Octopus Overlords

Coincidentally CNBC is on the background talking about taxes again right now, screaming first time retail investors need to learn about Mark to Loss and likely need to check that box... So... I need to learn about Mark to Loss...

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:28 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:24 pm TD shows me at about $1800 in taxable short term gains in addition to my dividend income in 2020. I still fear I'm going to be in for a rude awakening when figuring out how it all shakes out once put into IRS forms. This is first for me and I'm small time.

Pretend it's ordinary income (since it is). Add it to your guesstimated AGI when trying to determine how it's going to impact you.

I don't even worry about it MidMarch. They always adjust my SPY dividend income in March.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:30 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:28 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:24 pm TD shows me at about $1800 in taxable short term gains in addition to my dividend income in 2020. I still fear I'm going to be in for a rude awakening when figuring out how it all shakes out once put into IRS forms. This is first for me and I'm small time.

Pretend it's ordinary income (since it is). Add it to your guesstimated AGI when trying to determine how it's going to impact you.

I don't even worry about it MidMarch. They always adjust my SPY dividend income in March.

I meant more for actual sales. Whether you sell a big chunk of stock X in January or December, you should be setting aside an approximately-correct chunk of change to account for the taxes (either actually setting it aside, or being prepared to acquire it later in the year through planned sales).

LordMortis wrote: ↑Fri Feb 05, 2021 3:30 pm Coincidentally CNBC is on the background talking about taxes again right now, screaming first time retail investors need to learn about Mark to Loss and likely need to check that box... So... I need to learn about Mark to Loss...

Reading the IRS documentation it looks like those rules only apply if you are considered a “trader” vs “investor”.

https://www.irs.gov/taxtopics/tc429

BTC $44K on news that TSLA bought $1.5B of it with free cash.

Elon has to get a look from the SEC, no?

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 10:27 am BTC $44K on news that TSLA bought $1.5B of it with free cash.

Elon has to get a look from the SEC, no?

This was revealed by SEC filing according the CNBC who linked the filing. I posted a link the Tesla thread.

I'm not sure what the issue would be (other than perhaps BTC not aligning with TSLA's mission since it's an energy sink). Tesla and Musk have discussed previously on several occasions that the company was considering investing in Bitcoin and accepting it as payment, and they are also not the first company to do so. If someone wanted to ride the rise up caused by Tesla getting in, they had more than ample time to do so.

The Dogecoin meming on Twitter, on the other hand, I could do without.

Out of VERU today. Kept a few shares in case it has the typical post-LawBeef-sale rally but mostly happy with the quick gains.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:14 am I'm not sure what the issue would be (other than perhaps BTC not aligning with TSLA's mission since it's an energy sink). Tesla and Musk have discussed previously on several occasions that the company was considering investing in Bitcoin and accepting it as payment, and they are also not the first company to do so. If someone wanted to ride the rise up caused by Tesla getting in, they had more than ample time to do so.

The Dogecoin meming on Twitter, on the other hand, I could do without.

The energy sink is exactly the reason why Tesla should *not* be investing in bitcoin.

pr0ner wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:45 am

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:14 am I'm not sure what the issue would be (other than perhaps BTC not aligning with TSLA's mission since it's an energy sink). Tesla and Musk have discussed previously on several occasions that the company was considering investing in Bitcoin and accepting it as payment, and they are also not the first company to do so. If someone wanted to ride the rise up caused by Tesla getting in, they had more than ample time to do so.

The Dogecoin meming on Twitter, on the other hand, I could do without.

The energy sink is exactly the reason why Tesla should *not* be investing in bitcoin.

There are opposing opinions on this, noting mainly that energy is not globally fungible, and someone mining bitcoin does not add a unit of required energy production in every case. But again, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.

It has definitely not been good for gamers, for obvious reasons.

CNBC is on the background talking about a board game shortage. That caught my ear. I assume that has to do with Habro earnings. I heard them mention Magic: The Gathering on Squak this morning.

Where was all this board gaming love and acceptance when I was younger?

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:18 pm There are opposing opinions on this, noting mainly that energy is not globally fungible, and someone mining bitcoin does not add a unit of required energy production in every case. But again, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.

It's not great for the environment, but current estimates are it's less than 0.25% of the world's energy. So, optics are bad, but in the grand scheme of things we have a lot more issues.

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:11 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:18 pm There are opposing opinions on this, noting mainly that energy is not globally fungible, and someone mining bitcoin does not add a unit of required energy production in every case. But again, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.

It's not great for the environment, but current estimates are it's less than 0.25% of the world's energy. So, optics are bad, but in the grand scheme of things we have a lot more issues.

Sticking point .25% of the world's electricity, which is considerably less than energy. I mention that sticking point because even though it's a fraction, that's still .25% of the world's electricity supply.

Google says that it's 92.8 terawatt hours annualized. At 1 ton of coal per 2.5 megawatts that's about carries the 1.... a lot of tons of coal per year...

I'm pretty well blown away by the scope of no matter how small it may be compared to other things. I suppose when we go solar/wind/water/nuclear/geothermal displacement it will seem less to me but for now it's still

Going down the rabbit hole when I should be working...

In 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

If every tweet sent uses 100 joules, what does every read consume, I wonder?

noxiousdog wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:11 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 12:18 pm There are opposing opinions on this, noting mainly that energy is not globally fungible, and someone mining bitcoin does not add a unit of required energy production in every case. But again, I don't know enough to have a strong opinion.

It's not great for the environment, but current estimates are it's less than 0.25% of the world's energy. So, optics are bad, but in the grand scheme of things we have a lot more issues.

Yeah, and of course BTC is happening whether Tesla starts investing/using it or not. So my initial hot take is to agree that it's largely optics that are bad, not the actual heart of the matter. Building hundreds of thousands of vehicles is also, let's call it, an energy-intensive activity. The question isn't 'does every activity that Tesla carries out contribute directly to the advancement of sustainable energy to the greatest extent possible?' but rather 'is Tesla working to ensure that Tesla the company is in the strongest possible position to carry out its mission?'

I mean, having bought in January, they've already likely made hundreds of millions of bucks on that transaction. (And this could of course crater.) As with the rest of their business, I'm confident that they will work to make it more efficient and mission-focused over time.

And all of that said, I'm still not arguing in support of Tesla's decision to invest in BTC or start accepting BTC. Simply that I don't think it's as simple as 'BTC bad, Tesla bad for getting with the times and accepting it like Visa, PayPal, Microsoft, and a bunch of others.'

Add in that when Musk starts endorsing it, it drives the price higher, which makes mining more lucrative.

Yet no 401K match for employees.

Tesla Inc., Palo Alto, Calif., did not make any matching contributions to its 401(k) plan in 2020, according to its 10-K filing with the SEC on Monday.

It is the third straight year the automaker has not made any contributions to its 401(k) plan, according to the filing.

The Tesla Inc. 401(k) Plan automatically enrolls participants in the plan with a deferral rate of 5% of employees' salaries with the option to contribute more, according to the plan's most recent Form 5500 filing.

...

The nature of those requirements for Tesla to make contributions to the 401(k) plan was not available. The stock price for the automaker was up 695% for the year ended Dec. 31

.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:13 pm Yet no 401K match for employees.

Tesla Inc., Palo Alto, Calif., did not make any matching contributions to its 401(k) plan in 2020, according to its 10-K filing with the SEC on Monday.

It is the third straight year the automaker has not made any contributions to its 401(k) plan, according to the filing.

The Tesla Inc. 401(k) Plan automatically enrolls participants in the plan with a deferral rate of 5% of employees' salaries with the option to contribute more, according to the plan's most recent Form 5500 filing.

...

The nature of those requirements for Tesla to make contributions to the 401(k) plan was not available. The stock price for the automaker was up 695% for the year ended Dec. 31

.

Now ask them whether they would have preferred a 401(k) match in lieu of the stock options they received.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:17 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:13 pm Yet no 401K match for employees.

Tesla Inc., Palo Alto, Calif., did not make any matching contributions to its 401(k) plan in 2020, according to its 10-K filing with the SEC on Monday.

It is the third straight year the automaker has not made any contributions to its 401(k) plan, according to the filing.

The Tesla Inc. 401(k) Plan automatically enrolls participants in the plan with a deferral rate of 5% of employees' salaries with the option to contribute more, according to the plan's most recent Form 5500 filing.

...

The nature of those requirements for Tesla to make contributions to the 401(k) plan was not available. The stock price for the automaker was up 695% for the year ended Dec. 31

.

Now ask them whether they would have preferred a 401(k) match in lieu of the stock options they received.

Who? The factory worker making $12/hour getting 5 RSUs or the C-suite guy getting 10,000 options?

The factory worker, or mobile service tech, etc. I've spoken to multiple local employees about this, and even back in 2018 they were quite happy with the options received.

An initial $20k grant (low end of typical) from a few years back (not the early employees) would be hundreds of thousands of dollars now.

Like with Bitcoin, I'm not solidly on one side or the other of this. But it's not as simple as 'no 401k contributions: Tesla bad!'

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 5:31 pm The factory worker, or mobile service tech, etc. I've spoken to multiple local employees about this, and even back in 2018 they were quite happy with the options received.

An initial $20k grant (low end of typical) from a few years back (not the early employees) would be hundreds of thousands of dollars now.

Like with Bitcoin, I'm not solidly on one side or the other of this. But it's not as simple as 'no 401k contributions: Tesla bad!'

Assuming they are fully vested (usually those grants vest in phases over 3-4 years) and they sell, they may have a decent portfolio. If all their retirement is in TSLA they aren't planning retirement wisely.

But either way, that's early stage growth compensation. What happens to the new hire today? 20 some shares of TSLA is not likely to be worth several hundred K in a few years. You'd be looking at a market cap of at least $8T to make that possible.

Yeah, I agree that needs to change at some point.

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Well, that was 20 years ago...

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:10 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Well, that was 20 years ago...

Side note: damn, we're old.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:19 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:10 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Well, that was 20 years ago...

Side note: damn, we're old.

Yeah, I see 2000 and assume it's recent until I stop to think for a second. Then I pull on a cardigan, grab my reading glasses, and down some milk of magnesia. Goddamned kids.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:27 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:19 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:10 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Well, that was 20 years ago...

Side note: damn, we're old.

Yeah, I see 2000 and assume it's recent until I stop to think for a second. Then I pull on a cardigan, grab my reading glasses, and down some milk of magnesia. Goddamned kids.

Similar things for me. Like, The Matrix is almost as old as Blazing Saddles was when Matrix was released.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 11:19 am Out of VERU today. Kept a few shares in case it has the typical post-LawBeef-sale rally but mostly happy with the quick gains.

Yep, you can set your watch by it, VERU up another 20% today.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:10 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Well, that was 20 years ago...

Ha! I totally read that as 2020 for some reason, thanks for catching that.

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:38 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:27 pm

Zaxxon wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:19 pm

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 8:10 pm

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 7:44 pm

LordMortis wrote: ↑Mon Feb 08, 2021 4:24 pmIn 2000 the US burned enough coal to generate 1966 TW hours which was about a billion tons.

That's amazing considering that coal is quite a bit more expensive than other forms of energy thanks mostly to the effects of fracking. Which is quite ironic, since it's always been the "low cost" energy (until recently).

Well, that was 20 years ago...

Side note: damn, we're old.

Yeah, I see 2000 and assume it's recent until I stop to think for a second. Then I pull on a cardigan, grab my reading glasses, and down some milk of magnesia. Goddamned kids.

Similar things for me. Like, The Matrix is almost as old as Blazing Saddles was when Matrix was released.

Are you referring to the actual Matrix, or the movie about the Matrix?

I'm posting this here for my own self flagellation. I swear, every time I try to be responsible and take major gains or close positions in perhaps riskier stocks, I seem to get burned ('burned' meaning stocks soar after my sell/close)

Today's lesson:

APHA - Aphria - Canadian based cannabis company (and recently, the new owner of Sweetwater brewing company for some reason, )

Bought: various lots between late July and early August 2020 @ between $4.8 and $6
Sold: all lots at the end of Jan 2021 @ $12.8

More than doubled my money (and yes, I am grateful for that), BUT it has almost doubled AGAIN since I sold it slightly over a week ago! Fuck me.

I really never felt good about closing that position (he says, in hindsight), right when the momentum (regulatory, social, economic) seems to be swinging in their favor. ^&@#&%@#&^$%^@#@$%#&%@^#

The only silver lining here is that I bought a wee bit of the same, new position, in a non tax advantaged account (got to be a better word for that). The above was in my retirement IRA.

Shrooms and weed are the future, people!

Carpet_pissr wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 11:40 am I'm posting this here for my own self flagellation. I swear, every time I try to be responsible and take major gains or close positions in perhaps riskier stocks, I seem to get burned ('burned' meaning stocks soar after my sell/close)

Today's lesson:

APHA - Aphria - Canadian based cannabis company (and recently, the new owner of Sweetwater brewing company for some reason, )

Bought: various lots between late July and early August 2020 @ between $4.8 and $6
Sold: all lots at the end of Jan 2021 @ $12.8

More than doubled my money (and yes, I am grateful for that), BUT it has almost doubled AGAIN since I sold it slightly over a week ago! Fuck me.

I really never felt good about closing that position (he says, in hindsight), right when the momentum (regulatory, social, economic) seems to be swinging in their favor. ^&@#&%@#&^$%^@#@$%#&%@^#

The only silver lining here is that I bought a wee bit of the same, new position, in a non tax advantaged account (got to be a better word for that). The above was in my retirement IRA.

Shrooms and weed are the future, people!

I'm learning that the old conventional wisdom is breaking down in this market. Of course as soon as I adjust we'll be back to the old market where 15% is a nice short term gain.

Selling stocks is like buying computer parts. Once you do it, stop looking at the prices.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:35 pm Selling stocks is like buying computer parts. Once you do it, stop looking at the prices.

I normally have no problem doing just that. There are a slew of company's whose stock I sold and never looked back.

I guess when my heart isn't in the sell, is when I constantly glance at the price and bitch about lost opportunity gains. I guess I'm looking for another entry point.

I'm also old and wise enough to know that anything having to do with your "heart" or "gut" when it comes to investing is beyond ridiculous, if not downright dangerous, financially speaking.

Isgrimnur wrote: ↑Tue Feb 09, 2021 12:35 pm Selling stocks is like buying computer parts. Once you do it, stop looking at the prices.

Except buying computer parts doesn't provide funds to buy more computer parts. Selling stocks kind of guarantees that you'll be looking at prices to confirm the trade and reinvest. Especially if you still like the company.

First time I ever bought (more) pre-market. I doubt I will ever do it again. Absolutely pure gambling.

Reddit forums turn to cannabis sector as stocks hit new highs

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/reddit-f ... 3828.html

This is our concern, Dude:

Aphria Is Becoming the Stock Market's Biggest Merger Arbitrage Play
https://www.fool.com/investing/2021/02/ ... gn=article

And by concern, I mean, that the two stocks are apparently now so divergent, I wonder if that is in any way putting the merger itself at risk. Maybe Tilray says "hey, we don't need you anymore, Aphria!" and Bob's your uncle!



I'm really struggling with the buying/selling/holding of this one, guys! Somebody push me in a direction.

(also, as I feared, at least as of now, my foolish venture into pre-market trading was ill-timed and foolish - down 11% from where I bought it pre-market) Thankfully I was not able to buy pre-market on margin in my other account for some reason (TD Ameritrade does show that the stock has margin limitations, so I guess that was it), so the adventure was pretty limited, with just a couple thousand dollars thrown in.

The associated chart, for reference:

tinyurl.com/1g3oclrj

Click to imbiggen

I don't even know any more.

Runs just keep going and going. It's like you can't pick a loser in this mania.


I even have WHEN from 8 years ago in an old garbage account. It was never worth selling at $0.0001, where it's been for years. It's at $0.007 now. That's 70x in a few months. It has a $620M market cap for doing jack shit except change direction every few years and pump and dump.

Also, never buy in pre market or after hours unless you know something no one else does and want to beat the news. If it's already news, wait til normal hours.

It's funny how simple returns that look amazing translate to something a little less so when you convert them to annualized returns.

For example, Amazon, which I bought in 2003. My online account shows a total gain of 14,559%, but that's a simple gain. When I run it through the calculations as shown here:
convert simple returns to annualized returns I get a 34% annualized return.

I'll still take it.