Why you guys freaking out. It's been a relatively chill day...

nasdaq down 0.14%
my portfolio down 14%

Hardly even seems like a risk tbh. Suncor spent almost the entirety of the last 16 years trading from $30-55 (CAD$ on the TSX) and was at $40 right before the pandemic hit. Their physical assets alone are worth over $72billion and they have a $44billion market cap right now.


Undervalued and underloved, just a matter of time before their stock price recovers fully

Only CCIV and TUSK are green on my portfolio. Everything else is massively bleeding

td still hasn't been able to issue my new shares

I'm down 1.93%. Not bad not mad.

XMETD up 24%, CTYX down 6%

Wtf TDA hasn't even converted my shares yet from XMET to XMETD.

can't sell my shares eithertime to buy the dip

(When I said XMET fun is over I meant its no longer a 100 bagger play,still might do 5-10 bagger if we get lucky but I signed up for 100x so for me its over)

what dip to buy boyos? or we expecting a fire sale tomorrow?

Anyone else kinda admire companies like Hindenburg Research who put in all this effort to ferret out fraud etc? Feels like it would be fun and interesting work

It's not much of a dip. Down less than 2%. I'm holding off.

lmaooooooo more like tearing down a company so they can get in cheap and buy puts on em

Some stocks on my watchlist are down big time, looking to start a position in DIS & ABNB but will wait for a better dip

Buying puts seems like the logical thing to do if you have strong evidence that a company is engaged in some type of fraud and the stock price hinges on that fraud


I doubt groups like Hindenburg are buying shares of companies whose bs they just exposed

Not a horrible day. Just a bit disappointing since it started off promising. Everything I own is red except SE and AMD, but I'm only down less than 1% after doing some scalping.Hindenburg has a good reputation, but many hedge funds that focus on shorting are full of chit. They get into a short position, release their "report" on social media, and then cover when their bogus reports sends the stock price down. Might even go long after that.

Sold a put expiring next Friday. Making the most of it while volatility is reasonably high.

Inb4 markets tank tomorrowABNB is what i sold the put in.

may as well get paid to wait for the dip. strike 185. could well go lower but it isn't a price id be unhappy to own it at

People buying garbage reports are probably the same people buying meaningless price targets from random analysts, just more noise to filter out because who knows what anyone's true motive is


The stock price stuff I couldn't care less about, the forensic analysis into business activities would be interesting af

UEC up like 20% jesus

RBLX holding its own. I thought it might do better but let’s see what happens.

any brahs into uranium stocks? looking at UUUU & DNN. some guy posted great DD on reddit and they have both been multiple baggers this past year. he is expecting the uranium prices to increase and the uranium bull market to start and thus send these stocks to the moon and beyond. looking to open a position. thoughts?

ive got a mate who is super bullish on uranium

no doubt DNN has exploded. but i just can't see a case for it. of course i wish i could have gotten in and made gains but thats an aside.

plenty of sources (which aren't on reddit) dont support this 'uranium squeeze' which is purported

do you uranium brahs actually think nuclear power will become relevant in our lifetimes or what? genuinely curious

Hope so I bought 140 more gme during the dip today.

But I’m a retard.

Nuclear already provides 20% of electricity in the US, about the same as all renewables combined. Optics are the only reason nuclear seems less relevant, it doesn't have the euphoria behind it (and that's why it's likely a better investment)


Nothing else will provide the steady, reliable power the world needs in the future IMO if we want to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels. Wind farms and fukn solar panels won't cut it

There are no utility plans in the US to develop new nuclear power, and the last two nuclear projects have been absolute disasters (Vogtle, VC Summer)

At the end of the day, economics drive utility decisions, and utilities in the US will not be building new nuclear plants in our lifetime. There is potential for new nuclear to be developed in Europe, but there is a 0% chance new nuclear will be built in the US with our current regulatory and market structures for electric utilities (srs)

The only hope nuclear power has is for the US to enact a strict CO2 taxation policy... but even then, utilities will still opt for wind/solar/storage/gas. Even if you argue wind/solar/batteries won't cut it and utilities will eventually break the US electric grid, it doesn't matter, because they will just build more gas-fired plants to restore the grid when it does happen (and utilities will benefit when it happens because they'll get to build the gas plants) and I really do think this is how the US electric grid will play out in the mid-late 2030s

This is what utilities look at when they invest in new generation. It would be next to impossible for any utility to justify a new nuclear plant in today's environment where utilities must go through litigation in a collaborative stakeholder process where activist groups (sierra club, coal council, etc) must have their arguments defeated with objective economic data in order for a utility to make any decision related to capital... there would simply be too many opponents to nuclear power for it to ever be justified. Sierra Club has far more resources than any nuclear activist group.

People that I know that work in nuclear swear by it, obv....but it's become super political. Political and public opinion are the key for it to take off. Right now, I don't think either of those are working in nuclear's favor.

[QUOTE=SouthDakotaBrah post_id=1633911123]There are no utility plans in the US to develop new nuclear power, and the last two nuclear projects have been absolute disasters (Vogtle, VC Summer)

At the end of the day, economics drive utility decisions, and utilities in the US will not be building new nuclear plants in our lifetime. There is potential for new nuclear to be developed in Europe, but there is a 0% chance new nuclear will be built in the US with our current regulatory and market structures for electric utilities (srs)

The only hope nuclear power has is for the US to enact a strict CO2 taxation policy... but even then, utilities will still opt for wind/solar/storage/gas. Even if you argue wind/solar/batteries won't cut it and utilities will eventually break the US electric grid, it doesn't matter, because they will just build more gas-fired plants to restore the grid when it does happen (and utilities will benefit when it happens because they'll get to build the gas plants) and I really do think this is how the US electric grid will play out in the mid-late 2030s

This is what utilities look at when they invest in new generation. It would be next to impossible for any utility to justify a new nuclear plant in today's environment where utilities must go through litigation in a collaborative stakeholder process where activist groups (sierra club, coal council, etc) must have their arguments defeated with objective economic data in order for a utility to make any decision related to capital... there would simply be too many opponents to nuclear power for it to ever be justified. Sierra Club has far more resources than any nuclear activist group.
[img]https://www.lazard.com/media/451445/grphx_lcoe-02-02.jpg[/QUOTE]Do you fully understand LCOE, Overnight energy costs, and the 8 different notes applicable to this chart that calls itself "Selected renewable energy generation technologies are cost-competitive with conventional generation technologies[b]under certain circumstances[/b]"? Or the limitations around LCOE, particularly when comparing dispatchable vs non-dispatchable sources of energy generation? Where's the LACE in this chart?

[URL=https://www.energyforgrowth.org/memo/lcoe-and-its-limitations/]https://www.energyforgrowth.org/memo...s-limitations/[/URL]

I don't fully understand all this and am not putting a lot more effort into researching something that I don't plan on buying, but it seems obvious that a chart skewed so heavily towards renewables isn't telling the full story

Even if the US doesn't embrace Nuclear, China will and have outlined this in their 5 year plan.

Anyone looking to trade Uranium short-term should focus on the bigger picture. We're poised to enter a commodity super cycle with Uranium being under supplied and increased demand from developing countries. The only way for countries to meet their zero carbon emissions is to go nuclear.