Without shorts there is less future buying power and broad market becomes more vulnerable to sharp correction.
Printable View
Without shorts there is less future buying power and broad market becomes more vulnerable to sharp correction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
Thanks guysQuote:
Originally Posted by Cono Este
Anyone sleeping the weekend on GME has far more fortitude than I ever will. Who knows what gets said or done on the weekend to blow the whole thing up.
I was wondering if I should get in on a couple of these others that are only strong because of the chatter but with the weekend and the discussions that are bound to be going on I'm not feeling like playing the game is a wise move today
the reddit masses all claim the be HOLDING....how true that will be is yet to be seen, but....Keith Gill is diamond hands.Quote:
Originally Posted by 4matic
Yep, not unhappy though. I'm regularly short a few bucks, now dash, amrs, tesla( a lot more than a few bucks), and of course the us stock market, but that's to hedge my oil and emerging stocks.Quote:
Originally Posted by LeeLau
My plan is to ride oil for a while for dividends, then when the market is down, go more into emerging or whatever's cheap at the time.
Sent from my Redmi Note 8 Pro using Tapatalk
Haha. She's an "expert", and you're not.
https://twitter.com/IsicaLynn/status...208348673?s=20
.Quote:
Opinion: The GameStop chaos may be a ‘bubble,’ but what does that actually mean?
Opinion by Maureen O'Hara
Jan. 29, 2021 at 6:00 a.m. MST
Maureen O’Hara is the Purcell Professor of Finance at Cornell University and a former president of the American Finance Association.
The market gyrations involving GameStop’s 64-fold rise in price since August are certainly eye-opening. How a money-losing company whose stock previously traded less than 10 million shares a day can shoot up to trading 50 million-plus shares in a day — and cause the stock price of a completely unrelated but similarly named Australian company (GME Resources) to rise 50 percent on Thursday — is hard to reconcile with today’s uber-efficient high-frequency markets.
Media coverage routinely refers to GameStop’s price surge as a bubble. But what are financial bubbles — and what causes them? As I noted when writing about bubbles in 2008 in the Review of Financial Studies, the phenomenon had been around for centuries — in the 18th century, Scottish economist Adam Smith called it “overtrading.” But that doesn’t explain what starts a bubble in the first place. Plenty of economists, historians and others have tried.
The Swedish economist Knut Wicksell, in an observation that resonates today, argued in 1898 that bubbles are attributable to interest rates that are too low. In 1929 — we know what happened in the markets then — the Dutch economist historian N.W. Posthumus cited the entrance of nonprofessional buyers fueled by credit. In this view, today’s Federal Reserve and the Reddit crowd would seem natural culprits.
An alternative view in history is that bubbles can emerge if traders are rational but markets are irrational. The economist and historian Charles P. Kindleberger makes this argument in his classic 1978 book, “Manias, Panics, and Crashes: A History of Financial Crises.” What drives market irrationality, Kindleberger says, is the fallacy of composition: Each trader believes he can sell at a higher price, and if he can in fact do so, then it is rational for him to buy. But not everyone in the market can do that, so the market as a whole behaves irrationally.
A variant on this irrationality of the market theme underlies the “beauty contest” analogy offered in 1936 by the English economist John Maynard Keynes. He argued that individuals do not pick stocks based on what they think a firm is worth, but rather on what they think other people will think it is worth. (Has Keynes’s “beauty contest” morphed into today’s “chat room”?) In that description, each individual is acting rationally, but the market overall is not.
Short sellers in GameStop — mostly hedge funds that had been betting massively on the company’s stock to fall — had reportedly lost $23.6 billion as of Wednesday. They may find little consolation in the dictum often attributed to Keynes: “Markets can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent.”
Then there is the explanation that says bubbles form when both irrational markets and irrational traders are at work. The notion that somehow markets are swept up in “manias” is still with us, but it has a long history. The English mathematician Isaac Newton, in addition to his many well-known accomplishments, was a disappointed investor in the trading company that become known for the South Sea Bubble of 1720. Newton confessed, “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of people.”
Scottish writer Charles Mackay must have been having similar thoughts in 1841 when he published “Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds.” MacKay took a dim view of the intelligence of individual traders and an even dimmer view of the collective intelligence of the market: “Men, it is well said, think in herds. It will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their sense slowly, and one by one.”
Clearly, Mackay would have felt right at home reading about some of today’s market shenanigans. So, too, would Bernard Baruch, the famous Wall Street investor of the early 1900s, who quoted the poet Friedrich Schiller when he said, “Anyone taken as an individual is tolerably sensible and reasonable — as a member of a crowd, he at once becomes a blockhead.”
Are there bubbles? Are markets really irrational? Markets are generally very good at providing price discovery, so I am firmly in the camp that markets are rational. But history shows that individual asset prices can be swayed by collective trading driven by greed, fear or simply boredom. American economist Peter Garber, in “Famous First Bubbles,” concluded that the Dutch tulip bubble of 1636 “was no more than a meaningless winter drinking game, played by a plague-ridden population that made use of a vibrant tulip market.”
For those contemplating where the GameStop chaos ends, perhaps the best advice is to recall the German American economist Oskar Morgenstern’s dictum, “A thing is only worth what someone else will pay for it.”
Haha, this is fucking perfect. Peak Silicon Valley, indeed. What, no free UBER rides?
https://twitter.com/eliotwb/status/1...177119751?s=20
https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...05/073/8c8.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by Skidog
https://media1.tenor.com/images/0008...a7ef/tenor.gifQuote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
This guy is a legend.
https://www.youtube.com/c/RoaringKitty
It's almost as if they are "hedging" their bets. Strange.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Is it not irrational to think one can predict the future with any significant degree of certainty?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
That’s what I remember thinking in economics class anyway.
Sounds like there is still merit in those who have decided to hold through the weekend:
https://isthesqueezesquoze.com/
It may even be worth it to buy in over the weekend if there's a dip. That's a good article.Quote:
Originally Posted by S_jenks
Maybe if the dicks at Robinhood and elsewhere even allow you to.Quote:
Originally Posted by gravitylover
Sent from my Pixel 3 using TGR Forums mobile app
Vanguard, TD, and Fidelity should still be good to go if you want GME. I'm still holding 10 shares of GME just to stay on the rollercoaster, although today was so mellow, it was nice to get work done again.
Yeah I just changed over to TD, account went active this morning, so now I can play the after hours game.
The bankers hedge funds will throw Robinhood under the bus and walk away.
Robinhood needed 1 billion to continue operating.
It's painfully obvious they were gambling with clients money and playing over their heads.
Robinhood Fucked with the buy/sell of specific stocks because they were personally over and illegally EXPOSED.
Also interesting not many mention Chewy founder and Billionaire having bought into GameStop last August. I have not seen one word from him about this
Cohen can't say a word either way in any of this or he'll get strung up for manipulation. He has nothing to gain and everything to lose by opening his mouth.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
Listening to Scott Galloway, and he's like, duh, you think this is young/old, David/Goliath, Armies at the moat? Who's to say the hedge funds aren't major actors on both sides?
Hedge funds are generally populated with young people. Maybe the owners are ancient, but, most traders are the same as Rediit creatures, just, more connected.
I enjoy this stuff from a distance, and, I've learned over the years is that it's just so much fucking noise, but, fun with popcorn, as long as you don't actually put a penny in it. It too shall pass.
His $76 million of GME stocks from December made him a billion more and counting, again. Not sure this is the time for him to comment or take sides on anything as this all plays out.Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
He was very successful at etail at Chewy, and he brought Chewy's COO and CFO to Gamestop's board. I'm not saying that makes it a $450 stock, but it might make it a $20 stock. Agree he's trying to walk the straight and narrow, especially now that the SEC is going to be doing colonoscopies on everyone even peripherally involved with this hilarity.Quote:
Originally Posted by JimmyCarter
I'm holding over the weekend, this has been the most fun I've had since I let Rick James mow my lawn. I've got 144 shares at 114 avg cost and am prepared to lose it all next week. :nonono2:
Quote:
Originally Posted by MTT
This is false. There are formulas (math) that determine acceptable risk to the broker. RH clearing should be a completely separate business from RH brokerage and therefore told the brokerage they need to reduce risk or raise cash. The risk they are mitigating is the leveraged assets of their clients. Trading restrictions are normal and common from all forms of brokerage depending on volatility. Margins change; it's that simple.
Hell ye. Holding w an avg cost of 124.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireallyliketoski
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Quick question, broad market volatility has been ummmm interesting the past 3 days.
Any relation to that and this?
In the short term this is creating crazy instability. In the long term? Hopefully people learn a lesson and stop doing illegal shit and that contributes to stability. That's a big question though. Learn their lesson? Stop doing illegal shit? Yeah right.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
Somewhat, probably. If enough people/funds have to liquidate positions to cover other positions, that means some crazy ups and down for securities' values. If people are selling blue chips and big tech stocks to buy meme stonks, that's gonna depress the former and lift the latter. That's just basic supply/demand. And supply of $GME is running low.
I'm not convinced this won't end in bailouts and consolidations, maybe a few fines, 1 or 2 fall guys. Just business as usual. Partly BECAUSE of the volitility it would cause for Melvin, Robinhood, middlemen, etc to go under and other funds to post such huDge losses (like Citadel and other funds who lent/gave Melvin $2.75B. Citadel also does the actual trades for RH, pays RH for info on their customers, and has close ties with Janet Yelen).
Pretty sure short interest over 100% is illegal. It's basically the plot of The Producers: they sold more than 100% of something they not only wanted to fail, but actively tried to make fail. Sold might not quite be the right word here, but you get what I mean.
How that was allowed to happen or who let it happen I don't really understand, but it probably isn't the first time someone somehow shorted more than the available float if they already have a term for it. I don't understand how they even cash in on that.
Look up thread Bunny, tons of whales got involved a while ago. I posted a few funds that took the opposite play of Melvin Et. Al, when the excess short was apparent. The retail vs. hedge fund is way overblown in the media.Quote:
Originally Posted by Benny Profane
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
@Stuck, thanks for the reply, that question was rhetorical.
A whole shit load of people see these gyrations as a threat to their Retirement, be it Pensions, IRAs or 401Ks.
This is the exact kind of a thing that will help Liz Warren and the other folks who rightly view the Stock Market as a fixed game that has been corrupted and in need of more regulation/reform.
This won't end till lenders call Melvin ey al on their shorts and they have to liquidate. What that means for GameStop and their stock, idk, but it means serious losses, lawsuits, and fines. Hopefully too many average people with average people retirement funds don't get hurt.
I'd be pulling out right now if I was a fund manager. Fuck Melvin. Fuck Citadel. Fuck Robinhood. And fuck Business As Usual.
The biggest thing Robinhood has going for it right now I s most of their clients have no clue what kind of risk they are facing. Bigger more institutional clients would be running for the hills right now.
For GME it means the price goes to Uranus [emoji573] [emoji573] [emoji573] [emoji573]Quote:
Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn
Here’s how you get more than 100% shares. I borrow a share to short sell to someone else. Now two people “own” one share. It’s not that unusual or illegal. It’s just risky.
Vol is measured with option pricing. GME and the others are driven largely by option speculation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bunion 2020
That's the thing. The 'hedge' on this is that the risk is so massively distributed that it is basically negated. The short selling bag holders have virtually unlimited risk/exposure while the reddit/robinhood crowd threw $250 in a trading account, and most people would be willing to lose that for the lulz alone. Some dude who bought a single share (or even a fraction of one) for $100 doesn't lose his shirt on this kind of market movement - his exposure is what he put in. As opposed to a fund short half a million shares that they have borrowed, sold and need to buy back. They were hoping to be able to buy it back for $5/share and they could end up having to pay $500 a share. Too bad, so sad.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stu Gotz
RH is just another broker dealer and a small one at that. The outrage is amusing. If you want to play high stakes game you should be with a BD that can back you up. A BD has no obligation to make a market for anyone. They can suspend any account they want.
RH had no moral high ground. Their only goal was to activate millennial traders.