coc

Religious Jews have slaughtering Pals by the hundreds in the West Bank. Conservative Christians have fully supported the genocide in Gaza on religious grounds. Your argument is false. You just think those are OK and don’t count, and Muslim violence is what terrorism means to you.

Agreed on Mickey 17. Thought it was honestly terrible. Pattison is always good and entertaining but like you I was thinking "who wrote this crap?"

I'm sorry I wasn't clear enough. Please peddle your bullshit to someone else. I was speaking to @ourkid8

I say this out of concern, I would leave this thread alone ourkid8. The discourse flourishing here around the Genocide is unforgiveable and (at this time) unchangeable, though I admire your trying. I suspect eventually Parsad may need to delete the whole thread, including for some of his own contributions. The Hasbarists will do their thing while they're riding high. Dark days, but not forever.

Anyone remember when he used to go on about not disclosing his current portfolio picks/rationale for fear of bias? 27,000 podcasts and several license plates later...

Thank you for this. It's safe to assume at this point that if MP opens his mouth, he's bullshitting. Obviously in this case because he's recently realized that he had the good fortune to open his fund when small cap value stocks got very cheap and has ridden his first three years of returns ever since. Edit: Anyone quoting his track record of "outperformance" based on a few early years (eg., surviorship bias - he wouldn't be in business without those) and not looking at his dollar weighted returns is a sucker.

Read through some of the religion commentary here (which was like nuns discussing sex) but one question I'd love someone to take a shot at: Why is Bin Laden's activity considered driven largely by Islamic theology and Rumsfeld/Bush/Cheney's partial destruction of the Middle East not considered driven largely by Christian theology? Because in point of fact the latter were highly partial to pushing a narrative of Christian conquest and Bush's cabinets contained Biblical fundamentalists eg Ashcroft. Now if you would like to argue that the Bible thumping coming out of the Bush camp during the "War on Terror" (all the good and evil stuff) was just "words" and the real reasons were something else (political, strategic, pure dumbassery), then why do we not consider much of what AL Qaeda talks about "just words" and the real reasons something else? I finish with Bush's own words during the WoT while trying to remake Iraq. "I believe all these things because freedom is not America's gift to the world, it is the Almighty God's gift to every man and woman in this world."

What kind of ridiculous MAGA potion does one need to drink to think the US could possibly "push China out of world finance"?

I don't see this as a serious counter point. All he's saying is "No one else has any ideas" - well, OK, but first do no harm. A bad idea isn't better than no idea. Tariffs as a whole *could* be effective. This across the board, make it up as we go, every country is the enemy thing...

Realist? He's calling the extermination and cleansing of a few million people a "war" as if Israel is fighting Imperial Japan or the Nazi war machine. (In BOTH of which conflicts massive war crimes were committed by both sides - the idea that the US "saved Japanese lives" by bombing its civilians to smithereens is political/war propaganda.) How can people as smart as those on this board be so naive, stupid, and verbalistic on world issues? And if you would like to escape the echo chamber and get the take of the current GrandDaddy of all "realist" political thinkers, look up what Mearsheimer has to say on these issues. (The guy who wrote the books of the "realist" school.) Rather than some internet yahoo with an extermination fetish sitting behind his keyboard.

How about I'll feel free to post whatever the f*** I want under Parsad's rules and you stick me on ignore, and in return, we keep this a genocide-free investment board? Hop on Twitter and promote your ethnic cleansing fantasies if you need an outlet.

Your words: "it should have been killing 10,000 Afghans a day until Taliban handed over Bin Laden & Co! Similarly in Gaza/Judea and Samaria (West Bank technically includes Israel pre-1967 borders)/Lebanon, just transfer the populations to Syria, and end the problem. " Now: "I don't support genocide and never did." In a few sentences you supported both genocide AND ethnic cleansing. Congrats. These are the "Western Values" that you all want to "return" to? Parsad should have banned you permanently (and some other overt genocide supporters here hiding under various rhetorical tricks e.g. "Western Civilization" and other BS).

Very glad to see the political stuff gone, thanks Parsad. We were veering into the open cheering of genocide and so on. Now to less controversial topics, like Microstrategy.

This is excellent Martian and you've explained in much more detail than I have the patience for why no options strategy currently known to man is "guaranteed" to add to your P/L, it is a strategy that takes skill, luck, and intelligent risk-taking just like any other. Glad we've put this latest COBF nonsense to bed.

You guys need to understand that unless a market is *grossly* inefficient (and that is a true rarity) there is no such thing as riskless (or "guaranteed") profit (and yes, 73Reds, mitigating SPY losses would also be economically equivalent to profit).

I assure you 73Reds is NOT correct. Just because you have executed these transactions does not mean you are guaranteed any sort of extra profit on them. I'm glad your BRK stuff has worked out. With other stocks, with the SPY, at other times and places, there is absolutely a risk being taken. This is not debatable, I'm sorry. You could make billions of dollars running this strategy at a quant desk if it were real.

Another way to understand the idiocy of 73 Red's idea is that buyers in the SPY options market are guaranteed to cede some money to you net, if you just pursue his strategy! Must be a lot of dummies out there!

NO. No. Jesus. You don't get it at all and you're resorting to sophistry like "make as much money as you can" or "guarantee profits" which nobody has claimed. You're saying your strategy will *add profits to your index investing GUARANTEED* and you are 100% wrong. It MIGHT, or it might SUBTRACT from your profit/loss, maybe meaningfully. *Over time* the moves in the tails will eat you alive as you try to trade these things. And you may not see your failure come up in "six months" or "a matter of days" as you challenged someone else above. There will be single days in which this strategy bests you over a 10,000 day period. Please God do not trade options or recommend others do so. You may be the world's best stock investor but you're clueless on this topic. I just don't know how else to put it. I can tell 100% you have not actually pursued this strategy over a period of many years (at least a full cycle) because succeeding in it would require you to be an EXCELLENT option trader and know options intimately. As for being civil, I tried starting with that but you've proven that you're going to continue to promote a bad idea you don't understand to people who might pursue it, so I have resorted to being pointed. I am now finished responding on this and I hope anyone following this exchange can understand why this is not a good idea, there is no such thing as guaranteed additional profits, etc.

I've read some nonsense on this board but this might be the worst. If I sell a $3 call and buy it back for $6, I've lost $3!! The next transaction is completely independent, a new P/L. So the question remains, how can you "guarantee" I will make money net of these potential rolling losses? Your strategy would have been exploited long ago by hedge funds if it were valid. Let's do an example for others who might be reading and potentially pursuing this (bad) advice: Today a 12/31/25 call on the SPY at 700 goes for $3.22 according to my broker. Absolute peanuts by the way, 0.5%. But if the index goes to 650 by midyear, the call will trade up and I'll have to buy it back higher to continue to stay the same distance out of the money. (Or I get closer and closer to losing my position, which this fella says you don't want to do.) So I sell it for $3.22, buy it for, say, $6.44, then sell a new one at 750 for 6/30/26 for $3.22. Where is my extra profit? This whole strategy is not only not "guaranteed" to make money, it runs a risk of losing you some money, unless you can predict the market, in which case you should be buying options.

And how do you know the money you lose rolling your positions won't offset the pennies you're collecting along the way? Do you have any data on this? And if you don't roll your position, you might lose it, and lose that upside, then have to buy back at a higher price. Which will also cost you versus the index. Therefore there is no free lunch and unless you can prove it with data, no guaranteed outperformance by "anyone with a fourth grade education".

How would shorting calls guarantee outperformance? You might sell a call for $5 and then have to buy it back for $10 in order to roll it. The options market is efficient.

I'm late to seeing this but thanks for posting it. Somehow, this guy has managed to become an even bigger bullsh*tter over time.

Honestly the guy may end up as President. We got one self-promoting financial failure grifter and it's not crazy if we get another.

Massive hindsight bias. TSLA has teetered on the edge of BK many times, if the breaks came out differently, easily could have gotten there.

Ackman is trying to play kingmaker. I guess Tilson is no more of a con / salesjob than Trump was in his heyday.