How to Succeed with Binary Options Trading at Home 2020

No gods, no kings, only NOPE - or divining the future with options flows. [Part 3: Hedge Winding, Unwinding, and the NOPE]

Hello friends!
We're on the last post of this series ("A Gentle Introduction to NOPE"), where we get to use all the Big Boy Concepts (TM) we've discussed in the prior posts and put them all together. Some words before we begin:
  1. This post will be massively theoretical, in the sense that my own speculation and inferences will be largely peppered throughout the post. Are those speculations right? I think so, or I wouldn't be posting it, but they could also be incorrect.
  2. I will briefly touch on using the NOPE this slide, but I will make a secondary post with much more interesting data and trends I've observed. This is primarily for explaining what NOPE is and why it potentially works, and what it potentially measures.
My advice before reading this is to glance at my prior posts, and either read those fully or at least make sure you understand the tl;drs:
https://www.reddit.com/thecorporation/collection/27dc72ad-4e78-44cd-a788-811cd666e32a
Depending on popular demand, I will also make a last-last post called FAQ, where I'll tabulate interesting questions you guys ask me in the comments!
---
So a brief recap before we begin.
Market Maker ("Mr. MM"): An individual or firm who makes money off the exchange fees and bid-ask spread for an asset, while usually trying to stay neutral about the direction the asset moves.
Delta-gamma hedging: The process Mr. MM uses to stay neutral when selling you shitty OTM options, by buying/selling shares (usually) of the underlying as the price moves.
Law of Surprise [Lily-ism]: Effectively, the expected profit of an options trade is zero for both the seller and the buyer.
Random Walk: A special case of a deeper probability probability called a martingale, which basically models stocks or similar phenomena randomly moving every step they take (for stocks, roughly every millisecond). This is one of the most popular views of how stock prices move, especially on short timescales.
Future Expected Payoff Function [Lily-ism]: This is some hidden function that every market participant has about an asset, which more or less models all the possible future probabilities/values of the assets to arrive at a "fair market price". This is a more generalized case of a pricing model like Black-Scholes, or DCF.
Counter-party: The opposite side of your trade (if you sell an option, they buy it; if you buy an option, they sell it).
Price decoherence ]Lily-ism]: A more generalized notion of IV Crush, price decoherence happens when instead of the FEPF changing gradually over time (price formation), the FEPF rapidly changes, due usually to new information being added to the system (e.g. Vermin Supreme winning the 2020 election).
---
One of the most popular gambling events for option traders to play is earnings announcements, and I do owe the concept of NOPE to hypothesizing specifically about the behavior of stock prices at earnings. Much like a black hole in quantum mechanics, most conventional theories about how price should work rapidly break down briefly before, during, and after ER, and generally experienced traders tend to shy away from playing earnings, given their similar unpredictability.
Before we start: what is NOPE? NOPE is a funny backronym from Net Options Pricing Effect, which in its most basic sense, measures the impact option delta has on the underlying price, as compared to share price. When I first started investigating NOPE, I called it OPE (options pricing effect), but NOPE sounds funnier.
The formula for it is dead simple, but I also have no idea how to do LaTeX on reddit, so this is the best I have:

https://preview.redd.it/ais37icfkwt51.png?width=826&format=png&auto=webp&s=3feb6960f15a336fa678e945d93b399a8e59bb49
Since I've already encountered this, put delta in this case is the absolute value (50 delta) to represent a put. If you represent put delta as a negative (the conventional way), do not subtract it; add it.
To keep this simple for the non-mathematically minded: the NOPE today is equal to the weighted sum (weighted by volume) of the delta of every call minus the delta of every put for all options chains extending from today to infinity. Finally, we then divide that number by the # of shares traded today in the market session (ignoring pre-market and post-market, since options cannot trade during those times).
Effectively, NOPE is a rough and dirty way to approximate the impact of delta-gamma hedging as a function of share volume, with us hand-waving the following factors:
  1. To keep calculations simple, we assume that all counter-parties are hedged. This is obviously not true, especially for idiots who believe theta ganging is safe, but holds largely true especially for highly liquid tickers, or tickers will designated market makers (e.g. any ticker in the NASDAQ, for instance).
  2. We assume that all hedging takes place via shares. For SPY and other products tracking the S&P, for instance, market makers can actually hedge via futures or other options. This has the benefit for large positions of not moving the underlying price, but still makes up a fairly small amount of hedges compared to shares.

Winding and Unwinding

I briefly touched on this in a past post, but two properties of NOPE seem to apply well to EER-like behavior (aka any binary catalyst event):
  1. NOPE measures sentiment - In general, the options market is seen as better informed than share traders (e.g. insiders trade via options, because of leverage + easier to mask positions). Therefore, a heavy call/put skew is usually seen as a bullish sign, while the reverse is also true.
  2. NOPE measures system stability
I'm not going to one-sentence explain #2, because why say in one sentence what I can write 1000 words on. In short, NOPE intends to measure sensitivity of the system (the ticker) to disruption. This makes sense, when you view it in the context of delta-gamma hedging. When we assume all counter-parties are hedged, this means an absolutely massive amount of shares get sold/purchased when the underlying price moves. This is because of the following:
a) Assume I, Mr. MM sell 1000 call options for NKLA 25C 10/23 and 300 put options for NKLA 15p 10/23. I'm just going to make up deltas because it's too much effort to calculate them - 30 delta call, 20 delta put.
This implies Mr. MM needs the following to delta hedge: (1000 call options * 30 shares to buy for each) [to balance out writing calls) - (300 put options * 20 shares to sell for each) = 24,000 net shares Mr. MM needs to acquire to balance out his deltas/be fully neutral.
b) This works well when NKLA is at $20. But what about when it hits $19 (because it only can go down, just like their trucks). Thanks to gamma, now we have to recompute the deltas, because they've changed for both the calls (they went down) and for the puts (they went up).
Let's say to keep it simple that now my calls are 20 delta, and my puts are 30 delta. From the 24,000 net shares, Mr. MM has to now have:
(1000 call options * 20 shares to have for each) - (300 put options * 30 shares to sell for each) = 11,000 shares.
Therefore, with a $1 shift in price, now to hedge and be indifferent to direction, Mr. MM has to go from 24,000 shares to 11,000 shares, meaning he has to sell 13,000 shares ASAP, or take on increased risk. Now, you might be saying, "13,000 shares seems small. How would this disrupt the system?"
(This process, by the way, is called hedge unwinding)
It won't, in this example. But across thousands of MMs and millions of contracts, this can - especially in highly optioned tickers - make up a substantial fraction of the net flow of shares per day. And as we know from our desk example, the buying or selling of shares directly changes the price of the stock itself.
This, by the way, is why the NOPE formula takes the shape it does. Some astute readers might notice it looks similar to GEX, which is not a coincidence. GEX however replaces daily volume with open interest, and measures gamma over delta, which I did not find good statistical evidence to support, especially for earnings.
So, with our example above, why does NOPE measure system stability? We can assume for argument's sake that if someone buys a share of NKLA, they're fine with moderate price swings (+- $20 since it's NKLA, obviously), and in it for the long/medium haul. And in most cases this is fine - we can own stock and not worry about minor swings in price. But market makers can't* (they can, but it exposes them to risk), because of how delta works. In fact, for most institutional market makers, they have clearly defined delta limits by end of day, and even small price changes require them to rebalance their hedges.
This over the whole market adds up to a lot shares moving, just to balance out your stupid Robinhood YOLOs. While there are some tricks (dark pools, block trades) to not impact the price of the underlying, the reality is that the more options contracts there are on a ticker, the more outsized influence it will have on the ticker's price. This can technically be exactly balanced, if option put delta is equal to option call delta, but never actually ends up being the case. And unlike shares traded, the shares representing the options are more unstable, meaning they will be sold/bought in response to small price shifts. And will end up magnifying those price shifts, accordingly.

NOPE and Earnings

So we have a new shiny indicator, NOPE. What does it actually mean and do?
There's much literature going back to the 1980s that options markets do have some level of predictiveness towards earnings, which makes sense intuitively. Unlike shares markets, where you can continue to hold your share even if it dips 5%, in options you get access to expanded opportunity to make riches... and losses. An options trader betting on earnings is making a risky and therefore informed bet that he or she knows the outcome, versus a share trader who might be comfortable bagholding in the worst case scenario.
As I've mentioned largely in comments on my prior posts, earnings is a special case because, unlike popular misconceptions, stocks do not go up and down solely due to analyst expectations being meet, beat, or missed. In fact, stock prices move according to the consensus market expectation, which is a function of all the participants' FEPF on that ticker. This is why the price moves so dramatically - even if a stock beats, it might not beat enough to justify the high price tag (FSLY); even if a stock misses, it might have spectacular guidance or maybe the market just was assuming it would go bankrupt instead.
To look at the impact of NOPE and why it may play a role in post-earnings-announcement immediate price moves, let's review the following cases:
  1. Stock Meets/Exceeds Market Expectations (aka price goes up) - In the general case, we would anticipate post-ER market participants value the stock at a higher price, pushing it up rapidly. If there's a high absolute value of NOPE on said ticker, this should end up magnifying the positive move since:
a) If NOPE is high negative - This means a ton of put buying, which means a lot of those puts are now worthless (due to price decoherence). This means that to stay delta neutral, market makers need to close out their sold/shorted shares, buying them, and pushing the stock price up.
b) If NOPE is high positive - This means a ton of call buying, which means a lot of puts are now worthless (see a) but also a lot of calls are now worth more. This means that to stay delta neutral, market makers need to close out their sold/shorted shares AND also buy more shares to cover their calls, pushing the stock price up.
2) Stock Meets/Misses Market Expectations (aka price goes down) - Inversely to what I mentioned above, this should push to the stock price down, fairly immediately. If there's a high absolute value of NOPE on said ticker, this should end up magnifying the negative move since:
a) If NOPE is high negative - This means a ton of put buying, which means a lot of those puts are now worth more, and a lot of calls are now worth less/worth less (due to price decoherence). This means that to stay delta neutral, market makers need to sell/short more shares, pushing the stock price down.
b) If NOPE is high positive - This means a ton of call buying, which means a lot of calls are now worthless (see a) but also a lot of puts are now worth more. This means that to stay delta neutral, market makers need to sell even more shares to keep their calls and puts neutral, pushing the stock price down.
---
Based on the above two cases, it should be a bit more clear why NOPE is a measure of sensitivity to system perturbation. While we previously discussed it in the context of magnifying directional move, the truth is it also provides a directional bias to our "random" walk. This is because given a price move in the direction predicted by NOPE, we expect it to be magnified, especially in situations of price decoherence. If a stock price goes up right after an ER report drops, even based on one participant deciding to value the stock higher, this provides a runaway reaction which boosts the stock price (due to hedging factors as well as other participants' behavior) and inures it to drops.

NOPE and NOPE_MAD

I'm going to gloss over this section because this is more statistical methods than anything interesting. In general, if you have enough data, I recommend using NOPE_MAD over NOPE. While NOPE in theory represents a "real" quantity (net option delta over net share delta), NOPE_MAD (the median absolute deviation of NOPE) does not. NOPE_MAD simply answecompare the following:
  1. How exceptional is today's NOPE versus historic baseline (30 days prior)?
  2. How do I compare two tickers' NOPEs effectively (since some tickers, like TSLA, have a baseline positive NOPE, because Elon memes)? In the initial stages, we used just a straight numerical threshold (let's say NOPE >= 20), but that quickly broke down. NOPE_MAD aims to detect anomalies, because anomalies in general give you tendies.
I might add the formula later in Mathenese, but simply put, to find NOPE_MAD you do the following:
  1. Calculate today's NOPE score (this can be done end of day or intraday, with the true value being EOD of course)
  2. Calculate the end of day NOPE scores on the ticker for the previous 30 trading days
  3. Compute the median of the previous 30 trading days' NOPEs
  4. From the median, find the 30 days' median absolute deviation (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_absolute_deviation)
  5. Find today's deviation as compared to the MAD calculated by: [(today's NOPE) - (median NOPE of last 30 days)] / (median absolute deviation of last 30 days)
This is usually reported as sigma (σ), and has a few interesting properties:
  1. The mean of NOPE_MAD for any ticker is almost exactly 0.
  2. [Lily's Speculation's Speculation] NOPE_MAD acts like a spring, and has a tendency to reverse direction as a function of its magnitude. No proof on this yet, but exploring it!

Using the NOPE to predict ER

So the last section was a lot of words and theory, and a lot of what I'm mentioning here is empirically derived (aka I've tested it out, versus just blabbered).
In general, the following holds true:
  1. 3 sigma NOPE_MAD tends to be "the threshold": For very low NOPE_MAD magnitudes (+- 1 sigma), it's effectively just noise, and directionality prediction is low, if not non-existent. It's not exactly like 3 sigma is a play and 2.9 sigma is not a play; NOPE_MAD accuracy increases as NOPE_MAD magnitude (either positive or negative) increases.
  2. NOPE_MAD is only useful on highly optioned tickers: In general, I introduce another parameter for sifting through "candidate" ERs to play: option volume * 100/share volume. When this ends up over let's say 0.4, NOPE_MAD provides a fairly good window into predicting earnings behavior.
  3. NOPE_MAD only predicts during the after-market/pre-market session: I also have no idea if this is true, but my hunch is that next day behavior is mostly random and driven by market movement versus earnings behavior. NOPE_MAD for now only predicts direction of price movements right between the release of the ER report (AH or PM) and the ending of that market session. This is why in general I recommend playing shares, not options for ER (since you can sell during the AH/PM).
  4. NOPE_MAD only predicts direction of price movement: This isn't exactly true, but it's all I feel comfortable stating given the data I have. On observation of ~2700 data points of ER-ticker events since Mar 2019 (SPY 500), I only so far feel comfortable predicting whether stock price goes up (>0 percent difference) or down (<0 price difference). This is +1 for why I usually play with shares.
Some statistics:
#0) As a baseline/null hypothesis, after ER on the SPY500 since Mar 2019, 50-51% price movements in the AH/PM are positive (>0) and ~46-47% are negative (<0).
#1) For NOPE_MAD >= +3 sigma, roughly 68% of price movements are positive after earnings.
#2) For NOPE_MAD <= -3 sigma, roughly 29% of price movements are positive after earnings.
#3) When using a logistic model of only data including NOPE_MAD >= +3 sigma or NOPE_MAD <= -3 sigma, and option/share vol >= 0.4 (around 25% of all ERs observed), I was able to achieve 78% predictive accuracy on direction.

Caveats/Read This

Like all models, NOPE is wrong, but perhaps useful. It's also fairly new (I started working on it around early August 2020), and in fact, my initial hypothesis was exactly incorrect (I thought the opposite would happen, actually). Similarly, as commenters have pointed out, the timeline of data I'm using is fairly compressed (since Mar 2019), and trends and models do change. In fact, I've noticed significantly lower accuracy since the coronavirus recession (when I measured it in early September), but I attribute this mostly to a smaller date range, more market volatility, and honestly, dumber option traders (~65% accuracy versus nearly 80%).
My advice so far if you do play ER with the NOPE method is to use it as following:
  1. Buy/short shares approximately right when the market closes before ER. Ideally even buying it right before the earnings report drops in the AH session is not a bad idea if you can.
  2. Sell/buy to close said shares at the first sign of major weakness (e.g. if the NOPE predicted outcome is incorrect).
  3. Sell/buy to close shares even if it is correct ideally before conference call, or by the end of the after-market/pre-market session.
  4. Only play tickers with high NOPE as well as high option/share vol.
---
In my next post, which may be in a few days, I'll talk about potential use cases for SPY and intraday trends, but I wanted to make sure this wasn't like 7000 words by itself.
Cheers.
- Lily
submitted by the_lilypad to thecorporation [link] [comments]

GE2020: The Roar of the Swing Voter

Hi everyone, this is my first ever post here.
I run a little website called The Thought Experiment where I talk about various issues, some of them Singapore related. And one of my main interests is Singaporean politics. With the GE2020 election results, I thought I should pen down my take on what us as the electorate were trying to say.
If you like what I wrote, I also wrote another article on the state of play for GE2020 during the campaigning period, as well as 2 other articles related to GE2015 back when it was taking place.
If you don't like what I wrote, that's ok! I think the beauty of freedom of expression is that everyone is entitled to their opinion. I'm always happy to get feedback, because I do think that more public discourse about our local politics helps us to be more politically aware as a whole.
Just thought I'll share my article here to see what you guys make of it :D
Article Starts Here:
During the campaigning period, both sides sought to portray an extreme scenario of what would happen if voters did not vote for them. The Peoples’ Action Party (PAP) warned that Singaporeans that their political opponents “might eventually replace the government after July 10”. Meanwhile, the Worker’s Party (WP) stated that “there was a real risk of a wipeout of elected opposition MPs at the July 10 polls”.
Today is July 11th. As we all know, neither of these scenarios came to pass. The PAP comfortably retained its super-majority in Parliament, winning 83 out of 93 elected MP seats. But just as in GE2011, another Group Representation Constituency (GRC) has fallen to the WP. In addition, the PAP saw its vote share drop drastically, down almost 9% to 61.2% from 69.9% in GE2015.
Singapore’s electorate is unique in that a significant proportion is comprised of swing voters: Voters who don’t hold any blind allegiance to any political party, but vote based on a variety of factors both micro and macro. The above extreme scenarios were clearly targeted at these swing voters. Well, the swing voters have made their choice, their roar sending 4 more elected opposition MPs into Parliament. This article aims to unpack that roar and what it means for the state of Singaporean politics going forward.
1. The PAP is still the preferred party to form Singapore’s Government
Yes, this may come across as blindingly obvious, but it still needs to be said. The swing voter is by its very definition, liable to changes of opinion. And a large factor that determines how a swing voter votes is their perception of how their fellow swing voters are voting. If swing voters perceive that most swing voters are leaning towards voting for the opposition, they might feel compelled to vote for the incumbent. And if the reverse is true, swing voters might feel the need to shore up opposition support.
Why is this so? This is because the swing voter is trying to push the vote result into a sweet spot – one that lies between the two extreme scenarios espoused by either side. They don’t want the PAP to sweep all 93 seats in a ‘white tsunami’. Neither do they want the opposition to claim so much territory that the PAP is too weak to form the Government on its own. But because each swing voter only has a binary choice: either they vote for one side or the other (I’m ignoring the third option where they simply spoil their vote), they can’t very well say “I want to vote 0.6 for the PAP and 0.4 for the Opposition with my vote”. And so we can expect the swing voter bloc to continue being a source of uncertainty for both sides in future elections, as long as swing voters are still convinced that the PAP should be the Government.
2. Voters no longer believe that the PAP needs a ‘strong mandate’ to govern. They also don’t buy into the NCMP scheme.
Throughout the campaign period, the PAP repeatedly exhorted voters to vote for them alone. Granted, they couldn’t very well give any ground to the opposition without a fight. And therefore there was an attempt to equate voting for the PAP as voting for Singapore’s best interests. However, the main message that voters got was this: PAP will only be able to steer Singapore out of the Covid-19 pandemic if it has a strong mandate from the people.
What is a strong mandate, you may ask? While no PAP candidate publicly confirmed it, their incessant harping on the Non-Constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) scheme as the PAP’s win-win solution for having the PAP in power and a largely de-fanged opposition presence in parliament shows that the PAP truly wanted a parliament where it held every single seat.
Clearly, the electorate has different ideas, handing Sengkang GRC to the WP and slashing the PAP’s margins in previous strongholds such as West Coast, Choa Chu Kang and Tanjong Pagar by double digit percentages. There is no doubt from the results that swing voters are convinced that a PAP supermajority is not good for Singapore. They are no longer convinced that to vote for the opposition is a vote against Singapore. They have realized, as members of a maturing democracy surely must, that one can vote for the opposition, yet still be pro-Singapore.
3. Social Media and the Internet are rewriting the electorate’s perception.
In the past, there was no way to have an easily accessible record of historical events. With the only information source available being biased mainstream media, Singaporeans could only rely on that to fill in the gaps in their memories. Therefore, Operation Coldstore became a myth of the past, and Chee Soon Juan became a crackpot in the eyes of the people, someone who should never be allowed into Parliament.
Fast forward to today. Chee won 45.2% of the votes in Bukit Batok’s Single Member Constituency (SMC). His party-mate, Dr. Paul Tambyah did even better, winning 46.26% of the votes in Bukit Panjang SMC. For someone previously seen as unfit for public office, this is an extremely good result.
Chee has been running for elections in Singapore for a long time, and only now is there a significant change in the way he is perceived (and supported) by the electorate. Why? Because of social media and the internet, two things which the PAP does not have absolute control over. With the ability to conduct interviews with social media personalities as well as upload party videos on Youtube, he has been able to display a side of himself to people that the PAP did not want them to see: someone who is merely human just like them, but who is standing up for what he believes in.
4. Reserved Election Shenanigans and Tan Cheng Block: The electorate has not forgotten.
Tan Cheng Bock almost became our President in 2011. There are many who say that if Tan Kin Lian and Tan Jee Say had not run, Tony Tan would not have been elected. In March 2016, Tan Cheng Bock publicly declared his interest to run for the next Presidential Election that would be held in 2017. The close result of 2011 and Tan Cheng Bock’s imminent candidacy made the upcoming Presidential Election one that was eagerly anticipated.
That is, until the PAP shut down his bid for the presidency just a few months later in September 2016, using its supermajority in Parliament to pass a “reserved election” in which only members of a particular race could take part. Under the new rules that they had drawn up for themselves, it was decreed that only Malays could take part. And not just any Malay. The candidate had to either be a senior executive managing a firm that had S$500 million in shareholders’ equity, or be the Speaker of Parliament or a similarly high post in the public sector (the exact criteria are a bit more in-depth than this, but this is the gist of it. You can find the full criteria here). And who was the Speaker of Parliament at the time? Mdm Halimah, who was conveniently of the right race (Although there was some hooha about her actually being Indian). With the extremely strict private sector criteria and the PAP being able to effectively control who the public sector candidate was, it came as no surprise that Mdm Halimah was declared the only eligible candidate on Nomination Day. A day later, she was Singapore’s President. And all without a single vote cast by any Singaporean.
Of course, the PAP denied that this was a move specifically aimed at blocking Tan Cheng Bock’s bid for the presidency. Chan Chun Sing, Singapore’s current Minister of Trade and Industry, stated in 2017 that the Government was prepared to pay the political price over making these changes to the Constitution.
We can clearly see from the GE2020 results that a price was indeed paid. A loss of almost 9% of vote share is very significant, although a combination of the first-past-the-post rule and the GRC system ensured that the PAP still won 89.2% of the seats in Parliament despite only garnering 61.2% of the votes. On the whole, it’s naught but a scratch to the PAP’s overwhelming dominance in Parliament. The PAP still retains its supermajority and can make changes to the Constitution anytime that it likes. But the swing voters have sent a clear signal that they have not been persuaded by the PAP’s rationale.
5. Swing Voters do not want Racial Politics.
In 2019, Heng Swee Keat, Singapore’s Deputy Prime Minister and the man who is next in line to be Prime Minister (PM) commented that Singapore was not ready to have a non-Chinese PM. He further added that race is an issue that always arises at election-time in Singapore.
Let us now consider the GE2015 results. Tharman Shanmugaratnam, Singapore’s Senior Minister and someone whom many have expressed keenness to be Singapore’s next PM, obtained 79.28% of the vote share in Jurong GRC. This was above even the current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who scored 78.63% in Ang Mo Kio GRC. Tharman’s score was the highest in the entire election.
And now let us consider the GE2020 results. Tharman scored 74.62% in Jurong, again the highest scorer of the entire election, while Hsien Loong scored 71.91%. So Tharman beat the current PM again, and by an even bigger margin than the last time. Furthermore, Swee Keat, who made the infamous comments above, scored just 53.41% in East Coast.
Yes, I know I’m ignoring a lot of other factors that influenced these results. But don’t these results show conclusively that Heng’s comments were wrong? We have an Indian leading both the current and future PM in both elections, but yet PAP still feels the need to say that Singapore “hasn’t arrived” at a stage where we can vote without race in mind. In fact, this was the same rationale that supposedly led to the reserved presidency as mentioned in my earlier point.
The swing voters have spoken, and it is exceedingly clear to me that the electorate does not care what our highest office-holders are in terms of race, whether it be the PM or the President. Our Singapore pledge firmly states “regardless of race”, and I think the results have shown that we as a people have taken it to heart. But has the PAP?
6. Voters will not be so easily manipulated.
On one hand, Singaporeans were exhorted to stay home during the Covid-19 pandemic. Contact tracing became mandatory, and groups of more than 5 are prohibited.
But on the other hand, we are also told that it’s absolutely necessary to hold an election during this same period, for Singaporeans to wait in long lines and in close proximity to each other as we congregate to cast our vote, all because the PAP needs a strong mandate.
On one hand, Heng Swee Keat lambasted the Worker’s Party, claiming that it was “playing games with voters” over their refusal to confirm if they would accept NCMP seats.
But on the other hand, Heng Swee Keat was moved to the East Coast GRC at the eleventh hour in a surprise move to secure the constituency. (As mentioned above, he was aptly rewarded for this with a razor-thin margin of just 53.41% of the votes.)
On one hand, Masagos Zulkifli, PAP Vice-Chairman stated that “candidates should not be defined by a single moment in time or in their career, but judged instead by their growth throughout their life”. He said this in defense of Ivan Lim, who appears to be the very first candidate in Singaporean politics to have been pushed into retracting his candidacy by the power of non-mainstream media.
But on the other hand, the PAP called on the WP to make clear its stand on Raeesah Khan, a WP candidate who ran (and won) in Sengkang GRC for this election, stating that the Police investigation into Raeesah’s comments made on social media was “a serious matter which goes to the fundamental principles on which our country has been built”.
On one hand, Chan Chun Sing stated in 2015, referring to SingFirst’s policies about giving allowances to the young and the elderly, “Some of them promised you $300 per month. I say, please don’t insult my residents. You think…. they are here to be bribed?”
On the other hand, the PAP Government has just given out several handouts under its many budgets to help Singaporeans cope with the Covid-19 situation. [To be clear, I totally approve of these handouts. What I don’t approve is that the PAP felt the need to lambast similar policies as bribery in the past. Comparing a policy with a crime is a political low blow in my book.]
I could go on, but I think I’ve made my point. And so did the electorate in this election, putting their vote where it counted to show their disdain for the heavy-handedness and double standards that the PAP has displayed for this election.
Conclusion
I don’t say the above to put down the PAP. The PAP would have you believe that to not support them is equivalent to not wanting what’s best for Singapore. This is a false dichotomy that must be stamped out, and I am glad to see our swing voters taking a real stand with this election.
No, I say the above as a harsh but ultimately supportive letter to the PAP. As everyone can see from the results, we all still firmly believe that the PAP should be the Government. We still have faith that PAP has the leadership to take us forward and out of the Covid-19 crisis.
But we also want to send the PAP a strong signal with this vote, to bring them down from their ivory towers and down to the ground. Enough with the double standards. Enough with the heavy-handedness. Singaporeans have clearly stated their desire for a more mature democracy, and that means more alternative voices in Parliament. The PAP needs to stop acting as the father who knows it all, and to start acting as the bigger brother who can work hand in hand with his alternative younger brother towards what’s best for the entire family: Singapore.
There is a real chance that the PAP will not listen, though. As Lee Hsien Loong admitted in a rally in 2006, “if there are 10, 20… opposition members in Parliament… I have to spent my time thinking what is the right way to fix them”.
Now, the PAP has POFMA at its disposal. It still has the supermajority in Parliament, making them able to change any law in Singapore, even the Constitution at will. We have already seen them put these tools to use for its own benefit. Let us see if the PAP will continue as it has always done, or will it take this opportunity to change itself for the better. Whatever the case, we will be watching, and we will be waiting to make our roar heard once again five years down the road.
Majulah Singapura!
Article Ends Here.
Here's the link to the actual article:
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2020/07/11/ge2020-the-roar-of-the-swing-vote
And here's the link to the other political articles I've written about Singapore:
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2020/07/07/ge2020-the-state-of-play/
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2015/09/10/ge2015-voting-wisely/
https://thethoughtexperiment.org/2015/09/05/expectations-of-the-opposition/
submitted by sharingan87 to singapore [link] [comments]

StockGlobal review

Overview:

The offshore FX and CFDs broker StockGlobal offers many trading accounts on the MetaTrader trading platform. The Marshell Islands-based Longsdale Capital LTD manages the StockGlobal brand. The trading conditions are high on each of the four trading accounts.
In this StockGlobal review, we will discuss other offerings and problems associated with this broker.
About StockGlobal:
The four accounts namely Bronze, Silver, Gold, and Platinum are offered by this broker with the initial investment ranging from $250 to $50000. Furthermore, the level of provided spreads ranges from 2.8 pips to 0.1 pips according to the chosen trading account. The leverage levels are fixed at 1:300 on all four accounts. The world's number one trading platform MetaTrader is offered by StockGlobal. The provided leverage is high and several traders will be attracted to these high leverages provided by StockGlobal. Such high leverage can cause harm to investments. The offered CFDs at StockGlobal are on FX pairs, shares, binary options, commodities, indexes, etc. As discussed in the opening and considering information on the broker's website the manager of StockGlobal, Longsdale Capital LTD, is situated in the Marshall Islands. Marshell Island is a very popular destination amongst the scam brokers. Also, the traders operating from this island do not follow any brokerage regulations and licensing required very little documentation. Also, such brokers are strictly banned in regulated markets like the EU, Japan, the US, and more. The safety and security of the investment made in StockGlobal by traders are prone to scam.
The StockGlobal is accused of scam by several online forums. Also, the Belgian local financial authority the Financial Services and Markets Authority issued warnings against the broker. The provided spreads of 2.8 pips on EUUSD FX pair is also considered high. Most of the regulated brokers provide spreads around 0.1 pips on Euro/Dollar FX pair. Furthermore, the website claims other trading conditions and a demo account provides different trading condition. This looks like a Ponzi scheme to attract traders. The offered MetaTrader platform is managed by another firm that also manages several other scam brokers.

Is StockGlobal scam or legit?

The broker is situated on Marshell Island, which is heaven for the scammer. The broker is also not regulated and doesn’t have a valid license. The offered trading conditions are designed in such a way that traders can be attracted. Overall the StockGlobal gives an impression of a forex scam broker.
submitted by fraudbrokers to u/fraudbrokers [link] [comments]

KONTOFX REVIEW

Overview:

The offshore FX and CFDs broker KONTOFX has its focus on binary trading options. It offers a number of binary assets for trading on an oversimplified trading platform. It also offers maximum leverage of a 1:200. Before considering this broker for trading please follow our scam broker KONTOFX review.

About the KONTOFX:

The broker offers binary options of more than 20 cryptocurrencies from popular Bitcoin to Ethereum and many more. The minimum investment of $250 is needed to start trading with KONTOFX. This minimum deposit is in accordance with the current market situation but several regulated brokers provide the same services at the cost of $ 5. The Estonian firm NTMT Transformatic Markets OU is the owner of KONTORFX and the operations are handled by Northside Business Centres located in Hungary. It has also another office located in Moscow, Russia that manages clients outside of the EU. To offer its services in the EU any Estonian firm required to be regulated by Finantsinspektsioon the local Financial Supervision Authority. When checked with Finantsinspektsioon there is no evidence of this broker’s registration.
The terms and conditions section of this brokers mentions that the broker is not bound to process withdrawal requests made by the traders. Meaning that the profits gained by the traders can not be withdrawn. This condition is utter nonsense as traders do trading to earn profit and use them as per their convenience.
The available spread at KONTOFX on bitcoin-us dollar pair is around $170 that is higher. On the contrary, the information on the website talks about low spreads at 0.6 pips. The offered leverage is up to the ratio of 1:200. When tried to test the provided trading platform we came across very few CFDs offered on binary options and not at all on other commodities. This means the broker is advertising itself falsely as the leader in binary and other commodities CFDs providers.
The payments are entertained only with cards and all other means of payments are unavailable. As mentioned earlier this broker does not provide world-leading MetaTrader platform. Instead offers to trade on some unproven web-based terminal. The fact of worry about this broker is, there is warning issued against it by the Financial Conduct Authority, UK.

Is KONTOFX legit or scam?

The offshore broker KONTOFX makes false claims every now and then. The terms and conditions of this broker are very strange. The broker KONTOFX is unregulated and unlicensed and has a high risk of fund loss. All in all this broker can be a potential Forex scam broker. Avoid it for the safety of your investments.
submitted by fraudbrokers to u/fraudbrokers [link] [comments]

Wall Street Week Ahead for the trading week beginning December 9th, 2019

Good Saturday morning to all of you here on wallstreetbets. I hope everyone on this sub made out pretty nicely in the market this past week, and is ready for the new trading week ahead.
Here is everything you need to know to get you ready for the trading week beginning December 9th, 2019.

What Trump does before trade deadline is the ‘wild card’ that will drive markets in the week ahead - (Source)

The Trump administration’s Dec. 15 deadline for new tariffs on China looms large, and while most strategists expect them to be delayed while talks continue, they don’t rule out the unexpected.
“That’s the biggest thing in the room next week. I don’t think he’s going to raise them. I think they’ll find a reason,” said James Pauslen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Group. But Paulsen said President Donald Trump’s unpredictable nature makes it really impossible to tell what will happen as the deadline nears.
“He’s the one off you’re never sure about. It’s not just tariffs. It could be damn near anything,” Paulsen said. “I think he goes out of his way to be a wild card.”
Just in the past week, Trump said he would put new tariffs on Brazil, Argentina and France. He rattled markets when he said he could wait until after the election for a trade deal with China.
Once dubbing himself “tariff man,” Trump reminded markets that he sees tariffs as a way of getting what he wants from an opponent, and traders were reminded tariffs may be around for a long time.
Trade certainly could be the most important event for markets in the week ahead, which also includes a Fed interest rate decision Wednesday and the U.K.’s election that could set the course for Brexit. If there’s no China deal, that could beat up stocks, send Treasury yields lower and send investors into other safe havens.
When Fed officials meet this week, they are not expected to change interest rates, but they are likely to discuss whether they believe their repo operations to drive liquidity in the short-term funding market are running smoothly, ahead of year end. Economic reports in the coming week include CPI inflation Wednesday, which could be an important input for the Fed.
Punt, but no deal As of Friday, the White House did not appear any closer to striking a deal with China, though officials say talks are going fine. Back in August, Trump said if there is no deal, Dec. 15 is the date for a new wave of tariffs on $156 billion in Chinese goods, including cell phones, toys and lap top computers.
Dan Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas, said it seems like a low probability there will be a deal in the coming week. “What the market is focused on right now is whether there’s going to be tariffs that to into effect on Dec. 15, or not. It’s being rated pretty binary,” said Clifton. “I think what’s happening here and the actions by China overnight looks like we’re setting up for a kick.”
China removed some tariffs from U.S. agricultural products Friday, and administration officials have been talking about discussions going fine.
Clifton said if tariffs are put on hold, it’s unclear for how long. “Those are going to be larger questions that have to be answered. This is really now about politics. Is it a better idea for the president to cut a deal without major structural reforms, or should he walk away? That’s the larger debate that has to happen after Dec. 15,” Clifton said. “I’m getting worried that some in the administration... they’re leaning toward no deal category.”
Clifton said Trump’s approval rating falls when the trade wars heat up, so that may motivate him to complete the deal with China even if he doesn’t get everything he wants.
Michael Schumacher, director of rates strategy at Wells Fargo, said his base case is for a trade deal to be signed in the next couple of months, but even so, he said he can’t entirely rule out another outcome. It would make sense for tariffs to be put on hold while talks continue.
“The tweeter-in-chief controls that one, ” said Schumacher. “That’s anybody’s guess...I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he suspends it for a few weeks. If he doesn’t, that’s a pretty unpleasant result. That’s risk off. That’s pretty clear.”
Because the next group of tariffs would be on consumer goods, economists fear they could hit the economy through the consumer, the strongest and largest engine behind economic growth.
Fed ahead The Fed has moved to the sidelines and says it is monitoring economic data before deciding its next move. Friday’s strong November jobs report, with 266,000 jobs added, reinforces the Fed’s decision to move to neutral for now.
So the most important headlines from its meeting this week could be about the repo market, basically the plumbing for the financial system where financial institutions fund themselves. Interest rates in that somewhat obscure market spiked in September. Market pros said the issue was a cash crunch in the short term lending market, made better when the Fed started repo operations.
The Fed now has multiple operations running over year end, and Schumacher said it has latitude to do more. Strategists expect there to be more pressure on the repo market as banks rein in operations to spruce up their balance sheets at year end.
“No one is going to come to the Fed and say you did too much in the year-end funding,” said Schumacher. “If repo happens to spike somewhat on one day, the Fed is going to hammer it the next day.”
Paulsen said the markets will be attuned to this week’s inflation numbers. Consumer inflation, the CPI is reported on Wednesday and producer prices are Thursday.
A pickup in inflation of any significance is one thing that could pull the Fed from the sidelines, and prod it to consider a rate hike.
“I think the inflation reports might start to get a little attention. Given the jobs numbers, the employment rate, growth picking up a little bit and a better tone in manufacturing. I do think if you get some hot CPI number, I don’t know if the Fed can ignore it,” he said. “Core CPI is 2.3%.” He said it would get noticed if it jumped to 2.5% or better.
The Fed’s inflation target is 2% but its preferred measure is the PCE inflation, and that remains under 2%.
Stocks were sharply higher Friday but ended the past week flattish. The S&P 500 was slightly higher, up 0.2% at 3,145, and the Dow was down 0.1% at 28,015. The Nasdaq was 0.1% lower, ending the week at 8,656.

This past week saw the following moves in the S&P:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL S&P TREE MAP FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

Major Indices for this past week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE MAJOR INDICES FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

Major Futures Markets as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE MAJOR FUTURES INDICES AS OF FRIDAY!)

Economic Calendar for the Week Ahead:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ECONOMIC CALENDAR FOR THE WEEK AHEAD!)

Sector Performance WTD, MTD, YTD:

(CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE WEEK-TO-DATE PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE MONTH-TO-DATE PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE 3-MONTH PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE 52-WEEK PERFORMANCE!)

Percentage Changes for the Major Indices, WTD, MTD, QTD, YTD as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

S&P Sectors for the Past Week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Major Indices Pullback/Correction Levels as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!

Major Indices Rally Levels as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Most Anticipated Earnings Releases for this week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Here are the upcoming IPO's for this week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Friday's Stock Analyst Upgrades & Downgrades:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!)

Reasons We Still Believe In December

It has been a rough start to the most wonderful month of them all, with the S&P 500 Index down each of the first two days of December. Don’t stop believing just yet, though.
Everyone knows December has usually been a good month for stocks, but what happened last year is still fresh in the minds of many investors. The S&P 500 fell 9.1% in December 2018 for the worst December since 1931. That sounds really bad, until you realize stocks fell 30% in September 1931, but we digress.
One major difference between now and last year is how well the global equities have been performing. Heading into December 2018, the S&P 500 was up 3.2% year to date, but markets outside of the United States were already firmly in the red, with many down double digits.
“We don’t think stocks are on the verge of another massive December sell off,” said LPL Financial Senior Market Strategist Ryan Detrick. “If my Cincinnati Bengals can win a game, anything is possible. However, we are quite encouraged by the overall participation we are seeing from various global stock markets this year versus last year, when the United States was about the only market in the green heading into December.”
Stocks have also overcome volatile starts to December recently. The S&P 500 was down four days in a row to start 2013 and 2017, but the gauge still managed to gain 2.4% and 1%, respectively, in those years.
As the LPL Chart of the Day shows, December has been the second-best month of the year for stocks going back to 1950. It is worth noting that it was the best month of the year before last year’s massive drop. Stocks have historically been strong in pre-election years as well, and December has never been lower two times in a row during a pre-election year. Given stocks fell in December 2015, bulls could be smiling when this month is wrapped up.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Could Impeachment Be Good for Investors?

Impeaching a President with the possibility of removal from office is by no means great for the country. However, it may not be so horrible for the stock market or investors if history is any guide. We first touched on this over two years ago here on the blog and now that much has transpired and the US House of Representatives is now proceeding with drafting articles of impeachment we figured it was a good time to revisit the history (albeit limited) of market behavior during presidential impeachment proceedings. The three charts below really tell the story.
During the Watergate scandal of Nixon’s second term the market suffered a major bear market from January 1973 to OctobeDecember 1974 with the Dow down 45.1%, S&P 500 down 48.2% and NASDAQ down 59.9%. Sure there were other factors that contributed to the bear market such as the Oil Embargo, Arab-Israeli War, collapse of the Bretton Woods system, high inflation and Watergate. However, shortly after Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 the market reached the secular bear market low on October 3 for S&P and NASDAQ and December 6 for the Dow.
Leading up to the Clinton investigations and through his subsequent impeachment and the acquittal by the Senate the market was on a tear as one of the biggest bull markets in history raged on. After the 1994 midterm elections when the Republicans took back control of both houses of Congress the market remained on a 45 degree upward trajectory except for a few blips and the shortest bear market on record that lasted 45 days and bottomed on August 31, 1998.
Clinton was impeached in December 1998 and acquitted in February 1999 as the market continued higher throughout his second term. Sure there were other factors that contributed to the late-1990s bull-run such as the Dotcom Boom, the Information Revolution, millennial fervor and a booming global economy, but Clinton’s personal scandal had little negative impact on markets.
It remains to be seen of course what will happen with President Trump’s impeachment proceeding and how the world and markets react, but the market continues to march on. If the limited history of impeachment proceedings of a US President in modern times (no offense to our 17th President Andrew Johnson) is any guide, the market has bounced back after the last two impeachment proceedings and was higher a year later. Perhaps it will be better to buy any impeachment dip rather than sell it.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #3!!)

Typical December Trading: Modest Strength Early, Choppy Middle and Solid Gains Late

Historically, the first trading day of December, today, has a slightly bearish bias with S&P 500 advancing 34 times over the last 69 years (since 1950) with an average loss of 0.02%. Tomorrow, the second trading day of December however, has been stronger, up 52.2% of the time since 1950 with an average gain of 0.08% and the third day is better still, up 59.4% of the time.
Over the more recent 21-year period, December has opened with strength and gains over its first seven trading days before beginning to drift. By mid-month all five indices have surrendered any early-month gains, but shortly thereafter Santa usually visits sending the market higher until the last day of the month and the year when last minute selling, most likely for tax reasons, briefly interrupts the market’s rally.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Odds Still Favor A Gain for Rest of December Despite Rough Start

Just when it was beginning to look like trade was heading in a positive direction, the wind changed direction again. Yesterday it was steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentina and today a deal with China may not happen as soon as previously anticipated. The result was the worst first two trading days of December since last year and the sixth worst start since 1950 for S&P 500. DJIA and NASDAQ are eighth worst since 1950 and 1971, respectively.
However, historically past weakness in early December (losses over the first two trading days combined) were still followed by average gains for the remainder of the month the majority of the time. DJIA has advanced 74.19% of the time following losses over the first two trading days with an average gain for the remainder of December of 1.39%. S&P 500 was up 67.65% of the time with an average rest of month gain of 0.84%. NASDAQ is modestly softer advancing 61.11% of the time during the remainder of December with an average advance of 0.30%.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #3!)

STOCK MARKET VIDEO: Stock Market Analysis Video for Week Ending December 6th, 2019

(CLICK HERE FOR THE YOUTUBE VIDEO!)

STOCK MARKET VIDEO: ShadowTrader Video Weekly 12.8.19

([CLICK HERE FOR THE YOUTUBE VIDEO!]())
(VIDEO NOT YET POSTED!)
Here are the most notable companies (tickers) reporting earnings in this upcoming trading week ahead-
  • $LULU
  • $COST
  • $THO
  • $AZO
  • $ADBE
  • $AVGO
  • $CIEN
  • $MDB
  • $CHWY
  • $SFIX
  • $AEO
  • $GME
  • $OLLI
  • $TOL
  • $PLCE
  • $UNFI
  • $PLAY
  • $ORCL
  • $HDS
  • $CONN
  • $MTN
  • $JT
  • $LOVE
  • $CMD
  • $PLAB
  • $DBI
  • $ROAD
  • $VRA
  • $CDMO
  • $LQDT
  • $TLRD
  • $TWST
  • $PHR
  • $NDSN
  • $MESA
  • $VERU
  • $DLHC
  • $BLBD
  • $OXM
  • $NX
  • $GNSS
  • $PHX
  • $GTIM
(CLICK HERE FOR NEXT WEEK'S MOST NOTABLE EARNINGS RELEASES!)
(CLICK HERE FOR NEXT WEEK'S HIGHEST VOLATILITY EARNINGS RELEASES!)
(CLICK HERE FOR MOST ANTICIPATED EARNINGS RELEASES FOR THE NEXT 5 WEEKS!)
Below are some of the notable companies coming out with earnings releases this upcoming trading week ahead which includes the date/time of release & consensus estimates courtesy of Earnings Whispers:

Monday 12.9.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR MONDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Monday 12.9.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR MONDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Tuesday 12.10.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR TUESDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Tuesday 12.10.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR TUESDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Wednesday 12.11.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR WEDNESDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Wednesday 12.11.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR WEDNESDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Thursday 12.12.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR THURSDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Thursday 12.12.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THURSDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Friday 12.13.19 Before Market Open:

([CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!]())
NONE.

Friday 12.13.19 After Market Close:

([CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!]())
NONE.

lululemon athletica inc. $229.38

lululemon athletica inc. (LULU) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.93 per share on revenue of $896.50 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.98 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 73% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for earnings of $0.90 to $0.92 per share on revenue of $880.00 million to $890.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 24.00% with revenue increasing by 19.91%. Short interest has increased by 9.8% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 16.0% from its open following the earnings release to be 26.0% above its 200 day moving average of $182.08. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, December 6, 2019 there was some notable buying of 927 contracts of the $260.00 call expiring on Friday, December 13, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 8.3% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 11.1% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Costco Wholesale Corp. $294.95

Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:15 PM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $1.70 per share on revenue of $37.43 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $1.74 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 78% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 5.59% with revenue increasing by 6.73%. Short interest has increased by 19.3% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 2.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 10.3% above its 200 day moving average of $267.50. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 there was some notable buying of 916 contracts of the $265.00 put expiring on Friday, December 27, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 3.7% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 3.6% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Thor Industries, Inc. $67.77

Thor Industries, Inc. (THO) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 6:45 AM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $1.23 per share on revenue of $2.30 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $1.30 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 69% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 16.89% with revenue increasing by 30.98%. Short interest has increased by 48.1% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 25.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 16.0% above its 200 day moving average of $58.44. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 there was some notable buying of 838 contracts of the $60.00 put expiring on Friday, December 20, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 10.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 7.6% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

AutoZone, Inc. -

AutoZone, Inc. (AZO) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 6:55 AM ET on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $13.69 per share on revenue of $2.76 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $14.02 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 76% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 1.63% with revenue increasing by 4.48%. Short interest has decreased by 13.7% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 1.1% from its open following the earnings release to be 8.9% above its 200 day moving average of $1,077.00. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. Option traders are pricing in a 5.5% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 5.6% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Adobe Inc. $306.23

Adobe Inc. (ADBE) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $2.26 per share on revenue of $2.97 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $2.30 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 74% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for earnings of approximately $2.25 per share. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 23.50% with revenue increasing by 20.51%. Short interest has increased by 44.6% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 11.2% from its open following the earnings release to be 9.1% above its 200 day moving average of $280.60. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Monday, November 25, 2019 there was some notable buying of 505 contracts of the $340.00 call expiring on Friday, December 20, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 3.9% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 3.8% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Broadcom Limited $316.05

Broadcom Limited (AVGO) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:15 PM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $5.36 per share on revenue of $5.76 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $5.47 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 69% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 7.27% with revenue increasing by 5.80%. Short interest has increased by 22.8% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 6.2% from its open following the earnings release to be 9.7% above its 200 day moving average of $288.21. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Thursday, December 5, 2019 there was some notable buying of 625 contracts of the $135.00 call expiring on Friday, January 15, 2021. Option traders are pricing in a 5.2% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 4.7% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Ciena Corporation $35.00

Ciena Corporation (CIEN) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 7:00 AM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.66 per share on revenue of $964.80 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.67 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 72% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for revenue of $945.00 million to $975.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 26.92% with revenue increasing by 7.28%. Short interest has increased by 66.6% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 9.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 11.0% below its 200 day moving average of $39.32. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, December 6, 2019 there was some notable buying of 1,156 contracts of the $36.00 put expiring on Friday, December 13, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 9.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 10.1% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

MongoDB, Inc. $131.17

MongoDB, Inc. (MDB) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.28 per share on revenue of $99.73 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.26) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 63% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for a loss of $0.29 to $0.27 per share on revenue of $98.00 million to $100.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 15.15% with revenue increasing by 53.47%. Short interest has increased by 15.2% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 16.3% from its open following the earnings release to be 5.1% below its 200 day moving average of $138.19. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 there was some notable buying of 970 contracts of the $210.00 call expiring on Friday, December 20, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 10.1% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 8.7% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Chewy, Inc. $24.95

Chewy, Inc. (CHWY) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:10 PM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.16 per share on revenue of $1.21 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.15) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 57% expecting an earnings beat. Short interest has increased by 40.7% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 14.6% from its open following the earnings release. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. The stock has averaged a 6.4% move on earnings in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Stitch Fix, Inc. $24.09

Stitch Fix, Inc. (SFIX) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.06 per share on revenue of $441.04 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.04) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 69% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for revenue of $438.00 million to $442.00 million. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 160.00% with revenue increasing by 20.43%. Short interest has increased by 30.9% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 41.7% from its open following the earnings release to be 2.4% below its 200 day moving average of $24.69. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Thursday, November 21, 2019 there was some notable buying of 1,000 contracts of the $13.00 put expiring on Friday, January 17, 2020. Option traders are pricing in a 20.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 18.9% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

DISCUSS!

What are you all watching for in this upcoming trading week?
I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and a great trading week ahead wallstreetbets.
submitted by bigbear0083 to wallstreetbets [link] [comments]

Some thoughts on originalism.

I was arguing with someone on the youtube comments... I have some thoughts. The original reply on Youtube was severely truncated because character limits meant I lost my comments and had to try a couple times. I'll expand a lot more here. I was also childishly accused of somethings, and I didn't want my efforts to go to waste.
For context: Someone was taking an absolutist stance on the firearms with the second amendment, and was quite angry that 2nd amendment doesn't get strict scrutiny protections, and felt like it should be expanded across the board. This reddit post is based on an adaption on the original, with additional expanded commentary in case anyone wants to join in.
Original youtube comments as follows:
Other person: How come we never get a judge like this on a second amendment case! A constitutional judge I don't believe it!!!!!
Me: well for one, the law is not clearly on one side. Religious rights get strict scrutiny protection. Gun rights get intermediate scrutiny.
other person: does the Second Amendment get treated that way because it's number two on the list and not number one? Or should strict scrutiny be observed across the board when it comes to any enumerated right?
Me: It does say well-regulated militia. and if the people are the militia, that means you do get to control who is in it and who gets a gun. Would you allow a psychotic person to have a gun? DC v. Heller said that people have a right to keep and bear arms, but that doesn't necessarily mean "a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner." Its generally given intermediate scrutiny, although that hasn't been spelled out.
other person: you need to get your dictionary out. And after you're done with that go get the Federalist Papers. Where the genius gentleman who wrote the declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights talk about what they meant when they wrote what they wrote. Then come back and talk to me. Liberal talking points mean nothing to me only facts.
I type out a huge wall of text that gets ignored, which was adapted into the meat and potatoes of this post
other person: 😂🤣😊🤣😊🤣😂🤣😊🤣😂🤣😂🤣😂yea ok. NO 😂🤣😂 TRY AGAIN😁😂🤣ILL B WAITING!😂🤣😂
me: absolute no rebuttal. too many emojis. Suggestive of a troll. Seeing as there is nothing to discuss, I'm done here.
other person: lol yea . No. You didn't read the Federalist Papers. And if you did. You obviously didn't understand what you read, and didn't use a dictionary either. So like I said try again!😂🤣😂 and oh yes I must be a bot because I don't agree with what you say! Liberals you guys are hilarious😂🤣😂
That triggered that part of me that insists on correcting everyone. now that I've copy pasted what was said so that I don't get accused of misrepresenting anything....
Arguing on the results
The first problem with originalism to me at least, seems to be that its used to support certain political stances, the stance comes first, rather than the law stuff. That can be said for pretty much any way of interpreting to some extent however. What I don't like is how there seems to be a premise of our opinions don't really matter, we should start with what it actually meant originally. And the pretense of true neutral on modern day politics, since we are going with the original intent of back then.
First step is showing that rights can be "limited." All rights are balanced against other rights. If my religion says I get to murder you just because, that doesn't excuse it. You have a right to not be murdered. The religion is not an excuse. Do not murder is a general thing we can all agree upon. There is a government interest in preventing murder. Another exception to free speech is defamation. You aren't allowed to spew false things to hurt someone, and hide behind free speech. So no right is absolute, despite what the law may say. Its absolute as far as tyrannical government intrusions. By creation of tort law, Did Congress a) abridge the right of free speech or b) such free speech right does not allow you to defame someone, because you are abusing speech to harm them, in such a way that is so unfair, it violates something big enough worth it. Ie Does free speech give you the right to defame someone else? If so, that means the person who you defamed must put up with defamation, the lies and reputation harm? Put another way, are you allowed to call anyone a pedophile/murdererapist regardless if its true? Its better to think of them as declarations of principles. It doesn't take too much effort to try to stretch out the rights and realize that they come into conflict at some point. Furthermore, due to 9th amendment, we get implied rights of a right to privacy and bodily autonomy, freedom of thought and conscience. it seems like one of the risks is forgetting the fact that just because it isn't written there, doesn't mean that it didn't matter to the original authors/framers. That would seem to possibly imply it was just a given. In a sense everything is a constitutional issue in that the question is why is the government doing this anyways and do they have the right to, due to the 9th and 10th. So there is nothing wrong with limiting in application a right. Its not that you don't have the right, its just that the right can be limited, not by the government, but necessarily because the absolute right goes against and overrides other rights. I reconcile the seemingly absolute right behind "Congress shall make no law..." with the reality that rights cannot be absolute. Because to him, originalism + second amendment => unlimited gun rights. So I attack the conclusion. It was the most immediate issue, and because attacking originalism is harder and longer.
First premise - there is a single original intent that encapsulates what everyone thought about it at the time, and that this truth is the ultimate, fundamental, original, historically correct interpretation/theory/answer. The natural consequence is to say that the only way to change that interpretation is through an amendment, or at least explicitly in statute. But that's quite difficult/impossible due to Gerrymandering. Scalia calculated that 4% of the population, distributed correctly could stop an amendment from being passed. So yes, we must obviously fix that, but that's another rabbit hole.
The framers were people, flawed people, politicians in fact. Since reasonable people can disagree, and they disagreed frequently, having genuine disagreements and difference of opinions, they would make compromises, and they did that frequently, since the disagreed a lot, including on big ticket items. See Federalist 1.
Thus like good politicians, they would invent a good enough compromise and kick the can down the road, and hope the system they said would be able to adapt and address it. That turned out to be false when it came to slavery. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were full of these compromises (Great Compromise, No prohibiting slave trade until 1808 and fugitive slave act, 3/5's compromise *shudders*, no export duties, yes import duties, interstate commerce clause only, no intrastate). They were nothing but compromises, such as the Bill of Rights.
It was a originally a political compromise offered by James Madison to get New York to ratify the constitution. Eventually, he realized there was more to it than that. It wasn't merely list of rights the people have and things the government can't do, but rather stood for the proposition that people have many rights, and that there are many things the government can't do, not just these. These were merely the ones that people were able to spell out through the amendment process.
Compromise definitionally means that there are 2 or more sides, and everyone isn't completely happy. That means that there are 2 or more threads of thought that go into it, sometimes independent and contradictory. And sometimes you find that there are potentially more than one theoretical underpinnings, but they didn't agree on which one, although both of them led to same spot. So as an originalist which one do you pick?
Holding that a single framer's opinion is the correct opinion, simply because they were the author, means saying that this person was right and the rest were wrong, and ignoring a whole bunch of other people, and somewhat arbitrarily saying the chosen one matters the most. I'd also remind you that sometimes there is no correct answer, in that there was no consensus or majority opinion. As in they agreed on the compromise, but there were no theoretical underpinnings they completely agreed upon, or at least the theoretical underpinnings they did at least partially agree upon, weren't as firm, thought out, or fully agreed upon. Due to this lack of super well thought out reasoning, when analyzing the constitution and laws, one must understand that something might just a placeholder answer for political expediency.
Furthermore, different people can pass the same law, the same text, and come away with differing interpretations, with the descendants of both sides telling themselves we agreed to the same thing. The most horrifying examples can be find in the road up to the civil war. Two fundamentally different halves were developing. One constitutional interpretation was right, and one was wrong. They couldn't both be right at the same time. And lets not kid ourselves, the only reason why a certain flavor of interpretation developed, was because it protected a certain "domestic" or "peculiar institution." So you either need some kind of reasoned principle to say we can exclude this mess, or you pick a certain side. But picking both sides individually presents their own sets of problems as well.
Premise 2 - we must be tightly bound to the original intent that people thought in the past because its correct and we must adhere regardless of everything else
I was trying to illustrate the problems with originalism, using Jefferson as an example.
*tangent incoming*
I actually really dislike Jefferson, not just because he was racist and owned slaves, but he pretended to be this dangerous liberal radical, and made (perhaps recklessly) a bold declaration that he had no intention of keeping or actually meant it. He setup a high bar for himself, and I get to hold him to that high bar. that's not presentism at all. Presentism is the historian's sin of apply our modern day values and harshly imposing them on their times with disregard for their contextual era that surrounded them and that they were born into. In fact, when you do that, Jefferson's evaluation becomes even worse, because he's the least excusable for being deeply racist out of ignorance. Such virtues and ideas existed at that point on the fringes, and he and his contemporaries were well aware of it. In fact, one of the view points of that time was that slaves were inferior because of the condition imposed on them, that the planter class (ie they themselves) did. This would stay as quiet personal admissions. All this out of the way, lets continue. He's not an honored figure because he was a racist slaveholder, he's honored because he put to pen and paper the principle of fundamental human equality, despite the fact that he nowhere lived up to that, politically or in his personal life (potential rape of Sally Hemmings. As a slave, could she even have consented? She was arguable always under duress). This same stuff applies to all the historical figures including the founding fathers, I just used Jefferson because I think he's overrated and this illustrates my point well.
What did Jefferson mean by "all men are created equal" in the Declaration of Independence. He excluded women, children, non-binary individuals (including George Washington who had Klinefelters syndrome and was XXY, for sake of simplicity sex = gender and men = XY, women = XX), the various native tribes, and Africans. We can tell that he was excluding most natives and Africans as nonhumans all of this from his writings (see Notes on Virginia) and behaviors. Jefferson was a huge racist, but we don't follow his actual original intent. For one, reconstruction amendments override him here, but secondly, we don't blindly follow the intent only. We extrapolate the important principle they got right, and try to apply it as best as possible to our modern context. That's why the Second Amendment doesn't apply to muskets only. That's why First Amendment protects this as speech.
Jefferson called the constitution a living document. Its living because its interpreted in different ways and open to change. So where are the parameters and boundaries of this. Who gets to determine the boundaries of the living constitution? Due to Marbury v Madison, right now, its the courts, so I rather have them be more open about their bias. I'd prefer the least amount of bias possible, but we shouldn't pretend that they aren't biased at all. But with originalism, even less people's thoughts counts. Why does only certain individuals' thoughts count, and who are these people? Well they are the chosen people because they were born white, male, into a wealthy family, with the right last names. Originalist is ridiculous because its so restrictive on who counts. They are dead. There ideas are valid, but originalism means they don't get examined on their own. The whole point of jurisprudence is to work through these complexities, and to reflect the historical nuances. The problem with originalism is that it doesn't allow for this, and assumes a certain narrative is true already, and which narrative is that? Whatever is determined to be the "original," which due to the fluid nature as described earlier, could be whichever one is politically expedient.
*tangent* I do however, agree that it shouldn't be overstretched because it would then break/tear. it does frustrate me that everything is a constitutional issue (not in the sense of why is the government doing this, how do they have the powepermission to do that), but in the fact that its gotten overstretched. Like on first impression, I had no clue that Roe v. Wade was a constitutional issue. I didn't know abortions were in there. (Yes I know there were privacy things too, but my point is still made)
But adhering to strict originalism means naturally accepting this baggage of bigotry from a previous time along with it. Or you can say that this baggage wasn't the essence of it, but these accidental characteristics were just as much part of the original intent, quite sadly. So you need some kind of limiting principle that allows you to dump the baggage of bigotry, which means not being originalist, or you throw out the strict originalist option out (as in we MUST adhere to the original intent as opposed to saying history is a useful guide, but we have no obligation to copy what they thought. If we are talking about a specific well-written statute, then there is less wiggle room, but that's not the case here, these were a lot more of declarations of principle.) Arguably, you can avoid dealing with this uncomfortable implications by saying this questions are worthless because 13th-15th amendments, but that's not really a good system then, if its that rigid, that you need an amendment to escape the racist views of the past view.
*tangent* here I go into the weeds of how one could be a super strict originalist and not be racist, more of a thought experiment and hypothetical.
While the 14th and 15th amendments could be argued to provide a principal, it depends on how much of a textualist you want to be. 14th amendment establishes the a principle of don't discriminate for dumb reasons, but it doesn't spell out any protected classes. Some may look to the 15th amendment, since they were passed around the same time by the same Congress with the same context. It spells out race, color, or previous condition of servitude. So it depends, but I think might point still stands. Its scary to think about it. I don't know anyone who would take it this far, but is there any principle stopping it from going this far? Luckily enough John Bingham the primary author of both the 14th and 15th can serve as a save, since his original intent was more better, in contrast to the compromises on the 14th and 15th amendments, which muzzled it and made it more muted/toned down than originally desired by some, including John Bingham and Charles Sumner. A lot of things are missing like a ban on poll taxes, literacy tests, grandfather clauses, nothing on naturalized citizens born overseas (for the nativists), also women's suffrage. But another racist originalist may consciously or not emphasize a more conservative author and hold that up as the original intent. Thankfully, these problems not addressed there were fixed later legislatively, but never on an amendment level, so it could be changed. I'd remind you, we have no equal protection clause on the federal level, its read to be implied in the 5th amendment due process clause, so uninterpreting out is possible since its implied. Maybe the equal protection clause should be amended to spell out protected categories, or maybe the solution is another ERA. But the fact that I'm going into the weeds has another implication... do we really want to be held back by the failures of the past?
I'm just going to mention briefly the subtext of conservatism in (Burke's sense) terms of tradition vs progressivism/revolution.
Originalism basically solidifies these long dead people's points of view unless specifically contradicted by statute, but even contradicting via statute wouldn't work entirely because how would you go about doing that for a constitutional issue? And the problem is that in the context of the Constitution, tradition, is just peer pressure from the dead, but on a constitutional level, this solidifies their points of view, and requires an amendment to change. Is that really a wise idea. I'd remind everyone that we had a long and bloody path that led up to war. Adopting this approach makes the law too clunky to adapt. So arguably, that means adopting racist points of view that contradicts the 14th amendments.
One of the compromise/balancing acts was the question of how much should the constitution be able to be changed? Keep in mind that its the scaffolding, the base structures and basic principles, and that's not something you want to change too often. For context, the Articles of Confederation required the assent of 9/13 states to do something, and unanimous 13/13 consent for other important things like amendments. The US Constitution requires a simple majority in both individuals Houses/Chambers of Congress, and the President to sign off, with a 2/3rds on both to override veto. The whole point of a republic is balance. Neither mob rule, nor tyranny of a dictator, popular sovereignty/majority rule, while still upholding minority rights and rule of law. It should be able to change with the times and reflect the people, but not too much, hence representatives and refinement. Fair laws created through a (representative) democratic process, and enforced and applied evenly in a way that actually makes sense. But if you are to go with originalism, that means that judges are to stick with the original (often bigoted) intent or more likely reconstitute/patch-together a modernish meaning and call it original, which is often a political issue. Originalism also means that judges inherently must be conservative, and cannot ever introduce a new interpretation or way of looking at the constitution, which can prevent necessary change, which then creates a need for more legislative changes or amendments to ensure the a functional government under the constitution. If this is a good or bad thing is neither here nor there, but I will say, its quite impossible because of stuff like gerrymandering.
This felt like I was typing something for something more than a mere reddit post off of something more than just mere youtube comments.
submitted by ilikedota5 to scotus [link] [comments]

‘They are us’ – an urgent, uncomfortable call to action

"By Morgan Godfery | Contributing writer March 13, 2020
A proper reckoning with March 15 2019 demands that we take up a generations-long struggle to destroy all the exclusions that make up our society and produce the conditions we know as racism. An essay by Morgan Godfery.
This work is made possible by Spinoff Members.

1

I was cleaning out the garage the other day and found an old Crusaders jersey. If I remember right it’s their team kit from 2005, the white knight sewn into the chest and the old Ford logo printed in the centre. The jersey itself is still as fresh as new paint, a novelty purchase from when we were passing through Christchurch on our way to Christmas in Oamaru. I was a year 9 in school and a Super 12 jersey was the kind of item you had, just so you could say you had one. This is about the same time it was still acceptable to whisper things like how the white players in the Crusaders were responsible for their team’s championship success, playing their footy with brains, and the problem with mid-table finishers like the Blues were too many brown boys who only knew how to throw their weight around.
I’m not quite white-passing, but my upper middle-class accent, generally preppy affect, and not-quite-pasty-not-quite-brown skin makes me ethnically ambiguous enough that people are happy to share their thoughts about big Polynesian units, Asian immigrants, Muslim terrorists, and the Jews. The first time I remember running into entirely casual racism was in Christchurch, on the way back from that Christmas in Oamaru, when a retail worker caught up with me on the street apologising for short-changing me in store. I didn’t realise or particularly care, but years later I thought about his apology. “Sorry, I just Jew-ed you”.
At the time it was nothing to me. In high school and later in my flat at Victoria that was just what people said. “Jewing” someone was a verb for ripping them off, taking an advantage, or just a way to give someone a bit of stick. In my experience it was especially popular with the Christ’s College boys, which probably has something to do with the city’s private schools inheriting their culture from Britain’s public schools. “A Jewish boy at a public school almost invariably had a bad time,” wrote Orwell in 1945. Things probably aren’t that much better in 2020. The other day I read an old mate – a private schooler too – on Facebook joking about how Jews are useless at sport.
I suspect for good liberals this is probably shocking. This isn’t language that ever sneaks through our circles. But outside of our cosy hermetic world words like coconut, boonga, fob, wog, gook, curry muncher, towelhead, the hundred variations on the N word, and “Jew” as more than a noun are common currency. The stains from that vocabulary seep into every part of the culture and society, and nothing much has ever been done to wash it out. The first time I remember encountering deliberate, menacing racism is on the rugby paddock when a white coach was yelling at my mate on the wing “run you BLACK bastard”. I thought about that moment when spectators in Christchurch were caught vilifying Fijian player Sake Aca in 2015, screaming from the stands “black cunt”.
Fandoms like to imagine their sports, multicultural rugby especially, as pure and independent realms (“a level playing field”) absent race, politics, or any disadvantage other than skill. It’s a seductive argument, I’ll concede that much, but it’s so self-evidently false it still surprises me every time someone insists on it earnestly. Sport? Not racist? In 2012 talkback callers and trolls went after then Blues coach Pat Lam and his family for the great crime of simply being Polynesian. In 2010 former All Black Andy Haden was put through the wringer for telling media the Crusaders only recruit a maximum three “darkies”, presumably to preserve the team’s famous brain-brawn balance.
Even in the laudatory histories New Zealand rugby was, and probably remains, a notorious nexus for down home conservatives, know-nothing administrators, and out and out racists. In 1960 the rugby union sent the All Blacks on tour to Apartheid South Africa, waving the team off without any Māori players or officials in a remarkable sop to the country’s colour bar. In 1976 the national team were sent back, this time defying international calls to cut sporting ties with the racist state. In protest at the tour more than twenty African countries led a boycott at that year’s Olympics, a moral stand that should perpetually shame New Zealand Rugby. Not racist? As if.
In an ideal world the Canterbury Crusaders would study this history, carefully considering whether their decision to retain the team name is another brick in rugby’s wall of shame. The managers might consider how “deus vult”, meaning God wills it, a battle cry from the first Crusade, and “Acre 1189”, a reference to a siege in the third Crusade, are URL shorthands and postscripts for white supremacist users constructing a historiography for their neo-fascist movement. The managers might also reflect on how real-life white supremacists in countries like Brazil, Norway, and Australia are adopting the Knights Templar, the Christian warrior monks who made up the crusading hordes, and the literal white knight that was formerly the Canterbury team’s logo, as their saints.
📷
CRUSADERS MASCOTS AT AMI STADIUM IN CHRISTCHURCH IN 2019. PHOTO: DAVID ROGERS/GETTY IMAGES. FEATURE IMAGE: FRIDAY PRAYERS AT AL NOOR MOSQUE ON MARCH 22, 2019. PHOTO BY SANKA VIDANAGAMA/NURPHOTO VIA GETTY IMAGES
As it happens the team’s managers, after kicking the issue to a “market research” firm shortly after March 15, made the call to save the name. It’s an unconscionable decision, for obvious reasons, but the team bosses seem cognitively incapable of reasoning through the issue and its implications beyond mere “branding”. In a statement announcing the name-stay the team’s PR people wrote “for us, the Crusaders name is a reflection of the crusading spirit of this community,” as if it’s possible to just reframe the holy war using a press release. It’s a cretinous thing to do when not even a year earlier an alleged shooter undertook a massacre at the Al Noor and Linwood mosques as part of his own “crusade”.
A28-year-old man is before the High Court facing 52 murder charges relating to the events of March 15. What we know about his life is little, save the things he was curating about himself online, which in this essay I treat with caution and scepticism. But it seems clear enough the Australian citizen was an obsessive for the Crusades, scribbling references to the religious war for the Holy Land across the weapon police accuse the man of using to carry out the massacre. Investigative reports note in his pilgrimage to Europe the 28-year-old – who pleaded not guilty to all charges – made particular visits to Christian-Muslim battlegrounds in the former Ottoman Empire, apparently as a tribute to the crusading warmongers he was so keen to match.
To outsiders the obsession with this particular historical episode is probably bizarre, if not creepy. But in the nether world this man and his neo-fascist comrades inhabit they imagine they’re acting out the thesis and title in Samuel P Huntington’s The Clash of Civilisations. In his 1993 essay the American political scientist argues that in the immediate past global conflicts were between warring ideological factions – capitalism and communism – but post-Cold War conflict will centre between clashing civilisations. The West vs the rest. Christianity vs Islam. The Crusades II.
In Huntington’s telling, and in the alleged shooter’s head, the West and the Islamic world are fated to compete. Yet that competition won’t centre over economic issues like stable oil supply lines, or even political issues like the territorial integrity of Western allies in the Middle East, instead the clash is meant to happen over Islam’s apparently regressive values and the West’s progressive tradition. It’s a striking thesis, especially for the generals and politicians who were hunting for cover for their military adventures in the Middle East and East Africa in the late 80s and early 90s. But it was always a notion that was impossible to apply, reducing the Islamic world to a series of stereotypes (it never had its enlightenment) and setting it against an equally reductive West (it did have its enlightenment).
The late Edward Said, the Palestinian scholar, cut right to the heart of Huntington’s argument in identifying it wasn’t an argument at all – rather, he was “a partisan, an advocate of one so-called civilisation over all others” who maps billions of people into “vague” and “manipulable” abstractions and then presents it as a true account of the world. “Thus to build a conceptual framework around the notion of us-versus-them is in effect to pretend that the principal consideration is epistemological and natural – our civilisation is now and accepted, theirs is different and strange – whereas in fact the framework separating us from them is belligerent, constructed, and situational.”
In other words, the thing separating the Christian us from the Islamic them, to the extent a clean separation is possible at all, is history – of colonialism, of Cold War power politics – and not immutable categories like “the West” or “the East”. That the categories exist at all are a function of history and political convenience, not a universal law stipulating conflict as the only end. Yet for the neo-fascists like the alleged shooter every thought they cherish orbits this particular rock: that the entire Islamic world is one dirty blob of terrorism, rape, and invasion, and that all its more than one billion members act with a single purpose and co-ordination unknown in the entire history of humanity.
But why commit to a dichotomy so obviously stupid at all? The 28-year-old grew up in Grafton, a waterway town in northern New South Wales, and in his time on the Eastern seaboard it seems unlikely he ever actually met many Muslim people at all. In his own family’s account they were just ordinary Aussies. It’s impossible to interrogate the claim – every family thinks itself the norm and we can’t penetrate their private lives to investigate how true it is – yet the family were probably ordinary in one sense. They were unremarkable. Just another white family. The alleged shooter’s parents were in traditional jobs. Mum a teacher. Dad a rubbish man.
The people who were closest to him – cousins, old school mates – pinpoint his OE to Europe as “the moment”. As RNZ reports in his manifesto the alleged shooter recounts his trip through North Korea and Pakistan, paying tribute to the locals’ kindness and hospitality (noticing the contradiction he explains he doesn’t hate the yellows and blacks who stay in their own “homelands”). Eventually he lands in Europe, road tripping France. In one passage he despairs that he can’t seem to find an all-white town or city. In another passage his travels take him, quite conveniently, to a cemetery for the European dead of the world wars. “I broke into tears, sobbing alone in the car,” he writes, mourning the apparent Islamification of Europe. “Why were we allowing these soldiers deaths to be in vain?”
He didn’t realise that the dead he mourned died trying to kill people like him.
In 2018 I wrote (presciently, without claiming too much credit for an insight this awful) that “white nationalism is, for the basement dwelling 4chaners, mouth breathing Redditors, and Youtube philosopher kings, nothing more than a desperate search for an alternative fatherland”. That search is what drove the alleged shooter from his Australian home. “The origin of my language is European, my culture is European, my political beliefs are European… most importantly, my blood is European”. To the alleged shooter his actual home was irredeemable. “What is an Australian but a drunk European?”
In each claim is a desperate narcissism, reaching for an imaginary identity when your existing accomplishments don’t match your personal ambitions. It’s tempting to extend that psychoanalysis. The alleged shooter’s fetish for imaginary “whites” is a cover for the trauma of being a nothing, disembodied. Or maybe the urge to order and rank the world into competing civilisations is a neurosis, like stacking your knives and forks in a row. Perhaps the pleasure he takes in trolling is jouissance, a momentary transgression in the service of briefly feeling. Yet those readings are weightless if they stand alone. The alleged shooter’s interior life is relevant, certainly so for a conviction on murder, but studying the actually existing politics that shaped his positions and actions seems more important than base speculation.
In The Invention of Tradition the historians Terence Ranger and Eric Hobsbawm argue that traditions, far from the ancient wisdoms of old, are often nothing more than recent beliefs that help foster a common identity when – to borrow from Said – “organic solidarities” like the family or village break down. The inventions are easy to spot in the courts and parliament where British ritual connects the two institutions to a pedigree and past that their move half away across the world broke. In the neo-fascist movement the inventions are slightly more subtle, taking actual historical happenings like the Crusades and pick-and-mixing the symbols (Knights Templar), battles (Acre 1189), and language (deus vult) that they can contort around the various anti-Muslim bigotries.
The idea that traditions are a kind of stand-in where old connections break down seems especially apt in settler colonies where the relationship to the past and a present community often amounts to nothing more than a shopping list of shared habits and references. Gumboots as culture. I appreciate that description could come across as banal, or even malicious, but it gets close to the impulses apparently guiding the alleged shooter: the search for meaningful political connections and political community. As he saw it Australia had no identity to offer. Instead he found his connection in an “imagined community” – in violent European nationalisms – and online.
“I am a racist”, the man writes in his manifesto. His neo-fascists comrades were too.

2

One of the first inspirations he cites is Luca Traini, a 28-year-old Italian neo-Nazi who, with a 9mm glock, went on a drive-by shooting injuring six African migrants in Macarata in 2018. The racist rampage lit a fuse under that year’s Italian general election. The left went after Matteo Salvini, the League Party leader, the same party in which Traini stood as a mayoral list candidate, for inspiring his violent work. In an ordinary election a political leader would make an immediate climb down, condemning Traini and his crimes. But Salvini, best known in the English-speaking world for closing harbours to refugees crossing the Med, was surprisingly consistent. He said the left had “blood on its hands” for packing the country with “illegal migrants”. The unspoken implication: Traini was doing his patriotic duty.
The alleged shooter, watching on from another hemisphere, found a brother in arms. The two men had built their identities around all the same hatreds and had clothed their boogeymen in all the same threads. One stitch for migrant “invaders”. Two stiches for liberals and Marxists, and a needle for the “race traitors” among them. But where the twin gunmen’s hatred really met, transforming from online big noting to a real-life passion, was in protecting “their” women. Traini undertook his crime as an apparent act of revenge against the three Nigerian refugees in court for killing 18-year-old Pamela Mastropietro.
In his manifesto the alleged shooter offers a similar provocation, taking 11-year-old Ebba Akerlund’s death as his red pill. In his self-mythologising, the Stockholm truck attack, a deadly terrorist attack that took Akerlund’s and four other lives, was his waking moment. “It was another terror attack in the seemingly never-ending attacks that had been occurring on a regular basis throughout my adult life,” he wrote. “But for some reason this was different”. What was that difference? Akerlund. An innocent. It’s a vile misuse – he doesn’t care for anyone or anything beyond himself – but the narrative demands an affect, the shooter turning in his coward’s rags for a knight’s armour.
For neo-fascists it’s essential to tell their origin stories through the opposite sex. For aspiring movement leaders like the alleged shooter it’s the fight to protect the “virtue” of “our women” against “Muslim rapists” that forces their hand. For lurkers, shitposters, and like-avores it’s the feminists and “Staceys” who never recognise the genius and vigour of their own race (plain meaning: “women don’t want me”) who lead them into fascism. Santa Barbara shooter Elliot Rodger, a martyr for beta males, undertook his crimes and suicide as an apparent act of “retribution” against women for denying him the sex and love he thought of as his by right.
This, not the customary declarations of love for the race, or even the thrill of sharing the same enemies, is usually the heart of online fascism – it’s a reaction against women.
In Male Fantasies the German sociologist Klaus Theweleit argues the fascist men who fought against the Weimar Republic from 1918 to 1933, and who went on to prominent positions and a political home in the Nazi regime, were in their heads and hearts afraid of women. For the “Freikorps” there were two womanly classes: White Women, “the nurses” representing order and servitude to men and country; and Red Women, “the communists” representing disorder, whoring, and the end of patriotic men. The latter were the women the paramilitary movement were under an obligation to kill. In one speech a general complains that when “a few old girls get blown up the whole world starts screaming about bloodthirsty soldiers”.
“As if women were always innocent,” he said.
This is why every fascist movement purges women first – metaphorically and actually. In Ruth Ben-Ghiat’s Italian Fascism’s Empire Cinema the American historian describes how films under the Duce’s regime “remove the Italian woman from the colonial space”, portraying the colonies as where men might find purpose through trans-national thuggery, and attacking women’s emancipation at home as a “corrupting” force and a check on the people’s success. The alleged shooter undertook his killings with similar illusions. That he could forge a new identity in gun fire and blood, and that liberated women (and Jews) were responsible for his personal and racial decline. In his manifesto the opening line is “it’s the birth rates”, repeated three times.
📷
THE WELLINGTON 15/3 VIGIL HELD AT THE BASIN RESERVE (PHOTO BY ELIAS RODRIGUEZ/GETTY IMAGES)
It’s easy to diagnose the same pathologies in his comrades. Game developers Zoë Quinn, Brianna Wu and media critic Anita Sarkeesian – the victims in 2014’s Gamergate troll – were made targets for harassment for no other reason than they were women crossing the border between a man’s stuff (the spacies) and a woman’s role (sex and housework). In New Zealand the death threats against Golriz Ghahraman, our first MP who arrived in New Zealand as a refugee, are so frequent Parliamentary Services ensures special protection for the Green MP. The critics go after Ghahraman for everything from fakery (her “CV” is a lie, she isn’t a “real refugee”) to acting as part of a globalist conspiracy to wipe out the white race. It’s impressively stupid, of course, but the point isn’t the truth in the charges. It’s that an Iranian-born woman sits in our parliament.
The same trolls go for the prime minister on Twitter’s #TurnArdern hashtag too, condemning Jacinda as a lazy woman (#parttimePM) who coasts along on nothing more than her femininity (“she’s a pretty communist”). That’s hardly out of the ordinary, of course. In the 2000s print commentators were comfortable enough to throw equally chauvinist slurs at Helen Clark, using “Helengrad” for Clark as the controlling woman and “political dominatrix” for ball-breaking the men around her. The difference is today’s trolls serve their sexism with Islamophobia on top. Last year activist Rangi Kemara found a telling correlation between tweeters of Turn Ardern and tweeters of Islamophobia. The Christchurch man selling MAGA hats – “Make Ardern Go Away” – on TradeMe once wrote he would destroy “mosque after mosque till I am taken out”.
Give me the misogynist, to corrupt an old saying, and I’ll show you the Islamophobe.
Simone Weil, the French philosopher, would recognise in the turn to Europe – and the turn against women – a classic “uprooting”. In almost every country material comfort and security often rely on cutting the cord between a person, the past, and a present community: removing Indigenous people from their land; separating citizens from their homes and families in one place for work in another; and reducing people to their supposedly “innate” categories (race, gender, etc). These uprootings, in Weil’s words, are a “sickness of the soul” that leave men especially vulnerable to demagoguery. In their search for past and present connections they turn to “false conceptions” like patriotism and national greatness, and at the core of each in 2020: hatred for and fear of women.

3

What’s notable about this neo-fascist movement isn’t necessarily its reach but its mode. Online, yes, but more importantly: politically free. Other than finance, the alleged shooter had no political or bureaucratic restraints. He could post all the tell-tale things he apparently did, and it seemed neither the police nor the spy agencies would ever flag it. He could acquire the semi-automatic weapon the Crown charge him with using with nothing more than a gun licence – and the seller was under no obligation to log the purchase. And he could move between Australia and New Zealand’s practically open borders with only a passport and a straight face for the eGate.
I hope you register the irony in this. Borders were the very thing the alleged shooter was desperate to enforce against the Muslim hordes. After moving to New Zealand, ostensibly to plan an attack back home, the 28-year-old found instead that “the invaders were in all of our lands”. Even at the bottom of the world in formerly lily-white Christchurch. “Nowhere was safe”, he wrote. The alleged shooter, in a bonfire of pomposity and self-regard, actually did think himself at the centre of a civilisational struggle between the out-bred West and Islam. In the mind of the manifesto writer, massacring Muslims would enforce the borders the supposed sell outs in government wouldn’t.
But in allegedly killing the innocent people he did he wasn’t taking on a powerful soon-to-be majority. Rather, on one side is the 28-year-old with all his political and social freedoms, and on the other are the shooting’s victims who were living their lives under significant political and social restraints. The spy agencies were dedicating their resources to “Islamic terrorism”, not the alleged shooter’s terrorism. Police commit more resources to “street gangs” – that is, Māori – and barely even bother with the alleged shooter’s brothers and sisters in white power. The immigration department, as any anecdote can confirm, focuses disproportionate attention on non-white entries, and the only people who move freely between borders are people like the 28-year-old.
In short: non-white people live their lives under scrutiny and surveillance.
The government’s official response to the Christchurch shooting is to extend that scrutiny and surveillance to, well, white people. Jacinda Ardern is leading reforms to gun laws and the rules governing how online users share violent, racist, and other objectionable material. Last month the country’s top spies told a parliamentary select committee that they’re keeping watch on dozens of suspect characters. Police, even a year on, are still making home visits to destroy illegal weapons and otherwise interview lurkers and posters. The changes, taken together, rightly remove the freedom and options the alleged shooter had, and make it almost impossible for his comrades to organise.
Yet as good and necessary as those changes are some of the structural conditions that produce the racial distinctions the alleged shooter holds so dear are left intact.
In organised debating one of the famous moots is the “balloon debate”. In it each speaker, usually arguing on behalf of someone famous, proposes why the others shouldn’t toss him or her over the side of a hot air balloon in order to save the others. It’s a riveting hypothetical, placing six people in disaster’s mouth and exercising the collective choice to doom one and rescue the others. But for anyone who understands how it feels to have their apparent merits and demerits subject to “debate”, with someone else drawing up a balance sheet in red and black, it’s horrendous. The idea is we’re born equal, but after that all bets are off. This is what women, takatāpui, Māori, Muslims, and other deviations from the “norm” deal with most days.
Are we worthy?
It’s the same principle that organises immigration to New Zealand: who’s worthy? In our system the government literally attaches “points” to the world’s hopeful according to their potential for improving the lives of the hosts. Good English? Points. A tertiary qualification? Add to the tally. Assets? You’re basically in. The system’s political champions admire this approach for its rationality. Unlike the US where immigration sometimes relies on a lottery – eg the American Diversity Immigrant Visa – or just keen racism – i.e. the Muslim travel ban – New Zealand immigration is hassle-free and non-discriminatory.
It’s a self-serving argument, of course, because an immigration system where the purpose and function is defining inclusions and exclusions (who’s in and who’s out) is never neutral. When Winston Peters calls for tighter English language requirements, for example, that’s really an argument for conferring an advantage on applicants from the Anglosphere over people with equivalent skills or greater need from other parts of the world. This isn’t explicitly discriminatory, at least in the sense the exclusionary threshold doesn’t depend on a person’s race, but the impact is racist in that one group of people (mostly white) enjoy an advantage over another group (mostly non-white) thanks to nothing more than the great good fortune of being born an English speaker.
It’s a perversity. Yet this is what border systems, including our points system, do: they force you to think about inners and outers. The threshold between the worthy and the unworthy. This is one reason the refugee-led campaign to end the “family link policy” was so important. In removing the rule barring African and Middle Eastern refugees from settling in New Zealand (unless their family were already here) the campaigners saw to one of the worst racial exclusions our border system made. If you’re an optimist you might hope the other racist exclusions in our border laws – like The Citizenship (Western Samoa) Act, the legislation stripping Samoans of their Privy Council-confirmed New Zealand citizenship – are but a campaign away from abolition.
I’m a pessimist.
I suspect most people imagine borders as objects, a line in the ground demarcating our country from theirs. Yet the American southern border, as one example, is notable more for “the Wall’s” absence than its presence. The northern border is even less dramatic, a largely wide-open space with fences here and there to pen in the farm animals. In New Zealand airlines usually enforce the country’s borders thousands of kilometres from our actual line on the map. Under the Advance Passenger Screening programme carriers only board passengers with the appropriate documentation.
📷
A POLICE OFFICER DEMONSTRATES ILLEGAL GUN MODIFICATIONS. (PHOTO: RNZ / ANA TOVEY)
It’s another marvellous technocratic achievement, appointing airline staff as de facto border patrol agents. But like the points system the screening programme’s impacts can end up perverse and racial making it almost impossible for refugees and asylum seekers from “non-visa waiver countries” (i.e. the developing world) from ever making it far enough to lodge a claim for protection in New Zealand. The programme, more than anything else, exposes borders for what they really are – a list of biased inclusions and exclusions – and the structural violence borders perform are in whom they include (the English-speaking, the educated, the wealthy) and who they exclude (the desperate, the poor, the mostly brown and black).
The alleged shooter and the neo-fascist movement understand a struggle is happening over the nature and function of borders. This man recognised new borders – the “balkanisation of the US” – as the only way to guarantee “the future of the White race on the North American continent”. His comrades, like the neo-Nazi who went on a stabbing riot on a train in Oregon, claim their end goal is smashing the US into competing ethno-states. For them – and their king in President Trump – reconfiguring the borders, whether as policy changes to the inclusions and exclusions or new border lines entirely, is the best way to guarantee their political supremacy this century.
Are borders by their very nature racist?

4

I took my last trip to Christchurch a month and a half after March 15. I had a speaking engagement with Network Waitangi Otautahi, the local tauiwi Treaty group. I thought about putting it off. Post-March 15 the only conversations that seem urgent and necessary are about March 15. Taking up space felt wrong, and even stepping off the plane felt intrusive. The city was grieving. Even the affect was off. People were unusually quiet in public spaces. In private one person I spoke to was literally in tears. We weren’t talking about March 15 at all but she was thinking about it every day. Even that felt like I was taking up space. Am I here to grieve too? I thought about Sam Neill breaking down in a taxi when the news broke, openly weeping, and how he took comfort from his Muslim driver.
Hmmm.
I spoke, in the end. Not entirely comfortably, but an intervention of one kind or another felt right after the racism debate went from “individual hate” to “firearms access” to “the internet”. Each is its own valid connection, sure, but it felt as if all the most important connections were missing. In the English-speaking world it’s fashionable to name private, individual acts as “racist”. The intolerant, unfair, or simply racial things that fall out of people’s mouths. Like “cheeky darkies” on the 7pm telly. But it’s unfashionable, of course, to name racist systems. Instead bureaucrats and opinion-makers opt for euphemisms like “unconscious bias”, reducing racism to a state of mind and not a systemic design.
This is why I thought it important to issue a reminder, in the very small way that I could: racism is a social relation. It’s the principle governing the relationship between coloniser – the people who took this land and built the institutions to control and profit from it – and colonised, the people from whom the land was taken and the institutions built to protect and exploit the founding theft. The same principle shapes the relationship between citizens – people who enjoy all the rights the state confers – and non-citizens, outsiders who must prove their worth through their contribution to citizens.
📷
These are the systemic conditions that produce racism – unequal power relations – and it’s what makes it so easy to condemn the Māoris or the immigrants or whoever else. When one people are up and the other are down, and the scales are apparently resistant to any remedial attempts to balance them with Treaty settlements or an increase in the refugee and asylum seeker quota, it makes it seem as if their disadvantage is a state of nature and not a centuries-long project to exclude certain people from prosperity. To the alleged shooter his victims were by their very nature irredeemable, abusing the West’s generosity, and he understood himself as enacting the same permanent exclusions his ancestors made, from the Crusades to the war on terror.
In this sense, the alleged shooter was an individual racist. Of course he was. But in another sense he was taking our exclusionary systems to their logical end.
Is there any response to savagery like this? The government’s reforms are one. I entirely support them. And yet they fall so short. People will still define their identity in different nationalisms, just like the alleged shooter did, so long as there are racist border system to enforce them. Neo-fascists will still define their identities against women as long as there is an unequal “domestic sphere”, an unequal workplace, and a society where one group – men – accumulate and exercise disproportionate power over another – women, trans people, non-binary people. That makes the struggle against the alleged shooter’s politics longer than his trial, his probable conviction, and his probable imprisonment. It’s a generations-long struggle to destroy all the exclusions that make up our society and produce the conditions we know as racism.
On my read Simone Weil’s original, vital insight is that as people and communities we find our identities in the obligations we owe – and in the obligations owed to us. In those reciprocal relationships we find meaning and purpose. In the give and take, in its delights and frustrations, and in the everyday work of making a home in these islands. This is where we find our roots, connecting to each other in different ways – whether as Māori or women or Muslims – but never excluding. “They are us” is an inclusion. They are us is an affirmation. They are us is also an urgent and uncomfortable call to action. As New Zealanders, it’s our responsibility to take on every exclusionary system, whether it’s racist borders or enduring gender roles. The memory of those who lost their lives on March 15 demands no less."
submitted by lolpolice88 to Maori [link] [comments]

A LOT of red flags: why I wouldn't touch DX.exchange with a 10-ft pole

DX.exchange sounds pretty cool. Who wouldn't want tokenized stocks? Hell, maybe one day I could even use them as collateral for a MakerDAO CDP, right?
I had an open mind when I started poking around DX.exchange. I like the idea. I want a project like this to succeed. Hell, they even got media coverage from CNBC and Bloomberg so they must be legit, right?

But its full of red flags. Here's a TL/DR:
Obscure legal structure
I get that sometimes crypto businesses need to use unusual legal structures to stay compliant but theirs is particularly weird. On their website it states that stocks come from "Market Place Securities MPS Ltd,Cyprus Investment firm regulated by CySEC" and DX is registered in Estonia. All of the employees are based in Israel except their CEO who is based in London.
So if something goes wrong and you want to take legal action... Well good luck as they're distributed into at least 4 different countries. (This isn't what we meant when we said we want decentralization.)

Fudging information about the number of employees
The About Us section on their website claims they have "over 70 R&D engineers". So I went to their LinkedIn page to verify that figure: screenshot. As you can see, they have only 32 employees including very few engineers. Most appear to be marketing people. Almost all of the employees are based in Israel. Not Estonia or Cyprus. Many of them don't even reference DX.exchange as their primary job.

'Digital stocks' traded on DX are issued by MPS, which used to be SpotOption, a company banned from operating Binary options trading in Israel that was raided by the FBI.
Another redditor pointed this out a few days ago. If you look closely on their website, it states "Digital Stocks are provided by Market Place Securities MPS Ltd,Cyprus Investment firm regulated by CySEC, license number 170/12. " Here's the corresponding page on CySEC's website. You'll see that MPS used to be SpotOption but changed their name.
When this was brought up about a week ago, a representative of DX replied:
Dx.Exchange is not associated to SpotOption in any way.
In our Israeli branch we have hired some former spotoption employees, but also hired many more from the banking industry and online industry in all our business divisions.
...
In regards to MPS Marketplace Technologies ltd., it is our understanding that MPS has done an agreement with the defunct Spotoption group to obtain their market maker license. We have done our due diligence and found MPS comply with all regulations, therefore we were comfortable forming the partnership with MPS.
So let's unpack that: MPS technologies used to be SpotOption. DX claims the only link between SpotOption and DX is that MPS 'obtained' a market maker license from Spotoption (as opposed to getting their own market maker license...). Oh, and DX hired some SpotOption employees.
Interestingly, when I looked up DX employees on LinkedIn, the CEO of 'MPS Exchange' showed up, and apparently before he was CEO of MPS Exchange, he was CEO of 'Spot Capital', another company in Cyprus with a name that is surprisingly similar to 'SpotOptions'.
Also, MPS' website, mps.exchange is using the same DDoS mitigation as DX.exchange: Whois for MPS. Whois for DX and both used Domain Privacy Protection which is fine for your personal blog. Not so fine for a cryptocurrency exchange.
All of that is circumstantial evidence, but it sure is piling on. I'm sure that beyond the things I found here, there's absolutely no links between all of these companies. /s
Major security breach
Dan Goodin at Ars Technica is a reputable tech/security journalist. In this article about DX.exchange he writes:
When [a whistleblower's] browser sent DX.Exchange a request, it included an extremely long string of characters, called an authentication token, which is supposed to be a secret the site requires when a user accesses her account. For some unexplained reason, DX.Exchange was sending responses that, while valid, included all kinds of extraneous data. When the trader sifted through the mess, he found that the responses DX.Exchange was sending to his browser contained a wealth of sensitive data, including other users’ authentication tokens and password-reset links.
...
anyone with possession of a token can gain unauthorized access to an affected account...
Data and funds were at risk. I'd call that a major security breach. It's also quite possible that someone other than the whistleblower has stockpiled all that data. Per Dan Goodin, it's also probable that administrator credentials got leaked.
Dan Goodin really ripped these guys a new one:
Ars notified DX.Exchange officials of the leak on Tuesday afternoon. Eight hours later, a member of the site’s security team responded to ask for more details. A few hours later, officials announced a site maintenance update, but even after the site came back online, the leak continued. A little after 8am Pacific Time on Wednesday, the security team member emailed to say the bug had been fixed and thanked Ars for bringing it to his attention. A brief analysis by Ars appeared to confirm the leak was plugged.
The site official offered the following statement:
The bug was immediately identified and suppressed the minute [we] received Ars Technical [sic] professional feedback. DX is in a Soft Launch, where we got some unexpected and positive mass attention from news media all over the world. Due to the high volume of interest in our platform and heavy signups, we discovered some bugs, most are fixed, few are going under examination right now. We are confident to be able to fix them all and finalize our launch in the shortest time.
Ars sent a response asking if DX.Exchange planned to reset all user tokens or passwords and to notify users that a leak exposed their names and email addresses. So far, the officials have yet to respond.
Clearly, the bug was not "immediately identified and suppressed" but rather was live for almost half a day. Goodin identifies additional security holes in his article. Read it if you're curious.
So there you have it: they're running a cryptocurrency exchange with Mt. Gox-level security. There's a massive risk to any funds you deposit there.
There's a ton more red flags that I spotted but didn't include and tbh I haven't even dug that deep yet. Also, I'd like some transparency from CNBC and Bloomberg as to how/why they publicized this obvious scam exchange.
edit: fixed screenshot and 2 links
submitted by Priest_of_Satoshi to ethtrader [link] [comments]

Wall Street Week Ahead for the trading week beginning December 9th, 2019

Good Saturday morning to all of you here on StockMarket. I hope everyone on this sub made out pretty nicely in the market this past week, and is ready for the new trading week ahead.
Here is everything you need to know to get you ready for the trading week beginning December 9th, 2019.

What Trump does before trade deadline is the ‘wild card’ that will drive markets in the week ahead - (Source)

The Trump administration’s Dec. 15 deadline for new tariffs on China looms large, and while most strategists expect them to be delayed while talks continue, they don’t rule out the unexpected.
“That’s the biggest thing in the room next week. I don’t think he’s going to raise them. I think they’ll find a reason,” said James Pauslen, chief investment strategist at Leuthold Group. But Paulsen said President Donald Trump’s unpredictable nature makes it really impossible to tell what will happen as the deadline nears.
“He’s the one off you’re never sure about. It’s not just tariffs. It could be damn near anything,” Paulsen said. “I think he goes out of his way to be a wild card.”
Just in the past week, Trump said he would put new tariffs on Brazil, Argentina and France. He rattled markets when he said he could wait until after the election for a trade deal with China.
Once dubbing himself “tariff man,” Trump reminded markets that he sees tariffs as a way of getting what he wants from an opponent, and traders were reminded tariffs may be around for a long time.
Trade certainly could be the most important event for markets in the week ahead, which also includes a Fed interest rate decision Wednesday and the U.K.’s election that could set the course for Brexit. If there’s no China deal, that could beat up stocks, send Treasury yields lower and send investors into other safe havens.
When Fed officials meet this week, they are not expected to change interest rates, but they are likely to discuss whether they believe their repo operations to drive liquidity in the short-term funding market are running smoothly, ahead of year end. Economic reports in the coming week include CPI inflation Wednesday, which could be an important input for the Fed.
Punt, but no deal As of Friday, the White House did not appear any closer to striking a deal with China, though officials say talks are going fine. Back in August, Trump said if there is no deal, Dec. 15 is the date for a new wave of tariffs on $156 billion in Chinese goods, including cell phones, toys and lap top computers.
Dan Clifton, head of policy research at Strategas, said it seems like a low probability there will be a deal in the coming week. “What the market is focused on right now is whether there’s going to be tariffs that to into effect on Dec. 15, or not. It’s being rated pretty binary,” said Clifton. “I think what’s happening here and the actions by China overnight looks like we’re setting up for a kick.”
China removed some tariffs from U.S. agricultural products Friday, and administration officials have been talking about discussions going fine.
Clifton said if tariffs are put on hold, it’s unclear for how long. “Those are going to be larger questions that have to be answered. This is really now about politics. Is it a better idea for the president to cut a deal without major structural reforms, or should he walk away? That’s the larger debate that has to happen after Dec. 15,” Clifton said. “I’m getting worried that some in the administration... they’re leaning toward no deal category.”
Clifton said Trump’s approval rating falls when the trade wars heat up, so that may motivate him to complete the deal with China even if he doesn’t get everything he wants.
Michael Schumacher, director of rates strategy at Wells Fargo, said his base case is for a trade deal to be signed in the next couple of months, but even so, he said he can’t entirely rule out another outcome. It would make sense for tariffs to be put on hold while talks continue.
“The tweeter-in-chief controls that one, ” said Schumacher. “That’s anybody’s guess...I wouldn’t be at all surprised if he suspends it for a few weeks. If he doesn’t, that’s a pretty unpleasant result. That’s risk off. That’s pretty clear.”
Because the next group of tariffs would be on consumer goods, economists fear they could hit the economy through the consumer, the strongest and largest engine behind economic growth.
Fed ahead The Fed has moved to the sidelines and says it is monitoring economic data before deciding its next move. Friday’s strong November jobs report, with 266,000 jobs added, reinforces the Fed’s decision to move to neutral for now.
So the most important headlines from its meeting this week could be about the repo market, basically the plumbing for the financial system where financial institutions fund themselves. Interest rates in that somewhat obscure market spiked in September. Market pros said the issue was a cash crunch in the short term lending market, made better when the Fed started repo operations.
The Fed now has multiple operations running over year end, and Schumacher said it has latitude to do more. Strategists expect there to be more pressure on the repo market as banks rein in operations to spruce up their balance sheets at year end.
“No one is going to come to the Fed and say you did too much in the year-end funding,” said Schumacher. “If repo happens to spike somewhat on one day, the Fed is going to hammer it the next day.”
Paulsen said the markets will be attuned to this week’s inflation numbers. Consumer inflation, the CPI is reported on Wednesday and producer prices are Thursday.
A pickup in inflation of any significance is one thing that could pull the Fed from the sidelines, and prod it to consider a rate hike.
“I think the inflation reports might start to get a little attention. Given the jobs numbers, the employment rate, growth picking up a little bit and a better tone in manufacturing. I do think if you get some hot CPI number, I don’t know if the Fed can ignore it,” he said. “Core CPI is 2.3%.” He said it would get noticed if it jumped to 2.5% or better.
The Fed’s inflation target is 2% but its preferred measure is the PCE inflation, and that remains under 2%.
Stocks were sharply higher Friday but ended the past week flattish. The S&P 500 was slightly higher, up 0.2% at 3,145, and the Dow was down 0.1% at 28,015. The Nasdaq was 0.1% lower, ending the week at 8,656.

This past week saw the following moves in the S&P:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL S&P TREE MAP FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

Major Indices for this past week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE MAJOR INDICES FOR THE PAST WEEK!)

Major Futures Markets as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE MAJOR FUTURES INDICES AS OF FRIDAY!)

Economic Calendar for the Week Ahead:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE FULL ECONOMIC CALENDAR FOR THE WEEK AHEAD!)

Sector Performance WTD, MTD, YTD:

(CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE WEEK-TO-DATE PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE MONTH-TO-DATE PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE 3-MONTH PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE YEAR-TO-DATE PERFORMANCE!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE 52-WEEK PERFORMANCE!)

Percentage Changes for the Major Indices, WTD, MTD, QTD, YTD as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

S&P Sectors for the Past Week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Major Indices Pullback/Correction Levels as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!

Major Indices Rally Levels as of Friday's close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Most Anticipated Earnings Releases for this week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Here are the upcoming IPO's for this week:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Friday's Stock Analyst Upgrades & Downgrades:

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!)

Reasons We Still Believe In December

It has been a rough start to the most wonderful month of them all, with the S&P 500 Index down each of the first two days of December. Don’t stop believing just yet, though.
Everyone knows December has usually been a good month for stocks, but what happened last year is still fresh in the minds of many investors. The S&P 500 fell 9.1% in December 2018 for the worst December since 1931. That sounds really bad, until you realize stocks fell 30% in September 1931, but we digress.
One major difference between now and last year is how well the global equities have been performing. Heading into December 2018, the S&P 500 was up 3.2% year to date, but markets outside of the United States were already firmly in the red, with many down double digits.
“We don’t think stocks are on the verge of another massive December sell off,” said LPL Financial Senior Market Strategist Ryan Detrick. “If my Cincinnati Bengals can win a game, anything is possible. However, we are quite encouraged by the overall participation we are seeing from various global stock markets this year versus last year, when the United States was about the only market in the green heading into December.”
Stocks have also overcome volatile starts to December recently. The S&P 500 was down four days in a row to start 2013 and 2017, but the gauge still managed to gain 2.4% and 1%, respectively, in those years.
As the LPL Chart of the Day shows, December has been the second-best month of the year for stocks going back to 1950. It is worth noting that it was the best month of the year before last year’s massive drop. Stocks have historically been strong in pre-election years as well, and December has never been lower two times in a row during a pre-election year. Given stocks fell in December 2015, bulls could be smiling when this month is wrapped up.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Could Impeachment Be Good for Investors?

Impeaching a President with the possibility of removal from office is by no means great for the country. However, it may not be so horrible for the stock market or investors if history is any guide. We first touched on this over two years ago here on the blog and now that much has transpired and the US House of Representatives is now proceeding with drafting articles of impeachment we figured it was a good time to revisit the history (albeit limited) of market behavior during presidential impeachment proceedings. The three charts below really tell the story.
During the Watergate scandal of Nixon’s second term the market suffered a major bear market from January 1973 to OctobeDecember 1974 with the Dow down 45.1%, S&P 500 down 48.2% and NASDAQ down 59.9%. Sure there were other factors that contributed to the bear market such as the Oil Embargo, Arab-Israeli War, collapse of the Bretton Woods system, high inflation and Watergate. However, shortly after Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974 the market reached the secular bear market low on October 3 for S&P and NASDAQ and December 6 for the Dow.
Leading up to the Clinton investigations and through his subsequent impeachment and the acquittal by the Senate the market was on a tear as one of the biggest bull markets in history raged on. After the 1994 midterm elections when the Republicans took back control of both houses of Congress the market remained on a 45 degree upward trajectory except for a few blips and the shortest bear market on record that lasted 45 days and bottomed on August 31, 1998.
Clinton was impeached in December 1998 and acquitted in February 1999 as the market continued higher throughout his second term. Sure there were other factors that contributed to the late-1990s bull-run such as the Dotcom Boom, the Information Revolution, millennial fervor and a booming global economy, but Clinton’s personal scandal had little negative impact on markets.
It remains to be seen of course what will happen with President Trump’s impeachment proceeding and how the world and markets react, but the market continues to march on. If the limited history of impeachment proceedings of a US President in modern times (no offense to our 17th President Andrew Johnson) is any guide, the market has bounced back after the last two impeachment proceedings and was higher a year later. Perhaps it will be better to buy any impeachment dip rather than sell it.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #3!!)

Typical December Trading: Modest Strength Early, Choppy Middle and Solid Gains Late

Historically, the first trading day of December, today, has a slightly bearish bias with S&P 500 advancing 34 times over the last 69 years (since 1950) with an average loss of 0.02%. Tomorrow, the second trading day of December however, has been stronger, up 52.2% of the time since 1950 with an average gain of 0.08% and the third day is better still, up 59.4% of the time.
Over the more recent 21-year period, December has opened with strength and gains over its first seven trading days before beginning to drift. By mid-month all five indices have surrendered any early-month gains, but shortly thereafter Santa usually visits sending the market higher until the last day of the month and the year when last minute selling, most likely for tax reasons, briefly interrupts the market’s rally.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Odds Still Favor A Gain for Rest of December Despite Rough Start

Just when it was beginning to look like trade was heading in a positive direction, the wind changed direction again. Yesterday it was steel and aluminum tariffs on Brazil and Argentina and today a deal with China may not happen as soon as previously anticipated. The result was the worst first two trading days of December since last year and the sixth worst start since 1950 for S&P 500. DJIA and NASDAQ are eighth worst since 1950 and 1971, respectively.
However, historically past weakness in early December (losses over the first two trading days combined) were still followed by average gains for the remainder of the month the majority of the time. DJIA has advanced 74.19% of the time following losses over the first two trading days with an average gain for the remainder of December of 1.39%. S&P 500 was up 67.65% of the time with an average rest of month gain of 0.84%. NASDAQ is modestly softer advancing 61.11% of the time during the remainder of December with an average advance of 0.30%.
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #1!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #2!)
(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART LINK #3!)

STOCK MARKET VIDEO: Stock Market Analysis Video for Week Ending December 6th, 2019

(CLICK HERE FOR THE YOUTUBE VIDEO!)

STOCK MARKET VIDEO: ShadowTrader Video Weekly 12.8.19

([CLICK HERE FOR THE YOUTUBE VIDEO!]())
(VIDEO NOT YET POSTED!)
Here are the most notable companies (tickers) reporting earnings in this upcoming trading week ahead-
  • $LULU
  • $COST
  • $THO
  • $AZO
  • $ADBE
  • $AVGO
  • $CIEN
  • $MDB
  • $CHWY
  • $SFIX
  • $AEO
  • $GME
  • $OLLI
  • $TOL
  • $PLCE
  • $UNFI
  • $PLAY
  • $ORCL
  • $HDS
  • $CONN
  • $MTN
  • $JT
  • $LOVE
  • $CMD
  • $PLAB
  • $DBI
  • $ROAD
  • $VRA
  • $CDMO
  • $LQDT
  • $TLRD
  • $TWST
  • $PHR
  • $NDSN
  • $MESA
  • $VERU
  • $DLHC
  • $BLBD
  • $OXM
  • $NX
  • $GNSS
  • $PHX
  • $GTIM
(CLICK HERE FOR NEXT WEEK'S MOST NOTABLE EARNINGS RELEASES!)
(CLICK HERE FOR NEXT WEEK'S HIGHEST VOLATILITY EARNINGS RELEASES!)
(CLICK HERE FOR MOST ANTICIPATED EARNINGS RELEASES FOR THE NEXT 5 WEEKS!)
Below are some of the notable companies coming out with earnings releases this upcoming trading week ahead which includes the date/time of release & consensus estimates courtesy of Earnings Whispers:

Monday 12.9.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR MONDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Monday 12.9.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR MONDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Tuesday 12.10.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR TUESDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Tuesday 12.10.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR TUESDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Wednesday 12.11.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR WEDNESDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Wednesday 12.11.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR WEDNESDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Thursday 12.12.19 Before Market Open:

(CLICK HERE FOR THURSDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Thursday 12.12.19 After Market Close:

(CLICK HERE FOR THURSDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!)

Friday 12.13.19 Before Market Open:

([CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S PRE-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!]())
NONE.

Friday 12.13.19 After Market Close:

([CLICK HERE FOR FRIDAY'S AFTER-MARKET EARNINGS TIME & ESTIMATES!]())
NONE.

lululemon athletica inc. $229.38

lululemon athletica inc. (LULU) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Wednesday, December 11, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.93 per share on revenue of $896.50 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.98 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 73% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for earnings of $0.90 to $0.92 per share on revenue of $880.00 million to $890.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 24.00% with revenue increasing by 19.91%. Short interest has increased by 9.8% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 16.0% from its open following the earnings release to be 26.0% above its 200 day moving average of $182.08. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, December 6, 2019 there was some notable buying of 927 contracts of the $260.00 call expiring on Friday, December 13, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 8.3% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 11.1% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Costco Wholesale Corp. $294.95

Costco Wholesale Corp. (COST) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:15 PM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $1.70 per share on revenue of $37.43 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $1.74 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 78% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 5.59% with revenue increasing by 6.73%. Short interest has increased by 19.3% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 2.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 10.3% above its 200 day moving average of $267.50. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 there was some notable buying of 916 contracts of the $265.00 put expiring on Friday, December 27, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 3.7% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 3.6% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Thor Industries, Inc. $67.77

Thor Industries, Inc. (THO) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 6:45 AM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $1.23 per share on revenue of $2.30 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $1.30 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 69% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 16.89% with revenue increasing by 30.98%. Short interest has increased by 48.1% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 25.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 16.0% above its 200 day moving average of $58.44. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, December 3, 2019 there was some notable buying of 838 contracts of the $60.00 put expiring on Friday, December 20, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 10.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 7.6% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

AutoZone, Inc. -

AutoZone, Inc. (AZO) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 6:55 AM ET on Tuesday, December 10, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $13.69 per share on revenue of $2.76 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $14.02 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 76% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 1.63% with revenue increasing by 4.48%. Short interest has decreased by 13.7% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 1.1% from its open following the earnings release to be 8.9% above its 200 day moving average of $1,077.00. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. Option traders are pricing in a 5.5% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 5.6% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Adobe Inc. $306.23

Adobe Inc. (ADBE) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $2.26 per share on revenue of $2.97 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $2.30 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 74% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for earnings of approximately $2.25 per share. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 23.50% with revenue increasing by 20.51%. Short interest has increased by 44.6% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 11.2% from its open following the earnings release to be 9.1% above its 200 day moving average of $280.60. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Monday, November 25, 2019 there was some notable buying of 505 contracts of the $340.00 call expiring on Friday, December 20, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 3.9% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 3.8% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Broadcom Limited $316.05

Broadcom Limited (AVGO) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:15 PM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $5.36 per share on revenue of $5.76 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $5.47 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 69% expecting an earnings beat. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 7.27% with revenue increasing by 5.80%. Short interest has increased by 22.8% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 6.2% from its open following the earnings release to be 9.7% above its 200 day moving average of $288.21. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Thursday, December 5, 2019 there was some notable buying of 625 contracts of the $135.00 call expiring on Friday, January 15, 2021. Option traders are pricing in a 5.2% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 4.7% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Ciena Corporation $35.00

Ciena Corporation (CIEN) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 7:00 AM ET on Thursday, December 12, 2019. The consensus earnings estimate is $0.66 per share on revenue of $964.80 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is $0.67 per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 72% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for revenue of $945.00 million to $975.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 26.92% with revenue increasing by 7.28%. Short interest has increased by 66.6% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 9.5% from its open following the earnings release to be 11.0% below its 200 day moving average of $39.32. Overall earnings estimates have been revised higher since the company's last earnings release. On Friday, December 6, 2019 there was some notable buying of 1,156 contracts of the $36.00 put expiring on Friday, December 13, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 9.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 10.1% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

MongoDB, Inc. $131.17

MongoDB, Inc. (MDB) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.28 per share on revenue of $99.73 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.26) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 63% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for a loss of $0.29 to $0.27 per share on revenue of $98.00 million to $100.00 million. Consensus estimates are for year-over-year earnings growth of 15.15% with revenue increasing by 53.47%. Short interest has increased by 15.2% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 16.3% from its open following the earnings release to be 5.1% below its 200 day moving average of $138.19. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Tuesday, November 19, 2019 there was some notable buying of 970 contracts of the $210.00 call expiring on Friday, December 20, 2019. Option traders are pricing in a 10.1% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 8.7% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Chewy, Inc. $24.95

Chewy, Inc. (CHWY) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:10 PM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.16 per share on revenue of $1.21 billion and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.15) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 57% expecting an earnings beat. Short interest has increased by 40.7% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted lower by 14.6% from its open following the earnings release. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. The stock has averaged a 6.4% move on earnings in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

Stitch Fix, Inc. $24.09

Stitch Fix, Inc. (SFIX) is confirmed to report earnings at approximately 4:05 PM ET on Monday, December 9, 2019. The consensus estimate is for a loss of $0.06 per share on revenue of $441.04 million and the Earnings Whisper ® number is ($0.04) per share. Investor sentiment going into the company's earnings release has 69% expecting an earnings beat The company's guidance was for revenue of $438.00 million to $442.00 million. Consensus estimates are for earnings to decline year-over-year by 160.00% with revenue increasing by 20.43%. Short interest has increased by 30.9% since the company's last earnings release while the stock has drifted higher by 41.7% from its open following the earnings release to be 2.4% below its 200 day moving average of $24.69. Overall earnings estimates have been revised lower since the company's last earnings release. On Thursday, November 21, 2019 there was some notable buying of 1,000 contracts of the $13.00 put expiring on Friday, January 17, 2020. Option traders are pricing in a 20.0% move on earnings and the stock has averaged a 18.9% move in recent quarters.

(CLICK HERE FOR THE CHART!)

DISCUSS!

What are you all watching for in this upcoming trading week?
I hope you all have a wonderful weekend and a great trading week ahead StockMarket.
submitted by bigbear0083 to StockMarket [link] [comments]

Best Binary Options Trading Strategy 99% Win 2019 - Binary ... OTC Binary Trading with Pocket Option  Based on 3 min ... Binary options and knock-outs - July 9 Binary Options Trading Signals - YouTube How To Beat Binary Options Brokers Proven Trading Strategy ... Binary Options Auto Trader - YouTube

Binary Options have become a very popular way of trading in US. Currently many brokerage firms based offshore or in United States are providing to traders a online trading platform or mobile app to trade stocks, indices, currencies and commodities. When UsBinaryOptions.com launched in 2003, we aimed to offer professional reviews about on the most trusted international brokers accepting US ... How to Mitigate Risk in Binary Options Trading. As we’ve previously discussed, binary options trading is generally a safe trading avenue, but that doesn’t mean that it’s completely risk-free. Despite its all-or-nothing premise, the good news is that there are some things you can do to reduce this risk. Price data is delivered via Reuters and trading is available on hundreds of assets including commodities, forex, indices and stocks. Support is offered 24 hours a day, and in a range of languages. The firm have also sought to get a license for them to offer portfolio advice – the first on the binary firms to receive this. Trading Platform Yes, trading binary options is legal in the US. The US binary options market is strictly regulated. These safeguards are in place to protect US residents, but trading is absolutely legal. What is illegal, is for non-US based brokers (‘off shore’ brokers) to solicit US residents. It is this which has resulted in some binary options brokers ... 365Trading is a relatively new Barcelona based binary options broker founded in the year of 2012. It is operated by a company called Fidelisco Capital Markets Ltd, which is regulated by CYSEC. Its CYSEC license number is 181/12. In the past years, the company primarily focus on providing their trading services to customers in Spain. Now, they have also expanded their trading services into ... Advocates of binary options trading – most of which are brokers or advisory firms serving binary option traders – claim some advantages for the vehicle when …. OneTwoTrade offers two trading accounts; one is free, while the other is paid In the US, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have only licensed two operators - Nadex and CBOE - to provide binary options trading to ... In April 2019, the sale, marketing and distribution of binary options by firms to retail consumers was banned in the UK. Now, if you’re approached by a firm claiming to offer binary options products, it’s probably a scam. Concerns about binary options trading. Binary options consumers typically lose money, and these losses can be significant. Because option trading is a very esoteric financial strategy, having a brokerage firm that offers customer service specifically for derivative traders can be a big help. Most brokers don’t have representatives who specialize in option trading. Ally Invest, for example, does not offer option specialists over the phone. Other brokers do provide access to agents who specialize in derivative ... It trades in 70 assets and is focused on binary options. As of today, US traders are not accepted. The minimum deposit is $25, one of the lowest, while the bonus is up to 10%, 20% and 30%, based on the amount of your deposit for Ayrex account holders. The broker uses a proprietary trading platform featuring instant withdrawals, which is unique in the niche. The interface is neat and lets you ... While binary trading in the US is legal, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) classed options trading as akin to gambling and put in place sanctions and legislation similar to those that govern casinos. These rules prevent many international firms from advertising their services and soliciting US traders which then leads them to stop accepting new signups. The limited choice of ...

[index] [22586] [26786] [15535] [27686] [15570] [1531] [15488] [23623] [7511] [26447]

Best Binary Options Trading Strategy 99% Win 2019 - Binary ...

CORSI SU OPZIONI BINARIE mail: [email protected] cell e whatsapp and telegram +39 3460784176 * Canale telegram PDF GRATIS: https://t.me/gionnyimpe... Introduction video to the Binary Options AutoTrader, the fist fully automated trade copying solution especially developed for binary options. Visit http://ww... Help Me To Rich 20000 Subscriber. #marketanalysis “General Risk Warning: Forex and Binary options trading carry a high level of risk and can result in the lo... Broker Signup: http://globaloptioncapital.com Cookie Cleaner: http://www.piriform.com/ccleaner Part 2 In Detail: https://youtu.be/xJ6L3QdFy-A Strategy In Det... Take The Stress Out of Trading - Get Into Binary Options Today! If you've never heard of Binary Options before, you probably trade Forex, Stocks, Commodities... Learn to use the Nadex platform and design trading strategies that fit your lifestyle. Nadex is the leading US-based CFTC-regulated financial exchange for binary options and option spreads. We ... Close Option: https://tinyurl.com/closeoption CloseOption Trading Strategy: https://youtu.be/wgs31gmDL3I Minimum deposit of $5 to start real trading. Free De...

http://binaryoptiontrade.leycrudunda.gq