Brandon

If you want to set and forget, find some nice Vanguards and ETF's. Cathie Wood is all the rage atm. ARKK ARKG ARKS She has a lot of "disruption funds" you can see her performance and the volume of flows into the funds, its worth potentially a gamble on some of them, she also publishes models, thesis's ect which is nice to help decisions. There is some risk due to her consolidation into small cap companies being up to 10% or more of many holdings in the companies, IE systemic risk to weigh. Right now, ride the wave and volume of printing. Maybe some peace of mind, https://awealthofcommonsense.com/2020/12/what-if-you-only-invested-at-market-peaks/ IMO also do a little stock picking. Pick winners, big ones. Google Mircosoft Netflix Disney Apple, they likely will return outpaced yields to you. REITs are interesting, homebuying is an all time high, commercial not some much. Be careful on several of these IMO. I am bearish on the holdings and lease rates that drive leveraged FCF returns to their holders. Energy and financals are still laggards on the recovery side, XOM will have 15-20% upside this year imo on top of a 7% balance sheet backed dividend they will pay out. Some will argue that companies paying dividends are not utilizing their capital ccorrectly to grow and offer better yielding reutrns longer term then a dividend does. I hold XOM bought a fair position back in november, its been a nice return recently. Also I like to allocated 10% for moon shoot bets, no harm if you hit 1 for 10x vs 9 at zero. Good luck, and like others taking it into your own hands isnt bad. Reasonable approaches work fairly. Finally remember the rule of 72. Set a target for your IRA say 8-10% or whatever based on your risk profile. As such take that target return and divide it, EG: 15% / 72 = 4.8, the number of years it takes you to double your money. So that 6k at a 15% IRR will be about 100k after 20 years (No contributions) NOW 15% is likely high but you can see how that rule works

Fair analysis Tim! How does the expected mortality rates pre covid track YOY post covid, so expected Oct 19' vs expected Oct 20'. Just curious.

Side car to the Greg Panduh debate. Perhaps we can now drop the 'both sides' equivalence and admit why the US cities boarded-up last week? Fears of looting and arson were only if Trump got re-elected. A self questioning left should reflect here: Are you happy about having become the 'side' of implicit, expected violence?

Ridden my bike up and down Evans, its fun. Saw goats at the top. A little intimidating to descend if you peak over the edge. Stayed in Frisco for the Leadville mountain bike race, riding a lot of those trails you are driving on is great fun. That thin air is also fun to master!

Hypothetically if we are drastically under counting that would be a positive on all measurable tail effects?

Clever. You have one upped me. The author of the meme is crafting a false narrative with incomplete data; I thought that was only something conservatives practice? The authors basic math skill is accurate, I will credit that. Spending 5 minutes searching CDC, WHO, general search for "hospitalization rates, stokes, ect" all tail effects on COVID-19 shows nothing really lines up with the authors inputs, he is acting on hyperbole to express his opinion. (however valid current information is to be believed. And it is near* certain this data will be adjusted down by magnitudes of 3-10x based upon historical analysis of pandemic information). My mistake is me being snarky.

That meme is false and misleading. This statement saves me a lot of typing...

https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/04/elon-musk-calls-for-amazon-split-after-alex-berenson-claims-censorship.html Just interesting. Additionally my hunch is there will be no significant increase in covid cases from all of the protesting, beyond the established SI modeling rates. The increase if reported likely will be again due to testing increases. Is anyone concerned that Fauci softly back tracked his "second wave" comments thesis? He is playing the fence quite a bit now, maybe as he realizes the information he was sourced to help craft decisions was very poor? I do not know but it seems something to this effect.

The way those rolls weigh on NAV, they are literally trying to float the share price up to keep it listed to survive, because as it stands if they dont they know the pps will dip below 1 and thus render them in danger of delisting. People are also silly thinking buying USO as "cheap" oil is a good bet, they do not understand how that etf works... They have 150k contracts or so to dump in june they paid 25 bucks for or so, and you can see the june rolls around 15 now or what ever, but it will dive again with storage at its limit, and those contracts will be worthless again. Big haircuts. They are doing some serious shennigans to uncouple the fund from its NAV. The SEC blocked share creation as well I believe I read yesterday, which is interesting. The fund also is buying out into july and august now to help, vs its traditional short contract structure. It is very fishy. There is a lot of pressure on that fund right now, I had some put options that did well, and a few more. Fair chance it goes to zero poof if those june prices flatten baring government intervention however, which at this time is likely. About 175k call options bought yesterday however, so some are bullish clearly, but in the short term I would not place money in this equity, if you do use options to limit your exposure.

This is not and attack to undermine the risks you are taking to help save and lessen the suffering. That risk you are taking is paramount to all those families and people whom are ill from this virus, thanks to your efforts today, tomorrow and in the future for all illness beyond just this about face of cov2. Playing contrarian for the sake of discussion. What is a fair number in which our nation has taken to lock down a nation of statistically healthy people (not just quarantine the sick)? Should we lock down for .08 - .03% of people WHOM have Covid-19 and die under the age of 54? (.000006 of the population) https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/COVID19/index.htm Again cases are real, and a very small amount of folks under 54 will suffer but the context is important. We know that the data we are utilizing today is going to be adjusted by orders of magnitude. That doesn't change the lives affected I will admit, however this is affecting more then just the sick, also by orders of magnitude. It is a hard "number" to get right.

I am ready to pay a fair price to test as well, for sure. I think most people would love the peace of mind. The key is also to make sure the test validate the right covid-19 some out there are only 95% accurate and showing positive for similar corona virus. Although some may not, "what I don't know cant hurt me"...Pretty ignorant

Again small sample sizes but the early results are what seems a logical hypothesis. This is matching up with Germany https://www.dailywire.com/news/early-antibody-testing-in-chicago-30-50-of-those-tested-for-covid-19-already-have-antibodies-report-says Stanfords data should be out this week early. What if there was never a flatten the curve? What if they missed that window altogether (to mitigate) and like many countries once testing came on board (much later here) we are all experiencing a very similar curve (which appears to be the case)? If R0 is 2-2.5 and by CDC estimates 1 out of 31 imported shed on air travel from China at the early start of the virus back in late November would put around 3-5 million folks conservatively having the virus by the beginning of the "stop the spread" lock down order. https://www.contagionlive.com/news/statistical-models-forecast-locations-likely-to-see-covid19 People said Acton was clueless when she came out early with over 100k people having the virus, that doesn't seems too far reaching really. It certainly would not take long to get to 1000 important cases in the USA and around the globe at that rate in and out of Wuhan. If we humor the early model of 2.2 million dead. We have a fairly close guess on a known start date, we know the transmission spread rate, we know the air travel import rate, assuming 1000 cases by Dec 17th which is probably generous, we can essentially double on 4.x days, as well as adding 1000 spreaders every 5-7 days until the travel ban...These are CDC numbers, you get to around 3 million conservatively and that is with out adding more imported cases from Europe ect during that time line. If you use this basic math (which is off I know, I am sue I will get hammered) 29 days in feb, 15 in march 44 days and 11 doubling its like 6 billion, so uhhh...what. So clearly there is someone a little loose on the data here. Was it doubling because they were testing or spreading? https://www.politico.com/interactives/2020/coronavirus-testing-by-state-chart-of-new-cases/ Its likely just been lurking here, if COVID-19 was really on the rise the number of positive results would follow the number of tests given line closer or even close in on it? I would imagine. Data gathered in a pandemic is a huge problem to solve because its horribly unreliable. Look at the correction of H1N1 by and order of magnitude of 10 after the dust settled. https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/global-covid-19-case-fatality-rates/ In the end It is likely plausible that SARS-COv2 is going to have a very high R knot but likely are very low CFR almost the same as the flu potentially lower once you uncover the underlying data. Novell virus's have historically followed a 3-4 month peak followed by flattening and sharp decline. If you think that it started here late December then it would appear to be peaking near the draconian lockdown measures? (Maybe) You can see this in some data...? You can point out this is when (march 15) physical distancing starts which may explain the leveling, however you could also say that it should still be doubling growing with bars restaurants spring breakers ect all out and about still that first week. I read the thread and see people complaining "no one taking it serious". But maybe it took a more historical course? Maybe I do not know. It is all just very interesting, to think in a different direction potentially. Maybe the market knew as well about peaking, as we know greed trumps all and transposing it is interesting. I know its a real threat, I am not intending to undermine those ill, just as I wouldn't with those struggling with cancer or another disease. But it is all just interesting to exercise ideas with in reason. A little tin foil, but not with fake numbers. Just a thought, and yes a low educated not and epidemiologist not and expert; ill sit back down thought. Back to antibody tests, really praying those show what we are seeing early signs of and we can kick this pandemic to the curb.

Stanford is assuming they have some herd immunity and hypothesize that the virus was in California much earlier then predicted. Which potentially could explain lower counts. Like in Germany they took a 2500 person sample to simulate information in santa clara. Eager for the results. Testing is the only way forward, and tons of it. Bill gates wants to essentially issue vaccination digital certs and testing certs to track folks. While I like this idea to actually just quarantine the sick, there could be far reaching implications. Even if this looks to be less of and impact at the moment, that flattened curve is just at bay right now, the transmission rates are the same as they were in February...We are just borrowing time, unless some of this data shows a lot more antibodies out in the population which is the best news to short term v shaped recovery vs a protracted u shaped tail. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-begins-blood-tests-coronavirus-immunity-reports-052340457.html SBA PPP program is moving the goal posts daily, its fun to watch. Its also interesting to ever assume they would be able to process all these loans based on their annual thresholds. Nice thought on the program, but bad execution thus far, par for the course. And funny enough I read it before applying and you could see a lot of scenarios where IF things are opened back up in july that many could* come out on top...And some other speculative scenario I thought up like these guys...https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-arcadia-returns-ex/exclusive-wall-street-firm-dangled-up-to-175-returns-to-investors-using-us-aid-programs-idUSKCN21R1DV

I agree with that. Follow the protocol until we can see a little clearer, early indications are we can certainly be strategic and beat this. We all are good at juggling, this is just a new ball.

Dewine has done a good job, bought some short term time. There is not a solution outside of keeping this deferral at bay vs the reality which is we can not essentially think this is solved by a certain date by staying put. The likely hood is similar amounts of people die maybe a little more maybe a little less (although some of this distancing now is potentially harmful by some expert calculations), they just don't pull that date far enough out as to not completely overwhelm people over a surge number that *potentially is not a high. Models are always wrong by there nature of assumptions with action, they are designed this way to some extent, just close, but how close... You can not return to 100% normal, as in life before Covid-19, with out a global vaccine. If we believe we can shelter until May 1st, reality seems to make us reconsider that thought for 11 more months in a good case scenario upon delivery of a vaccine. Otherwise we can not live in fear and must live in reality. Fauci is telling us this weekend that this potentially goes for a year...6.6 million unemployed turns into 60 million pretty fast, and that is a different rabbit hole. Clay, the #winning hashtag while a dig at Trump, this has never been done in modern times to shut down and entire country which is what the doctors asked him to do...Tail effects are wide ranging and massive. Yes the date of lock down can be called into question, but not outcome which is out of his and the governments control IMO. This doesn't preclude him from criticism, but blaming him for the unemployment number which is a no brainer when you say, yeah close it all down...Duh. This is also where you have to balance having the country led by multiple experts and not just a doctor in a certain data set, its essentially the American project (I am not implying the information Fauci, Brix is bad, just we typically balance many experts in many fields to direct policy. Certainly not Trumps strong suit either). It sucks, but this isn't a lives vs money argument, its a lives vs lives, there has to be a strategy to allow movement and herd immunity. This is a population control bug, sadly. It loves the co-morbidity's and the weaker older populous, and our health care system for all the criticism has otherwise done a phenomenal job of keeping these at risk people alive for much longer with better quality off life, however this scernario exposures the chinks in that armor, just life. Serological testing hopefully solves the void in data they need to feel comfortable to send the herd back out. It needs to get moving and moving soon.