Talk About Tennis 2.0

ti-amie wrote: ↑Tue Dec 27, 2022 8:26 pm

Now Tesla stock is up 65% since the beginning of the year recovering some of the loses. What does it mean for the future of Tesla? Not very much... Same as the decline last year didn't mean all that much. When will folks finally learn not to give a supreme importance to stock market fluctuations?

Of course some companies are viable and others are not, but it makes more sense to look at profitability, cash flow, revenues, growth etc to gauge that. Unless of course you're owning a stock of the given company....

Because the MODERN stock market measures its cycles in minutes.
You are not expected to buy any stock as an investment for the FUTURE, that future being measured in human lives scales. You are supposed to measure them, at most, in daily cycles: if you bought a stock in the morning and it lost value during the day, you dump it in the afternoon and cover the losses (who knows how).
In 2005 I had a mutual fund with a guaranteed return at 10 years (10%). Then, 2008-9 happened and the fund collapsed. It lost 60% of its value. I talked to my broker and he asked me if I needed the money at the moment (I didn't, there was work at the time). The fund was buying back at 50% (a profit over the 60% decline) but they would still be honored to pay that 10% (plus price) in 2015. I decided not to sell.
I sold in 2018 at a 50% PROFIT over what I bought in 2005. But some people sold, and that is how the market makes its money (one of the ways).
If you want immediate profits, TESLA is not for you. If you want long term, maybe also not. But a lot of other companies are long term investments. Just check the prices for the oil giants: they are doing swell.

Story by By Dietrich Knauth


NEW YORK(Reuters) - Bankrupt crypt exchange FTX sued crypto lender Voyager Digital on Monday, seeking to claw back $445.8 million in loan repayments that FTX made before collapsing into bankruptcy in November 2022.

FTX and Voyager both filed for bankruptcy amid a 2022 collapse in cryptocurrency markets, but Voyager’s bankruptcy preceded FTX’s filing by four months.

After Voyager filed in July, it demanded repayment of all outstanding loans to FTX and its affiliate hedge fund Alameda Research.

FTX said in a court filing that on Alameda’s behalf, it paid Voyager $248.8 million in September and $193.9 million in October. FTX also made a $3.2 million interest payment in August, according to its court filings.

Because those loan payments were made so close to FTX’s own bankruptcy filing, they are eligible to be clawed back and potentially used to repay other FTX creditors, according to FTX’s complaint.

FTX, once among the world's top crypto exchanges, shook the sector in November by filing for bankruptcy, leaving an estimated 9 million customers and other investors facing losses in the billions of dollars.

Its founder Sam Bankman-Fried has been indicted on fraud charges, and several top executives, including Alameda Research CEO Caroline Ellison, have pleaded guilty to fraud. Bankman-Fried has denied wrongdoing and is scheduled for trial in October.

FTX initially appeared to weather the storm that brought down Voyager and other crypto firms in summer 2022, presenting itself as a "white knight" that could stabilize reeling crypto markets. FTX offered to buy Voyager's platform in a bankruptcy auction, but the proposed acquisition fell apart when FTX imploded in November.

In its Monday court filing, FTX acknowledged the allegations that Alameda raided FTX customer assets to cover its risky borrowing and lending. But it said Voyager and other crypto lenders were complicit in Alameda’s conduct, "knowingly or recklessly" pushing their clients' assets toward Alameda.

"Voyager's business model was that of a feeder fund," FTX said. "It solicited retail investors and invested their money with little or no due diligence in cryptocurrency investment funds like Alameda and Three Arrows Capital."

Three Arrows Capital also went bankrupt in 2022, and its founders have refused to cooperate with court-appointed liquidators who are trying to recover assets for Three Arrows customers.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/compani ... smsnnews11

There must be some lawyer in Wall Street that are right now looking at the Rolls Royce and Grumman catalogues, without even looking at the prices.

Story by By Valerie Insinna

SEATTLE (Reuters) -Boeing bid farewell to the iconic 747, delivering the final plane to Atlas Air on Tuesday afternoon and marking an end of an era when the first-ever "jumbo jet" ruled the skies.

Thousands of Boeing employees – including some of the so-called "Incredibles" who developed the jet in the 1960s – watched the last delivery of the historic plane, which brought air travel to the masses and represented an indelible slice of Americana.

The event at the mammoth manufacturing plant was capped off by a celebrity appearance by John Travolta, who recounted learning to fly the 747-400 as an ambassador for Qantas Airlines. “[It was] the toughest program that any commercial pilot will ever have to endure,” said Travolta, who called the jet the “most well thought out and safest aircraft ever built.”

Known as the "Queen of the Skies," the 747 was the world's first twin-aisle jetliner, which Boeing designed and built in 28 months and Pan Am introduced in 1970.

"It's the airplane that redefined the industry and redefined air travel," said Guy Norris, co-author of "Boeing 747: Design and Development Since 1969."


British billionaire entrepreneur Richard Branson, who was inspired to start an airline with a single Boeing 747 after getting stuck on a delayed flight, earlier on Tuesday called it a "wonderful beast" as he bid farewell.


Boeing's Everett, Washington, facility has been the 747's production site since the plane's conception. Built in 1967 to produce the mammoth jet, it remains the world's largest manufacturing plant according to Boeing.

But after five decades, customer demand for the 747 eroded as Boeing and Airbus developed more fuel efficient two-engine widebody planes. When Boeing confirmed in July 2020 that it would end 747 production, it was already only producing at a rate of half an aircraft a month.

Boeing delivered five 747s in 2022, while in 1990, the peak delivery year of the bestselling 747-400 version, Boeing delivered 70 747s.

As different sections of the last 747 – the wings or fuselage structures, for example – were complete, the production line "just slowly started to shut down," said Kim Smith, Boeing's vice president and general manager for the 747 and 767 programs.

Smith said all 747 program workers were transferred to other jobs or voluntarily retired.

The last 747 rolled out on Dec. 7, capping the program at 1,574 total. The plane has since completed inspections and flight tests, flying to Portland over the holidays to get a paint job. The plane will fly off on Wednesday morning to Atlas’ headquarters in Cincinnati, Ohio.

While Boeing also builds the 767 and 777 in Everett, the company has yet to decide which program will permanently take over the 747 production bay, which is currently being used for 787 inventory and 777X work, Smith said.

Boeing will remain tied to the 747 through the aftermarket business and the Air Force One replacement program, which Boeing won in 2018.

The heir apparent to the 747, the 777X will not be ready for delivery until 2025, but Boeing Chief Executive David Calhoun focused his goodbye on that future: “The 777, the next plane to dominate this space, displaced all its competition just like that - and we haven’t even introduced the best version.”


(Reporting by Valerie Insinna; additional reporting by Tim Hepher; Editing by Josie Kao)

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/topstor ... r-AA16YaJ9

The end of an era.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 2:43 am The end of an era.

It really is. I feel like 747 and Concorde were the two mainstay plane references in pop culture for a long stretch of time and now both are no more. Not at all sure what will take it's place.

NOTHING will take its place. I have flown in almost all commercial planes (from a DC-6 to the 787, even a 717 (they were very limited), and I am only missing the Concorde, the A380 and the A350) and nothing was as spacious and comfortable as a 747. I once flew business class in a Cathay Pacific 747 and it was indeed a case of "please, DON'T LAND. Fly some more!"

A380 is pretty good, but it wasn't a commercial success. The trend seems to be towards smaller planes.

ponchi101 wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 4:04 pm NOTHING will take its place. I have flown in almost all commercial planes (from a DC-6 to the 787, even a 717 (they were very limited), and I am only missing the Concorde, the A380 and the A350) and nothing was as spacious and comfortable as a 747. I once flew business class in a Cathay Pacific 747 and it was indeed a case of "please, DON'T LAND. Fly some more!"

Completely agree. It was SO comfy. I used to tell people that were scared to fly for the first time, try to fly on a 747 if you can, it'll be the best first experience you can have. I mean maybe those flights had a little turbulence, but you rarely felt a damn thing. It was such a nice ride.

On the flip side. I couldn't suggest enough not to fly a smaller propeller plane if you're new to flying. Thank the good lord I wasn't anything close to that when I accidentally booked a round trip on one. The opposite of a comfortable ride and very loud. Never again unless it's an emergency.

Suliso wrote: ↑Wed Feb 01, 2023 6:24 pm A380 is pretty good, but it wasn't a commercial success. The trend seems to be towards smaller planes.

It went the opposite way. it was too big. 650+ people was above what the market needs.
Emirates will continue to fly it. Most other airlines will retire them too.
The heir to the 747 will be the 777, in the ER versions. The 787 is a better plane, but the 777 is more practical for long range.

And, I am sorry, it is not the fault of the rich.
IF the USA is willing to have a national debt that is 2:1 in ratio to its GDP, you must have a way to finance that. The USA have been warned about this national debt for decades now, and nobody does anything to correct that. Greece went belly up when its debt/GDP ratio reached 1:1. The USA has not gone belly up because, if it does, the entire world's economy does too.
If you want the rich to lend the USA money, and NOT collect interest, it is easy. It is called taxation: they would not collect interest, and would not collect capital either.
Go tell that to your senators. Not the rich.