Search results

It's not accurate to say JP Morgan predicts $380 oil. They indicated that was a worst case IF Russian energy did not leave Russia, but they are not expecting Russia will stop exporting energy.

The answer to your first question is "no". I'm sure you are just trolling but I felt obligated to answer anyway. The point is that if less wheat leaves Russia than is typical it will put upward pressure on the price of wheat as the supply available to the world is reduced. This statement is...

The significance isn't our crops. We grow a lot of wheat. It's that wheat trades on a world market. If someone, somewhere doesn't buy it from Russia then the price of wheat goes much higher.

No, I did not make that claim. I said the article referencing the report was spam. 50% attacks were discussed quite a bit during the development of bitcoin and ever since then. It's not like this is a secret.

NFT as a technology is awesome. NFTs as investments got a bit out of hand recently. Consider NFT the technology and not NFT the market bubble. This sort of thing was done for many years before blockchain. They're just making limited quantity digital items for collecting, VR application...

lol. Have never thought about this or run across it, but yes, 21 years later it does seem we need an explanation.

It's not "that easy". This was well understood and talked about during the development of bitcoin. This article is essentially spam designed to drive the price down.

Studies on 50% attacks to fork the chain are nothing new. This has been known for many years at this point. I won't even begin to explain why this won't happen with Bitcoin and Ethereum. It's been talked about plenty online already.

That obviously depends on how much weight you want to give to your own model and how much weight you want to give to the implied volatility derived from the option prices. If your model rocks then go with it and ignore the implied volatility numbers. Now you're rich. If you don't know how...

Better yet, they could pass their negotiated exchange fees on to the retail customer and offset it with higher commission costs that get added to the exchange fees. That keeps everything transparent even though the retail customer is paying the same amount. Whichever. From my point of view I...

Brilliant! You gotta love the magic of overfitting a curve. Fools the fools every time.

Yes, there is a flight out of most assets and into the US dollar. Since we are headed straight for a recession and even more unhappy electorate you can bet that quantitative easing (or whatever fancy term they want to apply for this decade) will be teed up next year.

"Specifically, Interactive Brokers failed to implement necessary changes to exchange fee schedules, and thus charged customers executing certain spread trades the non-member exchange fee applicable to outright trades." The fine print at Interactive Brokers claims they do something similar with...

If you know 100% then take 100% of your investment capital and buy without leverage. The math is simple. But you don't know 100% so can you give us some more details to keep this real?

Interactive Brokers claims to have negotiated volume discounts. There is no way the retail trader can know what that is.

They apparently charged customers exchange fees at a rate higher than what they actually owed the exchange. Oddly enough, the fine print at Interactive Brokers says that they do exactly that. They claim that the customer pays the rack rate regarding exchange fees, even if the actual fee is...

If someone chooses to lend and someone chooses to pay then what is the "scam"? Are you simply calling above X% a scam, or is there something more sophisticated?

The fees are determined by a market process (in theory). If you buy GME and then allow the broker to lend your shares you will get half the borrow fee at many brokerages. So imagine people buying GME just because it looks like such a great short and people are willing to pay them big to short...

Mark Cuban would agree with you about investing in companies adopting the technology instead of in crypto. But two blockchains have arrived at a special place: Bitcoin and Ethereum. Both of these now have a history much like gold and silver, investment grade baseball cards, famous art, ebay...

Most people miss the boat on most paradigm shifts in history. It is indeed stupid to even have this discussion in a public forum. Talking about it won't somehow make it different this time and cause people to suddenly see what is happening. They will only see it after the fact.