Selling a call means you're giving someone the right to buy your shares at a certain price. If you already own the shares (a covered call), then you don't have to buy the shares to deliver them at that certain price. Let's say you sell the rights to buy 100 shares, at a price of $100 per share. You sell these rights for $1 per share. You earn $100 for selling the rights to the shares. For the person who owns the rights to make money, the share price must go past $101 per share. Scenario A: If the price stays at $100 per share, he just paid you for the right to buy your stocks at the market rate. Scenario B: if the shares go up to $101/share, he breaks even; he paid $100 for a $1 discount on 100 shares. Scenario C: If the shares go up to $102/share, he makes money, because he paid $100 for a $200 discount. Scenario D: the stock pirce drops below $100, he loses money because he paid $100 for the right to buy shares at ABOVE the market rate. In all scenarios, you get $100, AND except C and MAYBE B, you keep all your shares. The only scenario you "lose" is C, where you only earn $100 instead of earning $200. If you DON'T own the shares, you have to buy them to hand them over. In this scenario, you lose more money the higher the stock goes. If the price hits $200/share, you're fucked, because you promised to sell it for $100/share.

---

RAV4 Prime. I average 1800km per tank (50L). Google math says that’s about 85mpg. Mixed city and 150km highway trips.

---

Have you ever been to a gas station? Why would it not take more than three minutes to fill up? (They flow 10 gallons per minute, 30 gallons is way more than most tanks) And people aren’t buying their car for their daily commute, they are enticed by the opportunity it provides. If I no longer have the opportunity to travel to the next city over conveniently then thats a major drawback. Also, average daily commute distances is definitely not the stat you should be putting forward. You should compare annual number of daily trips greater than 150 miles or something.

---

This only benefits hedge funds. The market should open for 1 hour per day (11AM), and everyone submits their orders. The orders are then collected, and executed/resolved in random order at midnight. That would end 99% of the horse shit immediately

---

with under 40 miles per day, insane distances in the USA

---

All of the big 3 do a shitty job with EVs. Let me explain. Either they don't actually want to make a good car. Or they don't know how to make a good car. The EVs have been underpowered, with middling ranges, with prices that are too high to make sense for almost anyone. The hybrid is what they should have been doing 20 years ago. but instead they laughed in oil. They kept full ICE vehicles and put an outrageous markup on EVs and anything close to a Hybrid. Teslas would probably still sell really well if Elon hadn't gone and got into politics. The problem is, conservatives tend to dislike EVs. And there is a lot to dislike EVs from a visceral level. 1.) They take at a minimum 30-45 minutes to fully charge. At best. Is that a long time, well, when you're used to 2-5 minute fill up times, yes. It's a long ass time. If you run out of energy on the side of the road, a tow truck or an electric generator is the only thing that can help you now. 2.) They cost more than comparable ICE Cars. They use less parts, but the parts are more expensive. They also know that people who want an EV will pay through the nose for it. At least that was the thought. They saw Teslas and thought - Boy, I bet we could crank out a piece of shit EV and it would sell like hot cakes... Except, The reason why Teslas were so coveted, is Elon made an expensive car, that was fun. It seemed futuristic, and it didn't feel like he was shitting them out as the lowest bidder. And the ones that he was shitting out, those were priced similar to a midsize sedan and STILL went faster and further than the Big 3's EVs. paying an extra 20k for a car, just doesn't work. 3.) They don't have as many options as ICE cars. They are so worried about making a car that goes as far as an ICE car, that they cut out all the bells and whistles because it reduces range. 4.) They are heavier, and thus cannot pull as much as an ICE vehicle. And lose charge when under load (not much different than a big engine using more gas, but the difference is, the ICE F150 has a towing capacity of 8,200lbs - 13,500lbs. vs the Lightning of 7,000 -10,000lbs.) 3,500 lbs is significant. especially if you're buying the truck to tow. 5.) They have a maximum range that is less than a current ICE vehicle, and the re-fill structure isn't nearly as well developed as ICE vehicles. And they haven't cracked the code on fast refill. 6.) EVs are a direct competitor to most of the secondary market for the auto industry. - The companies that make the parts (replacement and otherwise) for the cars are suddenly not going to have as many parts, meaning hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs are gone. Your car doesn't need an exhaust, anything in the engine block, it needs 4 identical motors, (well maybe 2 sets of 2), you need chassis and suspension, you need, electrical, a heater, an AC, a wiper system. But the big ticket items of a transmission and engine are gone. replaced with a battery pack and wiring harness. 7.) Range anxiety is a stupid but real thing. Oh no, my car only gets 200 miles to the charge. The average rural driver drives around 40 miles per day. Do some drive more than that? yes. But we're talking averages. That is from home, to work, and all side trips, 40 miles. In the harsh winter that means you're probably needing to charge due to the 39% drop in efficiency (ICE vehicles tend to use 15-24% more gas on cold days). But it's still WELL within the range that most people drive per day. but because it's not 500+ miles, we all freak the out. 8.) The Oil and gas industry is literally a MAJOR part of the american economy. It is one of the largest employers in the US, and you won't find most of its workers switching to EVs anytime soon. That's like watching someone from GM drive a Toyota. Here's what Tesla did to make themselves successful. 1.) They pulled an APPLE. They made something fun, that just seemed to work. 2.) They were a vertical monopoly. They build all the components themselves. ALL of the software/hardware was developed by Tesla, all of the batteries were built by Tesla. That's HUGE difference in how the software worked. It's why most other makers touchscreens and media centers feel like total dogshit. Because every component was made by a different manufacturer. And all told to "Just work together". Instead of building a single unified software/hardware package. They had tons of individual lines doing a segment, then slapped them into a different hardware package. And it feels clunky and unintuitive. Because they KNEW we'd buy it no matter what. afterall, almost no one chooses a car based on the media center. So why spend the money on it, just make it mostly functional. The problem is, most of the parts to these cars are the same way. They work, and they mostly work together, but they don't feel made for the vehicle they are going in. instead they feel like they are just sourced from a big bin of "generic parts" and made to fit. It's really just a slap in the face of anyone who wants to be in one. They are actively made them underpowered. You know what sold 50% of the people on a tesla. Insanity mode. The ability to go from 0-60 in about 3 seconds. That sold more Teslas than ANY OTHER THING. The next biggest thing was "He released an update over the air, increasing range , no need to take it in, it just updates wirelessly." It was cool, dangerous as fuck and not a great idea to allow a car to be "always tied to the manufacturer" but cool. It is hard to sell "We purposefully made your life harder, to help you". Hybrids are a good route for them to take. it allows them to figure out the fucking battery problems, it gets everyone used to the angel halo sounds, and excitement at getting more than 20mpg while still driving a big ass SUV. and they can charge "a bit" more. Not waaay more, but a bit more. Politics of the current admin wanting to gobble Oil Exec's giblets while handing their asses to OPEC. All while basically cutting out ANY price incentives AND adding tariffs to all foreign cars and any EVs and EV parts. It makes sense that for the next 3 years or so Ford, and GM are going to say "We can't survive a lack of demand" And instead of learning the "lesson we keep trying to teach you old man" they are going to just stop, and switch only to hybrids. Which is still a step, but a 1/2 step at best. But you know what... maybe this will give them the chance to figure out how to make a decent car.

---

Not really, they only have 50 million in cash left, and burn through 20 million per quarter. Their assets and liabilities are getting pretty close.

---

I don't know what you want me to say to that. Just because you drive a long distance regularly (whatever that means) doesn't make it the norm. The avg person drives 30-40 miles per day. That's not anecdotal, that's reality. And if you are driving 200 miles regularly you aren't going to the gas station once a week and it certainly isn't taking you 3 mins to fill up.

---

It's closer to 300k in market gains (\~10% average since 1990). \~7% accounting for inflation (210k) - of which draw out just over half of that (110k). I accounted for those things. Basically just sell \~3.5% of your assets per annum. It's more conservative than the 4% rule. That draw rate will run you indefinitely and grow faster than inflation. You'd actually get to draw out more than 110k in year 2, more in year 3, etc. \--- Income comes in the form long term capital gains. Online calculators suggest you'd owe \~10k in tax on that - which means after tax you get \~100k of disposable income per annum. That'd grow with inflation \--- \> 30 year old couple, but we don’t live 2x better than them. Yea, we spend slightly more on housing, but part of that comes with WFH. We lease a new Honda every 3 years cause both of us cba to deal with the stress of a mechanical issue. You are living well above the average. It's a case of lifestyle creep more than anything imo. I also WFH (and know several people that do as well). They work in the living room / at an office desk, etc. You have \~1k sqr ft / person. I know families of 4 who live in \~1400 sqr ft AND have an office at home. I grew up in a \~2400 sqr ft home with a family of 6 and 3 dogs. The reality is that the average person spends less than $100 / month on entertainment & hobbies. They also live in a smaller & cheaper home. They spend less on food and also eat out less. Even in a HCOL area - it's mostly just attributed to rent. \--- For a thought experiment - if you guys only had $100k income - how would you live? Can you adjust your lifestyle down to that? The average income in america is only 67k / person. Are you willing to live cheaper (just compromise on a home). If yes - you can save more / invest more & retire earlier. Alternatively - you can take all that saved money and go on vacations, etc. \--- You have a ton of time / space left to compound your income to afford these freedoms as your assets grow

---

The Epstein Files will be released on Friday, per the Epstein Files Transparency Act. So venzuala strikes soon Edit: Japan Boj on Friday also

---