With the direct indexing products many brokerages have rolled out lately, you can now also create your own subset, superset and/or re-weighting of an index and invest in that.
I've been visiting the Vasa every few years for 3 decades and there has never been a time when museum goers were allowed onto or into the ship. I haven't been to Stockholm since the start of the Covid pandemic but I very much doubt that has changed.
They do have some rooms on the side with mock-ups of some of the ship's quarters - maybe that is what you are remembering?
Are trading blackout windows enforced in any way other than threat of dismissal? I don't think there's any external repercussions to trading during an applicable blackout, and trading on NPMI is illegal regardless of whether it is done in or out of a window.
With a mortgage, the side-lined young people who couldn't afford a house at 3.5% interest rate still can't afford the same house after a 10% price drop at 5.5% interest rate.
More than this, you can have the funds in your brokerage account backing cash-secured puts. I'm not sure if Robinhood allows their customer to write options, so that may not be the case here.
I last had this happen 4 years ago at a pharmacy that was having network issues. But now I no longer have any cards with embossed letters so the imprinting fallback would not longer work for me. I supposed they could fill in the slip manually which seems equivalent to a card-not-present transaction but without the instant confirmation?
I doubt that. If you're in an ATG squat, I think your desk height would need to be below your (squatted) knee height - probably well below it. I'm about 9 cm taller than dgan and doing a quick test I think a desk height of even 17 inches (43 cm) would put my arms and shoulders in an uncomfortably raised position, so realistically I'd need the desk height to be about 5-7 inches (13-18 cm) above the surface my feet are on.
It doesn't really mean anything in layman's terms. It's a transparent lie: If one were to actually take it at face value it would imply that Tesla plowed $1.5B into a "store of value" whose liquidity they were unsure of. It would make no sense. If they wanted to test liquidity they could have quietly bought and sold just the 10% position before YOLOing in the $1.5B.
Tesla simply sold just enough BTC to book enough profit to meet quarterly EPS estimates.
Maybe they meant to say 0.4, without any qualifier - i.e. that the rate went from 0.7-0.8 to 1.1-1.2? A change from the lower end of the old range to the higher end of the new range would match the 70% increase in transmissibility.
(though that would require an increase of almost 0.5)
I am not questioning their profitability but simply pointing out that without the regulatory credits they would not be profitable. The linked earnings release confirms that the profits ($331M) are lower than the regulatory credits ($397M).
Apple makes a healthy margin on their lower sales numbers and has an associated services revenue stream to boot.
Tesla loses money on car sales and has managed to squeeze out some positive earnings by selling regulatory credits to their competitors. It's not a "selling less luxury goods but at a higher margin" story.
If we assume that the regulatory credit revenue stream eventually dries up then the case for the valuation seems to revolve around Tesla becoming the only car company and/or Tesla being or becoming so much more than just a car company.
> You haven't lost anything yet, as you haven't sold them.
That's not how it works. The difference between a realized loss and an unrealized loss is only tax consequences. If your shares have a book value of $1200 from when you bought them yesterday and a market value of $1000 right now, you could have bought the same number of shares today and had an additional $200 in cash. You're holding the same number of shares in both scenarios but your net worth is $200 lower if you bought yesterday. Obviously any dividends received since the time of purchase would change the net outcome.
The "you don't lose until you sell" meme is self-rationalization popular on reddit and in the Bitcoin community.
> Companies that are dependent on financing might not get financing if loud short sellers are able to change the narrative
How would this scenario play out for a non-fraud and non-zombie business? If a publicly-traded company is in such a precarious state that they need the large cash infusion of either debt or a secondary offering to remain in business, the conclusion is that the business is non-viable. Either they IPO'ed prematurely or the expected growth isn't materializing. The short-sellers are performing the broader market a service in this case.
This surprise is likely due to the power of hype in an echo chamber. Tesla has drastically lost both market share (relative decline) and sales volume (absolute decline) throughout Europe. Norway, which was once paraded around as the Tesla future dominance preview, is now indistinguishable from zero for Tesla sales. The only market where Tesla is still growing volume is China.