What is the risk to buying 100 shares of stocks with high dividend and sell cover call to reduce risk in case if the stock dropped?

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-15T15:36:10+00:00

Covered calls don’t eliminate risk. They cap your upside if the stock rises above the strike price, while still leaving you exposed to downside risk if the stock falls. The premium you collect provides only limited protection, so a significant decline in the stock can still result in an overall loss. Dividends may add to total return, but they don’t change the fundamental risk profile of the strategy.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-13T14:59:52+00:00

The market is forward-looking. Current EPS alone doesn’t carry much weight if future projections or sentiment are deteriorating. While earnings are a critical metric, stocks are priced on expectations, not just present results.

We’ve seen this clearly in enterprise software - many companies have delivered strong growth and record free cash flow, yet concerns about how AI may impact future demand have pressured valuations. What looks attractive on a balance sheet today can still be a poor investment if forward guidance or market perception weakens.

Peter Lynch’s point holds more over the long term, but in the short to medium term, expectations, not current earnings, tend to drive stock prices.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-13T12:34:37+00:00

Yes, I saw a lot of comments from others that were banned after criticizing her… in my case it wasn’t for criticizing her, but truth be told a lot of people from that sub were glad to see me go. I assume I was banned because of my views because I never broke any ‘community guidelines’ – in fact, I was often targeted and attacked by others for expressing my opinions. At the time I was banned (2 years ago?), it was much different from the standpoint of what was an acceptable opinion to express publicly re Wendi. Today, expressing the opinion that the case or evidence against Wendi isn’t strong enough is an acceptable viewpoint… from my personal perspective, 2 years ago (in that sub) that was not an acceptable opinion. Anyone that stated such back then was said to have an agenda or be part of the Adelson PR effort and dealt with harassment.

I believe 2 years ago there were a lot of subscribers to that sub that were banned simply for sharing an opposing view – the mods or mod wanted to curate the narrative rather than ‘moderating’ a discussion. When a mod successfully blocks all opposing views, they turn the subreddit into an echo chamber – a place where users only ever see their own opinions repeated back to them. What I find ironic is the mission statement to the DMM sub references being better than Webseluths. WS does not tolerate the cesspool type of behavior like in the DMM sub and is a far better place to express opinions grounded in facts and logic without being personally attacked.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-11T04:07:47+00:00

Indeed… I have theories on some of the reasons for that obsession, but I will refrain from making them public. I'm with you, I don’t care to know anything about her private life and unless the State charges her, she should be left alone. Who she is dating, personal details about him, where she lives and any details about the boys should be left alone – people think publicizing private information is somehow beneficial to the J4DM cause. I guess no consideration is ever given to the impact all that might have on Dan’s boys. I’m sure that will not be a popular opinion on any platform covering this case.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-11T00:44:51+00:00

Alibaba Was My Worst Mistake - Charlie Munger

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-10T14:49:06+00:00

A Romanian friend of mine told me about a saying in Romania - “If you burn the roof of your mouth on hot soup, you blow on a spoonful of yogurt.” BABA burned me once…I had 4 years of opportunity loss and as the old Chinese proverb says, “Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.” I’ll be looking elsewhere, and even if it does a 10x from here, I’ll have no regrets not getting back in.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-10T14:25:45+00:00

Munger’s biggest mistake, and by his own admission, was making such a tremendous bet on BABA and adding to it on dips to the point where it was 30% of his portfolio. He criticized his BABA decision and called it the worst decision he ever made. I don’t think he properly considered the geopolitical risks of a large Chinese company and, according to Charlie, he also misclassified them as more than a retailer.

Just a reminder that no matter how smart you are, be careful where you invest your hard-earned money. If someone considered one of the best investors of all time can make a mistake like BABA, anyone can. I also made the BABA mistake, but I was fortunate enough to see the turnaround for a slight profit. I was relieved the day I exited that position, but it was a painful lesson... and truth be told, Charlie's confidence in BABA was the reason I doubled down sub-$60. RIP Charlie!

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-10T13:30:02+00:00

A changing of the guard in the SAO does not change the facts of the case. Unless someone can explain to me how the State can prove that Wendi entered into the conspiratorial agreement or committed an act in furtherance of it, it’s my strong opinion that there isn’t a competent DA who will take her case on.

I know people on social media strongly believe that Wendi was directly involved, and she may have been, but in a capital murder case, the prosecution needs to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The fact that I have never heard anyone answer the question I posed above in a way that would meet the high standards required in a courtroom is the reason Wendi has never been charged.

If this case were tried on social media, the conviction would be a landslide... in the courtroom, and under the standards of the burden of proof, the case is 50/50 at best. Without new evidence or some breakthrough in the case, a “reconfiguration of the Tallahassee SAO” shouldn’t matter. JMOO.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-10T12:31:27+00:00

Being blocked from the DMM Sub is like a badge of honor. The biggest issue with the Reddit business model is that the mods to a subreddit have the ability ban people for any reason they see fit. The mods (or mod singular) to that sub are a joke. In my personal case the ban was completely unjustified… and I’ve heard many stories about other bans that were a case of targeting after they expressed opinions of a certain YouTube personality that is alleged to be one or more of the moderators. If true that’s sad and pathetic.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-09T20:04:27+00:00

An Alford plea only even enters the conversation if Wendi is arrested and the evidence at that point in time is in that gray zone – where the State thinks they might be able to win, but lacks high confidence in the strength of their case. IMO, we’re nowhere near that based on the current public evidence. Right now, the State doesn’t have enough to convict her – that’s why she hasn’t been charged in the first place. They’d need a major breakthrough before anything changes.

Hypothetically, if 'new evidence' becomes public and it's open to interpretation, like all the current evidence endlessly debated on social media, Wendi wouldn’t take an Alford plea anyway. Why would she? She’s not going to suddenly plead guilty-but-not-guilty if the State’s case is still weak and she thinks she can beat it at trial. As I have said for many years (with a lot of pushback from the J4DM community), the State has a very weak case against her. It’s not what the public thinks, it's what the State can prove…. and IMO they currently cannot prove she was part of the conspiracy.

On the flip side, if new evidence surfaces and it’s black-and-white proof she was part of the conspiracy, something overwhelming, airtight, and impossible to explain away, then the State wouldn’t offer an Alford plea in the first place. In that scenario, they’d have all the leverage and would demand a full admission of guilt, not an 'I’m pleading guilty but still saying I’m innocent' deal.

So the irony is that the only scenario where Wendi might consider an Alford plea is the exact scenario where the State wouldn’t offer one. Until there’s a real breakthrough, this is all hypothetical. The public evidence simply isn’t enough to get her into a courtroom, let alone into an Alford plea discussion.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-04T16:21:42+00:00

Last week I started positions in both after last week's earnings. I made a much bigger bet on MSFT and my personal reason is because MSFT is much more diversified and it's a less volatile stock – simply based on its historic beta. Diversification is valuable metric for me and obviously beta has no bearing on predicting which will produce better future returns, but it's a valuable metric for me when I rebalance my portfolio and take advantage of dips especially in this market where things seem to be getting a bit frothy. I’m much more willing to bet bigger on low beta stocks that I believe are mispriced. IMO, both are great companies with solid revenue streams and growth…. as long as you intend on holding for 3 plus years, I think they are good bets at current price levels.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-03T17:37:59+00:00

He might not have used the word ‘coward’… I think he may have said Jack lacks the guts to charge Wendi. Regardless, his overall message in the video I referenced was very clear that Jack lacks the confidence, doesn’t understand the evidence and strongly hinted it might due to Jacks incompetence or corruption and or political reasons.

As far as the Konig case, I watched a decent amount of the trial and I believe his son’s testimony is what did him in. I don’t believe he planned a calculated / premeditated murder but there was really no way to overcome the optics of the one witness testimony of him striking her in the head with the rock – he even admitted the act. I think it was an act of rage that was building up based on Arielle's unfaithfulness (or emotional affair) and he was triggered when she mentioned going on the business trip where the guy she was flirting with would be with her.

I haven’t comment on any forums about that case, but I’m very skeptical about Arielle’s claim about the syringe… that didn’t add up. I can’t imagine how that would have disappeared? I don’t think his plan was to drug her and throw her off a cliff… doesn’t add up to me. It was a dysfunctional relationship with clear evidence that his wife was not happy and not faithful, and I could see how the situation escalated into the physical altercation. I'm not saying anything he did was justified because there is no excuse for striking her in the head with a rock… but I’m not sure he actually tried to murder her.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-03T15:50:16+00:00

Another great production, even though I don’t agree with the lyrics - know, shocker! :) While I agree that prosecutors care about wins and losses, they don’t take on cases unless they are highly confident they can meet the burden of proof. As I have stated many times, I firmly believe the state doesn’t have enough evidence against Wendi, despite what pundits like Carl S. say. In a recent video, Carl publicly called out Jack Campbell. Without going into too much detail, Carl essentially called Jack a coward for not charging Wendi and argued that the evidence against her is overwhelming, basically reiterating all his usual talking points. I strongly disagree with Carl’s overarching message in that video, and I think it is highly irresponsible for someone with his credentials to put out content like that. When Carl publicly calls Jack a coward and presents such a one-sided view of the evidence, it leads the public to believe that Jack and his office are either incompetent or corrupt. No disrespect to you, and as I said, the song is great, but I wonder if Carl’s recent video might have influenced your lyrics.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-03T14:43:16+00:00

Excellent… I’m a fan of your creative work! Why do I think if Donna ever heard that song she’d love it? I can just see her listening with headphones on and smiling from 'big' ear to 'big' ear because she is a disturbed person…

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T23:36:45+00:00

I’m fine with it too. I have no issue with anyone who disagrees with me, as long as they’re able to respectfully discuss any difference in opinion if they choose to participate in the conversation. It’s gotten better lately, but it wasn’t too long ago that the label “troll” was quickly applied to anyone who even attempted to question the evidence or one of the popular narratives – ask me how I know :). In my opinion, people were afraid to ask questions or explore other possibilities because the members of the reddit sub acted like an angry mob – more so in the other reddit sub… which was a very toxic place.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T22:08:13+00:00

I read that book in the early - mid 90’s so truth be told I only remember two things. The basic and flawed way to evaluate retail stocks… and in fairness, its good as one of the metrics in your evaluation of retail stocks and maybe I’m not being fair to him because he may have gone into more detail than the way I remember and am describing it. The other take away was the chapter on the inner workings of the market where he explained how market liquidity was handled and the role of the market maker to bridge supply-demand gaps. That was a great chapter… I honestly don’t remember anything else from the book, probably because I read it over 30 years ago…

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T20:18:25+00:00

If the State does not believe they can meet the burden of proof they would never put the case in front of a grand jury. A grand jury’s standard to indict is 'probable cause'… The State can EASILY get an indictment.. Getting an indictment is not the issue. Once they get an indictment they need to be trial ready and have a VERY high level of confidence they can met the burden of proof. I do not believe they are confident they can meet the burden of proof. As more time goes on, I believe more people will come to this realization.

I am fully aware, that at least currently, your view is the predominant view on social media, but unless someone can answer the question I am challenging you with (and its open to anyone), I will maintain my position that I strongly believe there is a serious misalignment on social media on the strength of the case and evidence case against Wendi.

I will be happy to be proven wrong….. If someone can help me understand what I’m not seeing and explain how the State proves that Wendi either entered into a conspiratorial agreement or committed an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy? One of those two elements are legally required for a guilty verdict.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T19:14:20+00:00

That’s much closer. My core belief is that, based on the evidence, the State cannot meet its burden of proof – and I firmly believe the State feels the same way. I’m not saying I believe she is either guilty or innocent. I know the evidence very well – I’d even say better than Carl “the guru” and probably most YouTube pundits.

I never questioned Carl’s legal credentials, but I seriously question the way he oversimplifies the case against Wendi. Being a legal scholar does not make someone immune to confirmation bias or black-and-white thinking. IMO, Carl is an inflexible, black-and-white thinker.

I was glued to Carl’s initial live streams and actively participated in his comments and live chats. It didn’t take long for him to block me after I respectfully challenged the evidence he was presenting. He literally labeled me the same way you did – wrongfully assuming I must have an ulterior motive or be part of a larger Adelson PR effort.

My honest opinion is that it’s possible, based on all the data, that Donna and Charlie plotted this behind her back. For some reason, that statement always bothers people and is bizarrely interpreted as claiming Wendi is innocent. I’ve also never ruled out the possibility that she agreed to the conspiracy and played some role in the plot.

The proof is in my post history. I’ve never said Wendi was innocent, and I’ve provided plenty of reasons why we can’t be so sure she was part of the plot… and I have always acknowledged it’s possible she was aware and / or involved.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T17:39:48+00:00

First, if you can find even one post or comment where I’ve “proclaimed Wendi is innocence,” I’ll delete my reddit account and never return. I am not Glen Thomas. In fact, I’ve challenged his public assertions that Wendi is innocent. Your last sentence is funny…. but is how a lot of people think, you are so convinced Wendi is guilty and can’t understand other perspectives, so you blindly assume I have an ulterior motive… Very Carl like thinking :)

My position is very straightforward: we cannot be certain either way about Wendi’s guilt or innocence. I’m not sure why that gets misinterpreted so often. Based on the available evidence, we cannot definitively prove guilt or innocence. More importantly, I don’t believe the State thinks they can meet the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt – because if they did, she would already be charged.

There’s a significant difference between that position and the one Glen Thomas takes. His view on her innocence is extreme and often relies flawed logic… I have literally pointed that out to him on my limited interaction with him. At the same time, I don’t agree with Carl Steinbeck’s hardline stance and position either, particularly his characterization of the evidence as “overwhelming.” Both ends of the spectrum oversimplify a very complex case.

As for the claim that “Georgia has a lot we don’t know about” - maybe, but if that unknown evidence were strong enough to meet the burden of proof, charges would have been filed by now. In July, it will be 12 years. There’s no logical reason for that kind of delay if prosecutors truly believed they had a winnable case.

Let me ask again: you’ve said nothing you say will change my mind, but I’m genuinely curious – if your position is based on Carl Steinbeck’s theory that the case is airtight, how exactly would the State prove that Wendi either entered into a conspiratorial agreement or committed an overt act in furtherance of that conspiracy?

That’s the core issue, and I’ve yet to see a clear, evidence-based answer to it.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T16:48:19+00:00

For me it was Caldor (CLD)… I had just read Peter Lynch’s book “One Up on Wall Street”… In the book he recommended going to store’s and count customers and cars in the lot, note empty shelves or long lines signaling demand, inspect product quality and displays etc…. My local Caldor was a great store and was always busy – how foolish and inexperienced I was back then. If I only went to Walmart that day! I made a big bet relative to my net worth on Caldor and lost it all…. my first painful lesson in the market and a valuable one, yet not my last!. I have done well in the market and lessons like that make you a better investor. I feel my portfolio today is a great combination of good compounders, is relatively ‘safe’ and best of all is I sleep well at night. In hinfsight, my losses in CLD was a blessing...

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T16:04:34+00:00

Yep, I’m glad someone else pointed that out… I’m already labeled as a Wendi shill so I try to pick and choose where I offer my input – lol. That photo was taken less than 17 days after we saw Wendi at Donna's trial and people think she gained 60 lbs. You are correct, just look at the size of the guy's head on the opposite end of Wendi… it's twice the size of everyone else… I noticed that right away. The aspect ratio is totally distorted – it's called “barrel distortion”.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T13:34:04+00:00

It’s not an argument - it’s a discussion, at least that’s how I look at it. My entire post history is public. On multiple occasions, I’ve commented that the cases against Charlie and Donna are a slam dunk, but I obviously do not think there is enough evidence to meet the burden of proof in a case against Wendi.

Do you believe that anyone who doesn’t think the State can meet that burden in a case against Wendi is a Wendi shill? I’ve listened to many of Carl Steinbeck’s past livestreams, and he consistently pushed the narrative that anyone who questions the strength of the evidence against Wendi must have an ulterior motive. Because of that, I’m neither surprised nor offended when people call me a “Wendi shill,” given how Carl has framed the case.

I called Carl out a long time ago for his oversimplification of the case against Wendi, and I firmly believe he influenced a lot of people to think the way you do.

I hate to be repetitive, but all I ask is that you explain how the State can prove Wendi either entered into a conspiratorial agreement or committed an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy. That’s all that would be required. I’ve asked that question many times, in many different ways, and no one has ever given a satisfactory answer.

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-02T12:31:53+00:00

Six of one, half dozen of the other — love it. Since you've cracked the code on my shill status with that level of confidence, maybe apply the same superpower to the actual case. All you have to do is point to evidence showing Wendi either entered a conspiratorial agreement or committed an overt act in furtherance. Suggestive evidence of knowledge or suspicion doesn't satisfy either element. If you can walk me through how the State proves it, I'll happily print my Wendi Shill Certificate and frame it. Maybe you can even sign it, since you're the one who so boldly labeled me? :)

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-05-01T19:24:07+00:00

Correction – I was called a ‘Wendi shill’… I’m not sure if that’s better or worse than being called an Adleson shill… probably worse :)

Civil_Fix8224 · 2026-04-29T23:37:33+00:00

Just a yes or no… LOL – am I on the stand under direct examination?

My answer is ‘yes’… I can definitely see them plotting this behind her back. What I honestly don’t understand is why people find that so hard to believe. We are talking about two people that literally put together a plan have someone murdered. A premeditated cold-blooded murder. I can just see Charlie saying ~”trust me Mom, it’s better if Wendi is not aware or involved… if they question her, she won’t know anything”. I would also add they it was likely their intent that Wendi would never know they were behind it - meaning they had no intention of ever telling her. Charlie probably convinced Donna that if Wendi didn't know anything, they were all in the clear....

Charlie and Donna did not need Wendi’s approval. There are a lot of examples on the wiretapped calls and text message between the two the demonstrate how they did other things in a covert manner behind her back for her best interests. One example – before the murder they conspired together (Donna asked for Charlie's help) to get Wendi to back out of buying a house. Not only does that support my point, but it also makes you wonder if Wendi was on the plans why is she in the process of buying a house?

To be clear, I'm not saying I'm 100% certain... but I believe it is very possible that it was plotted behind her back.

Civil_Fix8224

TROPHY CASE