顾北哲 personal page - To The Moon

顾北哲

顾北哲

No personal profile

149Follow

15Followers

1Topic

0Badge

2021-02-26

Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the dot com bubble

The days of easy money in the stock market are now over

2021-02-26

What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?

Sorry, the original content has been removed

2021-02-23

0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.

Sorry, the original content has been removed

Go to Tiger App to see more news

{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":"3551276051261213","uuid":"3551276051261213","gmtCreate":1588182029482,"gmtModify":1588395858305,"name":"顾北哲","pinyin":"gbzgubeizhe","introduction":"","introductionEn":null,"signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":15,"headSize":149,"tweetSize":99,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":2,"level":{"id":3,"name":"书生虎","nameTw":"書生虎","represent":"努力向上","factor":"发布10条非转发主帖,其中5条获得他人回复或点赞","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":1,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":1009,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"init","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-1","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Debut Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 500 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0e4d0ca1da0456dc7894c946d44bf9ab","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0f2f65e8ce4cfaae8db2bea9b127f58b","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c5948a31b6edf154422335b265235809","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.28","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001}],"userBadgeCount":1,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"location":null,"starInvestorFollowerNum":0,"starInvestorFlag":false,"starInvestorOrderShareNum":0,"subscribeStarInvestorNum":0,"ror":null,"winRationPercentage":null,"showRor":false,"investmentPhilosophy":null,"starInvestorSubscribeFlag":false},"baikeInfo":{},"tab":"post","tweets":[{"id":368841565,"gmtCreate":1614311803157,"gmtModify":1704770507799,"author":{"id":"3551276051261213","authorId":"3551276051261213","name":"顾北哲","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3551276051261213","authorIdStr":"3551276051261213"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the&nbsp;dot com bubble&nbsp;","listText":"Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the&nbsp;dot com bubble&nbsp;","text":"Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the dot com bubble","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/368841565","repostId":"1197533827","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1197533827","pubTimestamp":1614160523,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1197533827?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-24 17:55","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The days of easy money in the stock market are now over","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197533827","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-199","content":"<p>Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-1990s technology bubble.</p>\n<p>Ignore stock valuations and companies’ fundamentals at your peril.</p>\n<p>Churchill Capital Corp. ,a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that had been rumored to merge with a Tesla-wannabe, Lucid Motors, finally announced Monday night that it is indeed going to do so. And in a classic Wall Street reaction, the market “sold the news” after long having “bought the rumor.”</p>\n<p>CCIV was up 500% from when it went public as a blank-check company, and today the stock market has wiped half of what its market value was perceived to be Monday at noon. This is a stock that I had warned about earlier this month as one of the many “Random Number Generators” (RNGs) that should be avoided. People and institutions who had for weeks been buying CCIV at $40, $50, $60 or even $70 per share have suddenly seen a huge wipeout of value.</p>\n<p>They’re now, maybe, looking around at their other RNG SPACs and wondering if they should actually look at the valuations.</p>\n<p>Reviewing this week’s ugly stock-market action in a broader context, you might note that Tesla Inc.&nbsp;at $900 — after the company reported a not-so-great quarter that included some questions about gross margin expansion — is looking like it could have been a top-maker itself.</p>\n<p>Many questionable EV stocks continued to rally for a week or two before getting their comeuppance this week. At least for a day or two. It will be interesting to look back in a month to see what the non-TSLA EV stocks do from here. I expect most to move much lower even than today’s quotes, which are much lower than last week’s quotes.</p>\n<p><b>Piling into ARK</b></p>\n<p>These days everybody wants to be Cathie Wood from ARK Invest. She was an early bull on Tesla and bitcoinBTCUSD,6.03%and some of the the other themes that long-time followers of mine and I got into even earlier than she did. Her actively managed ETF, ARK Innovation ETF&nbsp;being the most famous, has performed very well, and her commentary has been spot on for a couple years now.</p>\n<p>But I have bad news. Even as I am a fan of Cathie’s and wish her and her investors all the best, I can’t help but think of the story of George Gilder, with whom I’ve become friends in the decades since&nbsp;I wrote this in 2001 for TheStreet.com.&nbsp;(I just realized this article was published just two weeks after 9/11.):</p>\n<p><i>“Investors need to heed a few rules when evaluating companies in their portfolio: Cash is king, as cash flow becomes increasingly difficult to judge on an ongoing basis. As such, a simple glance at a company’s balance sheet can tell you a lot about whether it’s worthy of investment. Now that the huge daily run-ups of telco stocks are gone forever, the potential rewards of any business with questionable viability aren’t worth the risk of your capital. Look for real revenue on the books. As tech guru George Gilder and his followers have learned (at least, I hope they have by now), great technology doesn’t translate into a great investment. Companies need sales channels, and they need products for which there are immediate uses. You might be surprised that I didn’t mention profitability in that list. Profitability is naturally important, but even companies like Cisco probably won’t be profitable this quarter and perhaps for several more, as they’ll have to continue aligning capacity, employees and inventory with demand.</i></p>\n<p><i>Let me repeat the caveat here: You’ll never see the type of returns, at least in telecom and telecom-tech stocks, that we saw almost daily in the late 1990s. That’s another reason why these tech mutual fund guys, who keep preaching to stay the course, will take forever to get back to even.”</i></p>\n<p><b>The hangover</b></p>\n<p>Telecom and telecom-tech stocks never again saw the kind of returns they did back in the late 1990s. I think the same can be said of EV stocks and many other of the favorites that Cathie Wood and her crowd of blind followers are these days plowing into as they put their money to work regardless of valuations.</p>\n<p>Here’s what George had to say&nbsp;in 2002:</p>\n<p><i>“In retrospect, it’s obvious that I should’ve subtly said, ‘Hey, things have gotten out of hand at JDS Uniphase, and it’s not worth what you’d have to pay for it,’” he says. Each month, he thought about providing a warning to his subscribers, and he decided against it every time. He had witnessed firsthand what others had dubbed the “Gilder effect”: the steep spike in a stock after he added that company to his list. It wasn’t unheard of for the price of a stock to jump by more than 50 percent within an hour of a newsletter’s release. If I had said, ‘Hey, this is a top, you should all sell,’ it would’ve been a cataclysmic event,” he says. “I’d think about telling people that they should sell half their holdings, and each time I’d conclude that my subscribers would be enraged. I also wondered what I’d precipitate if I did it.” Fully 50 percent of his readers had signed up for the report at what Gilder now calls the “hysterical peak” of the market. “Half of my subscribers would have been eternally grateful [for a warning], but the other half – the new ones – would’ve been enraged because they had just come in,” he says. “It was quite terrifying. I really didn’t know what to do.” In the end he did nothing. And soon enough, he had an entirely new set of distractions to fret over. “In the past, we’d sell out our investor conferences within two weeks,” Gilder says. “But in 2001, we sent out the same literature and the same invitations, and five or seven people signed up.” He lost the deposits that were placed to reserve hotel space for the gatherings. Newsletter renewal rates plummeted. A huge tax bill came due. By spring 2002, he’d laid off nearly half of his staff. “You can be just fabulously flush one moment, and then the next, you can’t make that last million-dollar payment to your partners, and there’s suddenly a lien on your house,” he says.</i></p>\n<p>Many of the best stocks on George’s list at the top in 1999 ended up going down 99% or more. Many went to zero, even as their technologies and ideas carried on and built the internet we all use every day now.</p>\n<p>CCIV is likely a harbinger of more pain for those who ignore valuations and fundamentals.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The days of easy money in the stock market are now over</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe days of easy money in the stock market are now over\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-24 17:55 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-days-of-easy-money-in-the-stock-market-are-now-over-11614104263?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-1990s technology bubble.\nIgnore stock valuations and companies’ fundamentals at your peril.\nChurchill ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-days-of-easy-money-in-the-stock-market-are-now-over-11614104263?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"ARKK":"ARK Innovation ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-days-of-easy-money-in-the-stock-market-are-now-over-11614104263?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1197533827","content_text":"Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-1990s technology bubble.\nIgnore stock valuations and companies’ fundamentals at your peril.\nChurchill Capital Corp. ,a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that had been rumored to merge with a Tesla-wannabe, Lucid Motors, finally announced Monday night that it is indeed going to do so. And in a classic Wall Street reaction, the market “sold the news” after long having “bought the rumor.”\nCCIV was up 500% from when it went public as a blank-check company, and today the stock market has wiped half of what its market value was perceived to be Monday at noon. This is a stock that I had warned about earlier this month as one of the many “Random Number Generators” (RNGs) that should be avoided. People and institutions who had for weeks been buying CCIV at $40, $50, $60 or even $70 per share have suddenly seen a huge wipeout of value.\nThey’re now, maybe, looking around at their other RNG SPACs and wondering if they should actually look at the valuations.\nReviewing this week’s ugly stock-market action in a broader context, you might note that Tesla Inc. at $900 — after the company reported a not-so-great quarter that included some questions about gross margin expansion — is looking like it could have been a top-maker itself.\nMany questionable EV stocks continued to rally for a week or two before getting their comeuppance this week. At least for a day or two. It will be interesting to look back in a month to see what the non-TSLA EV stocks do from here. I expect most to move much lower even than today’s quotes, which are much lower than last week’s quotes.\nPiling into ARK\nThese days everybody wants to be Cathie Wood from ARK Invest. She was an early bull on Tesla and bitcoinBTCUSD,6.03%and some of the the other themes that long-time followers of mine and I got into even earlier than she did. Her actively managed ETF, ARK Innovation ETF being the most famous, has performed very well, and her commentary has been spot on for a couple years now.\nBut I have bad news. Even as I am a fan of Cathie’s and wish her and her investors all the best, I can’t help but think of the story of George Gilder, with whom I’ve become friends in the decades since I wrote this in 2001 for TheStreet.com. (I just realized this article was published just two weeks after 9/11.):\n“Investors need to heed a few rules when evaluating companies in their portfolio: Cash is king, as cash flow becomes increasingly difficult to judge on an ongoing basis. As such, a simple glance at a company’s balance sheet can tell you a lot about whether it’s worthy of investment. Now that the huge daily run-ups of telco stocks are gone forever, the potential rewards of any business with questionable viability aren’t worth the risk of your capital. Look for real revenue on the books. As tech guru George Gilder and his followers have learned (at least, I hope they have by now), great technology doesn’t translate into a great investment. Companies need sales channels, and they need products for which there are immediate uses. You might be surprised that I didn’t mention profitability in that list. Profitability is naturally important, but even companies like Cisco probably won’t be profitable this quarter and perhaps for several more, as they’ll have to continue aligning capacity, employees and inventory with demand.\nLet me repeat the caveat here: You’ll never see the type of returns, at least in telecom and telecom-tech stocks, that we saw almost daily in the late 1990s. That’s another reason why these tech mutual fund guys, who keep preaching to stay the course, will take forever to get back to even.”\nThe hangover\nTelecom and telecom-tech stocks never again saw the kind of returns they did back in the late 1990s. I think the same can be said of EV stocks and many other of the favorites that Cathie Wood and her crowd of blind followers are these days plowing into as they put their money to work regardless of valuations.\nHere’s what George had to say in 2002:\n“In retrospect, it’s obvious that I should’ve subtly said, ‘Hey, things have gotten out of hand at JDS Uniphase, and it’s not worth what you’d have to pay for it,’” he says. Each month, he thought about providing a warning to his subscribers, and he decided against it every time. He had witnessed firsthand what others had dubbed the “Gilder effect”: the steep spike in a stock after he added that company to his list. It wasn’t unheard of for the price of a stock to jump by more than 50 percent within an hour of a newsletter’s release. If I had said, ‘Hey, this is a top, you should all sell,’ it would’ve been a cataclysmic event,” he says. “I’d think about telling people that they should sell half their holdings, and each time I’d conclude that my subscribers would be enraged. I also wondered what I’d precipitate if I did it.” Fully 50 percent of his readers had signed up for the report at what Gilder now calls the “hysterical peak” of the market. “Half of my subscribers would have been eternally grateful [for a warning], but the other half – the new ones – would’ve been enraged because they had just come in,” he says. “It was quite terrifying. I really didn’t know what to do.” In the end he did nothing. And soon enough, he had an entirely new set of distractions to fret over. “In the past, we’d sell out our investor conferences within two weeks,” Gilder says. “But in 2001, we sent out the same literature and the same invitations, and five or seven people signed up.” He lost the deposits that were placed to reserve hotel space for the gatherings. Newsletter renewal rates plummeted. A huge tax bill came due. By spring 2002, he’d laid off nearly half of his staff. “You can be just fabulously flush one moment, and then the next, you can’t make that last million-dollar payment to your partners, and there’s suddenly a lien on your house,” he says.\nMany of the best stocks on George’s list at the top in 1999 ended up going down 99% or more. Many went to zero, even as their technologies and ideas carried on and built the internet we all use every day now.\nCCIV is likely a harbinger of more pain for those who ignore valuations and fundamentals.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":488,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":368887754,"gmtCreate":1614308422378,"gmtModify":1704770462489,"author":{"id":"3551276051261213","authorId":"3551276051261213","name":"顾北哲","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3551276051261213","authorIdStr":"3551276051261213"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?","listText":"What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?","text":"What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/368887754","repostId":"1185609211","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":321,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":369583494,"gmtCreate":1614058721618,"gmtModify":1704887445491,"author":{"id":"3551276051261213","authorId":"3551276051261213","name":"顾北哲","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3551276051261213","authorIdStr":"3551276051261213"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you&nbsp;buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you&nbsp;only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.","listText":"0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you&nbsp;buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you&nbsp;only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.","text":"0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/369583494","repostId":"1129494437","repostType":2,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":429,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":369583494,"gmtCreate":1614058721618,"gmtModify":1704887445491,"author":{"id":"3551276051261213","authorId":"3551276051261213","name":"顾北哲","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3551276051261213","authorIdStr":"3551276051261213"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you&nbsp;buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you&nbsp;only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.","listText":"0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you&nbsp;buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you&nbsp;only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.","text":"0.1% really isn’t a big deal. If you buy and sell $1 million worth of asset you only need to pay 2000. That’s not much at all.","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/369583494","repostId":"1129494437","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1129494437","pubTimestamp":1614048165,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1129494437?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-23 10:42","market":"us","language":"en","title":"After the GameStop fiasco, momentum builds for an $800 billion tax","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1129494437","media":"CNN Business","summary":"New York (CNN Business)-Uncle Sam is in search for a pot of gold that could ease the pain of trillio","content":"<p><b>New York (CNN Business)-</b>Uncle Sam is in search for a pot of gold that could ease the pain of trillion-dollar deficits. And some believe Wall Street might just have the answer.</p>\n<p>For more than a decade, progressives have&nbsp;tried and failed to impose a financial transaction tax.But there is new momentum for such a levy as the&nbsp;national debt skyrockets&nbsp;during the pandemic and in the wake of the&nbsp;GameStop trading frenzy&nbsp;that&nbsp;shined a bright light market structure concerns.</p>\n<p>The White House told CNN Business on Sunday&nbsp;that a financial transaction tax on GameStop-like trading deserves additional study and can be part of a greater evaluation of such a tax for revenue and market stability. The leading proposal amounts to a $1 tax on every $1,000 of transactions.</p>\n<p>But there is a deep divide over the wisdom of a financial transaction tax. Progressives see it as a smart way to simultaneously curb predatory trading while funding ambitious programs aimed at easing America's inequality problem.Opponents, on the other hand, paint a financial transaction tax (FTT) as a nightmare. Wall Street, which would take a hit, is already warning such a levy&nbsp;would backfire on Main Street&nbsp;by raising trading costs and depressing market liquidity.</p>\n<p>\"The odds are still against a financial transaction tax being enacted, but for the first time in a decade this proposal should be considered as a viable policy option rather than just another talking point,\" said Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at Compass Point Research &amp; Trading.</p>\n<p>Last week, House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters said she's \"very interested\" and \"certainly looking at\" a financial transaction tax.</p>\n<p><b>'Mindboggling' concentration of wealth</b></p>\n<p>Lawmakers will surely be tempted to tax transactions because it could raise vast sums of money at a time when Washington is strapped for cash.</p>\n<p>A 0.1% tax on stock, bond and derivative transactions&nbsp;could raise $777 billion for the federal government over a decade, according to a 2018 estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.</p>\n<p>\"We have tremendous income inequality in our society and a giant deficit. A financial transaction tax would be an incredibly efficient and progressive way to raise revenue,\" Aaron Klein, a former Treasury Department official in the Obama administration, told CNN Business.</p>\n<p>The top 1% of American households would pay 40% of the total amount of the tax, while the bottom 60% would pay just over 11%, according to the&nbsp;Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.</p>\n<p>That makes sense because the wealthiest 10% of US households owned 87% of all stocks and mutual funds, according to&nbsp;2020 data from the Federal Reserve.</p>\n<p>\"The concentration of wealth in the stock market is mindboggling,\" said Klein, who is now a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.</p>\n<p>Even though some argue an FTT would be a disaster, the United States already has a tax, albeit a very tiny one. Roughly 2 cents per $1,000 traded goes toward&nbsp;funding the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission.Due to surging trading volume during the pandemic, the&nbsp;tax rate to fund the SEC is being lowered&nbsp;to just half a cent per $1,000 starting Thursday.</p>\n<p>\"There is a fee today and the world hasn't ended,\" said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, a group that lobbies for tougher oversight of Wall Street. \"The proposed fee is so puny that no reasonable retail investor would ever notice it.\"</p>\n<p><b>'Unintended consequences'</b></p>\n<p>The financial industry is arguing the exact opposite.</p>\n<p>They say even a 0.1% levy on transactions will cause market players to pass the costs on to consumers and make it harder to buy and sell securities by decreasing liquidity, which measures how easy it is to buy and sell securities. Some Wall Street firms could even try to move their operations outside the country to avoid the tax. The&nbsp;New York Stock Exchange recently threatened to flee&nbsp;New York,possibly for Texas, in response to transaction taxes mulled by Albany.</p>\n<p>\"This approach has a long history of unintended consequences that will penalize workers, pensioners and American families,\" a spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent the Taxing of Retirement Savings told CNN Business.</p>\n<p>That coalition includes the NYSE,Nasdaq&nbsp;(NDAQ)&nbsp;and&nbsp;UBS&nbsp;(UBS). Citadel Securities andVirtu Financial(VIRT), two high-speed trading firms that would be hurt by a financial transaction tax, are also members.</p>\n<p>\"An FTT will increase trading costs for investors — including individuals — undermine the competitiveness of our capital markets and harm the US economy just as we work to recover from this pandemic,\" the spokesperson said.</p>\n<p><b>Some countries tried and failed</b></p>\n<p>James Angel, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in market structure and regulation,authored a Chamber of Commerce-funded paper in 2019&nbsp;that found a financial transaction tax would hurt Main Street by driving up the cost of trading by more than the amount of the tax.</p>\n<p>\"There is no such thing as a tiny tax that raises big revenue,\" Angel said in an interview.</p>\n<p>He pointed to how some other countries, most notably Sweden in the 1980s, abandoned such taxes after trading volume vanished and revenue underwhelmed. (Of course, the United States, with its deep financial markets, massive economy and the world's reserve currency, is not Sweden.)</p>\n<p>\"It really messes up the market,\" Angel said.</p>\n<p>If US trading volumes fell sharply, the FTT wouldn't raise nearly as much as the $777 billion the CBO estimates.</p>\n<p>Greg Valliere, chief US policy strategist at AGF Investments, said the chances of a financial transaction tax are \"very slim\" because moderate Democrats would be unlikely to back it.</p>\n<p>\"It would be a disaster. It's a pandora's box that should not be opened,\" Valliere said.</p>\n<p>Of course, it's possible that FTT proposals in Congress get scaled back, including by lowering the rate or excluding smaller blocks of trades.</p>\n<p><b>Leveling the playing field</b></p>\n<p>During last week's congressional hearing on GameStop and Robinhood, Citadel Securities founder&nbsp;Ken Griffin warned a tax would boomerang.</p>\n<p>\"We firmly believe a financial transaction tax would injure Americans trying to save for retirement,\" Griffin said.</p>\n<p>Klein, the Brookings Institution fellow, called Griffin's comments a \"self-serving lie\" because high-frequency trading firms like his would be among those hurt.</p>\n<p>The GameStop trading frenzy drew attention onto how Robinhood was able to bring zero-commission trading to the masses.</p>\n<p>Through a&nbsp;controversial practice known as payment for order flow, Robinhood and other brokers get paid to route retail trades through market makers like Citadel Securities.</p>\n<p>Payment for order flow has made it cheap and easy to trade. However, critics say it's really Wall Street that is getting the better end of the deal by skimming pennies off each trade and racing ahead of retail orders to make a profit.</p>\n<p>\"We believe the markets today are rigged to favor high-frequency traders,\" said Kelleher, the Better Markets CEO. \"The industry has taken visible upfront commission fees and disguised it into invisible payment for order flow.\"</p>\n<p>In other words, it's not really free to trade.</p>\n<p>Kelleher thinks Congress should focus on taxing orders, not transactions, because a&nbsp;staggering amount of all stock trade orders(some estimates&nbsp;say 99%) are canceled because of high-frequency trading strategies. Critics say those orders are evidence that high-speed traders are manipulating the market by creating the appearance of demand where there is none.</p>\n<p>\"A financial fee on orders could be the death knell for predatory high frequency trading,\" he said. \"Everyone will be better off — except for the predators.\"</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>After the GameStop fiasco, momentum builds for an $800 billion tax</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nAfter the GameStop fiasco, momentum builds for an $800 billion tax\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-23 10:42 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/22/investing/gamestop-financial-transaction-tax/index.html><strong>CNN Business</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>New York (CNN Business)-Uncle Sam is in search for a pot of gold that could ease the pain of trillion-dollar deficits. And some believe Wall Street might just have the answer.\nFor more than a decade, ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/22/investing/gamestop-financial-transaction-tax/index.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","GME":"游戏驿站",".DJI":"道琼斯",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index"},"source_url":"https://edition.cnn.com/2021/02/22/investing/gamestop-financial-transaction-tax/index.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1129494437","content_text":"New York (CNN Business)-Uncle Sam is in search for a pot of gold that could ease the pain of trillion-dollar deficits. And some believe Wall Street might just have the answer.\nFor more than a decade, progressives have tried and failed to impose a financial transaction tax.But there is new momentum for such a levy as the national debt skyrockets during the pandemic and in the wake of the GameStop trading frenzy that shined a bright light market structure concerns.\nThe White House told CNN Business on Sunday that a financial transaction tax on GameStop-like trading deserves additional study and can be part of a greater evaluation of such a tax for revenue and market stability. The leading proposal amounts to a $1 tax on every $1,000 of transactions.\nBut there is a deep divide over the wisdom of a financial transaction tax. Progressives see it as a smart way to simultaneously curb predatory trading while funding ambitious programs aimed at easing America's inequality problem.Opponents, on the other hand, paint a financial transaction tax (FTT) as a nightmare. Wall Street, which would take a hit, is already warning such a levy would backfire on Main Street by raising trading costs and depressing market liquidity.\n\"The odds are still against a financial transaction tax being enacted, but for the first time in a decade this proposal should be considered as a viable policy option rather than just another talking point,\" said Isaac Boltansky, director of policy research at Compass Point Research & Trading.\nLast week, House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters said she's \"very interested\" and \"certainly looking at\" a financial transaction tax.\n'Mindboggling' concentration of wealth\nLawmakers will surely be tempted to tax transactions because it could raise vast sums of money at a time when Washington is strapped for cash.\nA 0.1% tax on stock, bond and derivative transactions could raise $777 billion for the federal government over a decade, according to a 2018 estimate by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.\n\"We have tremendous income inequality in our society and a giant deficit. A financial transaction tax would be an incredibly efficient and progressive way to raise revenue,\" Aaron Klein, a former Treasury Department official in the Obama administration, told CNN Business.\nThe top 1% of American households would pay 40% of the total amount of the tax, while the bottom 60% would pay just over 11%, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.\nThat makes sense because the wealthiest 10% of US households owned 87% of all stocks and mutual funds, according to 2020 data from the Federal Reserve.\n\"The concentration of wealth in the stock market is mindboggling,\" said Klein, who is now a senior fellow of economic studies at the Brookings Institution.\nEven though some argue an FTT would be a disaster, the United States already has a tax, albeit a very tiny one. Roughly 2 cents per $1,000 traded goes toward funding the budget of the Securities and Exchange Commission.Due to surging trading volume during the pandemic, the tax rate to fund the SEC is being lowered to just half a cent per $1,000 starting Thursday.\n\"There is a fee today and the world hasn't ended,\" said Dennis Kelleher, CEO of Better Markets, a group that lobbies for tougher oversight of Wall Street. \"The proposed fee is so puny that no reasonable retail investor would ever notice it.\"\n'Unintended consequences'\nThe financial industry is arguing the exact opposite.\nThey say even a 0.1% levy on transactions will cause market players to pass the costs on to consumers and make it harder to buy and sell securities by decreasing liquidity, which measures how easy it is to buy and sell securities. Some Wall Street firms could even try to move their operations outside the country to avoid the tax. The New York Stock Exchange recently threatened to flee New York,possibly for Texas, in response to transaction taxes mulled by Albany.\n\"This approach has a long history of unintended consequences that will penalize workers, pensioners and American families,\" a spokesperson for the Coalition to Prevent the Taxing of Retirement Savings told CNN Business.\nThat coalition includes the NYSE,Nasdaq (NDAQ) and UBS (UBS). Citadel Securities andVirtu Financial(VIRT), two high-speed trading firms that would be hurt by a financial transaction tax, are also members.\n\"An FTT will increase trading costs for investors — including individuals — undermine the competitiveness of our capital markets and harm the US economy just as we work to recover from this pandemic,\" the spokesperson said.\nSome countries tried and failed\nJames Angel, a Georgetown University professor who specializes in market structure and regulation,authored a Chamber of Commerce-funded paper in 2019 that found a financial transaction tax would hurt Main Street by driving up the cost of trading by more than the amount of the tax.\n\"There is no such thing as a tiny tax that raises big revenue,\" Angel said in an interview.\nHe pointed to how some other countries, most notably Sweden in the 1980s, abandoned such taxes after trading volume vanished and revenue underwhelmed. (Of course, the United States, with its deep financial markets, massive economy and the world's reserve currency, is not Sweden.)\n\"It really messes up the market,\" Angel said.\nIf US trading volumes fell sharply, the FTT wouldn't raise nearly as much as the $777 billion the CBO estimates.\nGreg Valliere, chief US policy strategist at AGF Investments, said the chances of a financial transaction tax are \"very slim\" because moderate Democrats would be unlikely to back it.\n\"It would be a disaster. It's a pandora's box that should not be opened,\" Valliere said.\nOf course, it's possible that FTT proposals in Congress get scaled back, including by lowering the rate or excluding smaller blocks of trades.\nLeveling the playing field\nDuring last week's congressional hearing on GameStop and Robinhood, Citadel Securities founder Ken Griffin warned a tax would boomerang.\n\"We firmly believe a financial transaction tax would injure Americans trying to save for retirement,\" Griffin said.\nKlein, the Brookings Institution fellow, called Griffin's comments a \"self-serving lie\" because high-frequency trading firms like his would be among those hurt.\nThe GameStop trading frenzy drew attention onto how Robinhood was able to bring zero-commission trading to the masses.\nThrough a controversial practice known as payment for order flow, Robinhood and other brokers get paid to route retail trades through market makers like Citadel Securities.\nPayment for order flow has made it cheap and easy to trade. However, critics say it's really Wall Street that is getting the better end of the deal by skimming pennies off each trade and racing ahead of retail orders to make a profit.\n\"We believe the markets today are rigged to favor high-frequency traders,\" said Kelleher, the Better Markets CEO. \"The industry has taken visible upfront commission fees and disguised it into invisible payment for order flow.\"\nIn other words, it's not really free to trade.\nKelleher thinks Congress should focus on taxing orders, not transactions, because a staggering amount of all stock trade orders(some estimates say 99%) are canceled because of high-frequency trading strategies. Critics say those orders are evidence that high-speed traders are manipulating the market by creating the appearance of demand where there is none.\n\"A financial fee on orders could be the death knell for predatory high frequency trading,\" he said. \"Everyone will be better off — except for the predators.\"","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":429,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":368841565,"gmtCreate":1614311803157,"gmtModify":1704770507799,"author":{"id":"3551276051261213","authorId":"3551276051261213","name":"顾北哲","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3551276051261213","authorIdStr":"3551276051261213"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the&nbsp;dot com bubble&nbsp;","listText":"Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the&nbsp;dot com bubble&nbsp;","text":"Despite the high valuations, I would argue that the “ARK” companies have much better fundamentals than the ones in the dot com bubble","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/368841565","repostId":"1197533827","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1197533827","pubTimestamp":1614160523,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1197533827?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-24 17:55","market":"us","language":"en","title":"The days of easy money in the stock market are now over","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1197533827","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-199","content":"<p>Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-1990s technology bubble.</p>\n<p>Ignore stock valuations and companies’ fundamentals at your peril.</p>\n<p>Churchill Capital Corp. ,a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that had been rumored to merge with a Tesla-wannabe, Lucid Motors, finally announced Monday night that it is indeed going to do so. And in a classic Wall Street reaction, the market “sold the news” after long having “bought the rumor.”</p>\n<p>CCIV was up 500% from when it went public as a blank-check company, and today the stock market has wiped half of what its market value was perceived to be Monday at noon. This is a stock that I had warned about earlier this month as one of the many “Random Number Generators” (RNGs) that should be avoided. People and institutions who had for weeks been buying CCIV at $40, $50, $60 or even $70 per share have suddenly seen a huge wipeout of value.</p>\n<p>They’re now, maybe, looking around at their other RNG SPACs and wondering if they should actually look at the valuations.</p>\n<p>Reviewing this week’s ugly stock-market action in a broader context, you might note that Tesla Inc.&nbsp;at $900 — after the company reported a not-so-great quarter that included some questions about gross margin expansion — is looking like it could have been a top-maker itself.</p>\n<p>Many questionable EV stocks continued to rally for a week or two before getting their comeuppance this week. At least for a day or two. It will be interesting to look back in a month to see what the non-TSLA EV stocks do from here. I expect most to move much lower even than today’s quotes, which are much lower than last week’s quotes.</p>\n<p><b>Piling into ARK</b></p>\n<p>These days everybody wants to be Cathie Wood from ARK Invest. She was an early bull on Tesla and bitcoinBTCUSD,6.03%and some of the the other themes that long-time followers of mine and I got into even earlier than she did. Her actively managed ETF, ARK Innovation ETF&nbsp;being the most famous, has performed very well, and her commentary has been spot on for a couple years now.</p>\n<p>But I have bad news. Even as I am a fan of Cathie’s and wish her and her investors all the best, I can’t help but think of the story of George Gilder, with whom I’ve become friends in the decades since&nbsp;I wrote this in 2001 for TheStreet.com.&nbsp;(I just realized this article was published just two weeks after 9/11.):</p>\n<p><i>“Investors need to heed a few rules when evaluating companies in their portfolio: Cash is king, as cash flow becomes increasingly difficult to judge on an ongoing basis. As such, a simple glance at a company’s balance sheet can tell you a lot about whether it’s worthy of investment. Now that the huge daily run-ups of telco stocks are gone forever, the potential rewards of any business with questionable viability aren’t worth the risk of your capital. Look for real revenue on the books. As tech guru George Gilder and his followers have learned (at least, I hope they have by now), great technology doesn’t translate into a great investment. Companies need sales channels, and they need products for which there are immediate uses. You might be surprised that I didn’t mention profitability in that list. Profitability is naturally important, but even companies like Cisco probably won’t be profitable this quarter and perhaps for several more, as they’ll have to continue aligning capacity, employees and inventory with demand.</i></p>\n<p><i>Let me repeat the caveat here: You’ll never see the type of returns, at least in telecom and telecom-tech stocks, that we saw almost daily in the late 1990s. That’s another reason why these tech mutual fund guys, who keep preaching to stay the course, will take forever to get back to even.”</i></p>\n<p><b>The hangover</b></p>\n<p>Telecom and telecom-tech stocks never again saw the kind of returns they did back in the late 1990s. I think the same can be said of EV stocks and many other of the favorites that Cathie Wood and her crowd of blind followers are these days plowing into as they put their money to work regardless of valuations.</p>\n<p>Here’s what George had to say&nbsp;in 2002:</p>\n<p><i>“In retrospect, it’s obvious that I should’ve subtly said, ‘Hey, things have gotten out of hand at JDS Uniphase, and it’s not worth what you’d have to pay for it,’” he says. Each month, he thought about providing a warning to his subscribers, and he decided against it every time. He had witnessed firsthand what others had dubbed the “Gilder effect”: the steep spike in a stock after he added that company to his list. It wasn’t unheard of for the price of a stock to jump by more than 50 percent within an hour of a newsletter’s release. If I had said, ‘Hey, this is a top, you should all sell,’ it would’ve been a cataclysmic event,” he says. “I’d think about telling people that they should sell half their holdings, and each time I’d conclude that my subscribers would be enraged. I also wondered what I’d precipitate if I did it.” Fully 50 percent of his readers had signed up for the report at what Gilder now calls the “hysterical peak” of the market. “Half of my subscribers would have been eternally grateful [for a warning], but the other half – the new ones – would’ve been enraged because they had just come in,” he says. “It was quite terrifying. I really didn’t know what to do.” In the end he did nothing. And soon enough, he had an entirely new set of distractions to fret over. “In the past, we’d sell out our investor conferences within two weeks,” Gilder says. “But in 2001, we sent out the same literature and the same invitations, and five or seven people signed up.” He lost the deposits that were placed to reserve hotel space for the gatherings. Newsletter renewal rates plummeted. A huge tax bill came due. By spring 2002, he’d laid off nearly half of his staff. “You can be just fabulously flush one moment, and then the next, you can’t make that last million-dollar payment to your partners, and there’s suddenly a lien on your house,” he says.</i></p>\n<p>Many of the best stocks on George’s list at the top in 1999 ended up going down 99% or more. Many went to zero, even as their technologies and ideas carried on and built the internet we all use every day now.</p>\n<p>CCIV is likely a harbinger of more pain for those who ignore valuations and fundamentals.</p>","source":"market_watch","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>The days of easy money in the stock market are now over</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nThe days of easy money in the stock market are now over\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-24 17:55 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-days-of-easy-money-in-the-stock-market-are-now-over-11614104263?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-1990s technology bubble.\nIgnore stock valuations and companies’ fundamentals at your peril.\nChurchill ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-days-of-easy-money-in-the-stock-market-are-now-over-11614104263?mod=home-page\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"ARKK":"ARK Innovation ETF",".DJI":"道琼斯",".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","TSLA":"特斯拉"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-days-of-easy-money-in-the-stock-market-are-now-over-11614104263?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"1197533827","content_text":"Get ready for a return to normal. Lucid’s SPAC and ARK Invest’s ETFs carry the whiff of the late-1990s technology bubble.\nIgnore stock valuations and companies’ fundamentals at your peril.\nChurchill Capital Corp. ,a special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) that had been rumored to merge with a Tesla-wannabe, Lucid Motors, finally announced Monday night that it is indeed going to do so. And in a classic Wall Street reaction, the market “sold the news” after long having “bought the rumor.”\nCCIV was up 500% from when it went public as a blank-check company, and today the stock market has wiped half of what its market value was perceived to be Monday at noon. This is a stock that I had warned about earlier this month as one of the many “Random Number Generators” (RNGs) that should be avoided. People and institutions who had for weeks been buying CCIV at $40, $50, $60 or even $70 per share have suddenly seen a huge wipeout of value.\nThey’re now, maybe, looking around at their other RNG SPACs and wondering if they should actually look at the valuations.\nReviewing this week’s ugly stock-market action in a broader context, you might note that Tesla Inc. at $900 — after the company reported a not-so-great quarter that included some questions about gross margin expansion — is looking like it could have been a top-maker itself.\nMany questionable EV stocks continued to rally for a week or two before getting their comeuppance this week. At least for a day or two. It will be interesting to look back in a month to see what the non-TSLA EV stocks do from here. I expect most to move much lower even than today’s quotes, which are much lower than last week’s quotes.\nPiling into ARK\nThese days everybody wants to be Cathie Wood from ARK Invest. She was an early bull on Tesla and bitcoinBTCUSD,6.03%and some of the the other themes that long-time followers of mine and I got into even earlier than she did. Her actively managed ETF, ARK Innovation ETF being the most famous, has performed very well, and her commentary has been spot on for a couple years now.\nBut I have bad news. Even as I am a fan of Cathie’s and wish her and her investors all the best, I can’t help but think of the story of George Gilder, with whom I’ve become friends in the decades since I wrote this in 2001 for TheStreet.com. (I just realized this article was published just two weeks after 9/11.):\n“Investors need to heed a few rules when evaluating companies in their portfolio: Cash is king, as cash flow becomes increasingly difficult to judge on an ongoing basis. As such, a simple glance at a company’s balance sheet can tell you a lot about whether it’s worthy of investment. Now that the huge daily run-ups of telco stocks are gone forever, the potential rewards of any business with questionable viability aren’t worth the risk of your capital. Look for real revenue on the books. As tech guru George Gilder and his followers have learned (at least, I hope they have by now), great technology doesn’t translate into a great investment. Companies need sales channels, and they need products for which there are immediate uses. You might be surprised that I didn’t mention profitability in that list. Profitability is naturally important, but even companies like Cisco probably won’t be profitable this quarter and perhaps for several more, as they’ll have to continue aligning capacity, employees and inventory with demand.\nLet me repeat the caveat here: You’ll never see the type of returns, at least in telecom and telecom-tech stocks, that we saw almost daily in the late 1990s. That’s another reason why these tech mutual fund guys, who keep preaching to stay the course, will take forever to get back to even.”\nThe hangover\nTelecom and telecom-tech stocks never again saw the kind of returns they did back in the late 1990s. I think the same can be said of EV stocks and many other of the favorites that Cathie Wood and her crowd of blind followers are these days plowing into as they put their money to work regardless of valuations.\nHere’s what George had to say in 2002:\n“In retrospect, it’s obvious that I should’ve subtly said, ‘Hey, things have gotten out of hand at JDS Uniphase, and it’s not worth what you’d have to pay for it,’” he says. Each month, he thought about providing a warning to his subscribers, and he decided against it every time. He had witnessed firsthand what others had dubbed the “Gilder effect”: the steep spike in a stock after he added that company to his list. It wasn’t unheard of for the price of a stock to jump by more than 50 percent within an hour of a newsletter’s release. If I had said, ‘Hey, this is a top, you should all sell,’ it would’ve been a cataclysmic event,” he says. “I’d think about telling people that they should sell half their holdings, and each time I’d conclude that my subscribers would be enraged. I also wondered what I’d precipitate if I did it.” Fully 50 percent of his readers had signed up for the report at what Gilder now calls the “hysterical peak” of the market. “Half of my subscribers would have been eternally grateful [for a warning], but the other half – the new ones – would’ve been enraged because they had just come in,” he says. “It was quite terrifying. I really didn’t know what to do.” In the end he did nothing. And soon enough, he had an entirely new set of distractions to fret over. “In the past, we’d sell out our investor conferences within two weeks,” Gilder says. “But in 2001, we sent out the same literature and the same invitations, and five or seven people signed up.” He lost the deposits that were placed to reserve hotel space for the gatherings. Newsletter renewal rates plummeted. A huge tax bill came due. By spring 2002, he’d laid off nearly half of his staff. “You can be just fabulously flush one moment, and then the next, you can’t make that last million-dollar payment to your partners, and there’s suddenly a lien on your house,” he says.\nMany of the best stocks on George’s list at the top in 1999 ended up going down 99% or more. Many went to zero, even as their technologies and ideas carried on and built the internet we all use every day now.\nCCIV is likely a harbinger of more pain for those who ignore valuations and fundamentals.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":488,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":368887754,"gmtCreate":1614308422378,"gmtModify":1704770462489,"author":{"id":"3551276051261213","authorId":"3551276051261213","name":"顾北哲","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/547dd0e81f53759d860ddd3a4b0ee70b","crmLevel":1,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false,"idStr":"3551276051261213","authorIdStr":"3551276051261213"},"themes":[],"htmlText":"What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?","listText":"What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?","text":"What are some of the more reasonably valued tech companies?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/368887754","repostId":"1185609211","repostType":2,"repost":{"id":"1185609211","pubTimestamp":1614139419,"share":"https://ttm.financial/m/news/1185609211?lang=&edition=fundamental","pubTime":"2021-02-24 12:03","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why the Plunge in More Speculative Tech Stocks Might Not Be Over Yet","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1185609211","media":"TheStreet","summary":"High valuations, margin debt and the ARK effect could lead to more pain for some names. But the sell","content":"<p>High valuations, margin debt and the ARK effect could lead to more pain for some names. But the selloff could also create buying opportunities in other tech companies.</p>\n<p>While many speculative Robinhood favorites are down sharply over the last couple of weeks, they're still often well above where they traded two or three months ago, and arguably remain&nbsp;quite overvalued on the whole.</p>\n<p>For example, while fuel cell plays Plug Power (PLUG) , FuelCell Energy (FCEL) and Ballard Power&nbsp; (BLDP) are now down 40%, 44% and 32%, respectively, from recently-set highs, they're still 67%, 92% and 33% from where they closed three months ago. And they each still sport forward sales multiples north of 40.</p>\n<p>Likewise, 3D printing plays 3D Systems (DDD) , Stratasys&nbsp; (SSYS) and ExOne&nbsp; (XONE) remain up 357%, 147% and 215%, respectively, over the last three months. EV plays QuantumScape&nbsp; (QS) and Luminar Technologies (LAZR) &nbsp;are up 150% and 123%,&nbsp;respectively, over the last three months and still sport sky-high valuations -- QuantumScape, which doesn't expect to see its solid-state battery enter production until 2024, is still worth $20 billion. And soon-to-merge cannabis plays Tilray (TLRY) and Aphria (APHA) are up 252% and 171%,&nbsp;respectively, and maintain double-digit forward sales multiples.</p>\n<p>In a nutshell, valuations are still generally stretched for some companies, and some investors still have large paper profits that they could turn into real profits if the current selling unnerves them. In addition, judging bythe spike seenin margin debt balances over the last few months, many newer investors in these companies could be forced to unload their positions due to margin calls if the selling continues.</p>\n<p>Also, asothers&nbsp;have pointed out, ARK Invest's trading activity could go from being a tailwind for various high-multiple tech stocks to a headwind. In recent months, giant retail investor inflows for the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) and other ARK funds have contributed to the&nbsp;huge rallies seen in various clean energy, 3D printing, software/cloud and biotech names that ARK has been partial to. Conversely, though, major outflows for ARK funds could make the selling pressure in such names during a selloff stronger than it otherwise would be.</p>\n<p>With all that said,I'm not sold at this point&nbsp;on the current selloff being the start of a bear market for tech stocks overall.</p>\n<p>In spite of the speculative frenzy in some corners of tech, quite a few quality tech names remain moderately-valued or just a little expensive right now. And between vaccine rollouts, elevated household savings levels and the likely arrival of additional stimulus in March, the macro backdrop still looks favorable, though it's possible that some stay-at-home plays see demand cool off a bit in the coming months.</p>\n<p><i>Eventually</i>, inflation, higher bond yields and a tightening Fed could become a problem for tech stocks in general. But we still appear to be a ways away from reaching that point, and for now, the Fed&nbsp;remains as accommodative as ever.</p>\n<p>As a result, if the current tech rout continues and leads both very expensive and not-so-expensive companies to see more selling pressure, the risk/reward could start looking very good for some of the&nbsp;more reasonably-priced names.</p>","collect":0,"html":"<!DOCTYPE html>\n<html>\n<head>\n<meta http-equiv=\"Content-Type\" content=\"text/html; charset=utf-8\" />\n<meta name=\"viewport\" content=\"width=device-width,initial-scale=1.0,minimum-scale=1.0,maximum-scale=1.0,user-scalable=no\"/>\n<meta name=\"format-detection\" content=\"telephone=no,email=no,address=no\" />\n<title>Why the Plunge in More Speculative Tech Stocks Might Not Be Over Yet</title>\n<style type=\"text/css\">\na,abbr,acronym,address,applet,article,aside,audio,b,big,blockquote,body,canvas,caption,center,cite,code,dd,del,details,dfn,div,dl,dt,\nem,embed,fieldset,figcaption,figure,footer,form,h1,h2,h3,h4,h5,h6,header,hgroup,html,i,iframe,img,ins,kbd,label,legend,li,mark,menu,nav,\nobject,ol,output,p,pre,q,ruby,s,samp,section,small,span,strike,strong,sub,summary,sup,table,tbody,td,tfoot,th,thead,time,tr,tt,u,ul,var,video{ font:inherit;margin:0;padding:0;vertical-align:baseline;border:0 }\nbody{ font-size:16px; line-height:1.5; color:#999; background:transparent; }\n.wrapper{ overflow:hidden;word-break:break-all;padding:10px; }\nh1,h2{ font-weight:normal; line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:.6em; }\nh3,h4,h5,h6{ line-height:1.35; margin-bottom:1em; }\nh1{ font-size:24px; }\nh2{ font-size:20px; }\nh3{ font-size:18px; }\nh4{ font-size:16px; }\nh5{ font-size:14px; }\nh6{ font-size:12px; }\np,ul,ol,blockquote,dl,table{ margin:1.2em 0; }\nul,ol{ margin-left:2em; }\nul{ list-style:disc; }\nol{ list-style:decimal; }\nli,li p{ margin:10px 0;}\nimg{ max-width:100%;display:block;margin:0 auto 1em; }\nblockquote{ color:#B5B2B1; border-left:3px solid #aaa; padding:1em; }\nstrong,b{font-weight:bold;}\nem,i{font-style:italic;}\ntable{ width:100%;border-collapse:collapse;border-spacing:1px;margin:1em 0;font-size:.9em; }\nth,td{ padding:5px;text-align:left;border:1px solid #aaa; }\nth{ font-weight:bold;background:#5d5d5d; }\n.symbol-link{font-weight:bold;}\n/* header{ border-bottom:1px solid #494756; } */\n.title{ margin:0 0 8px;line-height:1.3;color:#ddd; }\n.meta {color:#5e5c6d;font-size:13px;margin:0 0 .5em; }\na{text-decoration:none; color:#2a4b87;}\n.meta .head { display: inline-block; overflow: hidden}\n.head .h-thumb { width: 30px; height: 30px; margin: 0; padding: 0; border-radius: 50%; float: left;}\n.head .h-content { margin: 0; padding: 0 0 0 9px; float: left;}\n.head .h-name {font-size: 13px; color: #eee; margin: 0;}\n.head .h-time {font-size: 11px; color: #7E829C; margin: 0;line-height: 11px;}\n.small {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.9); -webkit-transform: scale(0.9); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.smaller {font-size: 12.5px; display: inline-block; transform: scale(0.8); -webkit-transform: scale(0.8); transform-origin: left; -webkit-transform-origin: left;}\n.bt-text {font-size: 12px;margin: 1.5em 0 0 0}\n.bt-text p {margin: 0}\n</style>\n</head>\n<body>\n<div class=\"wrapper\">\n<header>\n<h2 class=\"title\">\nWhy the Plunge in More Speculative Tech Stocks Might Not Be Over Yet\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-24 12:03 GMT+8&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;<a href=https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/technology/why-the-plunge-in-more-speculative-tech-stocks-might-not-be-over-yet-15575838><strong>TheStreet</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>High valuations, margin debt and the ARK effect could lead to more pain for some names. But the selloff could also create buying opportunities in other tech companies.\nWhile many speculative Robinhood...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/technology/why-the-plunge-in-more-speculative-tech-stocks-might-not-be-over-yet-15575838\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"QS":"Quantumscape Corp.","LAZR":"Luminar Technologies, Inc.","FCEL":"燃料电池能源","XONE":"BondBloxx Bloomberg One Year Target Duration US Treasury ETF","APHA":"Aphria Inc.","SSYS":"Stratasys","TLRY":"Tilray Inc.","PLUG":"普拉格能源","ARKK":"ARK Innovation ETF","BLDP":"巴拉德动力系统","DDD":"3D系统"},"source_url":"https://realmoney.thestreet.com/investing/technology/why-the-plunge-in-more-speculative-tech-stocks-might-not-be-over-yet-15575838","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1185609211","content_text":"High valuations, margin debt and the ARK effect could lead to more pain for some names. But the selloff could also create buying opportunities in other tech companies.\nWhile many speculative Robinhood favorites are down sharply over the last couple of weeks, they're still often well above where they traded two or three months ago, and arguably remain quite overvalued on the whole.\nFor example, while fuel cell plays Plug Power (PLUG) , FuelCell Energy (FCEL) and Ballard Power  (BLDP) are now down 40%, 44% and 32%, respectively, from recently-set highs, they're still 67%, 92% and 33% from where they closed three months ago. And they each still sport forward sales multiples north of 40.\nLikewise, 3D printing plays 3D Systems (DDD) , Stratasys  (SSYS) and ExOne  (XONE) remain up 357%, 147% and 215%, respectively, over the last three months. EV plays QuantumScape  (QS) and Luminar Technologies (LAZR)  are up 150% and 123%, respectively, over the last three months and still sport sky-high valuations -- QuantumScape, which doesn't expect to see its solid-state battery enter production until 2024, is still worth $20 billion. And soon-to-merge cannabis plays Tilray (TLRY) and Aphria (APHA) are up 252% and 171%, respectively, and maintain double-digit forward sales multiples.\nIn a nutshell, valuations are still generally stretched for some companies, and some investors still have large paper profits that they could turn into real profits if the current selling unnerves them. In addition, judging bythe spike seenin margin debt balances over the last few months, many newer investors in these companies could be forced to unload their positions due to margin calls if the selling continues.\nAlso, asothers have pointed out, ARK Invest's trading activity could go from being a tailwind for various high-multiple tech stocks to a headwind. In recent months, giant retail investor inflows for the ARK Innovation ETF (ARKK) and other ARK funds have contributed to the huge rallies seen in various clean energy, 3D printing, software/cloud and biotech names that ARK has been partial to. Conversely, though, major outflows for ARK funds could make the selling pressure in such names during a selloff stronger than it otherwise would be.\nWith all that said,I'm not sold at this point on the current selloff being the start of a bear market for tech stocks overall.\nIn spite of the speculative frenzy in some corners of tech, quite a few quality tech names remain moderately-valued or just a little expensive right now. And between vaccine rollouts, elevated household savings levels and the likely arrival of additional stimulus in March, the macro backdrop still looks favorable, though it's possible that some stay-at-home plays see demand cool off a bit in the coming months.\nEventually, inflation, higher bond yields and a tightening Fed could become a problem for tech stocks in general. But we still appear to be a ways away from reaching that point, and for now, the Fed remains as accommodative as ever.\nAs a result, if the current tech rout continues and leads both very expensive and not-so-expensive companies to see more selling pressure, the risk/reward could start looking very good for some of the more reasonably-priced names.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":321,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}