The Stock Market, Investments, and Investing Thread
A good way to own precious metals is thru the Sprott family of funds.  These are not ETFs but rather they’re closed-end funds.  

PHYS for Gold
PSLV for Silver
SPPP for Platinum and Palladium 

The difference between these and ETFs like GLD, SLV, and IAU is that the Sprott funds are 100% backed by actual metals and you could request delivery for a fee.  The ETFs are simply numerical reflections of the metals’ pricing.

Goldmoney.com is another means to hold metals but their fees have grown too large for my taste.
Have you ever noticed it is your haters who obsessively read your every post, comment on them with the most emotion, and expend so much energy desperately trying to engage you?  It's because haters are your greatest, most loyal, and dedicated fans; they just have not come to terms with it yet.  Enjoy them because they are the surest sign that you're slaying it in life!  Big Grin
Reply
Precious metals are good now because they are undervalued but the problem with them is that they are highly correlated to risk assets. When the market gets spooked, and there is a sell off, the market also sells off gold. Its counterintuitive but that's what happens.

Comment about physical - the immediate loss of value on bid/ask spread, not to mention premiums, is spot on (no pun intended). Have some for emergencies, along with brass (ammo), but keep your powder liquid.

Avoid SLV, PSLV or CEF have the actual metal.

The way to think about precious metals is degrees of risk. They are all basically derivatives of the dollar.

As the dollar weakens, they go up.

Gold is the least risky, then silver, then platinum/palladium.

Then you have the miners. GDX is major miners, GDXJ is the juniors. More leverage in the miners but a lot more risk, especially the juniors.

Then you have speculative companies recommended by newsletters. These have very small floats are very risky. Odds are pretty high that someone is just touting it to offload to the unsuspecting publc.

Somewhere in between are speculative plays like NAK and NG. These companies have huge precious metal reserves but it will take billions to pull that metal out of the ground. The way to think of these is as a long term option on the metals that never expires. NAK is a little more crazy because its in Alaska about an hour from where they fish salmon and the environmentalists are up in arms about their plans. But these companies are just a couple of people with applications for a permit, they aren't actually mining anything and more importantly don't have many employees to pay or equipment to buy.

Another way to play is with royalty companies. Check out FNV and WPM. They front cash to companies that are building a mine, and then get a percentage of all mine revenues. They lend behind the banks, so they get really good rates of return. FNV is a blue chip royalty company, and it pays a dividend; the bad news is investors have already plowed a lot of money into the stock and the dividend yield has declined from about 3% to 1%. Some of the up and coming streamers can be good investments, but they have fewer revenue streams so they are more volatile. FNV might have 50 different projects from which they are getting paid, so if there is a hiccup at any one mine (workers strike, government problems, etc.) it doesn't matter too much. Also, the up and coming streamers often have lent money out and revenues might come on stream in a couple of years, and then may ramp up each year as the mines come on line, so they are like the growth stocks of streamers, but it also means you need to do a lot more due diligence.
Reply
(03-07-2021, 12:39 PM)Hypno Wrote: Avoid SLV, PSLV or CEF have the actual metal.

The problems with holding actual metals are several:

- Lack of easy sale or convertibility to cash.
- Safety deposit box, security safe or commercial storage costs.
- Insurance costs.
- Risk of theft.
- Risk of physical loss or misplacement.
- Risk of damage in fires, etc.
- Risk of fraudulent or fake bars.
- Difficulty of portability especially with regard to silver due to the large size of the bars.
- Difficulty of holding high volumes.  If I held my silver in actual metal, it would fill up half of a small dining room.
- Higher prices at purchase and lower prices at sale due to the dealer's profit margin from the spot price.

All those things considered, fully allocated, closed end funds like those in the Sprott family are the best way to go for most. You get the liquidity and immediate convertibility just like the ETFs, and the knowledge that your share of metals are maintained for you remotely. Also, you are spared the huge costs associated with purchasing above the spot price, storing, and insuring personally held metals. It is a no-brainer.

https://www.sprott.com/investment-strate...tt-trusts/
Have you ever noticed it is your haters who obsessively read your every post, comment on them with the most emotion, and expend so much energy desperately trying to engage you?  It's because haters are your greatest, most loyal, and dedicated fans; they just have not come to terms with it yet.  Enjoy them because they are the surest sign that you're slaying it in life!  Big Grin
Reply
(03-07-2021, 02:08 PM)Contrarian Expatriate Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 12:39 PM)Hypno Wrote: Avoid SLV, PSLV or CEF have the actual metal.

The problems with holding actual metals are several:

- Lack of easy sale or convertibility to cash.
- Safety deposit box, security safe or commercial storage costs.
- Insurance costs.
- Risk of theft.
- Risk of physical loss or misplacement.
- Risk of damage in fires, etc.
- Risk of fraudulent or fake bars.
- Difficulty of portability especially with regard to silver due to the large size of the bars.
- Difficulty of holding high volumes.  If I held my silver in actual metal, it would fill up half of a small dining room.
- Higher prices at purchase and lower prices at sale due to the dealer's profit margin from the spot price.

All those things considered, fully allocated, closed end funds like those in the Sprott family are the best way to go for most.  You get the liquidity and immediate convertibility just like the ETFs, and the knowledge that your share of metals are maintained for you remotely.  Also, you are spared the huge costs associated with purchasing above the spot price, storing, and insuring personally held metals.   It is a no-brainer.  

https://www.sprott.com/investment-strate...tt-trusts/

PSLV and CEF are funds that hold physical.

PSLV is part of the Sprott Family.  Its an open ended fund.

CEF was the innovator here, was set up in Canada prior to Ford legalizing gold ownership for Americans in 1975.  Its a closed end fund and owns a mix of gold and silver.
Reply
(03-08-2021, 11:31 AM)Hypno Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 02:08 PM)Contrarian Expatriate Wrote:
(03-07-2021, 12:39 PM)Hypno Wrote: Avoid SLV, PSLV or CEF have the actual metal.

The problems with holding actual metals are several:

- Lack of easy sale or convertibility to cash.
- Safety deposit box, security safe or commercial storage costs.
- Insurance costs.
- Risk of theft.
- Risk of physical loss or misplacement.
- Risk of damage in fires, etc.
- Risk of fraudulent or fake bars.
- Difficulty of portability especially with regard to silver due to the large size of the bars.
- Difficulty of holding high volumes.  If I held my silver in actual metal, it would fill up half of a small dining room.
- Higher prices at purchase and lower prices at sale due to the dealer's profit margin from the spot price.

All those things considered, fully allocated, closed end funds like those in the Sprott family are the best way to go for most.  You get the liquidity and immediate convertibility just like the ETFs, and the knowledge that your share of metals are maintained for you remotely.  Also, you are spared the huge costs associated with purchasing above the spot price, storing, and insuring personally held metals.   It is a no-brainer.  

https://www.sprott.com/investment-strate...tt-trusts/

PSLV and CEF are funds that hold physical.

PSLV is part of the Sprott Family.  Its an open ended fund.

CEF was the innovator here, was set up in Canada prior to Ford legalizing gold ownership for Americans in 1975.  Its a closed end fund and owns a mix of gold and silver.
If you read the fact sheets on each of these Sprott bullion funds, you will see that ALL of them are set up as closed-end trusts with fully allocated bullion held for each investor.  That includes CEF which was acquired by Sprott some years ago and the PSLV which you claim is open-ended for some inexplicable reason.

So again, if you want to low cost invest in physical bullion 100% backed by the metals themselves, Sprott is the way to go.  This is not rocket science.
Have you ever noticed it is your haters who obsessively read your every post, comment on them with the most emotion, and expend so much energy desperately trying to engage you?  It's because haters are your greatest, most loyal, and dedicated fans; they just have not come to terms with it yet.  Enjoy them because they are the surest sign that you're slaying it in life!  Big Grin
Reply
I bought a few Gs of SPLV last year when the markets crashed, been happy with it so far.
Reply
[quote pid='49789' dateline='1615207430']
If you read the fact sheets on each of these Sprott bullion funds, you will see that ALL of them are set up as closed-end trusts with fully allocated bullion held for each investor.  That includes CEF which was acquired by Sprott some years ago and the PSLV which you claim is open-ended for some inexplicable reason.  

So again, if you want to low cost invest in physical bullion 100% backed by the metals themselves, Sprott is the way to go.  This is not rocket science.
[/quote]

You are correct, PSLV is a closed end fund, my mistake.   And I whole-heartedly agree with you that the Sprott funds are the way to go in case that was not clear.

I made that mistake because of comments of Eric Sprott, where he said as people buy more shares they will take the cash and buy more bullion.  That is a how an open end fund works.  A closed end fund can do something similar, but its more clunky.  The number of shares are fixed.  As people buy more shares, the price goes up, and often the price is a premium to the net asset value of the fund.  To create more shares, they do a public offering of shares for cash, take the cash, and buy bullion.  But this happens in big chunks with a prospectus, etc.; its not a daily rebalancing like an open end fund where shares can be created and destroyed daily.  Still, he has managed to sell shares and take the cash and buy bullion for fund on multiple occassions.

(Thank you for the update on CEF.  I started stacking in 1979 and I haven't kept up with all of the changes like I should.)
Reply
Still holding GME, still at a loss. Pretty funny it went back up but I'll probably never sell unless it goes back to 500+. Which I will surprised if we ever see before the company eventually goes defunct
Reply
Oh man I'm a sucker? Shit, I guess your Rounders meme is right.

Please, that line isn't even in the script. Have some class.
Reply
To say GME is trading abnormally is an understatement. It could rip a hole in spacetime and cause the heat death of the universe and I'd be less than totally surprised.

There's a form of technical analysis called the ichimoku cloud. It's a lot of information about a stock's history in one place. I don't decide if I want in on technical analysis alone, but I do use this to read prices once I've decided, because it kind of helps you visualize a period of weeks or months.

Interestingly, it did accurately predict both the timing of a move and the level if it turned out to be another bull run. $250 had been marked out as a significant level, flat as a tabletop, for a while now.

[Image: 19EM7A9.jpg]

The way I read this is that two new bullish signals - the blue line crossing above the red line, and the green line crossing out of the price - are pending around the end of this week. The cloud itself is bullish for another week, but thin and fragile, and then turns bearish and starts to thicken, which would suggest that if it moves down, it might finally stay down.

According to this technique, writing has been on the wall for a bit. You could call the first week of march "The Great Collision", when multiple signals were scheduled to smash into each other at once and determine the outcome, and because the ichimoku cloud uses a mix of time-shifted indicators, this event was visible a while ago.

If someone asked me today, I'd tell them to absolutely not buy more at this point, but to start making decisions about how to exit. I'd like to think most people who bought at the top bought more on the dip, dollar cost averaged down to way below $250, and will get out with a profit if it does move down again.
Reply
It's almost at what i bought in for now. Going in a knew it was a silly decision, but i was also prepared to lose the money completely. That's the game when you play with meme stocks.

I didn't yolo the stock, just stuck in what i was ready to throw away. If it goes back up to what I bought it for i'll likely sell.

There's no way I see the stock valued at what it's currently going for. Absolutely no way under any metric I can possibly think of
Reply
(03-10-2021, 04:25 PM)Pavlov\s dog Wrote: It's almost at what i bought in for now.

[Image: 7PbB.gif]
Reply
Brutal swings. 300 to 200 in half an hour, now back to 250.
Reply
I ain't no bitch. Either it goes back up, the company eventually gets delisted, or my future children are getting some fuckin GME
Reply
Question about the mechanics of this hypothetical squeeze. Somebody has to be around to buy your stock right? So who is going to keep buying after it has already mooned? Let's say it hits $1000 – do you still need liquidity to make the sale and if so who's going to buy the top?
Reply
(03-11-2021, 02:52 AM)churros Wrote: Question about the mechanics of this hypothetical squeeze. Somebody has to be around to buy your stock right? So who is going to keep buying after it has already mooned? Let's say it hits $1000 – do you still need liquidity to make the sale and if so who's going to buy the top?

Yeah unfortunately the short interest in GME is much lower than it was, if you believe the people reporting that number. I personally think the vast majority of short positions have been closed and we're seeing renewed interest in GME due to the hype. I really doubt it's going to 1k.

To answer your question though yeah. When you short a stock you're betting on it going down, you're essentially borrowing shares. When that borrow time is up you can either pay interest to extend it or sell at market value. 

If nobody is shorting the stock there is nothing to squeeze. The only reason someone buy a meme stop at the top like this would be

1. They're an idiot (checking in here)
2. They have to because of a short contract

No way anybody with any brains would buy an OBVIOUS overvalued stock.
Reply
(03-11-2021, 02:52 AM)churros Wrote: Question about the mechanics of this hypothetical squeeze. Somebody has to be around to buy your stock right? So who is going to keep buying after it has already mooned? Let's say it hits $1000 – do you still need liquidity to make the sale and if so who's going to buy the top?

Long explanation:

At a basic level, you might already know this, you sell a single share short. You're borrowing money from your broker at interest to "rent" a share you don't own so you can sell it, and you have an effective credit limit. If the stock goes down, you're fine. If the stock goes up, the value of your account falls, and if it tanks below the "maintenance requirement" (the credit limit), the broker will first notify you that you're in trouble and need to deposit more money or make some trades to settle up (known as a "margin call"). You also pay interest on the amount you owe, not the amount you borrowed, so as your position gets worse, the interest charges do, too, which can further draw down your account and accelerate the margin call.

If you don't/can't satisfy your margin obligation, they execute the cover - your corresponding purchase to settle your balance - against your will, to protect their loan. You lose, and if it happened too fast, you could easily owe the broker money.

Now imagine you're a big player doing this with many millions of dollars. The plan here was to mug the hedge funds. Back them into an alley, stab them, and take their wallets. Their short positions were so large that they'd lose so much money so fast that they'd have no choice but to buy the shares Redditors owned at an insane price to stop the bleeding.

To a large extent, this did happen, Melvin's losses were in the billions. It's their own fault. The idea of a hedge fund is to "hedge" by setting up countervailing positions so that you won't suffer unchecked losses like this. The hedge funds assumed Gamestop would quietly go to zero over a period of years and they'd never have to pay the loans back, r/WSB correctly identified the vulnerability and crashed a truck through it.

However, what most likely happened is that as the price skyrocketed, some funds set up brand new short positions at astronomical entry points of $300+, and were able to recover some of their money by buying it back when it tanked back to $50. In part, this is the significance of Citadel lending Melvin nearly three billion dollars at the peak of the crisis: both a lifeline to try to mitigate the damage by avoiding trading at a loss, and also probably to try to enter new positions to hedge against what was happening.

Pavlov\s dog datelin[hr' Wrote: e='1615443251']Yeah unfortunately the short interest in GME is much lower than it was, if you believe the people reporting that number. I personally think the vast majority of short positions have been closed and we're seeing renewed interest in GME due to the hype. I really doubt it's going to 1k.

Yes. I think what we're actually witnessing here is how the market looks without efficient shorting. $250 is an obviously attractive short entry point, but not if you're in fear that psychotic ape cultists are going to randomly blow out your margin when you walk away to make a sandwich. This is like a hostage situation.

Very interested to find out what happened on that $350-to-$170 rocket sled into the ditch, though. The order book was so thin, could easily see a massive short play that paid off instantly and was mostly covered during the ride back up to $280. Somebody could have easily bought their yacht on that alone if they knew what they were doing.

A lot of young guys are learning things about the stock market right now that a lot of professionals get through a career without witnessing. I've been doing this as a hobby for almost 20 years and I found out all kinds of things I didn't know about margin requirements, options, etc.
Reply
(03-11-2021, 02:26 PM)Jetset Wrote: However, what most likely happened is that as the price skyrocketed, some funds set up brand new short positions at astronomical entry points of $300+, and were able to recover some of their money by buying it back when it tanked back to $50. In part, this is the significance of Citadel lending Melvin nearly three billion dollars at the peak of the crisis: both a lifeline to try to mitigate the damage by avoiding trading at a loss, and also probably to try to enter new positions to hedge against what was happening.
[/quote]

I agree with your post.

On what happens afterwards, its hard to lose when (((you))) are the house and you are backed up by (((banks))) with the power to print the currency and change the rules.
Reply
I think people are going to overheat the market with their Biden bux, this gonna be funni ehehehehe
Reply
market to bleed red all week, called it yesterday but reconfirming it here, your tendies are doomed.. hahahaha
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)