I'd average in any time you see a 10-20% pullback. BTC is gaining institutional support, which it didn't have in 2017, so I wouldn't bank on a 60-70% pullback again.

I bleed maroon said:

---

Looking for Speculative Buy-And-Hold Recommendations on Bitcoin/alternatives:

So, as I don't understand the first thing about cryptocurrency but would like to dabble a bit to reduce currency risk and to speculate. I'd like to spread the risk by opening 3-4 positions that complement each other, or at least are a bit uncorrelated. I'm hoping this would reduce my risk on any one holding, but give me a bit of a diversified bet on crypto.

I am somewhat familiar with GBTC and MARA, but would like to hear other ideas. THANKS!

---

Thing about crypto is they are all extremely correlated. If bitcoin dumps pretty much all the rest will follow. Funny enough, a lot of the time bitcoin starts ripping the rest will either stagnate or even lose value (against bitcoin). MARA is loosely correlated to bitcoin but is constrained to normal trading hours so you're at a big of a disadvantage with it.

My suggestion would be to just open an account on coinbase or gemini and buy spot Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Chainlink (three of the major ones). It's super easy to do and there's probably a million tutorials on youtube even how to do it.

Loaded up on some more BA and AAPL

I'm buying "cheap" VIX calls for December and January with eyes on the elections. The market has priced in Biden, if there were some kind of upset, I think'd we see a big move in the market or at least in the sectors that have run in the past weeks/months.

I thought the election was priced in already ?

Biden is priced in as the victor imo. If Trump were to win or do something unexpected, I would expect significant vol as the market has to completely reprice expectations. It's a low probability event so I'm keeping the trade small, but it could be interesting.

There are a few important dates/milestones coming up... results certification, ODNI report on foreign interference, etc.

Anyone looking/in WFC? Seems that it hasn't rebounded like most of the other banks and is still quite undervalued...could one for the 401k?

gougler08 said:

---

Anyone looking/in WFC? Seems that it hasn't rebounded like most of the other banks and is still quite undervalued...could one for the 401k?

---

I'd avoid it due to their legal, regulatory, and reputation issues. Consider putting half in a stronger competitor (JPM, maybe?) and the other half in an emerging bank-like player like Square or PayPal (I hold FTEC, an ETF of bank technology stocks, as another alternative). As an almost 40 year customer of WFC (or their acquired subsidiaries) I am sad to see Wells Fargo reduced to a poor to middling player, but I sold my WFC preferred stock a while back due to these issues. Definitely high-risk if you invest in WFC. I think they'll eventually be acquired - their brand is unfortunately tainted.

I bleed maroon said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

Anyone looking/in WFC? Seems that it hasn't rebounded like most of the other banks and is still quite undervalued...could one for the 401k?

---

I'd avoid it due to their legal, regulatory, and reputation issues. Consider putting half in a stronger competitor (JPM, maybe?) and the other half in an emerging bank-like player like Square or PayPal (I hold FTEC, an ETF of bank technology stocks, as another alternative). As an almost 40 year customer of WFC (or their acquired subsidiaries) I am sad to see Wells Fargo reduced to a poor to middling player, but I sold my WFC preferred stock a while back due to these issues. Definitely high-risk if you invest in WFC. I think they'll eventually be acquired - their brand is unfortunately tainted.

---

Yep, spot on and probably more insight that I have. I've been a customer for about 20 years and same thoughts. There's a reason why it is 'cheap'. If you really want to go for a big bank, I concur JPM is the route to go. I have a rule of no financials except for new growth types like SQ and PYPL (I only own SQ).

I've made the whole sector pretty much a no go for me (much like O&G).... especially an underperformer like WFC. Why own banks in a ZIRP environment?

Re banks.....I bought into BAC on the dip in March. Decent dividend and Buffett likes. And at that price it was worth a small position

Thoughts on JNJ from the group? Heres the deal. Taxable account. Owned for few years so aeady in long position. At $150 that's about 40% return and if include dividend closer to 50%.
Keeps flirting with 150 to 153 and pulling back. Thinking of selling 25% of my position to lock in that profit and park some cash on sideline to see what this pandemic does to markets this winter.

Been in the Big OA thread for a while, posting in this one to watchlist.

I bleed maroon said:

---

gougler08 said:

---

Anyone looking/in WFC? Seems that it hasn't rebounded like most of the other banks and is still quite undervalued...could one for the 401k?

---

I'd avoid it due to their legal, regulatory, and reputation issues. Consider putting half in a stronger competitor (JPM, maybe?) and the other half in an emerging bank-like player like Square or PayPal (I hold FTEC, an ETF of bank technology stocks, as another alternative). As an almost 40 year customer of WFC (or their acquired subsidiaries) I am sad to see Wells Fargo reduced to a poor to middling player, but I sold my WFC preferred stock a while back due to these issues. Definitely high-risk if you invest in WFC. I think they'll eventually be acquired - their brand is unfortunately tainted.

---

I like Wells Fargo here. I loaded up at 18, and I'll buy more.

I think a lot of their trouble is behind them. They were trading twice their current price in the spring with 5x higher dividends. They lagged the other banks because they have are the largest mortgage lender of all the big banks far and away and they missed out on the investment banking swing thanks to fed restrictions.

To the average person, I don't think their reputation is significantly worse than any other major bank. I don't think the average person understands the scandal and/or just thinks all the banks are corrupt.

They have changed management and there is now a light at the end of the tunnel as far as litigation and Fed restrictions.

I think in the next six months they will at least return to pre-covid pricing (low to mid-$50s) and within two years be back to the pre-covid dividend (~$2.00)

To each their own, but for me this is one that's just "Why?"

I personally take issue with them as a company so I wouldn't be investing in any case, but feels like there's a lot better choices out there than betting on them to come back from a dismal year while tons of other financial institutions have excelled.

Roku and SPCE kicking ass for me today.

Champ Bailey said:

---

Roku and SPCE kicking ass for me today.

---

ROKU is almost a 2x for me, and TSLA flirting with $640 per share.

I'm also all in on PINS as the next tech stock to blow up.

I'd like to make some decent sized long term (15 - 20+ years) buys in the next month or so. I'm tempted to just continue loading up on AMZN, AAPL and ROKU. Any thoughts, recs? I've got a small amount of TSLA, but it just makes me a little nervous to go too deep there...? NIO? MGNI?

(FWIW - I always put a similar amount in index funds too to hedge risk a little)

What are yall buying in the next couple of months to hold long term?

I'm looking at PayPal and Netflix.

Just bought some of both.

15 years is a long time. I think these companies will be good for a long while, but it's good to re-evaluate them every few years.

I also like Microsoft for the real long term. I don't see them going anywhere.

PINS, CRWD, APPN, and SQ for me. I've sold off some TSLA recently as it's grown from a really small investment to a good chunk of my overall portfolio.

Also trying to put a bit into alternative energy, BEP and NEE.

I've got several I'm holding for 3-5 years longer, but for me, the ones I feel most comfortable with are AMZN, AAPL, MSFT, SQ.

Here are some more ideas for long term holds:

GOOG.... looking at the revenue growth and PE I think GOOG may be undervalued relative to MSFT and AAPL. Just seems like the stock price has lagged tech sector growth. Maybe there is some reason investors are avoiding it (fear of being broken up?). But the revenue growth looks stable.

LLY.... Eli Lily... my friend in the healthcare industry turned me on to this one. They make diabetes testers and insulin. Well, diabetes isn't going away. I think this has potential to continue to be a consistent growth stock. It's performed well over the past few years and in 2020.


TDOC... Teladoc. An obvious choice. The tele-medicine is here to stay. Revenue growth has been huge for Teledoc. I think the trend will continue. The one pitfall is this company still hasn't turned a profit, but it's business has been exploding. The shift to tele-medicine is permanent. Another consideration is a few competitors have entered the space, so there is risk Teledoc gets pushed aside by ZOOM or even the insurances companies rolling out their own tele-medicine platforms.

Other attractive market leaders with stable revenue and growth models are ROKU, NFLX, and ADBE.

As always, do your own research on the income and business models of these companies, but I think all of them are likely to have very stable revenue growth going forward.

59 South said:

---

I'm trying to figure out the same thing myself... I think you can't really go wrong with the risk/reward of AMZN, AAPL, MSFT...

It is definitely a mental game for me personally especially seeing ROKU, NIO and SQ mentioned being up several multiples and considering reallocating some of those gains elsewhere... I think all have lots of long term upside left, but it is hard not to sell some to lock in unsustainable gains.

I just keep coming back to AMZN as the play into the next couple of years. The growth for such a large company is just unprecedented, and when Jeff finally gives in to split the stock, it is going to explode. They've been held back recently as well from rebalancing due to TSLA coming into the S&P.

For some higher risk plays, I don't own any of these yet but they make up my watch list: OSTK, DOCU, PINS, PLTR, FUBO, FEAC, UBER

---

I think ROKU is at the point they rival the cable companies. They have 50% of the streaming market, about 3x the market share of the next two in line. They have massive leverage now over content producers as viewers have cut cable subscriptions. ROKU is the major gate keeper. If you can't get on ROKU then your content reach is severely handicapped.

ROKU exploded so much it's completely lopsided my taxable portfolio. But I'm going to let it run. My cost basis is around $80. I think ROKU will be the NFLX of the 2020s. It's become the giant player in the space, and I think it's going to remain the leader.

Streaming as a whole is going to continue its boom. Just a portfolio of the 3 big streaming platforms like AAPL, AMZN, and content providers like NFLX and DIS is going to have stable quarterly revenue growth, and this will grow with inflation and the switch to steaming releases and the move away from theaters.

I should search to see if there is a streaming ETF or fund, because it wouldn't be a bad sector to look at owning.

The issue I have with TDOC is that I've seen the reimbursement rates for telemedicine visits. It's a portion of what an actual visit reimburses.

When COVID began, my hospital went to a heavy telemedicine presence to keep things going.
And then the insurance reimbursements started rolling in. There was an immediate push to transition away from telemedicine in favor of clinic visits.

Now, patients loved it. And we still do some televisits. But I have a hard time seeing it continuing long term if the payments don't improve.

docaggie said:

---

The issue I have with TDOC is that I've seen the reimbursement rates for telemedicine visits. It's a portion of what an actual visit reimburses.

When COVID began, my hospital went to a heavy telemedicine presence to keep things going.
And then the insurance reimbursements started rolling in. There was an immediate push to transition away from telemedicine in favor of clinic visits.

Now, patients loved it. And we still do some televisits. But I have a hard time seeing it continuing long term if the payments don't improve.

---

but isn't that the point? See more patients and they see a reduced cost without the facility use? If I had a sinus infection and just wanted a ZPak and steroid why do I need to go in and see a nurse then a dr just to get that script. A 15-min conversation over the internet and call in the script. We all move on and didn't waste over an hour.

But the facilities don't go away. They're still there and still have to be paid for.
Furthermore, there's zero way to do a physical exam.
And lastly, I'm not talking about a slight difference in reimbursement. I'm talking like 1/3 of the reimbursement.

docaggie said:

---

But the facilities don't go away. They're still there and still have to be paid for.
Furthermore, there's zero way to do a physical exam.
And lastly, I'm not talking about a slight difference in reimbursement. I'm talking like 1/3 of the reimbursement.

---

But if doesn't require a physical, or a nurse taking blood pressure, and it's billed automatically and requires no office staff, then isn't it less work and labor and overhead? Maybe not 1/3 less right now, but you have to assume tele-medicine will lead to lower overhead for providers too. For example, dedicated telemedicine doctors and call centers.

Insurance companies own congress and will never lose. If they want tele-medicine then they will get it. And the government never loses, Medicare and Medicaid will get what they want.

third coast.. said:

---

Telemedicine is how all these quack hairloss and ed places you see commercials for make all their money.

---

Is it? Is your thesis they don't have lasting power? How should we take that into consideration?

Look, I get your logic and agree from a macro view that a practice starting from new could eliminate a lot of expenses through telemedicine, but I'm telling you, as a doctor in a really big medical system, the desire of the system is not for telemedicine. The reimbursement from insurance companies and medicare is just not sufficient to cover expenses, in some cases even the expenses of just the physician involved

It works for the medical systems that Third Coast is talking about, because they're also making a big profit on the cash sales of medications / devices. If they weren't required to have a consultation before prescribing, they would do away with even that.

Great insight, that's why this thread exists.