What are your bubble indicators?

[maizefolk]

Building permits and housing starts are also starting to climb significantly, which I guess is a response to how much more expensive houses have gotten in the last year, making it easier for people to make a profit on new construction.

[Roland of Gilead]

Mostly covid but there is probably some real inflation in there too.  Lumber more than doubled from previous covid and is still going up.   Perfect storm of no supply bc mills were shut down and import routes were disrupted combined with excessive demand bc only thing people could really spend money on was build decks, additions, or new homes.   

Note that this is an aspect of the Fed's transitory inflation and a technicality.   Inflation is an overall trend so if all prices go up 100% this year and stay at that level for the years after the Fed doesn’t consider it inflation even though we all are paying 100% more.

Yes, an interesting quirk.  There is no inflation but I can't buy as much with the same amount of money.

I am just waiting for it to spill over into everything else.  There is no way that long term the lumber guy gets to charge 200% more for his product and the  company supplying them doughnuts doesn't raise their price.

[bacchi]

Mostly covid but there is probably some real inflation in there too.  Lumber more than doubled from previous covid and is still going up.   Perfect storm of no supply bc mills were shut down and import routes were disrupted combined with excessive demand bc only thing people could really spend money on was build decks, additions, or new homes.   

Note that this is an aspect of the Fed's transitory inflation and a technicality.   Inflation is an overall trend so if all prices go up 100% this year and stay at that level for the years after the Fed doesn’t consider it inflation even though we all are paying 100% more.

Yes, an interesting quirk.  There is no inflation but I can't buy as much with the same amount of money.

I am just waiting for it to spill over into everything else.  There is no way that long term the lumber guy gets to charge 200% more for his product and the  company supplying them doughnuts doesn't raise their price.

Computer chip prices have gone up, too, from shortages and WFH trends. See https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/. It's interesting that the smaller SSDs spiked in mid-February -- is that to take advantage of the stimulus money? The trend on the DDR 2x8 and 2x16 sticks is pretty obvious.

[ctuser1]

Computer chip prices have gone up, too, from shortages and WFH trends. See https://pcpartpicker.com/trends/. It's interesting that the smaller SSDs spiked in mid-February -- is that to take advantage of the stimulus money? The trend on the DDR 2x8 and 2x16 sticks is pretty obvious.

My MU investment (initial lot @$47, then once more @$82) is up nicely. It's at 30-something PE based on current earnings, but only at 9X forward estimate into 2022. I invested in MU with the thesis that 5G -> gazillion more IOT devices -> a lot more memory will be required and hence the 3-player oligarchy will all benefit.

 

[BicycleB]

nflation is an overall trend so if all prices go up 100% this year and stay at that level for the years after the Fed doesn’t consider it inflation even though we all are paying 100% more.

(mind spins in confusion) Representing the slow caucus here. What is this quirk that everyone knows but me?

Are you saying that the Fed would call it 100% inflation the first year? If so, wouldn't the total inflation on the item from the start date to a much later time (say, 4 years after the start) end up accurate at 100%?

I haven't bought any lumber lately, so is it true we're all paying 100%? (My costs I've seen so far aren't up anywhere near that. My beans are up, but my auto insurance gave me a refund.)

Is everything up 100%, or just a subset of the purchases being made?

[tooqk4u22]

nflation is an overall trend so if all prices go up 100% this year and stay at that level for the years after the Fed doesn’t consider it inflation even though we all are paying 100% more.

(mind spins in confusion) Representing the slow caucus here. What is this quirk that everyone knows but me?

Are you saying that the Fed would call it 100% inflation the first year? If so, wouldn't the total inflation on the item from the start date to a much later time (say, 4 years after the start) end up accurate at 100%?

I haven't bought any lumber lately, so is it true we're all paying 100%? (My costs I've seen so far aren't up anywhere near that. My beans are up, but my auto insurance gave me a refund.)

Is everything up 100%, or just a subset of the purchases being made?

Fed only cares about period to period and ongoing inflation.  So yes, a 100% increase in year one would still equal 100% in year 4 but the Fed deems that transitory (one time)  and not actual run rate inflation.  If on the other hand the price increases we're spread over those 4 years (approx 19% per year) then the Fed would deem that inflation. 

It's definitions correct because inflation should be measured over time on an ongoing basis.  Also, true one time increases, those that ultimately revert back, should be ignored....I suspect lumber will fall into this category partially (prices should come down as supply normalizes but probably not as low as where it started).   However, the Fed currently is conflating this with overall inflation rising more rapidly with prices sticking but then reverting back to a lower inflation rate.   

As for prices currently, lumber is definitely way higher to the consumer but not everything is up.   Also. When commodities rise producers don't always raise prices immediately and the components themselves may only be a small input of the end product.   As an example, if you build a house now the lumber increase will add about $25k to the cost to build a 2500 sf house that would be $200k to $400k depending on region and quality of finishes.  So the lumber prices now "only" add 5-10% of the overall cost.  Labor is one of the biggest costs and that hasn't inflated yet.

[ctuser1]

nflation is an overall trend so if all prices go up 100% this year and stay at that level for the years after the Fed doesn’t consider it inflation even though we all are paying 100% more.

(mind spins in confusion) Representing the slow caucus here. What is this quirk that everyone knows but me?

Are you saying that the Fed would call it 100% inflation the first year? If so, wouldn't the total inflation on the item from the start date to a much later time (say, 4 years after the start) end up accurate at 100%?

I haven't bought any lumber lately, so is it true we're all paying 100%? (My costs I've seen so far aren't up anywhere near that. My beans are up, but my auto insurance gave me a refund.)

Is everything up 100%, or just a subset of the purchases being made?

Fed only cares about period to period and ongoing inflation.  So yes, a 100% increase in year one would still equal 100% in year 4 but the Fed deems that transitory (one time)  and not actual run rate inflation.  If on the other hand the price increases we're spread over those 4 years (approx 19% per year) then the Fed would deem that inflation. 

It's definitions correct because inflation should be measured over time on an ongoing basis.  Also, true one time increases, those that ultimately revert back, should be ignored....I suspect lumber will fall into this category partially (prices should come down as supply normalizes but probably not as low as where it started).   However, the Fed currently is conflating this with overall inflation rising more rapidly with prices sticking but then reverting back to a lower inflation rate.   

As for prices currently, lumber is definitely way higher to the consumer but not everything is up.   Also. When commodities rise producers don't always raise prices immediately and the components themselves may only be a small input of the end product.   As an example, if you build a house now the lumber increase will add about $25k to the cost to build a 2500 sf house that would be $200k to $400k depending on region and quality of finishes.  So the lumber prices now "only" add 5-10% of the overall cost.  Labor is one of the biggest costs and that hasn't inflated yet.

Another slow mind.

Do you happen to have any link or material where I can read up more on this?

[maizefolk]

tooqk4u22 I thought I had followed what you were saying, but now that others are asking I am not so sure.

What I understood you to be saying: The federal reserve isn't going to change interest rates or other monetary policy (its ongoing asset purchases/money creation) in reaction to a single quarter of high inflation, but only if inflation stays high for a long enough period.

What, on re-reading, it now sounds like you may be saying: Rapid increases in price aren't counted with the federal reserve calculates how much inflation has happened.

The first -- how the fed would react to inflation numbers -- I can understand and certainly fits with my understanding of what the fed has said themselves. The second -- how the fed would calculated inflation numbers -- doesn't make sense to me, but it is certainly possible this is the result of some quirk of the formula or policy I am not familiar with.

[tooqk4u22]

tooqk4u22 I thought I had followed what you were saying, but now that others are asking I am not so sure.

What I understood you to be saying: The federal reserve isn't going to change interest rates or other monetary policy (its ongoing asset purchases/money creation) in reaction to a single quarter of high inflation, but only if inflation stays high for a long enough period.

What, on re-reading, it now sounds like you may be saying: Rapid increases in price aren't counted with the federal reserve calculates how much inflation has happened.

The first -- how the fed would react to inflation numbers -- I can understand and certainly fits with my understanding of what the fed has said themselves. The second -- how the fed would calculated inflation numbers -- doesn't make sense to me, but it is certainly possible this is the result of some quirk of the formula or policy I am not familiar with.

You understood correctly.   When I say the Fed doesn't count, I don't mean that they exclude it from data and literally does not count it.  The data is the data.  So what I meant more was that they ignore it in their evaluation, or more accurately rationalizing a narrative.

As I said some stuff is transitory in nature, which to me are thinks that spike up or down due to some event outside of normal economics such as the lumber or chip examples.  If lumber prices stay where they guess won't it won't be....transitory, but guess what else it won't be next year.....inflationary, unless of course prices go up further next year but then they can keep calling it transitory.

But saying that inflation overall for this period is transitory is bit much.   There are all kinds of signs of actual inflation but until emoyment is back to full they won't/can't do anything about it.....other than stick to the narrative.

[waltworks]

If you want, you can track almost anything via the Billion Prices Project (http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/) if you don't believe/like the headline CPI number.

My personal feeling is that we'll have a ton of supply come online and bottlenecks in the supply chain open back up, and a lot of prices will crash. Plywood is just not that hard to make or ship in a world where Covid is under control.

-W

[tooqk4u22]

If you want, you can track almost anything via the Billion Prices Project (http://www.thebillionpricesproject.com/) if you don't believe/like the headline CPI number.

 I don't disbelieve or dislike the headline number, the data is all public.  I disagree or dislike parts of the narrative or interpretation by the Fed. 

[/Quote]
My personal feeling is that we'll have a ton of supply come online and bottlenecks in the supply chain open back up, and a lot of prices will crash. Plywood is just not that hard to make or ship in a world where Covid is under control.

-W
[/quote]

Agreed,  that's why I believe it to be transitory currently

[ctuser1]

tooqk4u22 I thought I had followed what you were saying, but now that others are asking I am not so sure.

What I understood you to be saying: The federal reserve isn't going to change interest rates or other monetary policy (its ongoing asset purchases/money creation) in reaction to a single quarter of high inflation, but only if inflation stays high for a long enough period.

What, on re-reading, it now sounds like you may be saying: Rapid increases in price aren't counted with the federal reserve calculates how much inflation has happened.

The first -- how the fed would react to inflation numbers -- I can understand and certainly fits with my understanding of what the fed has said themselves. The second -- how the fed would calculated inflation numbers -- doesn't make sense to me, but it is certainly possible this is the result of some quirk of the formula or policy I am not familiar with.

You understood correctly.   When I say the Fed doesn't count, I don't mean that they exclude it from data and literally does not count it.  The data is the data.  So what I meant more was that they ignore it in their evaluation, or more accurately rationalizing a narrative.

As I said some stuff is transitory in nature, which to me are thinks that spike up or down due to some event outside of normal economics such as the lumber or chip examples.  If lumber prices stay where they guess won't it won't be....transitory, but guess what else it won't be next year.....inflationary, unless of course prices go up further next year but then they can keep calling it transitory.

But saying that inflation overall for this period is transitory is bit much.   There are all kinds of signs of actual inflation but until emoyment is back to full they won't/can't do anything about it.....other than stick to the narrative.

I am still confused, I'm not very familiar with the CPI calc even though I use that number plugged into many a formula I work with - so I really should be!

Hypothetical example:

CPI is composed of 5 items - A, B, C, D, E.

B,C,D,E increased by 1% each in YoY calculation, while A doubled. Assuming equal weight in the formula (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index#cite_note-8).
1. Will 'A' will be excluded from the formula if it is deemed transitory? Very simplistic formula here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consumer_price_index#cite_note-8.
2. Or, does it get factored in anyway and cause a bit of a short lived flutter in the CPI number while the Fed and other economic policy-makers ignore that CPI volatility due to it's transitory nature?

If 1, that sounds like cooking the stats if someone does not like it subjectively :-(, and I don't like the smell of that at all. In this case I will really appreciate if you or someone else could dig up exactly what they do and why - as I'll learn something entirely new.

[maizefolk]

Thanks, that makes sense.

ctuser, it's your option #2, it gets factored in when the fed calculates and publishes the CPI, it just isn't given the same weight when the fed decides how, if at all, to respond to a change in the CPI.

[ctuser1]

Thanks, that makes sense.

ctuser, it's your option #2, it gets factored in when the fed calculates and publishes the CPI, it just isn't given the same weight when the fed decides how, if at all, to respond to a change in the CPI.

Thank you. That makes a lot more sense.

For a bit I started furiously googling for the CPI process and bumping up against all kinds of conspiracy websites.

[Roland of Gilead]

My personal feeling is that we'll have a ton of supply come online and bottlenecks in the supply chain open back up, and a lot of prices will crash. Plywood is just not that hard to make or ship in a world where Covid is under control.

-W

I thought so too (plywood being pretty easy to make) but evidently it isn't so easy.  Big equipment, lot of permits.  It is not something a company is just going to say, hey, lets make this because it is really profitable this year.   About 4 to 5 years to set up a big plywood supply operation.

[tooqk4u22]

My personal feeling is that we'll have a ton of supply come online and bottlenecks in the supply chain open back up, and a lot of prices will crash. Plywood is just not that hard to make or ship in a world where Covid is under control.

-W

I thought so too (plywood being pretty easy to make) but evidently it isn't so easy.  Big equipment, lot of permits.  It is not something a company is just going to say, hey, lets make this because it is really profitable this year.   About 4 to 5 years to set up a big plywood supply operation.

It's not that new suppliers will come into the market but that the existing suppliers will get their factories and distribution channels back to normal.   Although there are some new suppliers coming online domestically for lumber in general.   

[ChpBstrd]

My personal feeling is that we'll have a ton of supply come online and bottlenecks in the supply chain open back up, and a lot of prices will crash. Plywood is just not that hard to make or ship in a world where Covid is under control.

-W

I thought so too (plywood being pretty easy to make) but evidently it isn't so easy.  Big equipment, lot of permits.  It is not something a company is just going to say, hey, lets make this because it is really profitable this year.   About 4 to 5 years to set up a big plywood supply operation.

It's not that new suppliers will come into the market but that the existing suppliers will get their factories and distribution channels back to normal.   Although there are some new suppliers coming online domestically for lumber in general.

The lumber futures market seems to agree. There's wild backwardization going on in lumber futures. The lumber squeeze is predicted to be over by January - the market appears to be predicting a 25% drop. If I were building a house, I'd see these numbers and think hard about delaying a year.

https://www.cmegroup.com/trading/agricultural/lumber-and-pulp/random-length-lumber_quotes_globex.html?optionProductId=2499&optionExpiration=2499-K1

[maizefolk]

Well, the March inflation numbers are out and consumer prices rose at an annualized rate of 7.6%*

*0.6% month over month (1.006^12 to get the annualized rate). Disclaimer that month by month numbers are very noisy, which is why people often use year over year inflation which was much lower (2.6%) but reflects the sum of falling prices early in the pandemic and rising prices more recently.

[ice_beard]

Related to home prices and mortgage rates...  we first bought out house in 2018 and our rate was 4.75%, rates went up briefly after that and I was shocked how much Redfin/Zillow estimated the price of our house had decreased.  I realize those estimates aren't incredibly accurate, but the comps were definitely selling for less and I was a little nervous given how much we had spent.  Once rates started to fall, the value of the home started to go up and continues to go up with the prevalence of cheap money. 

I know some friends of friends who just sold their house for almost double what they paid for it about five years ago (frothy indicator!).  They are going to have to live with parents until they figure out what they are going to do which will likely be to buy a McMansion much further out from the Bay Area core.  Another friend talked to their RE agent about what they could get out of their house and it was a lot, but she said it's an absolutely terrible time to be a buyer right now, no matter what you can get for your house.  Unless you want to move to Ohio. 

I agree there will likely be some underwater mortgages once rates go up.  This is what happened briefly to us in 2018. 

[talltexan]

Is there evidence that lenders are restricting standards to the point that we'll have a crisis with "under water" loans? I haven't seen it.

[waltworks]

Standards are pretty tight (setting aside the low interest rates themselves).

As an example, in 2005 when I was in graduate school and making ~$20k a year, a friend who is a realtor kept trying to talk my wife and I (who was making about $35k as a research tech before starting grad school) into buying a house. I had lunch with her mortgage broker lady (because she was paying for lunch) and she showed me a worksheet that said we could qualify for like $750k, with a bunch of number fudging and "estimating your income in the future" going on. Luckily we didn't buy a house.

Fast forward to this past year when I went to cash out refi to put money into the market in the spring. We make something like $85-100k now including dividends and such (we both work part time at this point) and we could qualify for $360k in mortgage - double the (actual) income, half the mortgage. We had to verify *everything* carefully and it was a giant PITA.

We could still get a drop in RE prices and people underwater, of course. But it won't be because of lending standards.

-W

[maizefolk]

I think it's important to distinguish between "a lot of people go underwater on their mortgages" and "a lot of people default on their mortgages". Whenever property values decline significantly (which I would expect to happen when rates rise and the same monthly payment translates to a smaller total mortgage), the first situation can kick in. But as long as the qualification criteria were reasonable folks should mostly be able to continue paying their existing fixed rate mortgages so we wouldn't see the same big wave of defaults like 07/08.

Being underwater means less mobility for workers (already declining in the USA) which economic models connect to reduced economic growth and slower recovery from recessions. But it wouldn't, by itself, necessarily produce a big economic crisis.

[ice_beard]

All of these new threads about crypto investing here = glad I'm not speculating in that stuff. 

[talltexan]

@ice_beard , owning an asset that can drop 20% in a day is a little more palatable when you're up 4X from what you paid, but I hear you.

[Roland of Gilead]

@ice_beard , owning an asset that can drop 20% in a day is a little more palatable when you're up 4X from what you paid, but I hear you.

That is great for those who buy at the bottom, but what about someone who buys in now and then it drops 20%.

[talltexan]

I have very little doubt that Bitcoin and others will swing wildly from today. If you truly want to own some, averaging in will reduce your risk and perhaps also your return. I advise committing yourself to rules about when to buy and how much to buy so that you don't find yourself buying a bunch when it goes down 5% only to have it go down another 20% after that.

But I also know that high enough returns at lower risk are available through investing in broad stock-based index funds, and the fees for that are very low. People can ignore this asset class and still build a strong set of resources for (early) retirement.

[tooqk4u22]

I saw that 98% of bitcoin is owned by just 2% of blockchain accounts. If that's true it Means that there is no breadth and very few/small buyers are driving the price.   That swings both ways and doubly so if those 2% start selling aggressively.

Bubble!

[maizefolk]

I saw that 98% of bitcoin is owned by just 2% of blockchain accounts. If that's true it Means that there is no breadth and very few/small buyers are driving the price.   That swings both ways and doubly so if those 2% start selling aggressively.

Bubble!

Is that looking at all the addresses which have ever been used or all the addresses which currently carry a balance? There are about 460M extant bitcoin addresses. 2% of that would be about 9M addresses* setting the price. With we limit the universe to accounts with an active balance that's more like 30M, which would translate to 600,000 addresses* setting the price.

I found a random estimate suggesting there are approximately 10M total people in the world who are actively trading stocks. Let's make up some numbers, and assume the average investor who is actively buys and sells stocks holds 100 companies at any given time. VT includes about 9,000 total stocks, so this would suggest the average number of investors setting the share price of any given company at any given time is about 110,000 people (10M people *100 stocks/9000 companies). So if you statistic is correct, that would suggest the number of people setting the price of bitcoin is either roughly the same order of magnitude or substantially higher.

Now that's not a guarantee that the price of bitcoin (or the price of any given stock) is going to behave in a way that makes sense to any of us. But it wouldn't seem to be a major unique downside of bitcoin.

*Keep in mind that the number is people is almost certainly modestly smaller then the number of addresses since many individuals are going to have bitcoins distributed across multiple accounts.

[talltexan]

Bitcoin is probably in a bubble period. I bought a little more this morning anyway. Bubbles include some nice appreciation.

[DaKini]

I’m seeing „Bitcoin investing“ advertising in a major newspaper since some weeks now.
Titled „she makes 300€ per hour“ sitting in a shiny car.

[vand]

Look at those 4 headline image stories.. I mean, does it get any more obvious?

[HPstache]

Look at those 4 headline image stories.. I mean, does it get any more obvious?

Those might be clickbait-y videos based on the stuff google knows you are interested in

[vand]

Look at those 4 headline image stories.. I mean, does it get any more obvious?

Those might be clickbait-y videos based on the stuff google knows you are interested in

Nah, checked it on incognito browser to make sure. That's what they're peddling these days.

[ChpBstrd]

Let's keep the screenshots coming. This thread will be gold in about 7-10 years.

[ice_beard]

A co-worker asked me if I was "investing" in crypto yesterday.  That was a short answer, no.  We started talking about personal finance a bit and she told me how she maxes out her 403b every year and she's so glad she has all these years.  She said she knows people who have stopped contributing to their retirement accounts and are buying stocks/crypto instead.  That's the indicator part.   

[maizefolk]

She said she knows people who have stopped contributing to their retirement accounts and are buying stocks/crypto instead.  That's the indicator part.   

Couldn't they buy stocks inside their retirement accounts? ... anyway, yes I agree that sure sounds like a bubble indicator to me.

[talltexan]

I have co-workers who use their brokerage link accounts within their 401Ks to try to dance into and out of individual stocks.

I use my brokerage link to add small cap value index funds. Since their ETFs, I have to go in manually and set the trades, so there's a little lag compared to if I had mutual fund options for them.

[Steeze]

I have co-workers who use their brokerage link accounts within their 401Ks to try to dance into and out of individual stocks.

I use my brokerage link to add small cap value index funds. Since their ETFs, I have to go in manually and set the trades, so there's a little lag compared to if I had mutual fund options for them.

I set up my wife's brokerage link (fidelity) recently for the same reason (SCV & REIT) - was able to find fidelity mutual funds which were no transaction fee and could buy automatically. Because the expense ratio is slightly high, I will sweep everything into the equivalent ETF's 1x - 2x a year when we re-balance. Just an idea, less trades to execute, if it bothers you.

[maizefolk]

Back to the question in the title:

On Monday, Sotheby’s announced it had brokered a $1.8 million sale of Kanye West’s Nike Air Yeezy 1 sneakers, making them the most expensive pair of (known) shoes to sell, ever. But the sneakers weren’t purchased by a footwear-loving collector. Instead, they were acquired by the company Rares, which plans to fractionalize pieces of the shoes as an investment. ... Shares in the sneakers will be released on June 16 and will be one of Rares’s first offerings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/a-company-paid-1-8-million-for-yeezy-sneakers-so-you-can-afford-them

[HPstache]

Back to the question in the title:

On Monday, Sotheby’s announced it had brokered a $1.8 million sale of Kanye West’s Nike Air Yeezy 1 sneakers, making them the most expensive pair of (known) shoes to sell, ever. But the sneakers weren’t purchased by a footwear-loving collector. Instead, they were acquired by the company Rares, which plans to fractionalize pieces of the shoes as an investment. ... Shares in the sneakers will be released on June 16 and will be one of Rares’s first offerings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/a-company-paid-1-8-million-for-yeezy-sneakers-so-you-can-afford-them

Same thing is happening with baseball cards right now.  Basically a stock exchange for cards where you can own shares, trade, and realize profits from outside offers... kind of crazy, but at least it's tangible things **cough** crypto **cough**.

Speaking of crypto, I have now received texts out of the blue from acquaintances (knowing I'm an "investment guy") asking if I'm in cryptos and telling me that they are making tons of money in crypto... yeah, there's a bubble.  But I think it's far from popping. 

[BicycleB]

^ Wow!

I know a sneakerhead who definitely wants the hottest shoes at the lowest price. He has became a proud connoisseur of the websites who show how to tell the good fakes from bad ones. A born entrepreneur, he has taken great glee in buying the best fakes, impressing people by wearing them, then selling at a profit.

Financial investment? Cash is capital for hands-on business to him. If he buys a share in Rare, it would be his first speculation in an instrument he can't touch. I will then consider the bubble to be at full boil! Staying tuned.

PS. Dogecoin - will it reach a dollar?

Gotta admit, cute little silly dogecoins at 59 cents is mind blowing. Up over 100 to 1 this year, bubbly bubbly.

[bacchi]

Will Rares buy beanie babies? Or one of those cabbage patch dolls?

[HPstache]

Will Rares buy beanie babies? Or one of those cabbage patch dolls?

If there's one valuable enough to split up into shares, you bet.

[talltexan]

Back to the question in the title:

On Monday, Sotheby’s announced it had brokered a $1.8 million sale of Kanye West’s Nike Air Yeezy 1 sneakers, making them the most expensive pair of (known) shoes to sell, ever. But the sneakers weren’t purchased by a footwear-loving collector. Instead, they were acquired by the company Rares, which plans to fractionalize pieces of the shoes as an investment. ... Shares in the sneakers will be released on June 16 and will be one of Rares’s first offerings.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-04-26/a-company-paid-1-8-million-for-yeezy-sneakers-so-you-can-afford-them

Same thing is happening with baseball cards right now.  Basically a stock exchange for cards where you can own shares, trade, and realize profits from outside offers... kind of crazy, but at least it's tangible things **cough** crypto **cough**.

Speaking of crypto, I have now received texts out of the blue from acquaintances (knowing I'm an "investment guy") asking if I'm in cryptos and telling me that they are making tons of money in crypto... yeah, there's a bubble.  But I think it's far from popping.

strange, this happened to me yesterday, too. The guy sounded like some kind of committed crypto- hound, eventually admitted he'd only bought his ethereum  at the beginning of May.

[frugalnacho]

My financially illiterate and irresponsible sister is getting into the action and opened a robinhood account a couple months ago.  She put in $40 and bought random meme stonks including AMC and ethereum.  She's been sending me screen shots and was up to $318 yesterday.  Lots of other people contacting me asking about how to create accounts and invest since everything is going bonkers and everyone wants a part of the action.

[talltexan]

So your sister is up 8x?

Credit to her.

She could withdraw 25% of her account today and manage the rest with "house money".

[EvenSteven]

Garden variety SPACs are so last year. 2021 is the year of the SCALEs.

We are pioneering a new structure called SCALE, or Stakeholder-Centered Aligned Listed Equity, where returns for the sponsor are primarily dependent on the stock price performance of the company with which we enter into a business combination. Traditionally, sponsors of blank check companies purchase 20% of the issued stock at a nominal price that is awarded to the sponsor regardless of performance, and solely on the ability to close an initial business combination. Instead, in NightDragon Acquisition Corp.’s SCALE structure, our sponsor will earn its promote based on the occurrence of certain triggering events

Speaking of SPACs, I thought you might be interested if you haven't already heard, Benson Hill is going public in a SPAC soon.

[maizefolk]

Garden variety SPACs are so last year. 2021 is the year of the SCALEs.

We are pioneering a new structure called SCALE, or Stakeholder-Centered Aligned Listed Equity, where returns for the sponsor are primarily dependent on the stock price performance of the company with which we enter into a business combination. Traditionally, sponsors of blank check companies purchase 20% of the issued stock at a nominal price that is awarded to the sponsor regardless of performance, and solely on the ability to close an initial business combination. Instead, in NightDragon Acquisition Corp.’s SCALE structure, our sponsor will earn its promote based on the occurrence of certain triggering events

Speaking of SPACs, I thought you might be interested if you haven't already heard, Benson Hill is going public in a SPAC soon.

Oh so they are. Thanks for letting me know @EvenSteven!

For reasons too boring to mention, I find I have mixed feelings about the whole thing. But hopefully going public will be good for the folks with stock options working there.

[ice_beard]

People are "buying the dip" of bitcoin today, on margin. 
It's fun to follow the btc stream on stocktwits when there is gig movement like today. 

[Steeze]

Put an offer in on a multifamily this afternoon that was listed over the weekend and had first showings today; new-ish building (2010) in an old neighborhood (95% of building are 100+ years old). The area is not great, its in the 2nd worst part of town in the worst city in the county, one of the worst in the state. Appreciation has been ~1%/yr over the previous decade for all but the last year. Population in decline and all that. When I left for college there were 100s of homes, many 2-3-4 units, in the $10k-$50k range. Those same buildings are going for $100k+ right now if they are abandoned and $200k+ if they are occupied, regardless of condition.

I offer there because that is where I am from and I have a good network there. I offered 10% below asking price, at a generous 9% cap rate, much higher than I should have offered, but new construction is few and far between. Historically things go for 10%+ cap rate in this area if not more, 12%+ is not uncommon. This would have netted me about $125 a door at 52.5% expenses (high vacancy, turnover, are common and taxes are 1.5%).

Before I could finish the paper work for the offer there were 5 offers submitted, 1 well over asking price. It is absurd, the offer price was basically 0 cash flow and would lose money if rates go up even slightly. It is commercial so the rates are adjustable 7/1 ARM.

Great for the seller and the realtor, but damn - even the ghetto is on fire. Guess we already knew, but, lots of money sloshing around out there.