Investing

[chasfh]

All most people know going into leveraged ETFs is that they can double or triple their money. Even if that’s not how it works, that’s all they know about it.

This is a prime example of “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.”

[Deleterious]

They told us this was coming a few months ago in their first round of layoffs.  So it is probably baked into the price for the most part.

 

[Deleterious]

They are the only company that makes the EUV machines needed to make the most advanced semiconductors.  Although, there are reports someone in China is now making them.

 

[Deleterious]

 

[Deleterious]

$10,500 profit sharing checks for GM hourly workers this year.

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, Deleterious said:

$10,500 profit sharing checks for GM hourly workers this year.

GM has been kind of flying under the radar under Barra. That's probably good.

[Deleterious]

 

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Deleterious said:

 

only thing I question in his remarks would be the assumption the inflation is on a downward trend.

Also notable that he called current rates or 3.5-3.75 as 'close to neutral'. I get the impression many people assume that the 1% rates that came out of the prior couple of decades is the 'normal' that policy was heading back to. But over the long-long term, those were anhistorically low rates driven probably mostly by the drop in monetary velocity as the huge block of boomers moved into retirement and lower spending - so people should probably stop assuming interest rates are going back to sub 2% or even sub 3%.

Edited 23 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Screwball]

3 hours ago, gehringer_2 said:

only thing I question in his remarks would be the assumption the inflation is on a downward trend.

Also notable that he called current rates or 3.5-3.75 as 'close to neutral'. I get the impression many people assume that the 1% rates that came out of the prior couple of decades is the 'normal' that policy was heading back to. But over the long-long term, those were anhistorically low rates driven probably mostly by the drop in monetary velocity as the huge block of boomers moved into retirement and lower spending - so people should probably stop assuming interest rates are going back to sub 2% or even sub 3%.

What 1% rates would those be?

[gehringer_2]

38 minutes ago, Screwball said:

What 1% rates would those be?

Fed Funds rate from 2010 to 2017 ran pretty much at zero

[Screwball]

Target isn't the same as what the numbers tell us, but I get your point. This is the deal with interest rates.

What is the price of debt/credit? Some think interest rates should be punitive as a throttle of credit creation. Others think they should create all they want. Why not, the more money, the more there is to go around, right? What's not to like?

Again, library's full of this debate.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Screwball said:

Target isn't the same as what the numbers tell us, but I get your point. This is the deal with interest rates.

What is the price of debt/credit? Some think interest rates should be punitive as a throttle of credit creation. Others think they should create all they want. Why not, the more money, the more there is to go around, right? What's not to like?

Again, library's full of this debate.

and its always a matter of a good deal for me, but not for thee. Your friends at the bank can draw funds from the Fed's overnight window to put into the carry trade at rates that you and I couldn't get within 10% of.

Edited 17 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Screwball]

13 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

and its always a matter of a good deal for me, but not for thee. Your friends at the bank can draw funds from the Fed's overnight window to put into the carry trade at rates that you and I couldn't get within 10% of.

Weird, when we turn the scope into us little people - I'm old. I bought my first house in 83. My second in 2000. The first one I paid almost 8 percent interest and had to have like 20 percent down. In 2000 my rate was %6.875, and much less of a percentage down. Don't remember the exact details.

Kinda weird too, even given those rates at the time, both were 30 year loans to keep the monthly payment as small as possible, so that mattered (they offered 15 year too). It was cheaper to buy than rent. If you could save up enough money for the down payment, you might as well give that X amount a month toward the property and eventually own it. Even at that time is was cheaper than the equivalent rent.

I don't know about elsewhere, but I'm guessing almost everywhere, it's even worse now, and has been getting this way for a long time. I had a 350 dollar a month house payment in 2000 (small house, kids flew, didn't need much, frugal).  This place could easily rent for more than a grand today. That's nuts.

[Deleterious]

So Tesla announced today they would be discontinuing the Model S and X in the next quarter.  They will be using the empty manufacturing space to build their new robot, Optimus.  

Not a complete shock if you follow Tesla.  They only delivered 50K units combined with the S/X where the 3 and Y were over 1.6 million.  If I'm buying a luxury EV sedan today it would be the Lucid Air over the S. I also like the Rivian SUV over the X.  I have driven all 4 and the Air and SRI are better models than what Tesla offered.  My only complaint about Rivian is they often seem one bad quarter away from going bankrupt.  Not a fan of paying $90K for a car that might not have a company to support it, but still a nice vehicle.

It wouldn't shock me if Tesla doesn't build any cars in 10 years.

[Deleterious]

Gold is already up to $5,568.  Silver at $119

[Tigeraholic1]

8 hours ago, Deleterious said:

So Tesla announced today they would be discontinuing the Model S and X in the next quarter.  They will be using the empty manufacturing space to build their new robot, Optimus.  

Not a complete shock if you follow Tesla.  They only delivered 50K units combined with the S/X where the 3 and Y were over 1.6 million.  If I'm buying a luxury EV sedan today it would be the Lucid Air over the S. I also like the Rivian SUV over the X.  I have driven all 4 and the Air and SRI are better models than what Tesla offered.  My only complaint about Rivian is they often seem one bad quarter away from going bankrupt.  Not a fan of paying $90K for a car that might not have a company to support it, but still a nice vehicle.

It wouldn't shock me if Tesla doesn't build any cars in 10 years.

Rivian almost went under but now have a 5 Billion loan/investment from VW. If they don't turn a profit in 26 they might be done. 

Edited 7 hours ago by Tigeraholic1

[Tigeraholic1]

The R2 is what they are banking on. 300 mile range 5 seater.

https://rivian.com/r2

[gehringer_2]

34 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

The R2 is what they are banking on. 300 mile range 5 seater.

https://rivian.com/r2

Nephew had a Rivian pickup. Loved it. Totalled it.

Too bad they are butt ugly.

[gehringer_2]

48 minutes ago, Tigeraholic1 said:

Rivian almost went under but now have a 5 Billion loan/investment from VW. If they don't turn a profit in 26 they might be done. 

From an engineering POV, the practical question is whether the cost of the minimal ICE plus a battery with a 30 mile range for a plug-in hybrid is going to settle out at more or less than the cost differential to a 300mi battery that can fast charge regularly without being killed. From an environmental standpoint, plug-in hybrids can take ~90% of the CO2 burden out of the automotive transportation sector because ~90% of your trips are short. The small ICE probably also weighs less than the step up to a 80-100KWhr battery so could make for an overall more efficient vehicle. Bottom line - it all depends on battery tech, and where the endpoint for that will turn out to be is still anybody's guess.

Edited 6 hours ago by gehringer_2

[Tigeraholic1]

21 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Nephew had a Rivian pickup. Loved it. Totalled it.

Too bad they are butt ugly.

Aesthetically not pleasing. They are too square, Mr Magoo car vibes...

[Deleterious]

The G-Wagon takes 1st place for worst looking SUV.  

[Deleterious]

 

[CMRivdogs]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

From an engineering POV, the practical question is whether the cost of the minimal ICE plus a battery with a 30 mile range for a plug-in hybrid is going to settle out at more or less than the cost differential to a 300mi battery that can fast charge regularly without being killed. From an environmental standpoint, plug-in hybrids can take ~90% of the CO2 burden out of the automotive transportation sector because ~90% of your trips are short. The small ICE probably also weighs less than the step up to a 80-100KWhr battery so could make for an overall more efficient vehicle. Bottom line - it all depends on battery tech, and where the endpoint for that will turn out to be is still anybody's guess.

When we purchased our Hyundai Tucson last year we took a look at their plug in hybrid. I can't remember the cost difference between the plug in and the regular hybrid, but the larger battery in the plug in model was definitely a deal breaker.  

[Tigeraholic1]

 

 

[Screwball]

Something happened around 8:20 this morning. Both gold and silver took a ****. Silver went from $121.785 to $106.61. It has now recovered some and its back to 112 ish. That was a big move in about an hour and 10 minutes.

In other news, MSFT is getting smoked to the tune of 12%. META is up around 7. 

Also of note, crude oil has been up the last three days and is now $65+ a barrel (WTI). It's been around 60 or lower for quite some time. Probably due to weakened dollar.