A question for senior leaders at Tastytrade:
@tastytrade@tastyliveshow
After seeing how the changes at the end of last week were handled, it makes me question the longterm viability of the tastytrade platform.
The message I got from how the changes were made was a simple one: The only thing management really cares about is dollars and margins. This may not have been the intended message, but frankly it’s want I took away from how things were handled.
I’ve been a loyal customer with a fairly large account >XXXX since 2020.
I’d like to hear from senior management, why I should be confident the platform is here to stay, will be supported, and grown. The feeling I have at the moment is all that is in question. If you’re not trying to attract and bring new customers to the platform (part of the message I got from last week), what assurance do we have as users that the platform will continue to grow and improve?
Please have someone in senior leadership provide a thoughtful response.
At this point I am considering returning to TOS.
Regards and Be safe.
Bob
@optionsbbq #OptionsBBQ
Let’s be real here. Europe has spent decades freeloading on American security. Even now, with every NATO member finally hitting the 2% GDP target in 2025.
But beyond the financial contributions, the real rupture is philosophical and the Iran crisis has shown a spotlight on it.
Europe worships process. Endless committees, consultations, and “predictability.” Macron actually calls it a virtue. For Trump, this is paralysis as his style is to articulate a threat, fix a target, and act. The Americans are men of conviction and purpose. Europe on the other hand lives by bureaucratic liturgy and in high-minded abstractions.
Sure, Americans might make mistakes when acting. But Europe never considers what the costs of not acting actually are.
Just look at how their nations are doing on various fronts, especially on the border crisis, and you see the same cancerous rot that undergirds their foreign policy approach play out domestically. It's the same problem on a different scale.
Iran is currently holding the Strait of Hormuz hostage, choking 20% of global oil and spiking prices past $100 a barrel. Meanwhile, the regime is bleeding from strikes, its nuclear ambitions are still alive despite degraded capability, and its proxies are firing missiles at allies and oil tankers. If this isn’t a clear and present danger to the global economy - of which Europe is a part - then I don’t know what is.
Yet when Washington asked to use European bases to finish the job - bases the US has defended for generations, the response was hesitation and hand-wringing. The US did strike from RAF Fairford, but only after warnings that British soil could become a “legitimate target.”
If you cannot agree that a theocratic regime with eschatological ambitions who have shown no restraint in hitting out at Gulf countries and threatening the world’s energy jugular is an enemy worth confronting, then what, exactly, are we allies about?
Europe loves to preen about being tough on Russia. They issue condemnations and speeches and slap sanctions that hardly work to cripple the Russian economy.
Now here was a chance to do something concrete: let the Americans use the bases they already pay for, help clear the Strait, and actually degrade the Iranian war machine that arms Moscow’s proxies. Turmp didn’t ask for boots on the ground or any kind of more offensive action. All he wanted was permission to operate from the infrastructure America has underwritten for decades.
They couldn’t even manage that.
So can you blame the Americans for seeing NATO for what it is? A paper-tiger alliance that expects Washington to bleed and pay while Brussels and London convenes and deliberates.
If Europe refuses to treat Iran as the threat it is while happily letting American power keep the Strait open and the lights on, then the alliance is already dead. Trump is simply stating the obvious and the Americans are becoming very reluctant to subsidize the European delusion any longer.
Make the senate stay in session -- According to Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the President has the authority to convene both houses of Congress (or either of them) on "extraordinary occasions". These are commonly known as special sessions or extraordinary sessions.
I forgot that I have Grok to answer my questions:
Out of these 37 sequences, there were 24 occurrences where the fourth year was also positive.
Based on historical S&P 500 total return data from 1926 to 2025 (earliest available reliable annual data; no consistent S&P-equivalent returns exist prior to 1926), there have been 37 instances of three consecutive years with positive annual returns. This doesn't tell the whole story because arbitrary January 1 is just a date.