THREAD - (Short term Options)
Many of the messages I get regarding options are referencing outside the money (OTM) calls w/ expirations a week or two out (or less)
It's no wonder these traders are often very concerned (even frantic) about the outcome of their trades.
a.k.a. Long term options typically w/ an expiration of longer than a year)
While playing OTM weekly options has the potential for huge returns, & will undoubtedly get your adrenaline pumping, it's also an easy way to lose your💰
Each trade should be a *very* small percentage of your account, and you should assume that every trade you make is going to zero.
You can still make massive returns on options that have expirations that are 2+ months, even 2+ years out without taking on so much immediate risk.
Once you take the time to fully understand the power of compounding, you'll be much less likely to want to trade vehicles with extremely high risk.
When I started placing more focus on consistency, protecting my capital, and compounding my money instead of hitting home runs, my account grew exponentially faster 📈
More from Economy
Thread on eminent people supporting farm laws:
Dr. Gita Gopinath, Chief Economist at IMF says "Farm bills are in right
Dr. Surjit Bhalla, executive director at IMF support farm
Godrej Agrovet Chairman Nadir Godrej tells Bloomberg that agriculture reforms are important for
Prof Ashok Gulati supports new farm
Vice-Chairman of Bharti Enterprises Rajan Bharti Mittal supports the new farm
Dr. Gita Gopinath, Chief Economist at IMF says "Farm bills are in right
Dr. Surjit Bhalla, executive director at IMF support farm
Godrej Agrovet Chairman Nadir Godrej tells Bloomberg that agriculture reforms are important for
Godrej Agrovet Chairman Nadir Godrej tells Bloomberg that agriculture reforms are important for India. pic.twitter.com/N6rnelLn0E
— BloombergQuint (@BloombergQuint) December 11, 2020
Prof Ashok Gulati supports new farm
Vice-Chairman of Bharti Enterprises Rajan Bharti Mittal supports the new farm
$600/wk Unemployment Insurance cannot deliver the benefits of a $600/wk Job Guarantee. From the outset, I should say JG is not a replacement for UI, no matter what you may have heard. I’ll get to this later, but read this long 🧶 w/ that in mind.
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
Surprised so many smart people bought into the idea that $600/wk UI is the same as $600/wk job guarantee (or better) or that JG jobs must be inherently inessential. I\u2019ve addressed this many times & will post a thread later. Trying not to spend precious family time on Twitter.
— Pavlina R Tcherneva (@ptcherneva) December 29, 2020
Automatic stabilization: Both $600/wk UI and JG will provide counter cyclical spending. But UI will be weaker. Counter-cyclical stabilization is not just about the absence of income. It is also about the transmission and structure of economy
Firms don't like to hire the unemployed. Mass and long-term unemployment make the problem worse. JG would recover labor markets much faster than a UI of the same amount, both b/c of the higher direct, induced & tertiary employment effects & b/c of private firm hiring preferences.
JG stabilizes spending patterns better. Uncertain job prospects may mean more cautious spending from the unemployed compared to those w/ guaranteed jobs.
UI is temporary, which makes matters worse. Even if it were permanent, it still won't resolve the problem of job scarcity.
Nations who once achieved tight full employment through active labor market policies demonstrate that unemployment does NOT fluctuate the same way it does w/o them. Direct employment, ELR type policies diminish drastically/even eliminate these amplitudes (eg postwar Japan/Sweden)
You May Also Like
1/Politics thread time.
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
To me, the most important aspect of the 2018 midterms wasn't even about partisan control, but about democracy and voting rights. That's the real battle.
2/The good news: It's now an issue that everyone's talking about, and that everyone cares about.
3/More good news: Florida's proposition to give felons voting rights won. But it didn't just win - it won with substantial support from Republican voters.
That suggests there is still SOME grassroots support for democracy that transcends
4/Yet more good news: Michigan made it easier to vote. Again, by plebiscite, showing broad support for voting rights as an
5/OK, now the bad news.
We seem to have accepted electoral dysfunction in Florida as a permanent thing. The 2000 election has never really
Bad ballot design led to a lot of undervotes for Bill Nelson in Broward Co., possibly even enough to cost him his Senate seat. They do appear to be real undervotes, though, instead of tabulation errors. He doesn't really seem to have a path to victory. https://t.co/utUhY2KTaR
— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) November 16, 2018