He said it pretty clearly. It's easy money if you look at it and work at it. The issue is most people don't have enough capital to try or don't have the balls to follow through. I've had many try my system and they can't hold the hard times.
Get a ThinkOrSwim account with $10 in it and you get their real time API. You can create a socket and store the entire chain. Perfect data does not exist in this world, anyone who claims they have it, has a lot of money.
From your description, the term you are looking for is swing traders.
Yes, I swing trade options. All technical analysis.
Only stocks. Pure technical analysis. Main items we focus on are price-action and price-volume. In essence, for every minute the price goes up, what's the volume? For every penny the stock goes up, what's the volume? For every 100,000 shares what's the change in price?200k? 300k? 1m? and so on. Also, weighted factors for all the different indicators, MA/SMA/CCI/RSI/VWAP being of most pertinence. Pitch fork trends weighted at a lower level. Also several other proprietary indicators based on stock correlation (i.e. BABA vs AMZN, if AMZN is moving down, BABA should as well because of what it relies on).
I have been getting killed the last month but still up over 100%. Just hit on GS (100%+), and likely will on TSLA. Also did 1500% on TSLA this year on a trade which was my biggest so that helps.
TSLA seems ready for a similar move to when I made my last huge run.
I think there is less risk. Especially with my strategy. Also you get 100x leverage. So I will give you a sample trade from today.
I bought Dec04 $600 Calls for $900 each at 9:55 am. At 1:25 I sold for $1820. So $1000 would be $2000. Now to make $1,000 in shares it would require ($1000/($25)) so I would need 40 shares (40*$550) = $22,000 risk.
Now I only buy calls or puts so my upside is always unlimited but downside is limited to the initial order.
Swing trading stocks is really hard because you have to sleep on $22,000 overnight. You can wake up with nothing in a black swan event. With options the most I will get hit on is $50-$100,000 which I have in the market at once. The rest is ready in the savings account in cash or etfs/TSLA stock.
I think options are the safest bet. Everyone starting out should look into the wheel strategy as it's basically free money for shareholders.
It is but not that much. It's limited to how far the stock falls. So if you buy a $500 contract when the share price is $95 you can still make $9500. If you had sold puts/calls then your profit is limited to the first sale you made.
I'm not an expert on astrology, but I see many cultures believe in it. Maybe there is a method to their madness that we don't understand now that you mention it.
I know for TA, you have to look at the patterns and they are visible in the data. The people who are against are the ones who can't figure it out.
Buy a Tesla everything else is shit. Others need to catch up but it's going to take a while. If you buy a Nokia phone today it's not going to work as well as an iPhone. I'm presuming the electric car you have is from a company who isn't as good.
Their competitors aren't good enough. It's going to take them a while to catch up so yes, for the next decade, Tesla will have first-mover advantage. From what I can see in the market, Tesla and NIO are leading the charge, the rest of them should just file bankruptcy now.
With all this said, I am presuming what you have. If you tell me the car you drive, I can look at their stock and give you a more informed statement.
This is more a function of your successfulness and competence than whether you happen to have an incorporated business wrapping your daily operations.
A successful and competent employee has built relationships with colleagues, supervisors, and reports. He knows them, and they know him. He won't be asked to subjugate his principles to the company in an inappropriate way, in part because others know that he will go above and beyond within his principles to do well for the company.
For a business owner, the exact same thing, just replace colleagues et al with customers, suppliers, shareholders, and other partners.
On the other hand, a weak business and/or business owner will be very vulnerable to principle-based compromise. Out of the need to keep customers, suppliers, et al happy, he is subject to whim and every demand. Walking away from his business means the collapse of his reputation, failing his employees, and failing his family. He is no more free than your average entry level employee.
>He won't be asked to subjugate his principles to the company in an inappropriate way, in part because others know that he will go above and beyond within his principles to do well for the company.
I respectfully disagree. Your team may not, your direct reports won't and your management hierarchy may not, however, your business will. If you have certain principles such as support for LBGTQ+, anti-military contracts, or a conservative in tech for example, and your company signs a contract to work with another organization that doesn't care about the cause or are completely against it, what happens? I know CEO's who can't fire bad clients because they don't own their own company.
>Walking away from his business means the collapse of his reputation, failing his employees, and failing his family.
Walking away from bad business can make you so much money it's hard to imagine. I've had conversations about doing business with shady people, which resulted in me making a deal with the person who had the same experience with the other individual.
>On the other hand, a weak business and/or business owner will be very vulnerable to principle-based compromise.
Growing pains, but an employee who is competent or incompetent will face the same dilemma because of what I suggested earlier.
I call it being a slave earlier, to intentionally raise alarm. I don't know of a way to define it but you don't have to go to sleep at night thinking, well, I didn't like that decision and now I need to change my entire life or deal with it. I.e. find a new job, change my commute, change my schedule, acquaint yourself with a new environment, meet new people and so on. An owner, is doing this on a daily basis already.
> If you have certain principles such as support for LBGTQ+, anti-military contracts, or a conservative in tech for example, and your company signs a contract to work with another organization that doesn't care about the cause or are completely against it, what happens?
I guess things are changing, but historically refusing to serve customers based on political differences would be considered intolerant. You can disagree with someone without refusing them service. I don't see any ethical dilemmas in serving someone you disagree with. You are free to disagree with that principle.
For any business owner, making a decision to walk away from business on grounds of political disagreement is a huge luxury. I don't think it's commonly exercised, and for good reason, imo. This is very different from walking away from a "bad customer", one who may cost you money over the long run while sapping your soul. Empowered employees also feel capable of walking away from these customers because they understand the business so well that they see the issues coming, and they've earned to decision making respect for their choices to have weight.
> Growing pains, but an employee who is competent or incompetent will face the same dilemma because of what I suggested earlier.
This is exactly what I'm saying. The two are more similar than I think most people make them out to be. You will have differences in freedom, but those are often determined by your competence and success, more so than whether you have a business license.
The way you talk about a business owner sleeping well at night makes me wonder if you know any. Owning a business is extremely stressful. The buck stops with you, and while in theory you are free, your entire business depends on your decisions. You think it's hard to change jobs? How hard do you think it is to move on from a failed business? In a capitalist society, business owners are as much slaves as anyone else. The difference is, you take so much risk on that if you succeed, you end up making a return that does buy you a good deal of freedom. But that's not intrinsic to the business you own, and it is determined as much but what you need as what you have. It's a freedom derived from being a human being that has "enough".
>I guess things are changing, but historically refusing to serve customers based on political differences would be considered intolerant. You can disagree with someone without refusing them service. I don't see any ethical dilemmas in serving someone you disagree with. You are free to disagree with that principle.
Let's not separate a single example, the entire example list is as a whole, i.e. any of the situations listed are that to the person involved. Sure for you it doesn't, however, someone else will have a different opinion with respect to dealing with other political stripes. There are people who won't deal with other religions in this day and age.
>> Growing pains, but an employee who is competent or incompetent will face the same dilemma because of what I suggested earlier.
I typed this in a way it was not clear. The growing pains will heal. The competent and incompetent employees will always be slaves, their competence won't help them.
No I was a wage slave. It is why I'm saying you can't succeed as an employee without compromising your principles. Even CEOs of Fortune 500s don't have the ability as they have a board to report to. Well except Zuck.
I think it's worth considering that, just because you didn't do it, does not mean it can't be done. Perhaps your personal growth was as big of a difference as the format of your labor relationship.
