure called "swing pricing" that firms
including BlackRock Inc. and Federated Hermes Inc. have warned could destroy a
subset of the industry that holds short-term corporate debt and caters to
institutional investors. The measure would require these funds to adopt
policies for adjusting their share prices by a "swing factor" on days when
they have net redemptions. The factor would be determined by transaction costs
and the market impact of selling a slice of the fund's portfolio.

The goal is to protect investors who remain in the fund from dilution by
investors who redeem their shares, Mr. Gensler said.

The SEC's timing caught money-market fund managers off guard, said John Tobin,
investment chief at Dreyfus Cash Investment Strategies, which oversees $350
billion in money funds. Many didn't expect to see the new proposed rules until
next spring, he said.

The swing-pricing proposal is likely to draw universal industry opposition,
said Mr. Tobin, whose business is a unit of Bank of New York Mellon Corp. He
said the rule would create operational challenges and could encourage
institutional investors to head for the exits before a fund executes any
swing-price decision.

"It's definitely a shot across the bow," he said. "This is a watershed
moment."

The SEC also proposed significant restrictions on arrangements, known as
10b5-1 plans, by which corporate officers and directors schedule stock trades
ahead of time to avoid running afoul of insider-trading rules. Among other
changes, the agency would require executives to wait 120 days before buying or
selling their employer's stock after setting up or modifying the plans.

That proposal follows academic research suggesting the arrangements are being
abused as company leaders cash in at historic levels on their companies'
shares.

"The core issue is that these insiders regularly have material information
that the public doesn't have," Mr. Gensler said in a statement. Wednesday's
proposed changes seek to ensure their stock trading is done "in a way that's
fair to the marketplace," he added.

Commissioners also voted 3-2 along party lines to propose increased
disclosures around public companies' stock buybacks, which are also hitting
records this year.

Repurchases support stock prices by reducing the number of shares outstanding
in a company, lifting the firm's earnings per share. Like dividends, they
enable companies to return cash to investors. But critics, including many
Democrats, say buybacks give executives who are partly paid in equity or
options a roundabout way of boosting their own compensation, at the expense of
workers' wages or productive investments.

The SEC's proposal would require stock-buyback disclosures to be more detailed
and more frequent. Rather than disclosing monthly aggregate share repurchases
once a quarter, companies would have to report buybacks on the next business
day. They would also have to indicate whether any executives bought or sold
shares within 10 business days of a buyback program's announcement.

"Companies may determine to allocate capital towards share repurchases for a
number of different reasons," Democratic SEC Commissioner Allison Lee said.
"But one of those reasons should not be for the opportunistic, short-term
benefit of executives."

The SEC's chief economist, Jessica Wachter, said during the meeting that the
costs of complying with the increased disclosure requirements might discourage
some companies from buying back stock. Ms. Peirce and Mr. Roisman issued
strong dissents against the rule.

"Say 'dividend,' and nobody gets angry, but say 'share buyback,' and the rage
boils over," Ms. Peirce said. "Today's proposal channels some of that rage
against repurchases in a way that only a regulator can: through painfully
granular, unnecessarily frequent disclosure obligations."

Quote:

---

They would introduce new restrictions on corporate executives' trading and
heighten disclosure requirements around share buybacks by publicly traded
companies.

---

Now do Congressional trades.

hedge said:

---

So much for j powells bump

---

11pts on the QQQ since JPow spoke isn't a bump to you???