+Follow
YourCFP
No personal profile
2
Follow
7
Followers
0
Topic
0
Badge
Posts
Hot
YourCFP
2021-08-11
?
Sorry, the original content has been removed
YourCFP
2021-03-23
because it creats no value to our world
Why AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy
YourCFP
2021-03-23
buy
Apple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble
YourCFP
2021-03-01
market will tell harm or not, not officer
Trading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary
YourCFP
2021-02-28
like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner
Gamestop And High Volatility Options
YourCFP
2021-02-28
good news
Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study
Go to Tiger App to see more news
{"i18n":{"language":"en_US"},"userPageInfo":{"id":3569263461157925,"uuid":"3569263461157925","gmtCreate":1606252859383,"gmtModify":1706620737993,"name":"YourCFP","pinyin":"yourcfp","introduction":"","introductionEn":"","signature":"","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","hat":null,"hatId":null,"hatName":null,"vip":1,"status":2,"fanSize":7,"headSize":2,"tweetSize":183,"questionSize":0,"limitLevel":999,"accountStatus":4,"level":{"id":1,"name":"萌萌虎","nameTw":"萌萌虎","represent":"呱呱坠地","factor":"评论帖子3次或发布1条主帖(非转发)","iconColor":"3C9E83","bgColor":"A2F1D9"},"themeCounts":0,"badgeCounts":0,"badges":[],"moderator":false,"superModerator":false,"manageSymbols":null,"badgeLevel":null,"boolIsFan":false,"boolIsHead":false,"favoriteSize":2,"symbols":null,"coverImage":null,"realNameVerified":"success","userBadges":[{"badgeId":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493-2","templateUuid":"1026c425416b44e0aac28c11a0848493","name":"Senior Tiger","description":"Join the tiger community for 1000 days","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/0063fb68ea29c9ae6858c58630e182d5","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/96c699a93be4214d4b49aea6a5a5d1a4","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/35b0e542a9ff77046ed69ef602bc105d","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.11.17","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1001},{"badgeId":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03-2","templateUuid":"44212b71d0be4ec88898348dbe882e03","name":"Executive Tiger","description":"The transaction amount of the securities account reaches $300,000","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/9d20b23f1b6335407f882bc5c2ad12c0","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ada3b4533518ace8404a3f6dd192bd29","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/177f283ba21d1c077054dac07f88f3bd","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2023.07.14","exceedPercentage":"80.35%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1101},{"badgeId":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84-1","templateUuid":"a83d7582f45846ffbccbce770ce65d84","name":"Real Trader","description":"Completed a transaction","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/2e08a1cc2087a1de93402c2c290fa65b","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4504a6397ce1137932d56e5f4ce27166","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4b22c79415b4cd6e3d8ebc4a0fa32604","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":null,"individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100},{"badgeId":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be-1","templateUuid":"972123088c9646f7b6091ae0662215be","name":"Elite Trader","description":"Total number of securities or futures transactions reached 30","bigImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/ab0f87127c854ce3191a752d57b46edc","smallImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/c9835ce48b8c8743566d344ac7a7ba8c","grayImgUrl":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/76754b53ce7a90019f132c1d2fbc698f","redirectLinkEnabled":0,"redirectLink":null,"hasAllocated":1,"isWearing":0,"stamp":null,"stampPosition":0,"hasStamp":0,"allocationCount":1,"allocatedDate":"2021.12.21","exceedPercentage":"60.63%","individualDisplayEnabled":0,"backgroundColor":null,"fontColor":null,"individualDisplaySort":0,"categoryType":1100}],"userBadgeCount":4,"currentWearingBadge":null,"individualDisplayBadges":null,"crmLevel":4,"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":892993771,"gmtCreate":1628630106193,"gmtModify":1676529799718,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"?","listText":"?","text":"?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/892993771","repostId":"1125134677","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":162,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":353987848,"gmtCreate":1616455839084,"gmtModify":1704794239466,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"because it creats no value to our world ","listText":"because it creats no value to our world ","text":"because it creats no value to our world","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/353987848","repostId":"2121120348","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2121120348","pubTimestamp":1616427011,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2121120348?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-22 23:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2121120348","media":"Motley Fool ","summary":"Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.","content":"<p>Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.</p>\n<p>Whether you're a relatively new investor or someone who's been putting your money to work in the market for five decades, there's always something new or unforeseen happening that keeps things interesting.</p>\n<p>In 2021, it's been the rise of the Reddit trader.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/77f6df9d5cb2415372006deee1d65d6d\" tg-width=\"2000\" tg-height=\"1333\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p>Beginning in mid-January, retail investors -- mostly millennials who are relatively new to investing -- on Reddit's WallStreetBets (WSB) community chatroom began banding together to buy shares and out-of-the-money call options in highly short-sold stocks. Short-sellers are investors who are betting against a stock and hoping for its share price to decline. Since gains are capped at 100% while losses are unlimited, short-sellers tend not to stick around if a stock begins to gain a lot of upside momentum.</p>\n<p>Reddit's WSB community was able to effect short squeezes in dozens of short-sold stocks. In order for short-sellers to exit their positions, they must buy to cover. Buying stock only exacerbates the runaway train effect to the upside.</p>\n<p>Since mid-January, movie theater chain <b>AMC Entertainment</b> (NYSE:AMC), video game and accessories retailer <b>GameStop</b> (NYSE:GME), and Canadian marijuana stock <b>Sundial Growers</b> (NASDAQ:SNDL) have been the three most-popular plays of Reddit's retail investors. Unfortunately, they're also three of the worst stocks money can buy.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bee505c562dafe3e29f86496a282e43d\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"470\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p><b>Here's why it could be lights-out for AMC</b></p>\n<p>AMC's popularity has to do with its perceived-to-be low share price, as well as the reopening of 99% of its theaters by March 26, according to the company. As many folks have also pointed out to me on social media, technical analysis (i.e., chart patterns) is also driving interest.</p>\n<p>However, none of these catalysts offers true substance.</p>\n<p>For instance, AMC Entertainment was on the verge of bankruptcy in mid-January, and was ultimately saved by issuing close to 165 million new shares of stock and taking on over $400 million in debt capital. The company may have more than $1 billion in cash on hand now, but it's facing aggregate operating losses over the next two years that, by Wall Street's consensus, will come in around a median of $1.7 billion. This is a fancy way of saying that AMC Entertainment almost certainly doesn't have enough cash to make it through the next 12-to-24 months, based on projected losses.</p>\n<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that AMC's theaters reopening doesn't mean things are back to normal. A vast majority of its theaters will be operating at limited capacity, and there's always the possibility that coronavirus variants lead to certain cities, counties, or states scaling back their reopening plans.</p>\n<p>But maybe the biggest slap in the face for shareholders is that AMC executives pocketed $8.3 million in bonuses just a month after stepping back from the bankruptcy ledge for their \"extraordinary efforts\" to keep AMC afloat during these challenging times.</p>\n<p>If you still need <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a> more damning reason to avoid AMC like the plague, here it is: The model is being disrupted. Both <b>AT&T</b>'s WarnerMedia and <b>Walt Disney</b> are releasing new movies in 2021 on their respective streaming platforms (HBO Max and Disney+) the same day they'll hit theaters. The growth heyday for movie chains is over, and so are AMC's chances for success, in my view.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4cd041c3c1a321e640648ee5c35dd06e\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"466\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p><b>Game over for GameStop?</b></p>\n<p>Even though it's the stock that began the Reddit frenzy, GameStop is not a company that any investors should desire to own at its current valuation.</p>\n<p>The primary buy thesis for GameStop has been its high level of short interest. When the short squeeze began in mid-January, the company's short interest, relative to float, was by far the highest on Wall Street. It's come down substantially since then, but GameStop's share price has not.</p>\n<p>If I could grasp at straws and perhaps find <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> shred of good news to share, it's that the company's e-commerce sales have been soaring of late. During the 2020 holiday season, digital gaming sales rose by 309%. But here's the kicker: Even with a more-than-quadrupling in e-commerce sales, total sales during the holiday season still declined by 3.1%. That's primarily because GameStop shuttered 11% of its stores between the 2019 and 2020 holiday seasons.</p>\n<p>The plain-as-day issue here is that GameStop waited far too long to shift its operating focus to digital gaming. With fewer people trading in or buying used games, which used to be GameStop's high-margin, bread-and-butter growth driver, GameStop's only recourse is to attempt to backpedal its way back into the profit column. This means closing hundreds of stores annually to reduce expenses. But in spite of these precipitous closures, GameStop is likely looking at its fourth-consecutive annual loss in 2021.</p>\n<p>While it may not be game over for GameStop, the company's glory days are long gone. Its market cap today is roughly two times higher than its previous all-time high set back in 2007. The thing is, revenue has gone nowhere, and the company has pushed from recurring profits to ongoing losses. There's no way to logically justify this valuation.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/084d89ada48e3614d1b0f7ca9fd0aa9c\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"467\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p><b>Sundial might go up in smoke</b></p>\n<p>Finally, there's Sundial Growers, which I believe is the worst marijuana stock money can buy.</p>\n<p>Similar to GameStop and AMC, Sundial has been buoyed by the Reddit crowd for its high short interest and the lure of its penny stock share price. Canadian pot stocks have also received a boost following the election of Joe Biden as President and Democrats retaking the Senate by the slimmest of majorities. There's hope that cannabis legalization in the U.S. would allow Canadian players like Sundial to enter the more lucrative U.S. market.</p>\n<p>But if there's one thing tenured investors are acutely familiar with, it's that next-big-thing investments always have losers. Sundial looks like one of those losing investment.</p>\n<p>To begin with, Sundial just might be the worst share-based diluter I've seen in years. Since the end of September, Sundial has boosted its cash on hand to $719 million Canadian, but has done so by issuing more than 1.15 billion shares (yes, with a 'b') through a combination of direct share offerings, debt-to-equity swaps, and at-the-market issuances. Were this not enough, its board approved another $1 billion (that's U.S.) mixed-shelf offering. In theory, Sundial could issue hundreds of millions of additional shares.</p>\n<p>Because of its 1.66 billion outstanding shares, Sundial has virtually no chance of ever generating a meaningful per-share profit, and it probably runs the risk of being delisted if it falls back below $1 a share. Sundial could enact a reverse split to bump up its share price and shrink its outstanding share count, but companies that utilize reverse splits are historically viewed as struggling businesses.</p>\n<p>What's more, Sundial isn't anywhere near profitability, and investors are paying close to $1.9 billion for it, excluding cash. That's close to 38 times sales for a company that's lagging the vast majority of its Canadian and U.S. peers.</p>\n<p>AMC, GameStop, and Sundial might be today's buzzy stocks, but they lack substance and have little long-term staying power. That makes all three terrible buys.</p>","source":"fool_stock","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 AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy</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 AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-22 23:30 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/22/amc-gamestop-and-sundial-3-of-worst-stocks-to-buy/><strong>Motley Fool </strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.\nWhether you're a relatively new investor or someone who's been putting your money to work in the market for five decades, there's ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/22/amc-gamestop-and-sundial-3-of-worst-stocks-to-buy/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站","AMC":"AMC院线","SNDL":"SNDL Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/22/amc-gamestop-and-sundial-3-of-worst-stocks-to-buy/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2121120348","content_text":"Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.\nWhether you're a relatively new investor or someone who's been putting your money to work in the market for five decades, there's always something new or unforeseen happening that keeps things interesting.\nIn 2021, it's been the rise of the Reddit trader.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nBeginning in mid-January, retail investors -- mostly millennials who are relatively new to investing -- on Reddit's WallStreetBets (WSB) community chatroom began banding together to buy shares and out-of-the-money call options in highly short-sold stocks. Short-sellers are investors who are betting against a stock and hoping for its share price to decline. Since gains are capped at 100% while losses are unlimited, short-sellers tend not to stick around if a stock begins to gain a lot of upside momentum.\nReddit's WSB community was able to effect short squeezes in dozens of short-sold stocks. In order for short-sellers to exit their positions, they must buy to cover. Buying stock only exacerbates the runaway train effect to the upside.\nSince mid-January, movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC), video game and accessories retailer GameStop (NYSE:GME), and Canadian marijuana stock Sundial Growers (NASDAQ:SNDL) have been the three most-popular plays of Reddit's retail investors. Unfortunately, they're also three of the worst stocks money can buy.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nHere's why it could be lights-out for AMC\nAMC's popularity has to do with its perceived-to-be low share price, as well as the reopening of 99% of its theaters by March 26, according to the company. As many folks have also pointed out to me on social media, technical analysis (i.e., chart patterns) is also driving interest.\nHowever, none of these catalysts offers true substance.\nFor instance, AMC Entertainment was on the verge of bankruptcy in mid-January, and was ultimately saved by issuing close to 165 million new shares of stock and taking on over $400 million in debt capital. The company may have more than $1 billion in cash on hand now, but it's facing aggregate operating losses over the next two years that, by Wall Street's consensus, will come in around a median of $1.7 billion. This is a fancy way of saying that AMC Entertainment almost certainly doesn't have enough cash to make it through the next 12-to-24 months, based on projected losses.\nAnother thing to keep in mind is that AMC's theaters reopening doesn't mean things are back to normal. A vast majority of its theaters will be operating at limited capacity, and there's always the possibility that coronavirus variants lead to certain cities, counties, or states scaling back their reopening plans.\nBut maybe the biggest slap in the face for shareholders is that AMC executives pocketed $8.3 million in bonuses just a month after stepping back from the bankruptcy ledge for their \"extraordinary efforts\" to keep AMC afloat during these challenging times.\nIf you still need one more damning reason to avoid AMC like the plague, here it is: The model is being disrupted. Both AT&T's WarnerMedia and Walt Disney are releasing new movies in 2021 on their respective streaming platforms (HBO Max and Disney+) the same day they'll hit theaters. The growth heyday for movie chains is over, and so are AMC's chances for success, in my view.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nGame over for GameStop?\nEven though it's the stock that began the Reddit frenzy, GameStop is not a company that any investors should desire to own at its current valuation.\nThe primary buy thesis for GameStop has been its high level of short interest. When the short squeeze began in mid-January, the company's short interest, relative to float, was by far the highest on Wall Street. It's come down substantially since then, but GameStop's share price has not.\nIf I could grasp at straws and perhaps find one shred of good news to share, it's that the company's e-commerce sales have been soaring of late. During the 2020 holiday season, digital gaming sales rose by 309%. But here's the kicker: Even with a more-than-quadrupling in e-commerce sales, total sales during the holiday season still declined by 3.1%. That's primarily because GameStop shuttered 11% of its stores between the 2019 and 2020 holiday seasons.\nThe plain-as-day issue here is that GameStop waited far too long to shift its operating focus to digital gaming. With fewer people trading in or buying used games, which used to be GameStop's high-margin, bread-and-butter growth driver, GameStop's only recourse is to attempt to backpedal its way back into the profit column. This means closing hundreds of stores annually to reduce expenses. But in spite of these precipitous closures, GameStop is likely looking at its fourth-consecutive annual loss in 2021.\nWhile it may not be game over for GameStop, the company's glory days are long gone. Its market cap today is roughly two times higher than its previous all-time high set back in 2007. The thing is, revenue has gone nowhere, and the company has pushed from recurring profits to ongoing losses. There's no way to logically justify this valuation.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nSundial might go up in smoke\nFinally, there's Sundial Growers, which I believe is the worst marijuana stock money can buy.\nSimilar to GameStop and AMC, Sundial has been buoyed by the Reddit crowd for its high short interest and the lure of its penny stock share price. Canadian pot stocks have also received a boost following the election of Joe Biden as President and Democrats retaking the Senate by the slimmest of majorities. There's hope that cannabis legalization in the U.S. would allow Canadian players like Sundial to enter the more lucrative U.S. market.\nBut if there's one thing tenured investors are acutely familiar with, it's that next-big-thing investments always have losers. Sundial looks like one of those losing investment.\nTo begin with, Sundial just might be the worst share-based diluter I've seen in years. Since the end of September, Sundial has boosted its cash on hand to $719 million Canadian, but has done so by issuing more than 1.15 billion shares (yes, with a 'b') through a combination of direct share offerings, debt-to-equity swaps, and at-the-market issuances. Were this not enough, its board approved another $1 billion (that's U.S.) mixed-shelf offering. In theory, Sundial could issue hundreds of millions of additional shares.\nBecause of its 1.66 billion outstanding shares, Sundial has virtually no chance of ever generating a meaningful per-share profit, and it probably runs the risk of being delisted if it falls back below $1 a share. Sundial could enact a reverse split to bump up its share price and shrink its outstanding share count, but companies that utilize reverse splits are historically viewed as struggling businesses.\nWhat's more, Sundial isn't anywhere near profitability, and investors are paying close to $1.9 billion for it, excluding cash. That's close to 38 times sales for a company that's lagging the vast majority of its Canadian and U.S. peers.\nAMC, GameStop, and Sundial might be today's buzzy stocks, but they lack substance and have little long-term staying power. That makes all three terrible buys.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":67,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":353984656,"gmtCreate":1616455737475,"gmtModify":1704794237849,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"buy","listText":"buy","text":"buy","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/353984656","repostId":"2121722120","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2121722120","pubTimestamp":1616427519,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2121722120?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-22 23:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2121722120","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.And worries of a bubble are blowing. Earlier this month,China’s top banking regulator warned that Wall Street assets were trading at such high levels that they are bound to correct.But stocks aren’t in a bubble, according to Goldman Sachs.In ourcall of the day, analysts led by Peter Oppenheimer outline nine key characteristi","content":"<p>The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.</p><p>And worries of a bubble are blowing. Earlier this month,China’s top banking regulator warned that Wall Street assets were trading at such high levels that they are bound to correct.</p><p>But stocks aren’t in a bubble, according to Goldman Sachs.In our<b>call of the day</b>, analysts led by Peter Oppenheimer outline nine key characteristics of historic bubbles and discuss how they don’t match the current market environment.</p><p>The investment bank defines a stock market bubble as a “rapid acceleration in prices and valuations that makes an unrealistic claim on future growth and returns.”</p><p>Goldman Sachs’ study is based on historical stock bubbles, including the “Tulip Mania” in the Netherlands in the 1630s, the 1873 “Railway Bubble” in the U.S., and the 1990s global technology bubble.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ffa2f713ef154b59609e6052850d34b\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"488\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>One of the key hallmarks of bubbles is excessive price appreciation and extreme valuations. And while the investment bank acknowledges “pockets of exuberance,” and some excessive price rises in U.S. equities, the analysts argue that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a broader and “systemically dangerous” bubble is forming. The recent rise in the S&P 500 index, and particularly in the technology sector, is impressive but not extreme, the analysts say.</p><p>Similarly, another bubble telltale is the idea that “this time is different,” with a narrative that justifies new ways of valuing companies. But, the Goldman Sachs analysts argue, this time isn’t different, and the main argument supporting higher prices right now is mainstream: Interest rates are low.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b1518c976cd1ec82e47b88facfa75002\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"475\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Past bubbles have often included excitement around a particular sector leading to market concentration. And it is true that the group of FAAMG stocks — Facebook,Apple,Amazon,Microsoft,and Google, owned by Alphabet— representing Big Tech has come to dominate indexes and investor attention.</p><p>But the analysts argue that not only is this representative of a transformative period in technology, but the fundamentals back these companies up. The groups are highly cash-generative, and metrics like earnings per share in Big Tech and other retail investor favorites “have significantly outstripped those of the rest of the market.”</p><p>The investment bank also finds that while the current market has some characteristics of bubbles, like frantic speculation, easy credit and rising leverage, booming corporate activity, and “new era” narrative driving a tech boom, these factors were mitigated by forces including regulation and stability in the wider market. We’re also not late in an economic cycle and widespread accounting scandals haven’t come to light — these are other critical markers of bubbles.</p><p>Goldman Sachs’ findings are summarized in the table below:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b6c059e67f6c05885c8f108b15cc5595\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"158\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>The analysts conclude: “While there are pockets of excessive valuations in equities, and parts of the market are justifiably derating as interest rates adjust, in our assessment only a few of these common characteristics are currently present or being partially met.”</p><p>According to Goldman Sachs, the risks of an imminent bubble “with systemic risks to the financial system and economies” is relatively low.</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>Apple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble</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\">\nApple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-22 23:38 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-and-amazon-prices-make-sense-and-more-signs-from-goldman-sachs-that-stocks-arent-in-a-bubble-11616412469?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.And worries of a bubble ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-and-amazon-prices-make-sense-and-more-signs-from-goldman-sachs-that-stocks-arent-in-a-bubble-11616412469?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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","GOOG":"谷歌",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","09086":"华夏纳指-U","MSFT":"微软","GS":"高盛","QNETCN":"纳斯达克中美互联网老虎指数","03086":"华夏纳指",".DJI":"道琼斯","GOOGL":"谷歌A"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-and-amazon-prices-make-sense-and-more-signs-from-goldman-sachs-that-stocks-arent-in-a-bubble-11616412469?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"2121722120","content_text":"The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.And worries of a bubble are blowing. Earlier this month,China’s top banking regulator warned that Wall Street assets were trading at such high levels that they are bound to correct.But stocks aren’t in a bubble, according to Goldman Sachs.In ourcall of the day, analysts led by Peter Oppenheimer outline nine key characteristics of historic bubbles and discuss how they don’t match the current market environment.The investment bank defines a stock market bubble as a “rapid acceleration in prices and valuations that makes an unrealistic claim on future growth and returns.”Goldman Sachs’ study is based on historical stock bubbles, including the “Tulip Mania” in the Netherlands in the 1630s, the 1873 “Railway Bubble” in the U.S., and the 1990s global technology bubble.One of the key hallmarks of bubbles is excessive price appreciation and extreme valuations. And while the investment bank acknowledges “pockets of exuberance,” and some excessive price rises in U.S. equities, the analysts argue that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a broader and “systemically dangerous” bubble is forming. The recent rise in the S&P 500 index, and particularly in the technology sector, is impressive but not extreme, the analysts say.Similarly, another bubble telltale is the idea that “this time is different,” with a narrative that justifies new ways of valuing companies. But, the Goldman Sachs analysts argue, this time isn’t different, and the main argument supporting higher prices right now is mainstream: Interest rates are low.Past bubbles have often included excitement around a particular sector leading to market concentration. And it is true that the group of FAAMG stocks — Facebook,Apple,Amazon,Microsoft,and Google, owned by Alphabet— representing Big Tech has come to dominate indexes and investor attention.But the analysts argue that not only is this representative of a transformative period in technology, but the fundamentals back these companies up. The groups are highly cash-generative, and metrics like earnings per share in Big Tech and other retail investor favorites “have significantly outstripped those of the rest of the market.”The investment bank also finds that while the current market has some characteristics of bubbles, like frantic speculation, easy credit and rising leverage, booming corporate activity, and “new era” narrative driving a tech boom, these factors were mitigated by forces including regulation and stability in the wider market. We’re also not late in an economic cycle and widespread accounting scandals haven’t come to light — these are other critical markers of bubbles.Goldman Sachs’ findings are summarized in the table below:The analysts conclude: “While there are pockets of excessive valuations in equities, and parts of the market are justifiably derating as interest rates adjust, in our assessment only a few of these common characteristics are currently present or being partially met.”According to Goldman Sachs, the risks of an imminent bubble “with systemic risks to the financial system and economies” is relatively low.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":101,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":366411033,"gmtCreate":1614549790922,"gmtModify":1704772298350,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"market will tell harm or not, not officer","listText":"market will tell harm or not, not officer","text":"market will tell harm or not, not officer","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/366411033","repostId":"1181374212","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181374212","pubTimestamp":1614335737,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181374212?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-26 18:35","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Trading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181374212","media":"cnbc","summary":"Hong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.Chan said in his budget speech on Wednesday that the government will raise the stamp duty paid on listed stock trades from 0.1% to 0.13%.The move “will not harm our competitiveness and at the same time will bring additional revenue to the government at this juncture,” said Chan.Chan said in his budget speech on Wednesday","content":"<div>\n<p>KEY POINTS\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"cnbc_highlight","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>Trading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary</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\">\nTrading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-26 18:35 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html><strong>cnbc</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>KEY POINTS\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"HSCCI":"红筹指数","00388":"香港交易所","HSCEI":"国企指数","HSI":"恒生指数"},"source_url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/72bb72e1b84c09fca865c6dcb1bbcd16","article_id":"1181374212","content_text":"KEY POINTS\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said in his budget speech on Wednesday that the government will raise the stamp duty paid on listed stock trades from 0.1% to 0.13%.\nThe move “will not harm our competitiveness and at the same time will bring additional revenue to the government at this juncture,” said Chan.\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said in his budget speech on Wednesday that the government will raise the stamp duty paid on listed stock trades from 0.1% to 0.13%.The announcement sparked a sell-off in shares of the operator of the city’s stock exchange, and the broader Hong Kong market.\n“The Hong Kong market has been doing very well, very active, the volume has gone up quite a bit,” Chan told CNBC’s Emily Tan.\n“So, perhaps this is the time for us to increase a little bit on the stamp duty which will not harm our competitiveness and at the same time will bring additional revenue to the government at this juncture,” he added.\nThe financial secretary said Hong Kong authorities have in recent years launched different initiatives to enhance the competitiveness of the city’s stock market. That includes allowing listings of dual-class shares and attracting U.S.-listed Chinese companies to seek a secondary listing in Hong Kong, he said.\nHong Kong in 2020 was one of the top markets for listings globally as Chinese firms such as e-commerce giant JD.com and gaming company NetEase raised funds through secondary listings.\nIn total, the city’s stock exchange saw 132 initial public offerings worth $32.1 billion, and 199 further offerings worth $62.9 billion last year, according to data compiled by consultancy PwC.\nWith such “robust” capital markets activity, raising the trading stamp duty may offer Hong Kong “a quick solution” to increase its tax revenue in the short term, said Stanley Ho, a partner for corporate tax advisory at consultancy KPMG China.\n“However, it is also important for Hong Kong’s capital markets to stay competitive with global financial markets, many of which are trending towards reducing or removing such duties,” Ho said in a statement after Chan’s budget speech.\nChan said he remains confident of Hong Kong’s prospects as an international financial center.\nHe explained that the government is working on promoting Hong Kong as a center for sustainable and green finance, developing further the city’s fixed income markets and encouraging more activity in the asset and wealth management sectors.\nOn the stock market sell-off after his announcement of the trading tax hike, Chan said Hong Kong wasn’t the only one experiencing a “downward adjustment” following a previous run-up.\n“So, I would not be bothered by temporary fluctuations in the market. What we believe is we continue to work hard to enhance the offering of our market to further enhance the competitiveness and attractiveness of the Hong Kong market,” he said.\n“We will continue to attract inflow of international capital.”","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":0,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":366600555,"gmtCreate":1614463676677,"gmtModify":1704771864971,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner","listText":"like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner","text":"like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/366600555","repostId":"1146313632","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146313632","pubTimestamp":1614334339,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1146313632?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-26 18:12","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Gamestop And High Volatility Options","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146313632","media":"Options AI: Learn","summary":"Gamestop Corp. shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from ","content":"<p><b>Gamestop Corp.</b> shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from last week (but still down significantly from recent short squeeze highs). We'll look at the unique situations that arise in the options of a highly volatile stock like Gamestop and a few things that might be considered before trading options.</p><hr><p><b>Gamestop: The Expected Move</b></p><p>First, a look at how options are pricing upcoming moves. Here's theOptions AIexpected move chart for Gamestop, with a nearly 30% move being priced into this Friday's close. And a roughly 80% move being priced for the next month. A month that includes an earnings event (unconfirmed):</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e35872724d8db887fa09d822d622ac8c\" tg-width=\"568\" tg-height=\"817\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Gamestop: Call Spreads vs Outright Calls</p><p>Using March 19th as an expiry we first looks at bullish spreads, and compare directly to outright calls. With a stock as volatile as Gamestop, calls can be expensive. Because of that, many traders resort to buying far out of the money calls. That demand for upside calls increases volatility in those calls, making them expensive relative to at-the-money calls – a phenomenon known as skew. However, for those that are bullish, this may create an opportunity to utilize spreads rather than buying an outright call. Let's see how.</p><p>Here we'll focus on one alternative – using debit spreads to lower the overall cost of a directional trade (while potentially improving the probability of profit of the trade itself by lowering the breakeven level). It does so by selling those relatively expensive out-the-money Calls to help finance the purchase of a nearer to at-the-money Call.</p><p>With Gamestop near $105, the <b>March 19th 110/190 Debit Call Spread</b> is roughly $15 and targets the bullish expected move for March 19th. The debit call spread would need the stock to be above $125 on March 19th to be profitable.</p><p>As a comparison, the GME March 19th 200 calls are trading $29. That's nearly twice the cost for a 200 call that needs the stock above $229 by March 19th… versus a call spread, that needs the stock above $125. Here's a side by side comparison of those two trades on the Options AI chart. First, the 200 call:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b044a22bfbe5a8326f9aa3ebf56ed4fd\" tg-width=\"570\" tg-height=\"740\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>And next, the 145/200 debit call spread:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6cdf8545f07da48f770ef81cb4e5ac53\" tg-width=\"569\" tg-height=\"792\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>As you can see, not only is the call spread less expensive, the point at which is becomes profitable to the upside is much closer to where the stock is currently trading. (As indicated by the grey price of the breakeven.)</p><p>A note on probability of profit. The probability of profit displayed on these trades is based on the delta being assigned to the breakeven of the trade. The fact that a 200 call in a $105 stock is trading near 50 deltas shows just how distorting an effect Gamestop volatility is having on its options (hard to borrow, skew, retail demand for out-of-the-money calls).</p><p>Directional Butterflies vs Outright Puts</p><p>High volatility also affects bearish options trades. One of the counter-intuitive aspects of a high volatility stock like Gamestop is that its implied volatility can go up as the stock goes higher and down as the stock goes lower. This is the opposite of how we generally think about volatility. Therefore, buying outright puts carries a risk of collapsing volatility (and therefore collapsing premiums) as the stock goes lower. So, even though the stock is moving in the intended direction, as an option holder you may not be realizing the gains expected.</p><p>One way to counter high implied volatility in a stock, especially when having a bearish view, is to be a net seller of option premium. To sell to bullish option traders rather than join bearish option traders. Traditionally that might take the form of selling a Credit Call Spread. But in GME's case that means buying the (expensive) upper strike Call at a higher volatility than the Call that is closer to the money (as described above).</p><p>So, one option strategy that can be considered by traders is using a Butterfly. An option trade that is more typically associated with a neutral trading view, but here adapted to actually create a targeted (bearish) directional view.</p><p>Here, as an example, is a Butterfly with its center strikes focused at $80 in the stock, with a March 19th expiry:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f7cb8f9b0570e854f662f3031e50ca91\" tg-width=\"573\" tg-height=\"740\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>This 130/80/30 butterfly has breakevens of 115 and 45, meaning the trade is profitable if the stock is between those two prices at March 19th expiry… with a max gain occurring if the stock is at or near $80. It has the additional dynamic of being short premium, and if the stock stays within its range would see mark to market gains if implied volatility compressed.</p>","source":"lsy1614334070724","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>Gamestop And High Volatility Options</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\">\nGamestop And High Volatility Options\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-26 18:12 GMT+8 <a href=https://learn.optionsai.com/gamestop-and-high-volatility-options/><strong>Options AI: Learn</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Gamestop Corp. shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from last week (but still down significantly from recent short squeeze highs). We'll look at the unique ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://learn.optionsai.com/gamestop-and-high-volatility-options/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站"},"source_url":"https://learn.optionsai.com/gamestop-and-high-volatility-options/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146313632","content_text":"Gamestop Corp. shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from last week (but still down significantly from recent short squeeze highs). We'll look at the unique situations that arise in the options of a highly volatile stock like Gamestop and a few things that might be considered before trading options.Gamestop: The Expected MoveFirst, a look at how options are pricing upcoming moves. Here's theOptions AIexpected move chart for Gamestop, with a nearly 30% move being priced into this Friday's close. And a roughly 80% move being priced for the next month. A month that includes an earnings event (unconfirmed):Gamestop: Call Spreads vs Outright CallsUsing March 19th as an expiry we first looks at bullish spreads, and compare directly to outright calls. With a stock as volatile as Gamestop, calls can be expensive. Because of that, many traders resort to buying far out of the money calls. That demand for upside calls increases volatility in those calls, making them expensive relative to at-the-money calls – a phenomenon known as skew. However, for those that are bullish, this may create an opportunity to utilize spreads rather than buying an outright call. Let's see how.Here we'll focus on one alternative – using debit spreads to lower the overall cost of a directional trade (while potentially improving the probability of profit of the trade itself by lowering the breakeven level). It does so by selling those relatively expensive out-the-money Calls to help finance the purchase of a nearer to at-the-money Call.With Gamestop near $105, the March 19th 110/190 Debit Call Spread is roughly $15 and targets the bullish expected move for March 19th. The debit call spread would need the stock to be above $125 on March 19th to be profitable.As a comparison, the GME March 19th 200 calls are trading $29. That's nearly twice the cost for a 200 call that needs the stock above $229 by March 19th… versus a call spread, that needs the stock above $125. Here's a side by side comparison of those two trades on the Options AI chart. First, the 200 call:And next, the 145/200 debit call spread:As you can see, not only is the call spread less expensive, the point at which is becomes profitable to the upside is much closer to where the stock is currently trading. (As indicated by the grey price of the breakeven.)A note on probability of profit. The probability of profit displayed on these trades is based on the delta being assigned to the breakeven of the trade. The fact that a 200 call in a $105 stock is trading near 50 deltas shows just how distorting an effect Gamestop volatility is having on its options (hard to borrow, skew, retail demand for out-of-the-money calls).Directional Butterflies vs Outright PutsHigh volatility also affects bearish options trades. One of the counter-intuitive aspects of a high volatility stock like Gamestop is that its implied volatility can go up as the stock goes higher and down as the stock goes lower. This is the opposite of how we generally think about volatility. Therefore, buying outright puts carries a risk of collapsing volatility (and therefore collapsing premiums) as the stock goes lower. So, even though the stock is moving in the intended direction, as an option holder you may not be realizing the gains expected.One way to counter high implied volatility in a stock, especially when having a bearish view, is to be a net seller of option premium. To sell to bullish option traders rather than join bearish option traders. Traditionally that might take the form of selling a Credit Call Spread. But in GME's case that means buying the (expensive) upper strike Call at a higher volatility than the Call that is closer to the money (as described above).So, one option strategy that can be considered by traders is using a Butterfly. An option trade that is more typically associated with a neutral trading view, but here adapted to actually create a targeted (bearish) directional view.Here, as an example, is a Butterfly with its center strikes focused at $80 in the stock, with a March 19th expiry:This 130/80/30 butterfly has breakevens of 115 and 45, meaning the trade is profitable if the stock is between those two prices at March 19th expiry… with a max gain occurring if the stock is at or near $80. It has the additional dynamic of being short premium, and if the stock stays within its range would see mark to market gains if implied volatility compressed.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":46,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":366600804,"gmtCreate":1614463526708,"gmtModify":1704771864326,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"good news","listText":"good news","text":"good news","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/366600804","repostId":"2114371822","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2114371822","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1614335051,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2114371822?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-26 18:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2114371822","media":"Reuters","summary":"LONDON, Feb 26 - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.Researchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare ","content":"<p>LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.</p>\n<p>Researchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.</p>\n<p>“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, an infectious diseases specialist at Cambridge University Hospital, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>After separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, Jones’ team found that 0.80% tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.</p>\n<p>This compared with 0.37% of tests from staff less than 12 days post-vaccination - when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet fully established - and 0.20% of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.</p>\n<p>The study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.</p>\n<p>This suggests a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection amongst healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days, and 75% protection, said Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>The level of asymptomatic infection was also halved in those vaccinated for less than 12 days, he said.</p>\n<p>Britain has been rolling out vaccinations with both the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and one from AstraZeneca since late December 2020.</p>\n<p>“This is great news – the Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2, but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others,” Weeks said. “But we have to remember that the vaccine doesn’t give complete protection for everyone.”</p>\n<p>Key real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic COVID-19 cases by 94% across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.</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>Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study</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\">\nPfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-02-26 18:24</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.</p>\n<p>Researchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.</p>\n<p>“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, an infectious diseases specialist at Cambridge University Hospital, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>After separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, Jones’ team found that 0.80% tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.</p>\n<p>This compared with 0.37% of tests from staff less than 12 days post-vaccination - when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet fully established - and 0.20% of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.</p>\n<p>The study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.</p>\n<p>This suggests a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection amongst healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days, and 75% protection, said Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>The level of asymptomatic infection was also halved in those vaccinated for less than 12 days, he said.</p>\n<p>Britain has been rolling out vaccinations with both the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and one from AstraZeneca since late December 2020.</p>\n<p>“This is great news – the Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2, but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others,” Weeks said. “But we have to remember that the vaccine doesn’t give complete protection for everyone.”</p>\n<p>Key real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic COVID-19 cases by 94% across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PFE":"辉瑞"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2114371822","content_text":"LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.\nResearchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.\n“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, an infectious diseases specialist at Cambridge University Hospital, who co-led the study.\nAfter separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, Jones’ team found that 0.80% tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.\nThis compared with 0.37% of tests from staff less than 12 days post-vaccination - when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet fully established - and 0.20% of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.\nThe study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.\nThis suggests a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection amongst healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days, and 75% protection, said Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study.\nThe level of asymptomatic infection was also halved in those vaccinated for less than 12 days, he said.\nBritain has been rolling out vaccinations with both the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and one from AstraZeneca since late December 2020.\n“This is great news – the Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2, but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others,” Weeks said. “But we have to remember that the vaccine doesn’t give complete protection for everyone.”\nKey real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic COVID-19 cases by 94% across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":33,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[{"author":{"id":"3554799941327384","authorId":"3554799941327384","name":"liangwee888","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5b494f711d74543d0aebd4ba8cd2e434","crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"content":"yes very gd news","text":"yes very gd news","html":"yes very gd news"}],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"hots":[{"id":892993771,"gmtCreate":1628630106193,"gmtModify":1676529799718,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"?","listText":"?","text":"?","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":5,"commentSize":1,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/892993771","repostId":"1125134677","repostType":4,"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":162,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":366600804,"gmtCreate":1614463526708,"gmtModify":1704771864326,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"good news","listText":"good news","text":"good news","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":2,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/366600804","repostId":"2114371822","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2114371822","weMediaInfo":{"introduction":"Reuters.com brings you the latest news from around the world, covering breaking news in markets, business, politics, entertainment and technology","home_visible":1,"media_name":"Reuters","id":"1036604489","head_image":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868"},"pubTimestamp":1614335051,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2114371822?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-26 18:24","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2114371822","media":"Reuters","summary":"LONDON, Feb 26 - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.Researchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare ","content":"<p>LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.</p>\n<p>Researchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.</p>\n<p>“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, an infectious diseases specialist at Cambridge University Hospital, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>After separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, Jones’ team found that 0.80% tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.</p>\n<p>This compared with 0.37% of tests from staff less than 12 days post-vaccination - when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet fully established - and 0.20% of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.</p>\n<p>The study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.</p>\n<p>This suggests a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection amongst healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days, and 75% protection, said Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>The level of asymptomatic infection was also halved in those vaccinated for less than 12 days, he said.</p>\n<p>Britain has been rolling out vaccinations with both the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and one from AstraZeneca since late December 2020.</p>\n<p>“This is great news – the Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2, but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others,” Weeks said. “But we have to remember that the vaccine doesn’t give complete protection for everyone.”</p>\n<p>Key real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic COVID-19 cases by 94% across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.</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>Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study</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\">\nPfizer COVID-19 vaccine reduces transmission after one dose -UK study\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n<a class=\"head\" href=\"https://laohu8.com/wemedia/1036604489\">\n\n\n<div class=\"h-thumb\" style=\"background-image:url(https://static.tigerbbs.com/443ce19704621c837795676028cec868);background-size:cover;\"></div>\n\n<div class=\"h-content\">\n<p class=\"h-name\">Reuters </p>\n<p class=\"h-time\">2021-02-26 18:24</p>\n</div>\n\n</a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<p>LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.</p>\n<p>Researchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.</p>\n<p>“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, an infectious diseases specialist at Cambridge University Hospital, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>After separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, Jones’ team found that 0.80% tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.</p>\n<p>This compared with 0.37% of tests from staff less than 12 days post-vaccination - when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet fully established - and 0.20% of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.</p>\n<p>The study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.</p>\n<p>This suggests a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection amongst healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days, and 75% protection, said Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study.</p>\n<p>The level of asymptomatic infection was also halved in those vaccinated for less than 12 days, he said.</p>\n<p>Britain has been rolling out vaccinations with both the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and one from AstraZeneca since late December 2020.</p>\n<p>“This is great news – the Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2, but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others,” Weeks said. “But we have to remember that the vaccine doesn’t give complete protection for everyone.”</p>\n<p>Key real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic COVID-19 cases by 94% across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.</p>\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"PFE":"辉瑞"},"is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2114371822","content_text":"LONDON, Feb 26 (Reuters) - A single dose of Pfizer and BioNtech’s COVID-19 vaccine cuts the number of asymptomatic infections and could significantly reduce the risk of transmission of the virus, results of a UK study found on Friday.\nResearchers analysed results from thousands of COVID-19 tests carried out each week as part of hospital screenings of healthcare staff in Cambridge, eastern England.\n“Our findings show a dramatic reduction in the rate of positive screening tests among asymptomatic healthcare workers after a single dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine,” said Nick Jones, an infectious diseases specialist at Cambridge University Hospital, who co-led the study.\nAfter separating the test results from unvaccinated and vaccinated staff, Jones’ team found that 0.80% tests from unvaccinated healthcare workers were positive.\nThis compared with 0.37% of tests from staff less than 12 days post-vaccination - when the vaccine’s protective effect is not yet fully established - and 0.20% of tests from staff at 12 days or more post-vaccination.\nThe study and its results have yet to be independently peer-reviewed by other scientists, but were published online as a preprint on Friday.\nThis suggests a four-fold decrease in the risk of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection amongst healthcare workers who have been vaccinated for more than 12 days, and 75% protection, said Mike Weekes, an infectious disease specialist at Cambridge University’s department of medicine, who co-led the study.\nThe level of asymptomatic infection was also halved in those vaccinated for less than 12 days, he said.\nBritain has been rolling out vaccinations with both the Pfizer COVID-19 shot and one from AstraZeneca since late December 2020.\n“This is great news – the Pfizer vaccine not only provides protection against becoming ill from SARS-CoV-2, but also helps prevent infection, reducing the potential for the virus to be passed on to others,” Weeks said. “But we have to remember that the vaccine doesn’t give complete protection for everyone.”\nKey real-world data published on Wednesday from Israel, which has conducted one of the world’s fastest rollouts of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, showed that two doses of the Pfizer shot cut symptomatic COVID-19 cases by 94% across all age groups, and severe illnesses by nearly as much.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":33,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[{"author":{"id":"3554799941327384","authorId":"3554799941327384","name":"liangwee888","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/5b494f711d74543d0aebd4ba8cd2e434","crmLevel":7,"crmLevelSwitch":1},"content":"yes very gd news","text":"yes very gd news","html":"yes very gd news"}],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":353987848,"gmtCreate":1616455839084,"gmtModify":1704794239466,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"because it creats no value to our world ","listText":"because it creats no value to our world ","text":"because it creats no value to our world","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":4,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/353987848","repostId":"2121120348","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2121120348","pubTimestamp":1616427011,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2121120348?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-22 23:30","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Why AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2121120348","media":"Motley Fool ","summary":"Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.","content":"<p>Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.</p>\n<p>Whether you're a relatively new investor or someone who's been putting your money to work in the market for five decades, there's always something new or unforeseen happening that keeps things interesting.</p>\n<p>In 2021, it's been the rise of the Reddit trader.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/77f6df9d5cb2415372006deee1d65d6d\" tg-width=\"2000\" tg-height=\"1333\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p>Beginning in mid-January, retail investors -- mostly millennials who are relatively new to investing -- on Reddit's WallStreetBets (WSB) community chatroom began banding together to buy shares and out-of-the-money call options in highly short-sold stocks. Short-sellers are investors who are betting against a stock and hoping for its share price to decline. Since gains are capped at 100% while losses are unlimited, short-sellers tend not to stick around if a stock begins to gain a lot of upside momentum.</p>\n<p>Reddit's WSB community was able to effect short squeezes in dozens of short-sold stocks. In order for short-sellers to exit their positions, they must buy to cover. Buying stock only exacerbates the runaway train effect to the upside.</p>\n<p>Since mid-January, movie theater chain <b>AMC Entertainment</b> (NYSE:AMC), video game and accessories retailer <b>GameStop</b> (NYSE:GME), and Canadian marijuana stock <b>Sundial Growers</b> (NASDAQ:SNDL) have been the three most-popular plays of Reddit's retail investors. Unfortunately, they're also three of the worst stocks money can buy.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/bee505c562dafe3e29f86496a282e43d\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"470\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p><b>Here's why it could be lights-out for AMC</b></p>\n<p>AMC's popularity has to do with its perceived-to-be low share price, as well as the reopening of 99% of its theaters by March 26, according to the company. As many folks have also pointed out to me on social media, technical analysis (i.e., chart patterns) is also driving interest.</p>\n<p>However, none of these catalysts offers true substance.</p>\n<p>For instance, AMC Entertainment was on the verge of bankruptcy in mid-January, and was ultimately saved by issuing close to 165 million new shares of stock and taking on over $400 million in debt capital. The company may have more than $1 billion in cash on hand now, but it's facing aggregate operating losses over the next two years that, by Wall Street's consensus, will come in around a median of $1.7 billion. This is a fancy way of saying that AMC Entertainment almost certainly doesn't have enough cash to make it through the next 12-to-24 months, based on projected losses.</p>\n<p>Another thing to keep in mind is that AMC's theaters reopening doesn't mean things are back to normal. A vast majority of its theaters will be operating at limited capacity, and there's always the possibility that coronavirus variants lead to certain cities, counties, or states scaling back their reopening plans.</p>\n<p>But maybe the biggest slap in the face for shareholders is that AMC executives pocketed $8.3 million in bonuses just a month after stepping back from the bankruptcy ledge for their \"extraordinary efforts\" to keep AMC afloat during these challenging times.</p>\n<p>If you still need <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE\">one</a> more damning reason to avoid AMC like the plague, here it is: The model is being disrupted. Both <b>AT&T</b>'s WarnerMedia and <b>Walt Disney</b> are releasing new movies in 2021 on their respective streaming platforms (HBO Max and Disney+) the same day they'll hit theaters. The growth heyday for movie chains is over, and so are AMC's chances for success, in my view.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4cd041c3c1a321e640648ee5c35dd06e\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"466\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p><b>Game over for GameStop?</b></p>\n<p>Even though it's the stock that began the Reddit frenzy, GameStop is not a company that any investors should desire to own at its current valuation.</p>\n<p>The primary buy thesis for GameStop has been its high level of short interest. When the short squeeze began in mid-January, the company's short interest, relative to float, was by far the highest on Wall Street. It's come down substantially since then, but GameStop's share price has not.</p>\n<p>If I could grasp at straws and perhaps find <a href=\"https://laohu8.com/S/AONE.U\">one</a> shred of good news to share, it's that the company's e-commerce sales have been soaring of late. During the 2020 holiday season, digital gaming sales rose by 309%. But here's the kicker: Even with a more-than-quadrupling in e-commerce sales, total sales during the holiday season still declined by 3.1%. That's primarily because GameStop shuttered 11% of its stores between the 2019 and 2020 holiday seasons.</p>\n<p>The plain-as-day issue here is that GameStop waited far too long to shift its operating focus to digital gaming. With fewer people trading in or buying used games, which used to be GameStop's high-margin, bread-and-butter growth driver, GameStop's only recourse is to attempt to backpedal its way back into the profit column. This means closing hundreds of stores annually to reduce expenses. But in spite of these precipitous closures, GameStop is likely looking at its fourth-consecutive annual loss in 2021.</p>\n<p>While it may not be game over for GameStop, the company's glory days are long gone. Its market cap today is roughly two times higher than its previous all-time high set back in 2007. The thing is, revenue has gone nowhere, and the company has pushed from recurring profits to ongoing losses. There's no way to logically justify this valuation.</p>\n<p class=\"t-img-caption\"><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/084d89ada48e3614d1b0f7ca9fd0aa9c\" tg-width=\"700\" tg-height=\"467\"><span>Image source: Getty Images.</span></p>\n<p><b>Sundial might go up in smoke</b></p>\n<p>Finally, there's Sundial Growers, which I believe is the worst marijuana stock money can buy.</p>\n<p>Similar to GameStop and AMC, Sundial has been buoyed by the Reddit crowd for its high short interest and the lure of its penny stock share price. Canadian pot stocks have also received a boost following the election of Joe Biden as President and Democrats retaking the Senate by the slimmest of majorities. There's hope that cannabis legalization in the U.S. would allow Canadian players like Sundial to enter the more lucrative U.S. market.</p>\n<p>But if there's one thing tenured investors are acutely familiar with, it's that next-big-thing investments always have losers. Sundial looks like one of those losing investment.</p>\n<p>To begin with, Sundial just might be the worst share-based diluter I've seen in years. Since the end of September, Sundial has boosted its cash on hand to $719 million Canadian, but has done so by issuing more than 1.15 billion shares (yes, with a 'b') through a combination of direct share offerings, debt-to-equity swaps, and at-the-market issuances. Were this not enough, its board approved another $1 billion (that's U.S.) mixed-shelf offering. In theory, Sundial could issue hundreds of millions of additional shares.</p>\n<p>Because of its 1.66 billion outstanding shares, Sundial has virtually no chance of ever generating a meaningful per-share profit, and it probably runs the risk of being delisted if it falls back below $1 a share. Sundial could enact a reverse split to bump up its share price and shrink its outstanding share count, but companies that utilize reverse splits are historically viewed as struggling businesses.</p>\n<p>What's more, Sundial isn't anywhere near profitability, and investors are paying close to $1.9 billion for it, excluding cash. That's close to 38 times sales for a company that's lagging the vast majority of its Canadian and U.S. peers.</p>\n<p>AMC, GameStop, and Sundial might be today's buzzy stocks, but they lack substance and have little long-term staying power. That makes all three terrible buys.</p>","source":"fool_stock","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 AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy</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 AMC, GameStop, and Sundial Are 3 of the Worst Stocks to Buy\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-22 23:30 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/22/amc-gamestop-and-sundial-3-of-worst-stocks-to-buy/><strong>Motley Fool </strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.\nWhether you're a relatively new investor or someone who's been putting your money to work in the market for five decades, there's ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/22/amc-gamestop-and-sundial-3-of-worst-stocks-to-buy/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站","AMC":"AMC院线","SNDL":"SNDL Inc."},"source_url":"https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/03/22/amc-gamestop-and-sundial-3-of-worst-stocks-to-buy/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"2121120348","content_text":"Don't let the Reddit frenzy lure you into buying terrible businesses.\nWhether you're a relatively new investor or someone who's been putting your money to work in the market for five decades, there's always something new or unforeseen happening that keeps things interesting.\nIn 2021, it's been the rise of the Reddit trader.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nBeginning in mid-January, retail investors -- mostly millennials who are relatively new to investing -- on Reddit's WallStreetBets (WSB) community chatroom began banding together to buy shares and out-of-the-money call options in highly short-sold stocks. Short-sellers are investors who are betting against a stock and hoping for its share price to decline. Since gains are capped at 100% while losses are unlimited, short-sellers tend not to stick around if a stock begins to gain a lot of upside momentum.\nReddit's WSB community was able to effect short squeezes in dozens of short-sold stocks. In order for short-sellers to exit their positions, they must buy to cover. Buying stock only exacerbates the runaway train effect to the upside.\nSince mid-January, movie theater chain AMC Entertainment (NYSE:AMC), video game and accessories retailer GameStop (NYSE:GME), and Canadian marijuana stock Sundial Growers (NASDAQ:SNDL) have been the three most-popular plays of Reddit's retail investors. Unfortunately, they're also three of the worst stocks money can buy.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nHere's why it could be lights-out for AMC\nAMC's popularity has to do with its perceived-to-be low share price, as well as the reopening of 99% of its theaters by March 26, according to the company. As many folks have also pointed out to me on social media, technical analysis (i.e., chart patterns) is also driving interest.\nHowever, none of these catalysts offers true substance.\nFor instance, AMC Entertainment was on the verge of bankruptcy in mid-January, and was ultimately saved by issuing close to 165 million new shares of stock and taking on over $400 million in debt capital. The company may have more than $1 billion in cash on hand now, but it's facing aggregate operating losses over the next two years that, by Wall Street's consensus, will come in around a median of $1.7 billion. This is a fancy way of saying that AMC Entertainment almost certainly doesn't have enough cash to make it through the next 12-to-24 months, based on projected losses.\nAnother thing to keep in mind is that AMC's theaters reopening doesn't mean things are back to normal. A vast majority of its theaters will be operating at limited capacity, and there's always the possibility that coronavirus variants lead to certain cities, counties, or states scaling back their reopening plans.\nBut maybe the biggest slap in the face for shareholders is that AMC executives pocketed $8.3 million in bonuses just a month after stepping back from the bankruptcy ledge for their \"extraordinary efforts\" to keep AMC afloat during these challenging times.\nIf you still need one more damning reason to avoid AMC like the plague, here it is: The model is being disrupted. Both AT&T's WarnerMedia and Walt Disney are releasing new movies in 2021 on their respective streaming platforms (HBO Max and Disney+) the same day they'll hit theaters. The growth heyday for movie chains is over, and so are AMC's chances for success, in my view.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nGame over for GameStop?\nEven though it's the stock that began the Reddit frenzy, GameStop is not a company that any investors should desire to own at its current valuation.\nThe primary buy thesis for GameStop has been its high level of short interest. When the short squeeze began in mid-January, the company's short interest, relative to float, was by far the highest on Wall Street. It's come down substantially since then, but GameStop's share price has not.\nIf I could grasp at straws and perhaps find one shred of good news to share, it's that the company's e-commerce sales have been soaring of late. During the 2020 holiday season, digital gaming sales rose by 309%. But here's the kicker: Even with a more-than-quadrupling in e-commerce sales, total sales during the holiday season still declined by 3.1%. That's primarily because GameStop shuttered 11% of its stores between the 2019 and 2020 holiday seasons.\nThe plain-as-day issue here is that GameStop waited far too long to shift its operating focus to digital gaming. With fewer people trading in or buying used games, which used to be GameStop's high-margin, bread-and-butter growth driver, GameStop's only recourse is to attempt to backpedal its way back into the profit column. This means closing hundreds of stores annually to reduce expenses. But in spite of these precipitous closures, GameStop is likely looking at its fourth-consecutive annual loss in 2021.\nWhile it may not be game over for GameStop, the company's glory days are long gone. Its market cap today is roughly two times higher than its previous all-time high set back in 2007. The thing is, revenue has gone nowhere, and the company has pushed from recurring profits to ongoing losses. There's no way to logically justify this valuation.\nImage source: Getty Images.\nSundial might go up in smoke\nFinally, there's Sundial Growers, which I believe is the worst marijuana stock money can buy.\nSimilar to GameStop and AMC, Sundial has been buoyed by the Reddit crowd for its high short interest and the lure of its penny stock share price. Canadian pot stocks have also received a boost following the election of Joe Biden as President and Democrats retaking the Senate by the slimmest of majorities. There's hope that cannabis legalization in the U.S. would allow Canadian players like Sundial to enter the more lucrative U.S. market.\nBut if there's one thing tenured investors are acutely familiar with, it's that next-big-thing investments always have losers. Sundial looks like one of those losing investment.\nTo begin with, Sundial just might be the worst share-based diluter I've seen in years. Since the end of September, Sundial has boosted its cash on hand to $719 million Canadian, but has done so by issuing more than 1.15 billion shares (yes, with a 'b') through a combination of direct share offerings, debt-to-equity swaps, and at-the-market issuances. Were this not enough, its board approved another $1 billion (that's U.S.) mixed-shelf offering. In theory, Sundial could issue hundreds of millions of additional shares.\nBecause of its 1.66 billion outstanding shares, Sundial has virtually no chance of ever generating a meaningful per-share profit, and it probably runs the risk of being delisted if it falls back below $1 a share. Sundial could enact a reverse split to bump up its share price and shrink its outstanding share count, but companies that utilize reverse splits are historically viewed as struggling businesses.\nWhat's more, Sundial isn't anywhere near profitability, and investors are paying close to $1.9 billion for it, excluding cash. That's close to 38 times sales for a company that's lagging the vast majority of its Canadian and U.S. peers.\nAMC, GameStop, and Sundial might be today's buzzy stocks, but they lack substance and have little long-term staying power. That makes all three terrible buys.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":67,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":353984656,"gmtCreate":1616455737475,"gmtModify":1704794237849,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"buy","listText":"buy","text":"buy","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":2,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/353984656","repostId":"2121722120","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"2121722120","pubTimestamp":1616427519,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/2121722120?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-03-22 23:38","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Apple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=2121722120","media":"MarketWatch","summary":"The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.And worries of a bubble are blowing. Earlier this month,China’s top banking regulator warned that Wall Street assets were trading at such high levels that they are bound to correct.But stocks aren’t in a bubble, according to Goldman Sachs.In ourcall of the day, analysts led by Peter Oppenheimer outline nine key characteristi","content":"<p>The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.</p><p>And worries of a bubble are blowing. Earlier this month,China’s top banking regulator warned that Wall Street assets were trading at such high levels that they are bound to correct.</p><p>But stocks aren’t in a bubble, according to Goldman Sachs.In our<b>call of the day</b>, analysts led by Peter Oppenheimer outline nine key characteristics of historic bubbles and discuss how they don’t match the current market environment.</p><p>The investment bank defines a stock market bubble as a “rapid acceleration in prices and valuations that makes an unrealistic claim on future growth and returns.”</p><p>Goldman Sachs’ study is based on historical stock bubbles, including the “Tulip Mania” in the Netherlands in the 1630s, the 1873 “Railway Bubble” in the U.S., and the 1990s global technology bubble.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/4ffa2f713ef154b59609e6052850d34b\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"488\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>One of the key hallmarks of bubbles is excessive price appreciation and extreme valuations. And while the investment bank acknowledges “pockets of exuberance,” and some excessive price rises in U.S. equities, the analysts argue that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a broader and “systemically dangerous” bubble is forming. The recent rise in the S&P 500 index, and particularly in the technology sector, is impressive but not extreme, the analysts say.</p><p>Similarly, another bubble telltale is the idea that “this time is different,” with a narrative that justifies new ways of valuing companies. But, the Goldman Sachs analysts argue, this time isn’t different, and the main argument supporting higher prices right now is mainstream: Interest rates are low.</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b1518c976cd1ec82e47b88facfa75002\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"475\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Past bubbles have often included excitement around a particular sector leading to market concentration. And it is true that the group of FAAMG stocks — Facebook,Apple,Amazon,Microsoft,and Google, owned by Alphabet— representing Big Tech has come to dominate indexes and investor attention.</p><p>But the analysts argue that not only is this representative of a transformative period in technology, but the fundamentals back these companies up. The groups are highly cash-generative, and metrics like earnings per share in Big Tech and other retail investor favorites “have significantly outstripped those of the rest of the market.”</p><p>The investment bank also finds that while the current market has some characteristics of bubbles, like frantic speculation, easy credit and rising leverage, booming corporate activity, and “new era” narrative driving a tech boom, these factors were mitigated by forces including regulation and stability in the wider market. We’re also not late in an economic cycle and widespread accounting scandals haven’t come to light — these are other critical markers of bubbles.</p><p>Goldman Sachs’ findings are summarized in the table below:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b6c059e67f6c05885c8f108b15cc5595\" tg-width=\"620\" tg-height=\"158\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>The analysts conclude: “While there are pockets of excessive valuations in equities, and parts of the market are justifiably derating as interest rates adjust, in our assessment only a few of these common characteristics are currently present or being partially met.”</p><p>According to Goldman Sachs, the risks of an imminent bubble “with systemic risks to the financial system and economies” is relatively low.</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>Apple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble</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\">\nApple and Amazon prices make sense and more signs from Goldman Sachs that stocks aren’t in a bubble\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-03-22 23:38 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-and-amazon-prices-make-sense-and-more-signs-from-goldman-sachs-that-stocks-arent-in-a-bubble-11616412469?mod=home-page><strong>MarketWatch</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.And worries of a bubble ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-and-amazon-prices-make-sense-and-more-signs-from-goldman-sachs-that-stocks-arent-in-a-bubble-11616412469?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":{".IXIC":"NASDAQ Composite","GOOG":"谷歌",".SPX":"S&P 500 Index","09086":"华夏纳指-U","MSFT":"微软","GS":"高盛","QNETCN":"纳斯达克中美互联网老虎指数","03086":"华夏纳指",".DJI":"道琼斯","GOOGL":"谷歌A"},"source_url":"https://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-and-amazon-prices-make-sense-and-more-signs-from-goldman-sachs-that-stocks-arent-in-a-bubble-11616412469?mod=home-page","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/599a65733b8245fcf7868668ef9ad712","article_id":"2121722120","content_text":"The bull rally in stocks continues to paw at the dirt, with both the Dow and S&P 500 indexes charging to new highs last week and momentum set to continue into the week ahead.And worries of a bubble are blowing. Earlier this month,China’s top banking regulator warned that Wall Street assets were trading at such high levels that they are bound to correct.But stocks aren’t in a bubble, according to Goldman Sachs.In ourcall of the day, analysts led by Peter Oppenheimer outline nine key characteristics of historic bubbles and discuss how they don’t match the current market environment.The investment bank defines a stock market bubble as a “rapid acceleration in prices and valuations that makes an unrealistic claim on future growth and returns.”Goldman Sachs’ study is based on historical stock bubbles, including the “Tulip Mania” in the Netherlands in the 1630s, the 1873 “Railway Bubble” in the U.S., and the 1990s global technology bubble.One of the key hallmarks of bubbles is excessive price appreciation and extreme valuations. And while the investment bank acknowledges “pockets of exuberance,” and some excessive price rises in U.S. equities, the analysts argue that it doesn’t necessarily mean that a broader and “systemically dangerous” bubble is forming. The recent rise in the S&P 500 index, and particularly in the technology sector, is impressive but not extreme, the analysts say.Similarly, another bubble telltale is the idea that “this time is different,” with a narrative that justifies new ways of valuing companies. But, the Goldman Sachs analysts argue, this time isn’t different, and the main argument supporting higher prices right now is mainstream: Interest rates are low.Past bubbles have often included excitement around a particular sector leading to market concentration. And it is true that the group of FAAMG stocks — Facebook,Apple,Amazon,Microsoft,and Google, owned by Alphabet— representing Big Tech has come to dominate indexes and investor attention.But the analysts argue that not only is this representative of a transformative period in technology, but the fundamentals back these companies up. The groups are highly cash-generative, and metrics like earnings per share in Big Tech and other retail investor favorites “have significantly outstripped those of the rest of the market.”The investment bank also finds that while the current market has some characteristics of bubbles, like frantic speculation, easy credit and rising leverage, booming corporate activity, and “new era” narrative driving a tech boom, these factors were mitigated by forces including regulation and stability in the wider market. We’re also not late in an economic cycle and widespread accounting scandals haven’t come to light — these are other critical markers of bubbles.Goldman Sachs’ findings are summarized in the table below:The analysts conclude: “While there are pockets of excessive valuations in equities, and parts of the market are justifiably derating as interest rates adjust, in our assessment only a few of these common characteristics are currently present or being partially met.”According to Goldman Sachs, the risks of an imminent bubble “with systemic risks to the financial system and economies” is relatively low.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":101,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":366600555,"gmtCreate":1614463676677,"gmtModify":1704771864971,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner","listText":"like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner","text":"like mlm. the winner is always the game disigner","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":1,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/366600555","repostId":"1146313632","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1146313632","pubTimestamp":1614334339,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1146313632?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-26 18:12","market":"us","language":"en","title":"Gamestop And High Volatility Options","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1146313632","media":"Options AI: Learn","summary":"Gamestop Corp. shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from ","content":"<p><b>Gamestop Corp.</b> shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from last week (but still down significantly from recent short squeeze highs). We'll look at the unique situations that arise in the options of a highly volatile stock like Gamestop and a few things that might be considered before trading options.</p><hr><p><b>Gamestop: The Expected Move</b></p><p>First, a look at how options are pricing upcoming moves. Here's theOptions AIexpected move chart for Gamestop, with a nearly 30% move being priced into this Friday's close. And a roughly 80% move being priced for the next month. A month that includes an earnings event (unconfirmed):</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/e35872724d8db887fa09d822d622ac8c\" tg-width=\"568\" tg-height=\"817\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>Gamestop: Call Spreads vs Outright Calls</p><p>Using March 19th as an expiry we first looks at bullish spreads, and compare directly to outright calls. With a stock as volatile as Gamestop, calls can be expensive. Because of that, many traders resort to buying far out of the money calls. That demand for upside calls increases volatility in those calls, making them expensive relative to at-the-money calls – a phenomenon known as skew. However, for those that are bullish, this may create an opportunity to utilize spreads rather than buying an outright call. Let's see how.</p><p>Here we'll focus on one alternative – using debit spreads to lower the overall cost of a directional trade (while potentially improving the probability of profit of the trade itself by lowering the breakeven level). It does so by selling those relatively expensive out-the-money Calls to help finance the purchase of a nearer to at-the-money Call.</p><p>With Gamestop near $105, the <b>March 19th 110/190 Debit Call Spread</b> is roughly $15 and targets the bullish expected move for March 19th. The debit call spread would need the stock to be above $125 on March 19th to be profitable.</p><p>As a comparison, the GME March 19th 200 calls are trading $29. That's nearly twice the cost for a 200 call that needs the stock above $229 by March 19th… versus a call spread, that needs the stock above $125. Here's a side by side comparison of those two trades on the Options AI chart. First, the 200 call:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/b044a22bfbe5a8326f9aa3ebf56ed4fd\" tg-width=\"570\" tg-height=\"740\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>And next, the 145/200 debit call spread:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/6cdf8545f07da48f770ef81cb4e5ac53\" tg-width=\"569\" tg-height=\"792\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>As you can see, not only is the call spread less expensive, the point at which is becomes profitable to the upside is much closer to where the stock is currently trading. (As indicated by the grey price of the breakeven.)</p><p>A note on probability of profit. The probability of profit displayed on these trades is based on the delta being assigned to the breakeven of the trade. The fact that a 200 call in a $105 stock is trading near 50 deltas shows just how distorting an effect Gamestop volatility is having on its options (hard to borrow, skew, retail demand for out-of-the-money calls).</p><p>Directional Butterflies vs Outright Puts</p><p>High volatility also affects bearish options trades. One of the counter-intuitive aspects of a high volatility stock like Gamestop is that its implied volatility can go up as the stock goes higher and down as the stock goes lower. This is the opposite of how we generally think about volatility. Therefore, buying outright puts carries a risk of collapsing volatility (and therefore collapsing premiums) as the stock goes lower. So, even though the stock is moving in the intended direction, as an option holder you may not be realizing the gains expected.</p><p>One way to counter high implied volatility in a stock, especially when having a bearish view, is to be a net seller of option premium. To sell to bullish option traders rather than join bearish option traders. Traditionally that might take the form of selling a Credit Call Spread. But in GME's case that means buying the (expensive) upper strike Call at a higher volatility than the Call that is closer to the money (as described above).</p><p>So, one option strategy that can be considered by traders is using a Butterfly. An option trade that is more typically associated with a neutral trading view, but here adapted to actually create a targeted (bearish) directional view.</p><p>Here, as an example, is a Butterfly with its center strikes focused at $80 in the stock, with a March 19th expiry:</p><p><img src=\"https://static.tigerbbs.com/f7cb8f9b0570e854f662f3031e50ca91\" tg-width=\"573\" tg-height=\"740\" referrerpolicy=\"no-referrer\"></p><p>This 130/80/30 butterfly has breakevens of 115 and 45, meaning the trade is profitable if the stock is between those two prices at March 19th expiry… with a max gain occurring if the stock is at or near $80. It has the additional dynamic of being short premium, and if the stock stays within its range would see mark to market gains if implied volatility compressed.</p>","source":"lsy1614334070724","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>Gamestop And High Volatility Options</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\">\nGamestop And High Volatility Options\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-26 18:12 GMT+8 <a href=https://learn.optionsai.com/gamestop-and-high-volatility-options/><strong>Options AI: Learn</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>Gamestop Corp. shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from last week (but still down significantly from recent short squeeze highs). We'll look at the unique ...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://learn.optionsai.com/gamestop-and-high-volatility-options/\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"GME":"游戏驿站"},"source_url":"https://learn.optionsai.com/gamestop-and-high-volatility-options/","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/e9f99090a1c2ed51c021029395664489","article_id":"1146313632","content_text":"Gamestop Corp. shares have soared the past few days with the stock up nearly 200% at one point from last week (but still down significantly from recent short squeeze highs). We'll look at the unique situations that arise in the options of a highly volatile stock like Gamestop and a few things that might be considered before trading options.Gamestop: The Expected MoveFirst, a look at how options are pricing upcoming moves. Here's theOptions AIexpected move chart for Gamestop, with a nearly 30% move being priced into this Friday's close. And a roughly 80% move being priced for the next month. A month that includes an earnings event (unconfirmed):Gamestop: Call Spreads vs Outright CallsUsing March 19th as an expiry we first looks at bullish spreads, and compare directly to outright calls. With a stock as volatile as Gamestop, calls can be expensive. Because of that, many traders resort to buying far out of the money calls. That demand for upside calls increases volatility in those calls, making them expensive relative to at-the-money calls – a phenomenon known as skew. However, for those that are bullish, this may create an opportunity to utilize spreads rather than buying an outright call. Let's see how.Here we'll focus on one alternative – using debit spreads to lower the overall cost of a directional trade (while potentially improving the probability of profit of the trade itself by lowering the breakeven level). It does so by selling those relatively expensive out-the-money Calls to help finance the purchase of a nearer to at-the-money Call.With Gamestop near $105, the March 19th 110/190 Debit Call Spread is roughly $15 and targets the bullish expected move for March 19th. The debit call spread would need the stock to be above $125 on March 19th to be profitable.As a comparison, the GME March 19th 200 calls are trading $29. That's nearly twice the cost for a 200 call that needs the stock above $229 by March 19th… versus a call spread, that needs the stock above $125. Here's a side by side comparison of those two trades on the Options AI chart. First, the 200 call:And next, the 145/200 debit call spread:As you can see, not only is the call spread less expensive, the point at which is becomes profitable to the upside is much closer to where the stock is currently trading. (As indicated by the grey price of the breakeven.)A note on probability of profit. The probability of profit displayed on these trades is based on the delta being assigned to the breakeven of the trade. The fact that a 200 call in a $105 stock is trading near 50 deltas shows just how distorting an effect Gamestop volatility is having on its options (hard to borrow, skew, retail demand for out-of-the-money calls).Directional Butterflies vs Outright PutsHigh volatility also affects bearish options trades. One of the counter-intuitive aspects of a high volatility stock like Gamestop is that its implied volatility can go up as the stock goes higher and down as the stock goes lower. This is the opposite of how we generally think about volatility. Therefore, buying outright puts carries a risk of collapsing volatility (and therefore collapsing premiums) as the stock goes lower. So, even though the stock is moving in the intended direction, as an option holder you may not be realizing the gains expected.One way to counter high implied volatility in a stock, especially when having a bearish view, is to be a net seller of option premium. To sell to bullish option traders rather than join bearish option traders. Traditionally that might take the form of selling a Credit Call Spread. But in GME's case that means buying the (expensive) upper strike Call at a higher volatility than the Call that is closer to the money (as described above).So, one option strategy that can be considered by traders is using a Butterfly. An option trade that is more typically associated with a neutral trading view, but here adapted to actually create a targeted (bearish) directional view.Here, as an example, is a Butterfly with its center strikes focused at $80 in the stock, with a March 19th expiry:This 130/80/30 butterfly has breakevens of 115 and 45, meaning the trade is profitable if the stock is between those two prices at March 19th expiry… with a max gain occurring if the stock is at or near $80. It has the additional dynamic of being short premium, and if the stock stays within its range would see mark to market gains if implied volatility compressed.","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":46,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0},{"id":366411033,"gmtCreate":1614549790922,"gmtModify":1704772298350,"author":{"id":"3569263461157925","authorId":"3569263461157925","name":"YourCFP","avatar":"https://static.tigerbbs.com/a1f5e965075ba7b03f9c5aade30f04ed","crmLevel":4,"crmLevelSwitch":0,"followedFlag":false},"themes":[],"htmlText":"market will tell harm or not, not officer","listText":"market will tell harm or not, not officer","text":"market will tell harm or not, not officer","images":[],"top":1,"highlighted":1,"essential":1,"paper":1,"likeSize":0,"commentSize":0,"repostSize":0,"link":"https://ttm.financial/post/366411033","repostId":"1181374212","repostType":4,"repost":{"id":"1181374212","pubTimestamp":1614335737,"share":"https://www.laohu8.com/m/news/1181374212?lang=&edition=full","pubTime":"2021-02-26 18:35","market":"hk","language":"en","title":"Trading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary","url":"https://stock-news.laohu8.com/highlight/detail?id=1181374212","media":"cnbc","summary":"Hong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.Chan said in his budget speech on Wednesday that the government will raise the stamp duty paid on listed stock trades from 0.1% to 0.13%.The move “will not harm our competitiveness and at the same time will bring additional revenue to the government at this juncture,” said Chan.Chan said in his budget speech on Wednesday","content":"<div>\n<p>KEY POINTS\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n","source":"cnbc_highlight","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>Trading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary</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\">\nTrading tax hike won’t harm competitiveness of Hong Kong’s stock market, says financial secretary\n</h2>\n\n<h4 class=\"meta\">\n\n\n2021-02-26 18:35 GMT+8 <a href=https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html><strong>cnbc</strong></a>\n\n\n</h4>\n\n</header>\n<article>\n<div>\n<p>KEY POINTS\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said...</p>\n\n<a href=\"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html\">Web Link</a>\n\n</div>\n\n\n</article>\n</div>\n</body>\n</html>\n","type":0,"thumbnail":"","relate_stocks":{"HSCCI":"红筹指数","00388":"香港交易所","HSCEI":"国企指数","HSI":"恒生指数"},"source_url":"https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/26/trading-tax-hike-wont-harm-hong-kongs-stock-market-financial-secretary.html","is_english":true,"share_image_url":"https://static.laohu8.com/72bb72e1b84c09fca865c6dcb1bbcd16","article_id":"1181374212","content_text":"KEY POINTS\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said in his budget speech on Wednesday that the government will raise the stamp duty paid on listed stock trades from 0.1% to 0.13%.\nThe move “will not harm our competitiveness and at the same time will bring additional revenue to the government at this juncture,” said Chan.\n\nHong Kong’s plan to increase the stamp duty on stock trading will not harm the competitiveness of the city’s financial markets, Financial Secretary Paul Chan told CNBC on Friday.\nChan said in his budget speech on Wednesday that the government will raise the stamp duty paid on listed stock trades from 0.1% to 0.13%.The announcement sparked a sell-off in shares of the operator of the city’s stock exchange, and the broader Hong Kong market.\n“The Hong Kong market has been doing very well, very active, the volume has gone up quite a bit,” Chan told CNBC’s Emily Tan.\n“So, perhaps this is the time for us to increase a little bit on the stamp duty which will not harm our competitiveness and at the same time will bring additional revenue to the government at this juncture,” he added.\nThe financial secretary said Hong Kong authorities have in recent years launched different initiatives to enhance the competitiveness of the city’s stock market. That includes allowing listings of dual-class shares and attracting U.S.-listed Chinese companies to seek a secondary listing in Hong Kong, he said.\nHong Kong in 2020 was one of the top markets for listings globally as Chinese firms such as e-commerce giant JD.com and gaming company NetEase raised funds through secondary listings.\nIn total, the city’s stock exchange saw 132 initial public offerings worth $32.1 billion, and 199 further offerings worth $62.9 billion last year, according to data compiled by consultancy PwC.\nWith such “robust” capital markets activity, raising the trading stamp duty may offer Hong Kong “a quick solution” to increase its tax revenue in the short term, said Stanley Ho, a partner for corporate tax advisory at consultancy KPMG China.\n“However, it is also important for Hong Kong’s capital markets to stay competitive with global financial markets, many of which are trending towards reducing or removing such duties,” Ho said in a statement after Chan’s budget speech.\nChan said he remains confident of Hong Kong’s prospects as an international financial center.\nHe explained that the government is working on promoting Hong Kong as a center for sustainable and green finance, developing further the city’s fixed income markets and encouraging more activity in the asset and wealth management sectors.\nOn the stock market sell-off after his announcement of the trading tax hike, Chan said Hong Kong wasn’t the only one experiencing a “downward adjustment” following a previous run-up.\n“So, I would not be bothered by temporary fluctuations in the market. What we believe is we continue to work hard to enhance the offering of our market to further enhance the competitiveness and attractiveness of the Hong Kong market,” he said.\n“We will continue to attract inflow of international capital.”","news_type":1},"isVote":1,"tweetType":1,"viewCount":25,"authorTweetTopStatus":1,"verified":2,"comments":[],"imageCount":0,"langContent":"EN","totalScore":0}],"lives":[]}