5 years lawsuit: Guess how much "investors" got back?Before giving the answer, what happened?
Apple had sapphire glass on its home button and camera. They lend money to their supplier, GTAT, a few hundred millions.
Absolute masterminds had the genius idea that if Apple was going to have their phones whole screen in sapphire then demand skyrockets and share price goes up... infinity? Oh and this "investment" was "a sure thing".
Well the company exited the business, shut down its plants, sold off its furnaces and announced plans to settle its debt. It gave back to Apple most of the money.
Apple plans were to use sapphire for their watch apparently.
People can't speculate they shouldn't even try. They're so delusional they think they can.
Apple agrees to settle GT Advanced Technologies lawsuit for $3.5 million.
So, bagholders that got rekt did the thing these losers always do: whine to judges.
They filed a lawsuit saying GTAT was partially responsible for a "disastrous deal" costing "investors" more than $1 billion.
Remember, that "disastrous deal" is what got them all excited and investing.
"GTAT’s former top executives settled for $27 million and its underwriters for $9.5 million."
==> Total bagholders got around $40 million, compared to the estimated $1 billion they lost. 4 percent .
If you are wondering, cryptos are not regulated are not run by anyone and investors will get 0% back. Good luck suing computers.
Here is a "heartbreaking story" of an "investor" that lost everything (gambling most of his life savings on a rumor):
www.businessinsider.fr
Try not to laugh challenge.
"I cried for 24 hours knowing I ruined the future for my family," wrote Cooper.
It would probably be severly condemned by society if someone would start laughing hysterically at this announcement?
I couldn't hold myself. I remember hearing bagholders of some stocks complain that lawyers were laughing in court when they told their story.
Can't remember what it was in particular, and search engines are useless, and these stories don't get advertised too much. Might be a dumb rumor.
And I wonder why rekt investors stay silent.
Interesting chart.
Remember what studies found "high IQ investors tend to have better results due to diversifying more".
I'm more of an OTP and disgusted by "investing" in 50 companies or holding 30 trades at any given time, but going all in on a single trade, or investing entire lifesavings on a single company, not even just a single sector or correlated assets, literally a single company, that's just so dumb.
Guess what? OF COURSE THE GTAT INVESTOR FORUM GOT REMOVED!
Come on we want to learn from their mistakes, and have a good laugh at the same time.
Investors sued them so they wouldn't want to keep the forum open, plus they're not public like they were anymore.
And who was pushing apple suppliers to retail investors? Good old Cramer ;)
Imagine a business that isn't diversified at all, that has only 1 client, on a recent technology that can change anytime.
Now imagine retail investors - known for "averaging down", never cutting losses, never hedging, and going all in at once (😆), not understanding what they buy, being emotional and following the herd.... buying those businesses!
I might be into macro speculating but even I know that a business like this is risky and certainly not something to go all in in.
Here is an article that has screenshots of rekt "investors":
www.joshuakennon.com
That's run by an individual not a company, and he puts investors in quotes like me, good I like this guy.
He probably cracked up and laughed while laughing. He can only be a good person thought, he's gay.
Maybe I should pretend to be gay to be considered a good person. And also do some "philantropy and charity" (biggest scams).
Telling people about this will help as opposed to being an emotional "carer" that "wouldn't dare laugh at others misery" and is telling every one to get all excited and telling them about the time Bitcoin went up 5 million percent or some crap, and "positive" let's just focus on the 0.1% of companies that went way up and ignore the 99% that collapsed completely, that'll help novices / noobs make the right calls!
So many destroyed "investors" that "bought in cheap".
You can make so much money when you buy high and sell low, and inversingly, you can lose so much buying cheap and selling high.
If regulators want to do something useful, and not discriminate (based on IQ or education or anything), just prohibit leverage to those with less than a few years of experience or less than a certain number of operations (and not for EVERYONE including profitable participants over a great number of operations!), maybe even set a rule limiting novices position size to 50% of proven assets. I don't think there's really a point to protect very dumb people savings (must hurt to work 25 years and then lose it all at once lel), but regulators want to, so do something smart. Regulators are the ones that can't make money speculating or investing, and not even writting about it, so they regulate, and therefore they won't be able to come up with solutions and are always too late too useless etc.
A little story about r-words that lost everything they saved (£180k at 50 yo) gambling on stocks to "get their money back" using borrowed money (leverage):
www.telegraph.co.uk
I heard so many times "I lost money investing so I started trading to make it back" in particular in crypto.
If a family member or close friend said this to me I'd insult them, prob hit them actually.
Hard to stay polite with that amount of stupidity and delusional.
And I heard stories of people that got shrekt in bubbles, got their money back, and quit at breakeven.
I heard stories of someone that let someone close trade their money (a pro (pro means wagecuck) trader), make a killing - the one trading it, and the second the amount they made was equal to the amount they lost they pulled it all out (these people really deserve to get wiped out).
As investing becomes more popular to anyone (anyone... can you imagine), the rekt stories are more common.
The average person is deeply stupid, now imagine that half of the population is worse than that 😐
And they can all invest speculate and have access to all sort of tools, including borrowing money.
There's just going to be more and more regulations, but those come slow.
It's kind of pressuring profitable traders that don't yet have accounts bigger than say 100k to take more risk to try to make money faster.
Charlie Munger said you have a 20 slot punchcard, but some people manage to end up with a single slot punchcard (it was Charlie that said this right? Every one is crediting Warren Buffet).
John Templeton had bought 104 companies shares when he started but that was a protection against ignorance and he was a macro investor, maybe I should follow his example then.
Alot of very successful speculators make big one sided bets rather than diversify but first of all it's usually macro, and second of all they are diversified in time, they use stops, they don't go all in, etc.
I don't know that many investors, and the only recent ones are from movies and tv.
About Michael Burry:
"Burry was speaking from experience. According to his own blog posts, he too started with an ultra-concentrated portfolio, around four to six stocks, but as Burry's strategy developed and he grew as an investor, so did his portfolio. Soon, the number of individual positions had increased to nine and then later, this number went up to 18."
Well Buffet says he'd be very happy with just 3 or so stocks but he is longer term, and he would still have cash and probably some bonds too.
And he wrote "10 to 30" (not just stocks all investments). Michael Burry is right in that range.
I might just use indices tbh, but when i finally invest I'd just go for a few, really few. 3 to 5. But 1 can mean "30 companies from a country I want to invest in" I would be betting on the country economy not on 30 different companies.
I think I'll always have some cash. You can speculatively buy & sell using borrowed money using investments as collateral but I'll have cash in accounts anyway.
About those "investments" it can be argued it was or was not stupid. We can talk about doing your research. About not averaging on losers or "buying cheap".
But 1 thing cannot be argued: Dumb money is the money that goes all in a single company with no rules, and it's not called dumb money because they are intelligent but unlucky.
Rule number 1 = Don't lose money
Rule number 2 = Never forget nb 1
Rule number 3 = Don't go all in / Invest in at least 3 issues / set a maximum risk per investment that should always be less than 33% (and 33% is so huge).
Graham's largest gain was from GEICO, which his Graham-Newman Partnership purchased 50% of in 1948 for $712,000. The position grew to $400 million by 1972, contributing more to the portfolio than all of Graham-Newman's other investments combined.
Oof don't diversify too much. Graham, one of the very very very rare book writter and economist that actually made money. Oh no wait, the only one.
They call him an economist but he finished university at 20 and went to Wall Street, yet another success that didn't waste too much time in useless school go figure.
Going to university was pretty rare back then thought. Diploma inflation hit hard. When I think of how many years I wasted for nothing...
Some people don't even risk 100%, they borrow and risk more than 100% MYGAWD. R words. R words. Absolute rwords.
"When you combine ignorance and leverage, you get some pretty interesting results."
