It’s cause if you hit a car 5 years ago it would have cost your insurance company $1500 to fix but if you hit a car today it’ll cost them $5000 to fix. The part of the rate that’s determined by you and your behaviour hasn’t changed, but repairs and replacements cost insurers more, and your rate reflects that. It’s not some nefarious big brain scheme to rip you off, auto insurers barely break even on money coming in from premiums vs money going out to pay claims, if they even break even.

---

I have actual data to back up my anti wfh stance. I ran reports on app and Internet usage at a 4,500 person tech company. (I'm an MDM admin). I then pivoted them by public IP to compare in-office workers vs wfh. Wfh users *during work hours* spent 25x as much time on social media, shopping, and streaming sites. They spent 25% *less* time in various work apps spent much less time with the device unlocked meaning they were off doing chores, eating, napping whatever), they sign on something like 30 minutes later, sign off close to an hour earlier. It's insane how different the patterns are. Dept doesn't matter. Level doesn't matter. I'm in Teams calls all the time with full time remote people who are obviously at the beach or golfing. People driving places. Fuck, I've even discovered that we have people accessing sensitive systems *illegally* from overseas by using portable VPN routers. These fuckers are getting paid $300k and working from cheap countries where they are not legally allowed to access the resources they do. Oh, and they only have their laptop on like 3 hours a day. The whole WFH controversy is stupid. Some people can be efficient at home yes. But imagine running a business where thousands of people are drawing a quarter million a year to do almost nothing and risking legal trouble to boot. If it's so much more efficient as people always claim, why aren't companies just stealing all that amazing remote only talent? Efficiency is the bread and butter of a good company. The rtw shit isn't happening without hard data to back it up. Simple as that.

---

That makes no sense in the context of OPs post title. One either compares cost vs gain/sale price, or strike vs stock price at time of sale. You don’t mix the two

---

So what made you sell now vs holding a lot longer and seeing a possible bigger rally? And Its dropped back - getting back in?

---

It's pretty similar to buying shares honestly. But if there's an "event" and IV gets jacked to the tits, you can make more money. Usually if you buy a like, leap for 2026 or 2027, you get some leverage vs buying shares but it's not like the leaps are 10 cents or something, you still end up paying a decent % the shares would've cost anyway

---

Lol at this point I just want 900$. Vs nothing. But what fucking options would you recommend maybe I’ll relapse tomorrow

---

Here's my non-ChatGPT answer: The situation around AMC and its heavily shorted position involves several factors, and understanding how hedge funds (the "hedgies") might not have covered their short positions, despite a significant drop in the stock price, can indeed seem puzzly. Here's a simplified explanation: 1. \*\*Short Selling Basics\*\*: First, recall that short selling involves borrowing shares to sell them at a current price, hoping to buy them back later at a lower price to return to the lender. The difference between the selling price and the buying price, minus any fees or interest, is the profit. 2. \*\*The 2021 Short Squeeze\*\*: In 2021, AMC became a target of a massive short squeeze, primarily fueled by retail investors coordinating through platforms like Reddit. This squeeze drove the stock prices much higher than what might have been justifiable by traditional financial metrics, reaching up to $72 at its peak in June 2021. 3. \*\*Stock Price Dynamics\*\*: Despite the short squeeze causing a temporary spike, AMC's fundamentals (like earnings, debt, and prospects) did not support such high stock prices in the long term. As interest waned and fundamentals came back into play, the stock price began to decline. 4. \*\*Stock Dilution\*\*: AMC took advantage of the high stock prices by issuing new shares to raise capital, which dilutes the value of existing shares. From 2020 to 2024, as you noted, the company increased its share count significantly (around 1250%). This dilution can depress the stock price further because each share now represents a smaller piece of the company. 5. \*\*Why Not Cover?\*\*: Here’s where it gets interesting: - \*\*Profitability vs. Greed\*\*: Theoretically, as the stock price fell, those who shorted at much higher levels (like during the peak of the squeeze) could cover their positions profitably. However, if hedge funds believed the price could fall even further, they might delay covering to maximize gains. - \*\*Average Down or Double Down\*\*: Some hedge funds might have added to their short positions as the price fell, averaging down their entry price. This can complicate the overall position, making it harder to know when they've covered the original shorts. - \*\*Market Dynamics and Speculation\*\*: Sometimes, hedge funds hold onto their positions for strategic reasons, such as tax implications, market conditions, or other speculative bets they might be making. 6. \*\*Reporting and Transparency\*\*: It's also crucial to note that real-time data on exactly when shorts are covered isn't always available. Hedge funds aren't required to report their positions instantaneously, and there can be a significant lag in the public understanding of these dynamics. While it might seem logical that a falling stock price would lead all shorts to cover and lock in profits, the actual dynamics can be influenced by strategy, market conditions, and individual fund management decisions. Moreover, the ongoing volatility and public interest in AMC make it a unique case to analyze.

---

Earnings thus far are slightly above average 78%beating expectations vs an average of 76%, beating Revenue beats are only hitting 50%, more than 20% below average. Infact the worst revenue beat rate since 2008. Why? Corporations earning growth is driven by cutting costs, not growing revenue. What happens when we see cost cutting across the board? Think about it Long TLT you dolts

---

15 pct vs 100+ pct lol

---

its really not that hard at all to switch you can also just check rates compared to what you currently have. I'd guess it took me maybe all of an hour and a half of work to switch from progressive to NJM and now im paying $2200 a year vs. $4400 a year with progressive - literally half.

---