GameStop + Robinhood + Reddit

[jakobnev]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jg85H26wyLk

[freebeard]

Xist: Where do you find these people? I don't watch videos with a thumbnail of people with their mouths hanging open. ......as a matter of policy.

This may be correct, it's poorly expressed.

Someone commented: "The goal isn't to ride them into the ground from here, but to hold in order to force the short contracts to expire and make them pay through the nose to fulfill them."

It's known as a gamma squeeze. Buy and hold vs pump and dump.

Short positions have some upside, but the downside can be Biblical.

jakobnev: That was a good backgrounder. I'll watch big boss for a followup. Any explanation that doesn't include retards and autists is lacking.

[redneck]

.







>

.

[freebeard]

I didn't expect the populous to reach consensus so quickly.

More people need to understand the Political Compass.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

There's a big difference between borrowing a fiat currency from the government that makes it and borrowing a share of a company. If I borrow more stock than actually exists, do I outvote the current Board and take control? No, because that's silly, you can't do that.

But it's what Wall Street does, and it's a problem.

Options have nothing to do with shareholder voting rights

[Fat Charlie]

Tidbits that don't add up:

Shares Outstanding - 69.75m
Float - 46.89m
% Held by Insiders - 27.33%
% Held by Institutions - 122.04%
Shares Short (Jan 15, 2021) - 61.78m

So I buy a borrowed share. If I buy a share (a $6 share for $350? Yeah, right!), I own a share. The fact that shenanigans were involved in putting it up for sale isn't my doing, and, in fact, is a big part of the problem. A bunch of little guys buying and holding doesn't risk the whole system, fat cats making tons of money by making things up and driving companies out of business is what risks the whole system.

[JSH]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

Tidbits that don't add up:

Shares Outstanding - 69.75m
Float - 46.89m
% Held by Insiders - 27.33%
% Held by Institutions - 122.04%
Shares Short (Jan 15, 2021) - 61.78m

So I buy a borrowed share. If I buy a share (a $6 share for $350? Yeah, right!), I own a share. The fact that shenanigans were involved in putting it up for sale isn't my doing, and, in fact, is a big part of the problem. A bunch of little guys buying and holding doesn't risk the whole system, fat cats making tons of money by making things up and driving companies out of business is what risks the whole system.

The little guys aren't buying and holding. They are doing the exact same thing as the shorts - buying options with the intent of manipulating the stock price for short term gain.

How many of those little guys do you thing will be holding GameStop long enough to pay the long-term capital gains rate?

There are already signs that the Reddit group has picked new targets and moved on from GameStop. WallStreetBets is targeting silver today and pouring money into silver stocks.

[freebeard]

They're probing the structure of the financial system for it's weaknesses. That's what gamers do.

Then it's all 'Leeeeeroy Jenkins!'

[RedDevil]

Originally Posted by Fat Charlie

... The fact that shenanigans were involved in putting it up for sale isn't my doing, and, in fact, is a big part of the problem. A bunch of little guys buying and holding doesn't risk the whole system, fat cats making tons of money by making things up and driving companies out of business is what risks the whole system.

Indeed. But by doing so the fat cats took a risk. There's no way to completely cover the risk of a naked short position, as in theory the stock could rise beyond whatever coverage the hedge funds have.

Now they get burned. They either have to swallow a big loss - simply pay whatever the stock is at - or keep issuing new naked shorts in the hope that those holding the stocks finally start to cash in, at the risk of losing ever more. At one point they will be forced to stop anyway.

The question is what happens if they are banned from writing new shorts while their debt is greater than their value. They'd go broke, but who covers them, e.g. who then pays for buying back the shares they shorted? The NYSE?
Because that's the party that will ultimately want to prevent this scenario.

[Xist]

Originally Posted by RedDevil

The question is what happens if they are banned from writing new shorts while their debt is greater than their value. They'd go broke, but who covers them, e.g. who then pays for buying back the shares they shorted? The NYSE?
Because that's the party that will ultimately want to prevent this scenario.

Deep!