Chronicles of 2025

[Mirager]

Yeah, as expected!

Edit: the poor cat

[Your_Full_Name]

Saw this y’day posted by someone I respect but thought to myself “sure …”.

(Source)

[almi]

It is/was a valid strategy, if you can create money out of the blue (or if you feel more risky than before).

@almi

Scenario 4 (inspired by @TeaGhost): Cool-Off Buy-the-Dip

• follow the baseline scenario, but if there is a >=2% drop of VT on one day, it waits until at least 3 continuous days there is no more than a 0.2% downturn per day (measure of reduced volatility); if this is the case, buy in with 1000 $
• if this becomes the case but the price is already higher than before the drop (e.g. one day after a -2% you get a +2.2% rebound), it ignores the event and continues with the baseline investing
• max 1 additional event/month (max 2000$ investing/month)

@almi

Results
All results here are only about % return. Absolute return varies due to different amount invested.
Note, for baseline, the return of investment in % would be the same if I invest 1000$ or e.g. 2000$/month (corresponding to 240 buy-events, but 2 on the same day; disregarding fees).

• Baseline - Average 10-y return: 60.7% Std: 14.9% Buy-events (average): 120
• Immediate Buy-the-Dip - Average 10-y return: 63.5% Std: 15.8% Buy-events (average): 160
• Short-Delayed Buy-the-Dip - Average 10-y return: 63.5% Std: 16.2% Buy-events (average): 175
• Cool-Off Buy-the-Dip - Average 10-y return: 62.2% Std: 15.3% Buy-events (average): 131
• Baseline 50-50 Dip - Average 10-y return: 60.7% Std: 14.9% Buy-events (average): 160
• Hardcore Buy-the-Dip - Average 10-y return: 60.6% Std: 14.9% Buy-events (average): 120

[Mirager]

That’s really golden. I think a simple(r) rule of thumb is not doing anything +/- 5 business days of potentially impactful news.

[almi]

Probably valid as well, but very hard to simulate/quantify

[Your_Full_Name]

This is just the market having fun with us.   From my favorite cartoonist when I was young in a past millenium:

[justbob]

I do think the arithmetic is different here, as passing a law needs less votes than impeachment, but I call it optimism for a reason.

[PhilMongoose]

Well not everything is deep red today (so far):

[Your_Full_Name]

Is this a map of the Fartcoin constituents?

[Wolverine]

It’s a bit more broad than that.

First off, the executive orders target the law firms by name, making it very clear that these law firms are persona non grata. It states that their clients will loose government contracts. It can be inferred that chances are high that they would also loose any case in front of regulating agencies they might have and/or could be specifically targeted by said regulating agencies. Disclosure of any business they may have with the targeted law firms becomes required of government contractors.

Second, it also aims at removing any security clearance and revoke access to Government buildings to these law firms. Some cases (involving sensitive/classified documents) require a security clearance and tribunals ARE government buildings…

Third, it directs the Attorney General to look deeply into those law firms, suggesting that they will be prosecuted and will have to expend resources defending themselves.

Fourth, it specifically states that employees of these law firms can’t get hired by the government, closing career paths like judges or prosecutors to them.

Basically, it aims at draining the law firms from their clients and subsequently from their talents. As any law firm can be targeted, it also means that it strongly discourages law firms to take cases from clients who would sue the government.

As a matter of fact, legal action against the government, but also support for the opposition (one case stated directly that the grief against the law firm was that they had defended Hillary Clinton) or, by extension, any real or imaginary slight Trump may percieve, would be punished by economic attrition for both the clients and the law firms. Making the government de facto immune to the rule of law (some law firms are fighting the executive order, so it’s not a given yet, but the threat is there).

Here’s an example of one such executive order: Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP – The White House

[ma0]

Is that the real WH address or the infamous p..rn site?
Did I miss the .kp at the end?

[Wolverine]

There’s a WH pr0nsite !? That one’s the official whitehouse.gov for as far as I can tell. I can’t promise that the things it contains are any less salacious.

[ma0]

I think it’s the .com one. Not sure, I haven’t ever opened. I don’t trust it.

btw. reading yours it’s clear who wrote it, word by word.

[Wolverine]

whitehouse.com is apparently an election betting site nowadays. It used to have adult content on it if Wikipedia is to be trusted: whitehouse.com - Wikipedia

[Mirager]

OMFG how the actual F is this timeline real? I knew the broad idea but hadn’t actually read any of these. Calling out George Soros - the alt/far-right boogeyman too for good measure.

And how can any of these be legal?

@ma0

btw. reading yours it’s clear who wrote it, word by word.

Is it? It has complete sentences and good vocabulary, Trump has neither.

[Wolverine]

@Mirager

And how can any of these be legal?

Chances are they’re not. It’s currently being litigated. It hasn’t stopped Trump before, as he’s the “I do things and you have to actually stop me if you don’t want me to” kind of person.

Two law firms have caved and cut deals instead of fighting and, at worst, Trump will get a slap on the hand so there’s really no big incentive for him not to try whatever he wants and see how far it can go.

For news on the firms who are challenging the orders: Law firms hire former Tesla lawyer and top conservative litigator for Trump fight | Reuters

[nabalzbhf]

Oped from Trump admin: Donald Trump’s tariffs will fix a broken system

As a foreign investor, I’m slightly concerned with things like:

The US cumulative trade deficits in goods from 1976 — the year chronic deficits began — to 2024 have transferred over $20tn of American wealth into foreign hands. That’s more than 60 per cent of US GDP in 2024. Foreign interests have taken over vast swaths of US farmland, housing, tech companies, and even parts of our food supply.

[Wolverine]

Out of genuine curiosity, what in this exerpt concerns you slightly?

[Abs_max]

I believe the point that US sees foreigners owning a big chunk of US as an issue can be a problem for foreigners

Who is to say that US doesn’t pass an order to nationalise these assets

[Quack]

Just went to fox news and this was the first money related headline on the front page (not sure whether to or )