CraigFish @5proCraig

1/ The #1 skill in trading isn't finding huge winners. It's avoiding huge drawdowns. A 50% drawdown requires a 100% gain just to get back to breakeven. The best traders obsess over defense first. 🧵👇

@Mr_Derivatives @SriPortfolio Yes they still do, and 6% apy 👍

@Mr_Derivatives yeah seems like today is kind of the line in the sand. Not looking great here.

if you are a TESLA shareholder, please vote here: Are you - in principle - favorable of a merger with SpaceX? (of course depends on conditions, but that's not the question here)

$TSLA tests break above the 200 day SMA.

$GOOGL daily chart- repeated tests below the 200 day SMA as it continues to consolidate.

this California wealth tax thing is just incredible. so in October 2025, a California healthcare union proposed a "one time" 5% tax on any billionaire's wealth. the ballot measure will be voted on next month. In early December 2025, California announced that it would be a retroactive tax if passed, applying to anyone with CA residency as of Jan 1, 2026. The objective is to pay for Medi-Cal, California's incredibly dysfunctional healthcare system. (which also functions as a glorified welfare apparatus, but that's a discussion for another time). polls reveal that the CA electorate is split around 50/50 on the tax, but prediction markets only give Prop 40 a ~23% chance of passing (there are competing measures on the ballet that would nullify it). there are 200 billionaires in CA, worth collectively somewhere between $2.3 and $2.6 trillion. 5% of that is around $100b, accounting for a small amount of attrition. proponents of the tax forecasted a significant windfall, assuming only a 10% departure rate. supporters thought they were being clever with the retroactive concept. no billionares would leave CA in the few short months between the tax being proposed and the residency cutoff date, without the tax even having passed yet, right? well as it turns out, they did. a new paper [1] from two academics at Stanford called "The Net Present Value of the California Billionaire Tax Act", argues that not only did more billionaires leave due to the proposed tax than its proponents expected, but that the value of the tax, if it does pass, is actually negative. proponents of the tax only assumed 10% avoidance, that is, only 10% of the taxable base of targeted billionaires would leave CA within the very short Oct-Dec 2025 window. Jaros and Rauh, the Stanford academics, find that a lower bound of 28.6% of the taxable base managed to leave. just based on known departures, those departures total $577b in net worth, or $28.8b in potential tax lost. this of course does not capture everyone (many left without announcing their departure), so the authors normalize to departure rates estimated from other wealth tax events, and apply other discounts for litigation, arriving arrive at a figure of only $28-$36b in forecasted tax revenues. but this isn't all! all of the income taxes paid by the departed billionaires are also forsaken. the authors estimate that CA billionaires pay $3.3- 5.8b in annual income taxes. they assume a midpoint of $2b lost in annual collections from departed billionaires. the net present value of that lost income stream is -$68.9 billion. so when you add it all up you get: + $30b one-time tax windfall (estimated) - $69b in present value of lost future income taxes = - 38.9b overall net present value of the tax of course, this analysis is highly estimate driven. the authors simulate the parameters 100k times and find a negative NPV of the implemented tax 85 percent of the time. and if the tax doesn't pass, which it's not looking like it will, California still ended up losing at least $577b in departed net worth, and they have permanently poisoned the well with entrepreneurs who will now worry about future wealth taxes. [1]: nber.org/system/files/w…

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

$SPCX PT raised to $345 from $246 at Cantor $SPCX PT raised to $224 from $200 at TD Cowen $SPCX PT raised to $500 from $240 at JPMorgan $SPCX PT raised to $230 from $210 at UBS $SPCX PT raised to $300 from $254 at Barclays $SPCX PT raised to $240 from $200 at Citi $SPCX SpaceX story 'just starting to get interesting,' says Morgan Stanley, PT $300

"Both Tesla and SpaceX have formed special committees at the request of shareholders.” - Elon Musk talking about a merger between Tesla $TSLA and SpaceX $SPCX

Elon's Latest Post Is A HUGE Deal

I've been around for a long time and I've seen this before. Account (s) on this platform starts acting like they are killing it in the market, especially when many are struggling. They almost never show a chart setup PRIOR to claiming they owned it, only after. They humble brag about how much money they are making. They will show P&L statements and tell you that they are at all time highs. The like to give trading advice like they are the ones that made up that saying. They are just recycling Many times they flat out steal charts and ideas from others and present it as their own with no credit. Watch for these accounts and be very careful, they do it for all types of reasons. Maybe they are trying to fake it until they make it Maybe they want you to sign up for a service Maybe they are trying to flat out scam you (if you remember backpacker Danny) Whatever the reason, these people are charlatans and create a ton of self-doubt and negative thoughts for newer traders. It could cause a person to get FOMO and over trade. Be on guard for this. Consider who you follow and narrow it down to real people, who truthfully trade, and add to your process. Take care. -Jack

$HoOD tightening up -showing relative strength

@Kalshi This is mind-blowing! 🤯 "The greatest product demonstration ever" was not an exaggeration.

If you haven't gone fully bear-mentality yet and still think this AI buildout doesn't end until physical AI comes about in a big way, then perhaps you'll find value in this message: Both $OUST and $CGNX are well positioned to profit from physical AI buildout- all these machines will need eyes to navigate- whether its automated robotics on factory floors or humanoids at home. And with ever increasing security concerns and push for domestic production, I think a domestic manufacturer will dominate the space. Both these stocks have pulled back sharply and are testing their 200 day MA. You can do your own due diligence on both these names and decide for yourself. Personally, I'm planning to build into a substantial longer term position in these two names over time- hoping they pull back even more as $QQQ keeps pulling in.

keyboard_arrow_left Previous keyboard_arrow_right Next

$OUST is my picks-and-shovels way to own Physical AI, selling 3D perception into warehouses, logistics and autonomous systems without needing to guess whether $TSLA, $CCXI, Figure or any other robot maker wins. Safe perception is what lets robots scale reliably and Ouster wins as that happens regardless of which manufacturer leads the market. You can already see that starting to happen with Q2 revenue up 56% to ~$55M across 17,000+ lidar and camera sensors at ~$3,200 per unit on average while Stereolabs broadens stack beyond lidar alone.

JUST IN: TSMC $TSM reports: • Revenue: $46.72B vs. $44.93B est. • EPS: $4.60 per ADR vs. $4.48 est.

* 721.73

$QQQ potential support here in after hours - 721.23 gap fill from 9/18

$QQQ at 722 - good, we're getting there fast. Tomorrow should be fun.

The longer $QQQ stays below 750, the more convinced I'll become that the recent new highs was a failed breakout - and what's the saying? - from failed moves come big moves. I'd be open to a quick pullback to undercut and test the 50 day - 720-726 would be nice. If it was a fast move and we saw enough panic in breadth and high beta names, it could be a potential bounce spot - we'll see if/when that happens. For now, just observing.

$QQQ - 2% on the day

$QQQ is it bouncy-bounce time yet?